IS THE BIBLE'S AUTHOR REALLY GOD?

[The Luke]

More baloney on your part. The view of a resurrected Christ was part and parcel of the Christian faith, a fact lost on you in your futile attempt to make your lame claims stick.

I think you'll find that this assertion is patently untrue as a matter of historical fact.

Quoting a verse from a book of the New Testament doesn't really suffice as evidence here, as it is well known that the current Christian canon of four agreed-upon Gospels were gleaned from more than 80 source gospels at the Council of Nicea (325 AD I think).

I live in Ireland, where a variant of Aryan Christianity was esablished circa 500 AD and persisted right up until the Albigensian Crusade in the Middle Ages.

Right throughout the Dark Ages a bodily resurrection of Christ was a minority view among Christians worldwide. As I said, many groups such as the Cathars, Bogomils, Aryans, Old Believers, (some) Albigensians and the Gnostics did NOT hold to the resurrection. Mandeans (Iraqi Swamp Kurds) deny such an occurrence to this day.


The Hibernian Church (Ireland) certainly didn't preach a bodily, earthly resurrection... neither did they believe in a holy trinity, nor the divinity of Jesus. In fact there is good evidence they retained many pagan aspects of early Christianity, they even practiced divorce and gay marriage.


Read up on this, Im not making it up... in fact, I think you might find that St Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was seemingly unaware of the vast majority of the Jesus story himself.


But this type of dismissal is probably the most dishonest tactic:

Who knows and really who cares? Claims alone DO NOT make that guy Jesus Christ.

...but your claim makes Jesus into Christ?

Because, Einstein, my God is not in that tomb (or any other for that matter)

Who is he makes no difference; who he IS NOT is Jesus Christ, end of story.

Once again, I am not subject to you pea-brained logic. There is only one Jesus Christ and this Issa character, buried in Kashmir, ain't He, pure and simple.

...why even bother to discuss these topics if dismissal is your preferred tactic?

None of this will persuade any undecided person reading this thread. Why even bother quoting my points if you can't even address them?


Personally I dont see why this Issa character couldn't be Jesus... at the very least he seems to have been some sort of proto-Jesus, if not the source of the Jesus myth itself. You haven't provided any argument beyond your steadfast insistence to the contrary.

After all:

Didn't Paul and the disciples of Christ warn that there would be imposters, claiming to be Jesus Christ?

...we must consider that the orthodox New Testament Jesus is the imposter?

Ater all, isn't it far more likely that a holy man who had luckily survived three hours on a cross might run off to Kashmir (supposed homeland of the lost tribe of Israel whom the messiah was prophecised to find), more likely than him floating into the air leaving no trace?

A body is some sort of proof after all... better than no proof.

One thing I think we can all agree upon... if McWay had been born in this remote part of Kashmir, he'd be the one making the argument for Issa.

And he'd have better evidence than he has for American Jesus.



The Luke

[liberalismo]

So, if you have points that can be made to prove the Bible's credibility regarding authorship, lets see it.

• In (Genesis 2:7) it says that Adam was made from the ground (earth). It's known that the human body is made up of 41 chemical elements. These basic elements---carbon, iron, oxygen, and others---are all present in the "dust" of the earth. Therefore, as (Genesis) states, humans truly are formed "out of the dust from the ground". This was written around 4,500 years ago (give or take) by Moses. How is it possible that Moses new of this scientific info regarding a humans composition, when in that day this info was not known?

• Believe it or not, some people are surprised to learn that Adam and Eve are mentioned repeatedly throughout the Bible. What insight do these references shed on the historicity of the Genesis account? Consider, for example, the Jewish ancestral lists recorded in the Bible book of (1 Chronicles 1-9) and in the Gospel of (Luke chapter 3). These remarkably detailed genealogical recrods span 48 and 75 generations respectively. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ, while (Chronicles) records the royal and priestly ancestral lines for the nation of Israel. Both lists include the names of such well-known figures as Solomon, David, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, and finally Adam. All the names in the two lists represent real people, and Adam was the original real person on each list. The Greek scriptures confirms the historicity of the account given in the early chapters of (Genesis).

• Regarding the shape of earth ,the Bible reports that the planet was ROUND. (Isaiah 40:22) - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,and its people are like gasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,and spreads them out like a tent to live in". It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to observe the shape of the earth. How did the Bible know this?

• (Lev. 11:6) - "The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you." Critics attacked this for quite some time, yet the rabbit's cud chewing was finally observed by William Cowper (Englishmen) in the 18th century. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 110, Series A, pp. 159-163. (Leviticus) was written by Moses. Again, how would Moses know this info? He wrote this around 1512 B.C. If you think Moses got fortunate again or observed this, then why did he give God the credit? Did Moses lie?

• The internal harmony is staggering/significant, to say the least. This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were written by 40 men as different as night and day such as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. Isn't this a little to coincidental?

• The fulfillment of prophecies is nothing short of extraordinary!
  
  (Isa. 44:24, 27, 28; 45:1-4) - (24) "This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things,who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, (27) who says to the watery deep, 'Be dry, and I will dry up your streams,' (28) who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid." '
  
  (1) "This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: (2) I will go before you and will level the mountains ; I will break down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. (3) I will give you the treasures of darkness, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the LORD,the God of Israel, who summons you by name. (4) For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me".    (The book of (Isaiah) was finished around  732 B.C.)
  
  * Fulfillment: It's known that Cyrus had not been born when this prophecy was written. The Jews were exiled to Babylon in 617-607 B.C., the temple and  Jerusalem  were not destroyed until 607 B.C. The prophecy was fulfilled in detail starting in 539 B.C. The river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city allowing Cyrus to divert the waters of the Euphrates River into a fake lake,  thereby Babylon was overtaken by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. So then, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild the  God of Abraham's temple there. - The Encyclopedia Americana (1956), Vol. III, p. 9; Light From the Ancient Past (Princeton, 1959), Jack Finegan, pp. 227-229.
  
  
  
  (Luke 19:41-44; 21:20,21) - (41) "Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, (42) saying, 'If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. (43) For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, (44) and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.
  
  (20) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. (21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her'". (Jesus stated this Prophecy in 33 A.D.)
  
  * Fulfillment: In 66 A.D., Jerusalem rebelled against Rome. Cestius Gallus (Roman army officer) attacked the city. However, Gallus without hesitation stopped the attack. As Josephus stated - "suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City". (Josephus, the Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167)
  
  This gave the Christians time to leave the city, which they did, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan. (Eusebius Pamphilus in his Ecclesiastical History, which was translated by C. F. Cruse, London, 1894, p. 75).
  
  General Titus took the city around Passover time in 70 A.D. He did this by installing fence 4.5 miles long around the city in three days, thereby after five months Jerusalem was conquered. "Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins. Archaeological work shows us today just how effective was the destruction of Jewish buildings all over the land". (The Bible and Archaeology [Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1962], J. A. Thompson, p. 299).
  
  
  
  Jer. 49:17, 18 - “‘Edom must become an object of astonishment. Everyone passing along by her will stare in astonishment and whistle on account of all her plagues. Just as in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and her neighbor towns,’ the God of Israel has said, ‘no man will dwell there.’” (Completed by 580 B.C.)
  
  * Fulfillment: "They [the Edomites] were driven from Palestine in the 2nd century B.C. by Judas Maccabaeus, and in 109 B.C. John Hyrcanus, Maccabaen leader, extended the kingdom of Judah to include the w. part of Edomitic lands. In the 1st century B.C. Roman expansion swept away the last vestige of Edomitic independence . . . After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. . . . the name Idumae [Edom] disappeared from history." (The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 11, p. 4114) This realization extends down to our day. In no way can it be argued that this prophecy was written after the events had taken place.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

• How about the Bible's knowledge of mountains? Here is a quote on geology from a textbook - “From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated." This is what the Bible says - (6) "You [God] covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. (Eight) The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You [God] established for them." (Psalms 104:6,8)

• The Bible speaks about the earth's water cycle. (Ecclesiates 1:7) - "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again". (This was written before 1000 B.C.)! Did the Bible get fortunate again?

• What about the laws that govern the universe? Take a look see at what (Jeremiah 33:25) has to say -(24) "Haven't you noticed what these people are saying? They say, 'The Lord once chose the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. But now he has turned his back on them.' So they hate my people. They do not think of them as a nation anymore. (25) I say, 'What if I had not made my covenant with day and night? What if I had not established the laws of heaven and earth?  Again, did the Bible get fortunate? (This was written before 580 B.C.)

• How about the earth being suspended in space! (Job 26:7) - "He stretcheth out the north over empty space, And hangeth the earth upon nothing". (Written about 1613 B.C.) These men never took credit for this info!

• According to the book of (Daniel), Babylon's last leader was named Belshazzar this is of course before it (Babylon) fell to the Persians. (Daniel 5:1-30) Critics claimed the Bible was wrong about the existence of Belshazzar, since only the Bible mentioned him. However in the 19th century, several cuneiform were discovered in some ruins in southern Iraq. In these (cuneiform) writting's a prayer for the health of the oldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. Belshazzar was his name.
  
  So there was a Belshazzar! But was he a king, when Babylon fell? Most documents subsequently found referred to him as the son of the king, the crown prince. But a cuneiform document described as the “Verse Account of Nabonidus” shed more light on Belshazzar’s true position. It stated - “He (Nabonidus) entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his oldest (son), the firstborn, the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his (command). He let (everything) go, he entrusted the kingship to him.” So Belshazzar was entrusted with the kingship. This relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, explains why Belshazzar, during that final banquet in Babylon, offered to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom. (Daniel 5:16) Since Nabonidus was the first ruler, Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler of Babylon.

• The Bible's account regarding the ORGIN OF THE UNIVERSE conforms to astronomical evidence! (Gen. 1:1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".  Robert Jastrow stated -  “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” - God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.

GC/DEA_AGENT

All Bullshit.

You know...I would take the time to explain why, and in detail, but I just don't think you're even smart enough for me to bother.

[MCWAY]

I think you'll find that this assertion is patently untrue as a matter of historical fact.

Quoting a verse from a book of the New Testament doesn't really suffice as evidence here, as it is well known that the current Christian canon of four agreed-upon Gospels were gleaned from more than 80 source gospels at the Council of Nicea (325 AD I think).

The problem with your take is that, the canonical Gospels were already circulating, either orally or written, long before 325 AD.

I live in Ireland, where a variant of Aryan Christianity was esablished circa 500 AD and persisted right up until the Albigensian Crusade in the Middle Ages.

Right throughout the Dark Ages a bodily resurrection of Christ was a minority view among Christians worldwide. As I said, many groups such as the Cathars, Bogomils, Aryans, Old Believers, (some) Albigensians and the Gnostics did NOT hold to the resurrection. Mandeans (Iraqi Swamp Kurds) deny such an occurrence to this day.

And......

At last check, those groups DO NOT comprise the entire body of Christians and long before those particular sects were even formed, Chirstians (1st and 2nd century, in particular) preached and taught the basis and foundation of the Christian faith: The RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ.

The Hibernian Church (Ireland) certainly didn't preach a bodily, earthly resurrection... neither did they believe in a holy trinity, nor the divinity of Jesus. In fact there is good evidence they retained many pagan aspects of early Christianity, they even practiced divorce and gay marriage.

Your point would be what??

Since the apostle Paul warned long ago, that people would stray from the faith and pervert it, groups like this are hardly a surprise.

Plus, I don't know what your point was for mentioning divorce, as Scripture allows such in specific cases (most notably, adultery).

Read up on this, Im not making it up... in fact, I think you might find that St Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was seemingly unaware of the vast majority of the Jesus story himself.

Wrong again, Luke. Again, Paul was taught about Christ by Jesus' disciples (i.e. Peter and John), as well as other Christians, some of whom met with the aforementioned fellow.

But this type of dismissal is probably the most dishonest tactic:

...but your claim makes Jesus into Christ?

No, my claim does not. The historical evidence does, as well as disqualifying this Issa guy buried in Kashmir (some cat named Yuz Asaf) as being Jesus Christ.

...why even bother to discuss these topics if dismissal is your preferred tactic?

None of this will persuade any undecided person reading this thread. Why even bother quoting my points if you can't even address them?

I've already address many of your points (some of which you tend to re-hash, while falsely claiming that I haven't talked about them).

Personally I dont see why this Issa character couldn't be Jesus... at the very least he seems to have been some sort of proto-Jesus, if not the source of the Jesus myth itself. You haven't provided any argument beyond your steadfast insistence to the contrary.

You might want to get your eyes checked, Luke.

The folks who tout this theory can't get to get their stories straight. One minute this "Issa" dies at 80; the next it's 110; later, it's 120.

Moreover, there's the flip-flopping between the "Swoon theory" and an actual resurrection. And, the saddest part is that those who support the later talk out both sides of their mouths, still claiming that Jesus Christ didn't exist.



There is no motivation for the Jews to fabricate a character like Jesus Christ. For starters, prophecies regarding Him were written up to a near-millenium before He was even born. Add to that, we have historical documents chronicling His life from several non-Christian sources, ones with absolutely NO MOTIVE to promote Christianity.

After all:
...we must consider that the orthodox New Testament Jesus is the imposter?

Ater all, isn't it far more likely that a holy man who had luckily survived three hours on a cross might run off to Kashmir (supposed homeland of the lost tribe of Israel whom the messiah was prophecised to find), more likely than him floating into the air leaving no trace?

Luckily survived the cross? <<pause for hysterical laughter>>

All you've done, Luke, is re-hash the tired (oft-dissected and dismissed) "Swoon Theory".

First, surviving crucifixion isn't "likely", As Dr. Gary Habermas puts it, "Death by crucifixion is essentially death by asphyxiation; you don't come down off the cross alive" Add to that, Christ got stabbed in the side, which "in short..would have killed Him, if He wasn't already dead."

Then, there's the little matter that Pilate didn't even release custody of Jesus' body, UNTIL he got confirmation from one of his centurions that Jesus was actually DEAD (see Mark 15).

Sprinkle in the Pharisees' request for a guard for the tomb (which came with Pilate's seal) and the "Swoon Theory" gets squished, yet again.

Lost in all this is the minor fact that, it would have taken extensive medical care for Jesus to have had any chance of surviving the cross (as if the Roman guards are simply going to stand there and let doctors get to Jesus (whom they've been ordered to execute    ).

A body is some sort of proof after all... better than no proof.

]

"A body" is NOT some sort of proof......THE BODY is proof.

The Romans knew the particulars with regards to Jesus' death (who, where, when).

As McDowell stated, producing Jesus' body ENDS Christianity before it even starts (i.e. No Cathars, Bogomils, Aryans, Old Believers, Albigensians, Gnostics, etc.).

One thing I think we can all agree upon... if McWay had been born in this remote part of Kashmir, he'd be the one making the argument for Issa.

And he'd have better evidence than he has for American Jesus.

The Luke

And if Scott Norwood's kick were 2 more feet to the left, the Buffalo Bills would have won the Super Bowl.

Again, your point would be......

[The Luke]

McWay, dude, you are hilarious... so many lies, so many excuses. Cognitive dissonance much?


The Luke

[MCWAY]

McWay, dude, you are hilarious... so many lies, so many excuses. Cognitive dissonance much?


The Luke

This coming from someone who claims on another forum that the USA never really won any wars..........  In fact, the folks there are waiting for you to defend your statement. But, you will likely cower as is usually the case, when you can't back your flak.


Project much?


I have enough shortcomings; I don't need (or want) yours.

But, I digress!!!

One, the canonical Gospels were written before the council of Nicea. And those Gospels clearly preach a resurrected Christ. This is what the first and second century AD Christians preach, simple fact.

Two, your claim about Paul not knowing about the "Jesus story" is equally incorrect. He learned from the very disciples of Christ, as well as other Christians. He even talked with Luke (he wasn't a disciple of Jesus and HE knew of Jesus' early life).

Three, you got some 'splainin' to do, regarding your claims about Yuz Asaf/Issa. Was he 80, 110, or 120 when he died?

Again, does he actually die on the cross and rise from the dead; or does he survive the cross (i.e. somehow fools the Roman guards into believing he's dead, with these same guards allowing physicians to treat him to keep him from dying)?

Of course, the latter also require explaining that Pilate thing, regarding custody.

It's time to quit the clucking and bring some meat to the feeble bones of your silly claims.

[The Luke]

Stop skimming and start reading.

One, the canonical Gospels were written before the council of Nicea. And those Gospels clearly preach a resurrected Christ. This is what the first and second century AD Christians preach, simple fact.

...this is not a logical argument.

All 80-odd gospels predate the Council of Nicea... so what type of argument is that?

The Nag Hamadi scrolls, Gnostic Gospels and Qumran writings also predate the Council of Nicea and they're full of crazy shit: Gospel of Pontius Pilate; Gospel of Mary Magdalene; sixteen different disciples between the various writings (no set of twelve the same); The Wisdom of Jesus (a word for word copy of The Wisdom of Plato with "Jesus said:" inserted before every paragraph); there's even an account of a young Jesus striking his playmates and teachers dead with lightning bolts.

You can't honestly argue selective provenance.

The Gospel of Judas (yes Judas) has equally as authentic provenance as any of the canonical gospels... in fact, probably the oldest and therefore most authentically early Christian writing is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.


Remember, the Emperor Constantine, (who is still a saint in the Christian Church today) recognised Jesus as an alter ego of Sol Invictus (the invincible sun); a conflation god encompassing all the Mystery religion solar deities on the very grounds that most of the Christian gospels (most of the 80) were simply reworkings of long established pagan traditions.

Obviously there must be some truth to this if we now know that Plato's writings were being appropriated by early Christians and (falsely) attributed to Jesus.


Besides, this is the crux of this thread... the Bible is not infallible, it changes with the times as it is rewritten and redacted.


The very oldest Christian traditions are the Cathars (Bogomils) and the Catholics; Catholics hold to the bodily resurrection of Jesus... most Cathars did not (maybe still don't).

Sure the Catholic/Pauline tradition was founded by St Paul (and claims a dubious link to Peter) with a founding document (the Gospel of Mark) which may have been written as early as the first century, and the oldest copy of which can be dated to approx 155 AD.

But compare that to the Cathars, who were founded by the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene only a couple of years after the crucifixion; have a founding document (Gospel of Mary Magdalene) which we can date to 60 AD (-ish) and maintained an unbroken tradition of early Christian beliefs up until the Crusades.


In fact, the only two Christian sects who had copies of the Secret Gospel of Mark (that we know of) were the Pauline Catholics and the Carpocratians, a document exclusive to the original disciples.

The Carpocratians believed in reincarnation; communism; rejected the divinity of Jesus; denied the resurrection and advocated sexual deviancy... where did that stuff come from if their only source documents were the gospels... and this Secret Gospel of Mark?




McWay, I don't think you know as much about Christianity as you think... maybe widen your sources beyond the work of Christian apologists and believers justifying their own delusions.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

Stop skimming and start reading.

...this is not a logical argument.

All 80-odd gospels predate the Council of Nicea... so what type of argument is that?

No, they don't! That's your first of several mistakes on this post.

The Nag Hamadi scrolls, Gnostic Gospels and Qumran writings also predate the Council of Nicea and they're full of crazy shit: Gospel of Pontius Pilate; Gospel of Mary Magdalene; sixteen different disciples between the various writings (no set of twelve the same); The Wisdom of Jesus (a word for word copy of The Wisdom of Plato with "Jesus said:" inserted before every paragraph); there's even an account of a young Jesus striking his playmates and teachers dead with lightning bolts.

You can't honestly argue selective provenance.

The Gospel of Judas (yes Judas) has equally as authentic provenance as any of the canonical gospels... in fact, probably the oldest and therefore most authentically early Christian writing is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

STRIKE TWO!!! The Gospel of Judas is hardly as authentic as the canonical Gospels and sure ain't the oldest. The earliest known copy is dated late 3rd/early 4th century A.D. The canonical Gospels date much earlier than that.

Remember, the Emperor Constantine, (who is still a saint in the Christian Church today) recognised Jesus as an alter ego of Sol Invictus (the invincible sun); a conflation god encompassing all the Mystery religion solar deities on the very grounds that most of the Christian gospels (most of the 80) were simply reworkings of long established pagan traditions.

Correction!!! he is a saint in the CATHOLIC church. And, lest you forget, Constantine grafted several religions together to create a government religion (with a Christian face). As for the mystery solar deity stuff, I've ready taken apart that claim numerous times....namely by citing the alleged deities from whom Jesus was supposedly crafted and showing that they don't match Jesus Christ in the slightest (the virgin-birth requirement alone drops nearly half of them).

Obviously there must be some truth to this if we now know that Plato's writings were being appropriated by early Christians and (falsely) attributed to Jesus.


Besides, this is the crux of this thread... the Bible is not infallible, it changes with the times as it is rewritten and redacted.

The crux of the thread is whether or not the Bible is the inspired word of God.

The very oldest Christian traditions are the Cathars (Bogomils) and the Catholics; Catholics hold to the bodily resurrection of Jesus... most Cathars did not (maybe still don't).

Sure the Catholic/Pauline tradition was founded by St Paul (and claims a dubious link to Peter) with a founding document (the Gospel of Mark) which may have been written as early as the first century, and the oldest copy of which can be dated to approx 155 AD.

But compare that to the Cathars, who were founded by the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene only a couple of years after the crucifixion; have a founding document (Gospel of Mary Magdalene) which we can date to 60 AD (-ish) and maintained an unbroken tradition of early Christian beliefs up until the Crusades.

I beg to differ. Scholars cite the "Gospel" of Mary Magdalene to 2nd century AD, AT BEST. More likely, it is a 3rd century work.

Plus, the early Christians traditions (which date FAR EARLIER than the Catholic church) had, at the center of its teachings, the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As for the Cathars, their origins begin around 10th century A.D. Furthermore, the citing of Mary as a perpetual virgin stems more from the Catholics. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary stated to have remain in such a state, especially with the Gospels giving the names of Jesus' brothers as well as referencing his sister (not to mention the non-Christian references to at least one of Jesus' siblings).

In fact, the only two Christian sects who had copies of the Secret Gospel of Mark (that we know of) were the Pauline Catholics and the Carpocratians, a document exclusive to the original disciples.

The Carpocratians believed in reincarnation; communism; rejected the divinity of Jesus; denied the resurrection and advocated sexual deviancy... where did that stuff come from if their only source documents were the gospels... and this Secret Gospel of Mark?

All of which were grossly CONTRARY to, not only the teachings of Jesus Christ, but to the teachings of God, prior to Christ's appearance. That among other reasons is why this got scrapped. The people who walked and talked with Christ and their followers KNEW that this mess did not come from Jesus.

McWay, I don't think you know as much about Christianity as you think... maybe widen your sources beyond the work of Christian apologists and believers justifying their own delusions.

The Luke

I know more than enough, to make short work of the drivel you continue to spew. And, it's not that hard to do.

BTW, you still ducked the earlier-asked questions regarding your beloved Issa/Yuz Asaf.

[The Luke]

No, they don't! That's your first of several mistakes on this post.

...then how did they pick the canonical gospels from these 80 gospels at the Council of Nicea?

STRIKE TWO!!! The Gospel of Judas is hardly as authentic as the canonical Gospels and sure ain't the oldest. The earliest known copy is dated late 3rd/early 4th century A.D. The canonical Gospels date much earlier than that.

...I thought only Mark dates to earlier than that?

Aren't the earliest extant copies of Matthew, Luke and John likewise 3rd/4th century?... validating my claim?

I beg to differ. Scholars cite the "Gospel" of Mary Magdalene to 2nd century AD, AT BEST. More likely, it is a 3rd century work.

...even accepting such an assertion (I've read differently), Mary Magdalene's tomb in southern France dates to the first century?

 

Plus, the early Christians traditions (which date FAR EARLIER than the Catholic church) had, at the center of its teachings, the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

...except for the Gnostics, and the Gnostics made up the majority of Christians up until the Dark Ages.

Bodily resurrection of Jesus was the minority opinion among Christians worldwide until the Catholic Church established its hegemony.

As for the Cathars, their origins begin around 10th century A.D.

...so terribly wrong.

Read up on this... you don't really believe the Cathars originated in the 10th century only to be exterminated in the 12th and 13th centuries do you?

We had Cathar-style Christianity in Ireland by the sixth century, spread by Cathar/Aryan Gnostic missionaries from Britain, who got it from France. The French Cathar tradition goes back all the way to the first century, certain paganistic Cathar sects are even known (to this day) as "Old Believers" due to their religion predating the newer Pauline Christianity.

Furthermore, the citing of Mary as a perpetual virgin stems more from the Catholics. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary stated to have remain in such a state, especially with the Gospels giving the names of Jesus' brothers as well as referencing his sister (not to mention the non-Christian references to at least one of Jesus' siblings).

...what are you reading? I never made any such claim, I just used the title.

You're scanning, not reading.

By the way, the Cathars claim to have been founded by the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene and seem to have buried both as holy saints in the first century.

That's a lot earlier than the tenth century... or the Council of Nicea, or even Pauline Christianity itself.

All of which were grossly CONTRARY to, not only the teachings of Jesus Christ, but to the teachings of God, prior to Christ's appearance. That among other reasons is why this got scrapped. The people who walked and talked with Christ and their followers KNEW that this mess did not come from Jesus.

...then why did they keep this Secret Gospel of Mark under wraps? Even after acknowledging the existence of such a secret tradition. I'd believe the Carpocratians, they weren't keeping it a secret... why would they have any incentive to lie?

Maybe it's true, giving the Pauline Christians an incentive to keep it secret, as they have.

Have you read the Secret Gospel of Mark?

Why is it so secret?

More interestingly, why did so many of these Early Church Fathers abandon Christianity in favour of joining the Gnostics? Did they read this secret gospel?


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...then how did they pick the canonical gospels from these 80 gospels at the Council of Nicea?

...I thought only Mark dates to earlier than that?

Aren't the earliest extant copies of Matthew, Luke and John likewise 3rd/4th century?... validating my claim?

Not quite, there are partial copies and fragments of the Gospels (i.e. John that date early 2nd century).

...even accepting such an assertion (I've read differently), Mary Magdalene's tomb in southern France dates to the first century?

 
...except for the Gnostics, and the Gnostics made up the majority of Christians up until the Dark Ages.

Bodily resurrection of Jesus was the minority opinion among Christians worldwide until the Catholic Church established its hegemony.

More BS from your feeble fingers!!

...so terribly wrong.

Read up on this... you don't really believe the Cathars originated in the 10th century only to be exterminated in the 12th and 13th centuries do you?

We had Cathar-style Christianity in Ireland by the sixth century, spread by Cathar/Aryan Gnostic missionaries from Britain, who got it from France. The French Cathar tradition goes back all the way to the first century, certain paganistic Cathar sects are even known (to this day) as "Old Believers" due to their religion predating the newer Pauline Christianity.

Listen to what you just said. You think that Cathars and their doctrine date earlier than their established dates in 10th century.

Yet, for some reason, the concept of a Christian church (with the Resurrection as its primary message) dating earlier than the Roman Catholic church seems to be a tough pill for you to swallow.

...what are you reading? I never made any such claim, I just used the title.

You're scanning, not reading.

What are YOU reading? I never cited or credited you with holding to the prepetual virginity of Mary. I specifically stated that such "stems from the Catholics".

Maybe you're the one "scanning, not reading".

By the way, the Cathars claim to have been founded by the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene and seem to have buried both as holy saints in the first century.

That's a lot earlier than the tenth century... or the Council of Nicea, or even Pauline Christianity itself.


...then why did they keep this Secret Gospel of Mark under wraps? Even after acknowledging the existence of such a secret tradition. I'd believe the Carpocratians, they weren't keeping it a secret... why would they have any incentive to lie?

Maybe it's true, giving the Pauline Christians an incentive to keep it secret, as they have.

Have you read the Secret Gospel of Mark?

Why is it so secret?

More interestingly, why did so many of these Early Church Fathers abandon Christianity in favour of joining the Gnostics? Did they read this secret gospel?


The Luke

One, the early Fathers didn't abandon Christianity.

Two, those who did likely fled, due to their refusal to abandon certain sinful practices. Of course, Paul mentioned several instances of such happenings in the letters he wrote to his fellow believers.

[The Luke]

Listen to what you just said. You think that Cathars and their doctrine date earlier than their established dates in 10th century.

Yet, for some reason, the concept of a Christian church (with the Resurrection as its primary message) dating earlier than the Roman Catholic church seems to be a tough pill for you to swallow.

...both existed: both trace their roots all the way back to the first century.

What you have done is pick four of the 80 or so gospels (all with equal claims to authenticity) and decide that the four you read and chose to believe are infallibly correct.

You're just siding with the winning sect... had the Cathars won out you'd be arguing Cathar dogma.

If a book is rewritten, and rewritten and edited and redacted... stitched with interpolations and translated over and over again, what arrogance is it to believe that such a book reached a divine state of being perfectly true and historically accurate only when YOU chose to read it.

One, the early Fathers didn't abandon Christianity.

Two, those who did likely fled, due to their refusal to abandon certain sinful practices. Of course, Paul mentioned several instances of such happenings in the letters he wrote to his fellow believers.

One, they did not... two, they did...?

Come on, more of the Early Church Fathers died as Gnostics than founding members dropped out of the Church of Scientology.

I think your argument betrays the method of brainwashing that produces such contradictory dismissive reactions. Read this sentence very carefully...

"...those who did likely fled, due to their refusal to abandon certain sinful practices."

...remember you are explaining away something you refuse to concede. That's very telling.

What would cause someone to dismiss in a reactionary way, then immediately seek to justify, then only look to rationalise last of all? Defend; excuse; rationalise.


Well let's stick with our Scientology parallel... those who left Scientology after the death of L Ron Hubbard were subject to the very same reaction.

Firstly, it was denied that they left Scientology at all. (Defend)

Then it was admitted that some of them had indeed left because they couldn't accept the immortal L Ron had ascended to a higher plane of existence, which of course he did because as an immortal he couldn't die. (Excuse)

Finally, it became Scientology doctrine that only criminals worried they would be found left the Church of Scientology. Now Scientologists are taught that none of the founding members of Scientology ever left the church because only criminals leave Scientology and criminals cannot rise up the ranks of Scientology.
(Rationalise)

That's how delusional reinforcement works.


Lucky you recognised the one and only true version of the 34,000 variants of Christianity and didn't end up in something whacky like Scientolgy: with it's ridiculous tenets and rewritten history.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...both existed: both trace their roots all the way back to the first century.

What you have done is pick four of the 80 or so gospels (all with equal claims to authenticity) and decide that the four you read and chose to believe are infallibly correct.

You're just siding with the winning sect... had the Cathars won out you'd be arguing Cathar dogma.

I'm doing no such thing. What I'm doing (and have done) is examine the evidence which supports the veracity of the four canonical Gospels, which also cuts the claims of the other so-called Gospels. Other folks have done the same.

Your touting and spewing the claims of these other "Gospels", because they have some mystic mess you happen to like or because you think they undercut the authority of Scripture is little more than the standard skeptic spiel I've seen time and time and time again.

If a book is rewritten, and rewritten and edited and redacted... stitched with interpolations and translated over and over again, what arrogance is it to believe that such a book reached a divine state of being perfectly true and historically accurate only when YOU chose to read it.


One, they did not... two, they did...?

Come on, more of the Early Church Fathers died as Gnostics than founding members dropped out of the Church of Scientology.

I think your argument betrays the method of brainwashing that produces such contradictory dismissive reactions. Read this sentence very carefully...

"...those who did likely fled, due to their refusal to abandon certain sinful practices."

...remember you are explaining away something you refuse to concede. That's very telling.

Wrong again, Luke!!!

What would cause someone to dismiss in a reactionary way, then immediately seek to justify, then only look to rationalise last of all? Defend; excuse; rationalise.

Once again, in your silly attempt to duck the questions put your way, you revert to your usual projection exercises.

Well let's stick with our Scientology parallel... those who left Scientology after the death of L Ron Hubbard were subject to the very same reaction.

Firstly, it was denied that they left Scientology at all. (Defend)

Then it was admitted that some of them had indeed left because they couldn't accept the immortal L Ron had ascended to a higher plane of existence, which of course he did because as an immortal he couldn't die. (Excuse)

Finally, it became Scientology doctrine that only criminals worried they would be found left the Church of Scientology. Now Scientologists are taught that none of the founding members of Scientology ever left the church because only criminals leave Scientology and criminals cannot rise up the ranks of Scientology.
(Rationalise)

That's how delusional reinforcement works.


Lucky you recognised the one and only true version of the 34,000 variants of Christianity and didn't end up in something whacky like Scientolgy: with it's ridiculous tenets and rewritten history.


The Luke

Oh brother!!!! If you realize how utterly ridiculous you sound, at times, you'd be a red as a strawberry. "Our" scientology parallel? No one here is talking about scientology here. This is but another bone-headed tactic of yours, when you can't defend your takes or answer the simple questions put your way.

BTW, the clock's still ticking about the whole Issa/Yuz Asaf deal, regarding how he supposedly died and resurrected vs. surviving the cross and how old he was when he supposedly died.

You plan to take on that issue, or is another two-week workout is the works? 

[Necrosis]

luke is attempting to use facts and logical arguments and mcway resorts to denial, ad hominems and dishonest tactics.

Funny thread to read.

[MCWAY]

luke is attempting to use facts and logical arguments and mcway resorts to denial, ad hominems and dishonest tactics.

Funny thread to read.

And these alleged "dishonest" tactics would be what?

As for Luke's "facts", I'm still waiting for him to explain exactly how, if this Issa/Yuz Asaf fellow is supposedly Jesus Christ, how he supposedly got off that cross alive.

As I've stated earlier, Luke's "facts" are usually anything but that. He has yet to produce the "mystery religion" versions of these other figures, demsontrating that their accounts are the ones from which Jesus Christ was supposedly crafted.

When the actual accounts are brought to the surface (and it's shown that they hardly match that of Christ), Luke runs, hides, and generates a ton of excuses. He still spouting that mess about three "kings" (oops, at last check, he referred to them recently as "sages") meeting Jesus Christ at birth.  

He's gaffed on Attis, Horus, Osiris, Dionysus, and now this Issa fellow (notice how he hops between them, once I get to dissecting his takes).

And, to this day, he can't explain exactly how these guys (among others) fit this so-called "dying/resurrecting godman blueprint" he keeps espousing, when they DO NOT RISE FROM THE DEAD. But don't take my word for it:

The Dying and Rising Gods

This is an older category, originally brilliantly championed by Frazer in The Golden Bough,  that has been abandoned by scholars in that field:
 
The Frazerian construct of a general ‘Oriental’ vegetation god who periodically dies and rises from the dead has been discredited by more recent scholarship. There is no evidence for a resurrection of Attis; even Osiris remains with the dead; and if Persephone returns to the world every year, a joyous event for gods and men, the initiates do not follow her. There is a dimension of death in all of the mystery initiations, but the concept of rebirth or resurrection of either gods or mystai is anything but explicit. – Walter Burkert, “Ancient Mystery Cults”, Harvard:1987

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html


Worst of all, not only are his facts off, regarding Christ, they are also inaccurate regarding these other figures and I've shown the references and accounts to prove it (unlike Luke who cowardly refuses to divulge any of his sources in his weak attempt to show that he knows all of this from memory).

[Necrosis]

And these alleged "dishonest" tactics would be what?

As for Luke's "facts", I'm still waiting for him to explain exactly how, if this Issa/Yuz Asaf fellow is supposedly Jesus Christ, how he supposedly got off that cross alive.

As I've stated earlier, Luke's "facts" are usually anything but that. He has yet to produce the "mystery religion" versions of these other figures, demsontrating that their accounts are the ones from which Jesus Christ was supposedly crafted.

When the actual accounts are brought to the surface (and it's shown that they hardly match that of Christ), Luke runs, hides, and generates a ton of excuses. He still spouting that mess about three "kings" (oops, at last check, he referred to them recently as "sages") meeting Jesus Christ at birth.  

He's gaffed on Attis, Horus, Osiris, Dionysus, and now this Issa fellow (notice how he hops between them, once I get to dissecting his takes).

And, to this day, he can't explain exactly how these guys (among others) fit this so-called "dying/resurrecting godman blueprint" he keeps espousing, when they DO NOT RISE FROM THE DEAD. But don't take my word for it:

The Dying and Rising Gods

This is an older category, originally brilliantly championed by Frazer in The Golden Bough,  that has been abandoned by scholars in that field:
 
The Frazerian construct of a general ‘Oriental’ vegetation god who periodically dies and rises from the dead has been discredited by more recent scholarship. There is no evidence for a resurrection of Attis; even Osiris remains with the dead; and if Persephone returns to the world every year, a joyous event for gods and men, the initiates do not follow her. There is a dimension of death in all of the mystery initiations, but the concept of rebirth or resurrection of either gods or mystai is anything but explicit. – Walter Burkert, “Ancient Mystery Cults”, Harvard:1987

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html


Worst of all, not only are his facts off, regarding Christ, they are also inaccurate regarding these other figures and I've shown the references and accounts to prove it (unlike Luke who cowardly refuses to divulge any of his sources in his weak attempt to show that he knows all of this from memory).

I thought luke contended that saint issa predated jesus and was a different person, thus the story is copied, but you claim issa is the muslim name for jesus so he is the same person.

If i got it wrong correct me. But if what i said is true i can make the assumption that you reconize that there is an issa and the stories are the same/similar. As they would have to be if they are one in the same. So, luke has to prove that they are different and boom, copyright infringement.

also, why do you insist every detiai line up? If 5 of 25 unique facts lined up i would be disturbed as a christian.

anyway, carry on, it is an interesting subject, although you seem to be attacking luke more then the material, just my two cents.

[The Luke]

The Dying and Rising Gods

The Frazerian construct of a general ‘Oriental’ vegetation god who periodically dies and rises from the dead has been discredited by more recent scholarship. There is no evidence for a resurrection of Attis; even Osiris remains with the dead; and if Persephone returns to the world every year, a joyous event for gods and men, the initiates do not follow her. There is a dimension of death in all of the mystery initiations, but the concept of rebirth or resurrection of either gods or mystai is anything but explicit. – Walter Burkert, “Ancient Mystery Cults”, Harvard:1987

christian-thinktank[/b].com/copycatwho1.html]http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html

...well there's your problem.

Necrosis,

The last time we had this agument I had to give up in disgust.

McWay posted reams and reams of copy and paste articles from Christian apologist websites detailing the practices of the worshippers of Attis.

HE (McWay) posted all the evidence from Roman sources of how the Attians:
-celebrated the death of Attis each year at Easter
-held a processional march to a sacred grove
-cut down a sacred tree symbolic of the tree under which Attis died (to which his body was nailed)
-carried the sacred tree back to their temple on the back of the high priest (sometimes with a statue of Attis nailed to it)
-stood up the tree in the temple
-hoisted a wooden statue of the dead Attis into the tree (via the nail holes in his hands)
-tied or nailed the statue of Attis to the tree
-called this eerily familiar festival "the Day of Woe"
-locked themselves in the temple for three days and nights lamenting
-left the temple on the third day proclaiming the "Day of Joy"
-began the entire Attis festival cycle all over again as if he hadn't died

When I asked if McWay saw any similarities between this and the younger Christian tradition he made the argument:
-Jesus died on the cross; Attis bled to death under it
-Jesus died for the redemption of sins of mankind; Attis committed suicide for love of his mother (symbloic of the world)
-Jesus rose from the dead; the Attians didn't openly claim a bodily resurrection of Attis (it was a secret)


Yes there are differences.

But you could argue that Jesus was Jewish and wore a yamika meaning he had a different funny hat than Attis too... but it isn't an important substantive difference.

But to claim Jesus is wholly original (as McWay does) when there are more than a dozen of these dying resurrecting godmen with similar stories who predate Jesus is just plain dishonest.

Refusing to concede any similarity at all (as McWay does) is just plain wilfull ignorance.

Filtering all historical evidence so as to dismiss eveything contrary to your argument (as McWay does) is just plain hysterical blindness.


He'll probably write a screed highlighting minute differences between Jesus and Attis while ignoring the parallels in answer to this.


Anyway, thanks for reading, hope you enjoyed the thread.

The Luke

[MCWAY]

...well there's your problem.

Necrosis,

The last time we had this agument I had to give up in disgust.

You gave up, because your posts got ripped apart with the accounts about Attis, which show that his life and death DO NOT MATCH that of Jesus Christ in the slightest.

McWay posted reams and reams of copy and paste articles from Christian apologist websites detailing the practices of the worshippers of Attis.

Of course, I did. They make your claims sound even more preposterous than they already are, destroying them with these querky things called SPECIFIC FACTS and REFERENCES.

HE (McWay) posted all the evidence from Roman sources of how the Attians:
-celebrated the death of Attis each year at Easter
-held a processional march to a sacred grove
-cut down a sacred tree symbolic of the tree under which Attis died (to which his body was nailed)
-carried the sacred tree back to their temple on the back of the high priest (sometimes with a statue of Attis nailed to it)
-stood up the tree in the temple
-hoisted a wooden statue of the dead Attis into the tree (via the nail holes in his hands)
-tied or nailed the statue of Attis to the tree
-called this eerily familiar festival "the Day of Woe"
-locked themselves in the temple for three days and nights lamenting
-left the temple on the third day proclaiming the "Day of Joy"
-began the entire Attis festival cycle all over again as if he hadn't died

 Edit - Are you referring to a statement such as this:

All of the attempts in the scholarly literature to identify Attis as a dying and rising deity depend not on the mythology but rather on the ritual, in particular a questionable interpretation of the five-day festival of Cybele on 22-27 March. The question of the relationship between the Day of Blood (24 March) and the Day of Joy (25 March) caught the attention of some scholars, who, employing the analogy of the relationship of Good Friday to Easter Sunday, reasoned that if among other activities on the Day of Blood there was mourning for Attis, then the object of the 'joy' on the following day must be Attis's resurrection. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this was 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. Within the cult, the new feast of the Day of Joy celebrates Cybele. The sole text that connects the Day of Joy with Attis is a fifth-century 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!"

None of this has a blessed thing to do with Jesus Christ. Christ was crucified; Attis was not (he chopped off his own nuts and died). As if that weren't enough, nowhere did the early Christians (1st century A.D.) begin a festival, re-enacting the crucifixion of Christ.

Once again, you don't have your facts straight. The Day of Joy celebrates CYBELE (Attis' mother) not Attis.

When I asked if McWay saw any similarities between this and the younger Christian tradition he made the argument:
-Jesus died on the cross; Attis bled to death under it
-Jesus died for the redemption of sins of mankind; Attis committed suicide for love of his mother (symbloic of the world)
-Jesus rose from the dead; the Attians didn't openly claim a bodily resurrection of Attis (it was a secret)

How many times can you screw this up, Luke? Once again, you and facts go together like peanut butter and castor oil.

One, NOWHERE did I claim that Attis bled to death under a cross. As a matter of fact, YOU were the one, foolishly trying to equate any remote tree reference in the Attis account to the cross of Jesus Christ.

Two, Attis died out of LUST for his own mother (he wanted to get his freak on with mama, a far cry from what Jesus Christ did for the sins of mankind). And, as usual, you keep inserting crap that ain't there, trying to piece your shattered claims together.

Three, the worshippers of Attis didn't claim ANY FORM OF RESURRECTION for their deity. In fact, I posted the specific reference stating that the pleas to raise Attis from the dead WERE FLATLY REJECTED by Zeus/Jupiter.

Edit - Four, The late-added "Day of Joy" was in celebration of CYBELE, not Attis.

And that shatters your silly quips about Attis being a "dying/resurrecting godman". Attis DOES NOT rise from the dead, PERIOD!!!

Yes there are differences.

But you could argue that Jesus was Jewish and wore a yamika meaning he had a different funny hat than Attis too... but it isn't an important substantive difference.

But to claim Jesus is wholly original (as McWay does) when there are more than a dozen of these dying resurrecting godmen with similar stories who predate Jesus is just plain dishonest.

Again lay off the weed, Luke. Plain dishonest? You are the one who keeps mindlessly posting this "dying resurrecting godmen" crap, despite the simple fact that nearly every figure you have mentioned either DOES NOT DIE or DOES NOT RISE FROM THE DEAD, if killed.

Refusing to concede any similarity at all (as McWay does) is just plain wilfull ignorance.

Filtering all historical evidence so as to dismiss eveything contrary to your argument (as McWay does) is just plain hysterical blindness.


He'll probably write a screed highlighting minute differences between Jesus and Attis while ignoring the parallels in answer to this.


Anyway, thanks for reading, hope you enjoyed the thread.

The Luke

Minute difference? Yet, another stupid quip from the factually-challenged Luke.

Let's look as these "minute" differences, one more time!!!

Virgin birth:

Jesus - YES!! Attis, NO; Osiris, NO; Dionysus; NO

Mode of death:

Jesus - Crucifixion; Attis - Self-castration; Osiris - drowning; Dionysus - gored by wild boar

Resurrection:

Jesus - YES!! Attis - NO; Osiris - NO; Dionysus - NO

And, that's just the short list.

The heart of your argument, boy genius, is that these figures are "dying/resurrecting godmen" that predate Jesus.

Therefore, Einstein, there is no "minute" difference when Jesus rises from the dead but the figures you list DO NOT.

Nor is it a "minute" difference when Jesus is born of a virgin; while those other figures result from cosmic freaky-deaky sex between gods (particularly a birdy-formed Isis, bumping and grinding with a DEAD Osiris to produce Horus).

[MCWAY]

I thought luke contended that saint issa predated jesus and was a different person, thus the story is copied, but you claim issa is the muslim name for jesus so he is the same person.

NOOOOOO!!! What I claim is that, while Issa is the Muslim name for Jesus (and the Muslims believe Him to be the same person), Issa/Yuz Asaf is NOT Jesus Christ.

If i got it wrong correct me. But if what i said is true i can make the assumption that you reconize that there is an issa and the stories are the same/similar. As they would have to be if they are one in the same. So, luke has to prove that they are different and boom, copyright infringement.

also, why do you insist every detiai line up? If 5 of 25 unique facts lined up i would be disturbed as a christian.

anyway, carry on, it is an interesting subject, although you seem to be attacking luke more then the material, just my two cents.

The antagonists of the early Christians (namely the Roman empire and the Jewish Pharisees) bear witness as to who Jesus Christ was and where He died.

Again, there would be no Christian church or early Christian faith, if (as Dr. Paul Meier put it) "the moldering body of Jesus of Nazareth were availably anytime after Sunday morning."

Plus, one point that Luke doesn't quite want to address is exactly how, if Issa is Jesus Christ, how he survived the cross (as some who claim that they are one and the same tend to think). This is part of what's known as the "Swoon Theory".

We have non-Christians sources that indicate that Jesus Christ was killed, executed, put to death that match the Gospel accounts.

Luke's claims make absolutely no sense. How can the people allegedly fabricating Jesus Christ from other figures go from using ones that DON'T MATCH Christ at all to using Issa/Yuz Asaf, who supposedly is a near-identical match. All Luke is doing is hopping from figure to figure, every time I demonstrate that the traits he claims they have (that were taken to form Jesus Christ) are patently false.

When Attis didn't work; he flipped to Osiris. When that bombed, he went to another figure. Now, Issa/Yuz Asaf is his flavor-of-the-month.

[The Luke]

So let me get this straight...

None of these other gods who parallel Jesus can be a source for the Jesus myth because none of them EXACTLY match Jesus in every regard.

Yet, the one other parallel god who does match Jesus in every regard also cannot be a source for the Jesus myth because he rose from the dead... which somehow differs from the Jesus story?


I'm sorry McWay, I don't understand your dismissal of the Issa story?

You dismiss the Mystery Religion solar deities because they differ slightly from Jesus... but you concede Issa either is Jesus or exactly matches Jesus... then you dismiss Issa too?

WTF?


The Luke

[MCWAY]

So let me get this straight...

None of these other gods who parallel Jesus can be a source for the Jesus myth because none of them EXACTLY match Jesus in every regard.

Yet, the one other parallel god who does match Jesus in every regard also cannot be a source for the Jesus myth because he rose from the dead... which somehow differs from the Jesus story?


I'm sorry McWay, I don't understand your dismissal of the Issa story?

You dismiss the Mystery Religion solar deities because they differ slightly from Jesus... but you concede Issa either is Jesus or exactly matches Jesus... then you dismiss Issa too?

WTF?


The Luke

It appears that your inability to read has reared its ugly head once again.

YOU claim that Attis, Osiris, Dionysys, and several other figures were part of some "dying-reussrecting godman" blueprint. Cease with the stupid semantics and face the facts.

For that to be the case, boy genius, they must actually DIE and RISE FROM THE DEAD!!!

I've shown repeatedly that Attis, Osiris, and Dionysus (just to name a few) do not, I repeat, DO NOT rise from the dead. That destroys your ENTIRE premise.

And, the differences don't stop there, despite your stupid attempts to play semantics and claim that such are merely "slight".



For this reason, you keep foolishly hopping from figure to figure, hoping you'll find one that matches your ridiculous claims.

One more time:


Virgin birth:

Jesus - YES!! Attis, NO; Osiris, NO; Dionysus; NO

Mode of death:

Jesus - Crucifixion; Attis - Self-castration; Osiris - drowning; Dionysus - gored by wild boar

Resurrection:

Jesus - YES!! Attis - NO; Osiris - NO; Dionysus - NO

And, that's just the short list.


Isaa/Yuz Asaf is NOT Jesus Christ, despite the Muslim claims to the contrary. Among the many reasons (and here's another issue from which you flee like the coward that you are), the Issa folks claim that he SURVIVED the crucifixion, which is refuted by both the Christian and non-Chrisitian historical sources that confirm Jesus' death on the cross.

And, the Resurrection was/is at the heart of Christianity, which would have been easily destroyed, with a dead Jesus Christ available at any time (another fact from which you continue to cower)


Of course, you're hiding behind Issa/Yuz Asaf, because you can't back your claims about the other figures.

To top it all off, as is usually the case, you don't even have your facts straight with the other figures, from whom Christ was supposedly crafted, which is really sad, because you once claims that nearly ALL of those figures matched Jesus Christ (and you tried using that ridiculous "Zeitgeist" film to support your odd and off-the-mark statements).

[big L dawg]

shouldn't you have something more spiritual to do on a sunday morning than post on a bodybuilding forum about your fables and mythology

[The Luke]

I've shown repeatedly that Attis, Osiris, and Dionysus (just to name a few) do not, I repeat, DO NOT rise from the dead. That destroys your ENTIRE premise.

...according to Gnostic Christianity (the majority view among early Christians and Cathars; Bogomils; Old Believers and Aryans right up until the Renaissance) neither did Jesus.

In fact, during the past two thousand years more Christians have lived their lives believing Jesus did NOT bodily rise from the dead, than believed he did.

That is a conceit peculiar to Pauline Christianity.

Isaa/Yuz Asaf is NOT Jesus Christ, despite the Muslim claims to the contrary.

...you keep insisting upon this, why?

Saying it doesn't make it so (unless you're repeating this statement attempting to convince yourself).

Among the many reasons (and here's another issue from which you flee like the coward that you are), the Issa folks claim that he SURVIVED the crucifixion, which is refuted by both the Christian and non-Chrisitian historical sources that confirm Jesus' death on the cross.

...non-Christian sources that confirm Jesus' death upon the cross? Are they secret sources?

There is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus ever existed from ANY contemporaneous source... just later gospels and interpolations added by Christian transcribers centuries later.


Besides, Issa's followers do NOT claim he survived the cross... they claim he died and rose from the dead, they claim he is Jesus and have stuck to this story since the first century. His resurrection was a major claim to fame, his resurrection wounds are depicted upon his (Jewish style) tomb in Kashmir.

There is absolutely NO difference between Issa and Jesus at all, till the point (after the crucifixion and resurrection) where the disciples claim Jesus rose bodily into heaven (convenient) and Issa's followers claim he fled to Kashmir (sounds plausible).


I think this debate has broken your brain... you are simply insisting.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...according to Gnostic Christianity (the majority view among early Christians and Cathars; Bogomils; Old Believers and Aryans right up until the Renaissance) neither did Jesus.

In fact, during the past two thousand years more Christians have lived their lives believing Jesus did NOT bodily rise from the dead, than believed he did.

That is a conceit peculiar to Pauline Christianity.

That is utter BS, Luke. The Resurrection of Christ is THE cornerstone of Christianity. The historical references over the last two millenia prove it.

Whereas, you have absolutely NOTHING backing your weak words.

...you keep insisting upon this, why?

Saying it doesn't make it so (unless you're repeating this statement attempting to convince yourself).

You're projecting again, Luke. That's the stuff you tried to do with your ridiculous statements with absolutely nothing to support it.

...non-Christian sources that confirm Jesus' death upon the cross? Are they secret sources?

Ummm......NO!! In fact, Loco and I have mentioned these sources REPEATEDLY for several months. There's nothing "secret" about it, unlike your silly claims.

There is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus ever existed from ANY contemporaneous source... just later gospels and interpolations added by Christian transcribers centuries later.

DEAD WRONG AGAIN, Luke!! Try Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Lucian (just to name a few).

Here's just a small sample:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." - Lucian of Samosata

Besides, Issa's followers do NOT claim he survived the cross... they claim he died and rose from the dead, they claim he is Jesus and have stuck to this story since the first century. His resurrection was a major claim to fame, his resurrection wounds are depicted upon his (Jewish style) tomb in Kashmir.

Oh, really!!! Tell that to these guys:

http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/survival/crucifixion.html

In fact, most (if not all) of the folks who claim that this Issa guy is Jesus Christ espouse the oft-dismantled "Swoon Theory", claiming that Jesus survived the crucifixion. In fact, Muslims teach from the Koran that Jesus survived the cross.

So, once again, your nonsensical claims fall flat on their faces.

There is absolutely NO difference between Issa and Jesus at all, till the point (after the crucifixion and resurrection) where the disciples claim Jesus rose bodily into heaven (convenient) and Issa's followers claim he fled to Kashmir (sounds plausible).


I think this debate has broken your brain... you are simply insisting.


The Luke

This is hardly a debate. It's you, making utterly stupid statements with no references or specifics to back them and my dismantling them, using the specifics and giving the particulars.

And, as usual, you keep ducking and hiding, failing to address the issues brought your way numerous times, namely your "dying resurrecting godman" flap not working, because of the figures mentioned who DO NOT rise from the dead.

[The Luke]

I dont understand your argument McWay, you seem to just be melting with every post now.



You dismiss the Issa story because he "survived" the cross? Didn't Jesus "survive" the cross too? Don't Issa's followers claim he actually died and rose from the dead? Don't Issa's followers claim he IS Jesus?

You delineate tiny differnces and exaggerate their importance.

But you don't address the fact that both he and Jesus led eactly parallel lives at the same time in he same place. You likewise evade Issa's claim that he and Jesus are one in the same person?


Instead of posting non sequitur insults after each quoted line of my posts (which doesn't help the debate), why don't you try explaining your thinking in detail?

How exactly do you reconcile this Issa character with your faith in Jesus?

You keep repeating half-arguments, we've all heard them, but that's not the part of your argument I have trouble understanding: it's the unspoken, the evaded, the unexplained reasoning... elucidate that for us?

-which similarities between Jesus and oter gods DO you concede?

-why do you think ALL Christians throughout history adhered to Pauline doctrine?

-why do you insist the Cathars; Bogomils; Arans etc were Pauline Christians?

Explain yourself properly. I'll listen.



The Luke
PS ...no cut-and-pastes.

[MCWAY]

I dont understand your argument McWay, you seem to just be melting with every post now.



You dismiss the Issa story because he "survived" the cross? Didn't Jesus "survive" the cross too? Don't Issa's followers claim he actually died and rose from the dead? Don't Issa's followers claim he IS Jesus?

You delineate tiny differnces and exaggerate their importance.

You understand my argument. You simply resort to this "playing dumb", because you can't address the issues at hand (much the same as you've done on another thread on the Politics forum).

There's a difference between dying on a cross and rising from the dead and NOT DYING via crucifixion in the first place, which those who say this Issa/Yuz Asaf is actually Christ claimed to have happened.

So, it is you, trying to diminish the major differences between these figures, clamining that they're "tiny" or "minor", because they topple your arguments completely.

But you don't address the fact that both he and Jesus led eactly parallel lives at the same time in he same place. You likewise evade Issa's claim that he and Jesus are one in the same person?

You're hardly one to talk about evading and not addressing items (see the question about your "dying resurrecting godman" claims, as well as your claim about Moses' tomb in the Exodus thread).

Plus, I've address the issue. What I've stated, multiple times, is that the man in that tomb in Kashmir is not Jesus Christ, for reasons mentioned numerous times beforehand, namely the historical data that cites the time, date, location and manner of Christ's actual death.

That doesn't jive with the claims of Issa/Yuz Asaf.

Instead of posting non sequitur insults after each quoted line of my posts (which doesn't help the debate), why don't you try explaining your thinking in detail?

I've explained my statement in detail, and that's why you continue to run and hide, not addressing the specific issues brought to you.

How exactly do you reconcile this Issa character with your faith in Jesus?

You keep repeating half-arguments, we've all heard them, but that's not the part of your argument I have trouble understanding: it's the unspoken, the evaded, the unexplained reasoning... elucidate that for us?


-which similarities between Jesus and oter gods DO you concede?

NONE!!!

You're the one who claimed that those other figures were all "dying resurrecting godmen". When faced with the facts and references, showing that they ARE NOT SUCH, you continue to balk, squawk, hide, and make excuses.

-why do you think ALL Christians throughout history adhered to Pauline doctrine?

-why do you insist the Cathars; Bogomils; Arans etc were Pauline Christians?

Explain yourself properly. I'll listen.

I never claimed that the Cathars or any of those other folks were "Pauline Christians". Furthermore, the idea of the resurrected Christ is NOT "Pauline doctrine". Paul was taught the foundations of the faith by Jesus' early followers (including some of His disciples).

The Luke
PS ...no cut-and-pastes.

I can "cut and paste" whatever I wish, if I feel that such illustrate the point properly (especially when doing such, citing the source material, crushes your unsubstantiated claims). The one difference, however, is that I actually cite my sources; whereas you don't, foolishly trying to convince people that you're pulling all of these statements from pure memory.

[The Luke]

Plus, I've address the issue. What I've stated, multiple times, is that the man in that tomb in Kashmir is not Jesus Christ, for reasons mentioned numerous times beforehand, namely the historical data that cites the time, date, location and manner of Christ's actual death.

That doesn't jive with the claims of Issa/Yuz Asaf.

...more on this please.

Explain it in detail as you would to a child... 'cos I'm confused.


The Luke