Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: The Luke on November 13, 2008, 12:27:09 PM
-
Challenge to Christians/Evangelicals:
Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory
Bet you can't.
The Luke
PS... short succinct posts please so I can answer them.
-
Challenge to Christians/Evangelicals:
Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory
Bet you can't.
The Luke
PS... short succinct posts please so I can answer them.
The really cool beard... ;D
-
Challenge to Christians/Evangelicals:
Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory
Bet you can't.
The Luke
PS... short succinct posts please so I can answer them.
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?
-
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?
Why do you even care; you are the ultimate faith head. Why would all the borrowing bother you?
-
Why do you even care; you are the ultimate faith head. Why would all the borrowing bother you?
I'd ask you the same thing, since you don't even believe any of this stuff.
-
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.
For example:
The total count of godmen who rose from the dead after 3 days is 34 (I think). Off the top of my head I can name several:
-Hercules
-Mithras
-Achilles
-Tammuz
-Horus
-Osiris
-Attis
-Dionysus
-Bacchus
-Alexander the Great (in his guise of a solar deity)
...all of which predate Christianity.
Before McWay makes a fool of himself here erroneously correcting me, I'm referring to the Mystery Religion versions of these gods (not the classical folklore version which often differs).
The Luke
-
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
Every detail? Cool! Let's see you do it. :)
-
I'd ask you the same thing, since you don't even believe any of this stuff.
Since you claim it is all factual, which it is not.
-
Every detail? Cool! Let's see you do it. :)
...name one you believe to be original. Just one.
The Luke
-
Challenge to Christians/Evangelicals:
Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory
Bet you can't.
The Luke
PS... short succinct posts please so I can answer them.
To use a quip from Mr. T’s “Clubber Lang” character from Rocky III.
"I reject the challenge, because the Luke is no challenge. But, I’ll be more than happy to beat on him some more!!!"
I’ll give you 3:
1) Virgin birth (i.e. Mary had no sexual contact WHATOSEVER, when she conceived Christ. There was no supernatural whoremongering ala Zeus and his shenanigans; no coitus in birdie form with a dead guy with a faux schlong, etc.)
2) Death by crucifixion, not by chopping his balls off or being barbecued in the womb and resown in someone's leg.
3) His betrayal for 30 pieces of silver, by a close associate.
Of course, that leaves YOU with the task of showing what alleged allegories these accounts were lifted and why, which (for all of your blathering) you have yet to do).
That is, name the religion from which the Jesus account was supposedly borrowed and give the specifics as to why it was used.
-
...name one you believe to be original. Just one.
The Luke
I asked you above if you could 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.
You said yes. Substantiate your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Show us that you can do this. You can copy and paste from other sources if you want to. I want to see this. :)
-
McWay,
1) ALL the gods I listed are virgin births (in their Mystery Religion form).
They have to be, when the sun is "born" on the 25th of December it rises in the constellation Virgo (the virgin) also known as the "House of Bread" or "Beth-le-hem" in Hebrew.
2) ALL the gods I listed are either crucified on a tree or a cross by an evil tyrant (again I'm referring to the Mystery Religion form)
They have to be. When the sun "dies" at Easter time, it happens near the stars of the Southern Cross. Allegorically this is represented by the sun (Jebus) being transfixed upon a cross/tree/tau. The first celebration of this happened in 2,400 BC... the first Mithras Easter.
3) Not sure about the "30 pieces of silver"; but I believe most of the Mystery Religion godmen are betrayed by a male lover/friend/disciple/confident... I think Issa was betrayed for crucifixion on a Tau (t-shape) for a "handful of coins".
Again, I'm referring to the Mystery religion versions of these godmen... which may differ from the folklore version. Listing differences between Jebus and the folklore version of these gods is tantamount to claiming the movie ET isn't based on the Jesus story (which it is).
The Luke
PS... one point at a time, let's keep the posts readable.
-
Just posting for updates. I find this stuff quite interesting.
-
I asked you above if you could 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.
...make a quick list of what you (a Christian) consider the most important details of the Jebus story and I'll explain their astrological significance.
The Luke
-
...yep. With redundant duplication.
For example:
The total count of godmen who rose from the dead after 3 days is 34 (I think). Off the top of my head I can name several:
-Hercules
-Mithras
-Achilles
-Tammuz
-Horus
-Osiris
-Attis
-Dionysus
-Bacchus
-Alexander the Great (in his guise of a solar deity)
...all of which predate Christianity.
Before McWay makes a fool of himself here erroneously correcting me, I'm referring to the Mystery Religion versions of these gods (not the classical folklore version which often differs).
The Luke
Osiris didn’t rise from the dead; he remained in the underworld, That’s where Isis (in birdie form) has sex with him, producing Horus. That, of course, disqualifies Horus from being born of a virgin.
Now, my memory's a bit faint. But one of these guys is the result of Zeus humping a rock (so much for the virgin birth stuff again). As for Attis, enough said about his self-castration.
Of course, you have YET to name these alleged mystery religion and cite the details. Therefore, the self-fool making process is exerted on you.
-
Osiris didn’t rise from the dead; he remained in the underworld, That’s where Isis (in birdie form) has sex with him, producing Horus. That, of course, disqualifies Horus from being born of a virgin.
Now, my memory's a bit faint. But one of these guys is the result of Zeus humping a rock (so much for the virgin birth stuff again). As for Attis, enough said about his self-castration.
Of course, you have YET to name these alleged mystery religion and cite the details. Therefore, the self-fool making process is exerted on you.
...didn't I warn you not to quote the FOLKLORE versions of these stories.
Dude, you are a tard.
The Luke
-
Osiris didn’t rise from the dead; he remained in the underworld, That’s where Isis (in birdie form) has sex with him, producing Horus. That, of course, disqualifies Horus from being born of a virgin.
Now, my memory's a bit faint. But one of these guys is the result of Zeus humping a rock (so much for the virgin birth stuff again). As for Attis, enough said about his self-castration.
Of course, you have YET to name these alleged mystery religion and cite the details. Therefore, the self-fool making process is exerted on you.
And one thing all these stories have in common is that they are ridiculous; why should yours by chance not be farcical and invented??
-
McWay,
1) ALL the gods I listed are virgin births (in their Mystery Religion form).
They have to be, when the sun is "born" on the 25th of December it rises in the constellation Virgo (the virgin) also known as the "House of Bread" or "Beth-le-hem" in Hebrew.
Nowhere, I repeat, NOWHERE does Scripture claim that Jesus was born Dec. 25. That day was picked because the Roman Catholic Church wanted a Christian celebration to replace a pagan one.
Furthermore, sex with birds and rocks DISQUALIFY the offspring of Tweety and Slab from being “virgin births”.
2) ALL the gods I listed are either crucified on a tree or a cross by an evil tyrant (again I'm referring to the Mystery Religion form)
Where is this “mystery religion form”, again? To this day, you have NOT shown what this is or where it parallels with the Jesus account.
Repeatedly saying “It’s the mystery religion form”, with NO EXAMPLES OF SUCH simply makes you look silly (or sillier). That’s especially true, since I can easily list the forms of death that these other figures suffered (i.e. Osiris’ dismemberment, Attis’ self-castration, etc).
And, last I checked, Pilate wasn't deemed evil, per se. In fact, he proclaims that Jesus was innocent and washed his hands of the whole situation, deferring to some of the Jewish people to choose who would be free and who would be crucified.
3) Not sure about the "30 pieces of silver"; but I believe most of the Mystery Religion godmen are betrayed by a male lover/friend/disciple/confident... I think Issa was betrayed for crucifixion on a Tau (t-shape) for a "handful of coins".
A reference would be nice. Or, do you have mystery books to your mystery religions, which hinder you from backing any of your wacky claims?
Again, I'm referring to the Mystery religion versions of these godmen... which may differ from the folklore version. Listing differences between Jebus and the folklore version of these gods is tantamount to claiming the movie ET isn't based on the Jesus story (which it is).
Which is it, Luke? Do they differ or don’t they. For example, show the specific example of this “mystery religion” spin of Attis’ death BESIDES the one where he hacked off his nuts (out of incestuous lust for his own mama) and bleeds to death.
-
...didn't I warn you not to quote the FOLKLORE versions of these stories.
Dude, you are a tard.
The Luke
And what alleged consequence will befall me, O toe-munching Luke?
Will you continuing running your mouth about “mystery religion”, without providing one single example of such to back your pitiful claims?
-
McWay,
Haven't you ever read about the solar-deity allegories used in Mystery Religions? You've got some Googling to do (or alternatively read Gandy and Freke's book).
It's always the same stuff:
-born of a virgin on 25th or December
-bright star marks his birthplace
-born in a cave/stable
-three kings attend his birth
-knows everything by age 12
-baptised in a river
-chooses twelve disciples (and a hidden thirteenth secret female disciple associated with a snake)
-performs miracles: heals the sick; the lame; the blind; raises the dead; feeds a multitude
-loses a shoe/foot/leg (Jebus has his feet washed)
-betrayed to the tyrant by his brother/twin/lover/disciple
-crucified (or similar variant)
-placed back in a tomb
-rises from the dead after three days
-ascends into heaven
...it's a basic astrological story detailing the cycle of the sun. The details are altered to make it acceptable to the local culture.
Hercules was born via Zeus schtooping his mum (FOLKLORE version), this is true ... but in the Mystery Religion version in which Hercules was worshiped as a solar deity (Jebus is also a solar deity) maintained that he was born of a virgin on the 25th of December etc etc etc...
Quoting the folklore version to show discrepancies is intellectually dishonest.
The Luke
-
McWay,
Haven't you ever read about the solar-deity allegories used in Mystery Religions? You've got some Googling to do (or alternatively read Gandy and Freke's book).
It's always the same stuff:
-born of a virgin on 25th or December
-bright star marks his birthplace
-born in a cave/stable
-three kings attend his birth
-knows everything by age 12
-baptised in a river
-chooses twelve disciples (and a hidden thirteenth secret female disciple associated with a snake)
-performs miracles: heals the sick; the lame; the blind; raises the dead; feeds a multitude
-loses a shoe/foot/leg (Jebus has his feet washed)
-betrayed to the tyrant by his brother/twin/lover/disciple
-crucified (or similar variant)
-placed back in a tomb
-rises from the dead after three days
-ascends into heaven
...it's a basic astrological story detailing the cycle of the sun. The details are altered to make it acceptable to the local culture.
Hercules was born via Zeus schtooping his mum (FOLKLORE version), this is true ... but in the Mystery Religion version in which Hercules was worshiped as a solar deity (Jebus is also a solar deity) maintained that he was born of a virgin on the 25th of December etc etc etc...
Quoting the folklore version to show discrepancies is intellectually dishonest.
The Luke
I know you got that mess from Gandy and Freke's book (which has been cut to ribbons by Biblical scholars, repeatedly).
What I asked was for YOU to post the specific examples of these alleged "mystery religions" and show the details supposedly lifted to make the Jesus account.
Instead you make excuses and do absolutely NOTHING to back your words. You ask for specifics, but when asked to reciprocate, you clam up.
And spare me the "intellectually dishonesty" crap. Until you deliver specifics, you do little more than regurgitate tired garbage that has been dismantled repeatedly.
Such as:
"-born of a virgin on 25th or December" - WRONG!! Nowhere does the Bible claim that Jesus is born on any date, corresponding to 12/25
"-bright star marks his birthplace" Wrong again. The stars leads the wise men to where Jesus was located.
"-born in a cave/stable" - You're flip-flopping again, which is it: cave or stable? (And what alleged "mystery religion corresponds to it).
"-three kings attend his birth" - And you cry about people not reading stuff? 1) The Bible NEVER states that just "three kings" attend his birth; the shepherds do that (lay off the Nativity scenes, please); 2) The wise men, however many there were, found Jesus when He was about TWO YEARS OLD.
I'll refute the rest of this mess later. It's time to eat and pump iron!!!
-
McWay,
The Bible does give Jesus birthdate as 25th December... just indirectly.
The bright star that leads the three kings to Jesus is Sirius (the Dog Star) which is the brightest star in the night sky. The sun rises further and further along the horizon as the days get shorter leading up to the mid-winter solstice (December 21st), then suddenly the sun turns back and begins to gain strength (longer days).
The first day when a solar measurement will show this (one degree of reversal) is the 25th of December when the sun rises below Sirius at a point on the horizon indicated by the line of three stars known as the "Three Kings" or "Three Wise Men".
You just have to know the code to the allegory: Jesus is the sun, the story is an astrological allegory.
Seriously, isn't it suspicious that the Jebus story includes ALL these astrological symbols? In the correct order?
A virgin birth marked by a bright star and attended by "three wise men"? Come on guys...
The Luke
-
The only "original" thing that I can think of is his being named Jesus and being born in Nazareth.
-
The only "original" thing that I can think of is his being named Jesus and being born in Nazareth.
...he was born in Bethlehem.
A town which never existed (Beth-le-hem is Hebrew for "House Of Bread" a common name for the constellation Virgo) till it was built to cash in on the Christian pilgrim tourist trade in the fourth century.
The name: "Iesous" might be fictitious too... it's not Hebrew... and using gemmatria code the name adds to 888 the end line total for the Greek number coding... "I am the Alpha and the Omega" ie: the letters in my name sum to represent the gemmatria code block in Greek.
Lots of the godmen have names with numerical significance.
The Luke
-
...he was born in Bethlehem.
A town which never existed (Beth-le-hem is Hebrew for "House Of Bread" a common name for the constellation Virgo) till it was built to cash in on the Christian pilgrim tourist trade in the fourth century.
The name: "Iesous" might be fictitious too... it's not Hebrew... and using gemmatria code the name adds to 888 the end line total for the Greek number coding... "I am the Alpha and the Omega" ie: the letters in my name sum to represent the gemmatria code block in Greek.
Lots of the godmen have names with numerical significance.
The Luke
I believe that there have been other people named Jesus throughout history prior to Jesus of Nazareth.
Also, even though the bible says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, He was most likely born in Nazareth.
-
McWay,
The Bible does give Jesus birthdate as 25th December... just indirectly.
The chapter and verse that make this claim would be………
The bright star that leads the three kings to Jesus is Sirius (the Dog Star) which is the brightest star in the night sky. The sun rises further and further along the horizon as the days get shorter leading up to the mid-winter solstice (December 21st), then suddenly the sun turns back and begins to gain strength (longer days).
You don't read very well, at times. The guys that find Jesus are either WISE MEN or shepherds, who find Jesus about two years apart from each other. And once again, where is the chapter and verse that supposedly indirectly states that Jesus was born December 25th?
The first day when a solar measurement will show this (one degree of reversal) is the 25th of December when the sun rises below Sirius at a point on the horizon indicated by the line of three stars known as the "Three Kings" or "Three Wise Men".
You just have to know the code to the allegory: Jesus is the sun, the story is an astrological allegory.
Seriously, isn't it suspicious that the Jebus story includes ALL these astrological symbols? In the correct order?
A virgin birth marked by a bright star and attended by "three wise men"? Come on guys...
The Luke
AHHH!!!! Once again, you keep wailing about this "allegeory" or "mystery", without providing the specifics. And, what you repeatedly forget is that the Gospels DO NOT state that there were exactly "three kings". The term is "wise men" (magi) and there is NO INDICATION from Scripture that there exactly three of them.
Either provide the specifics, or cease with this foolishness.
OOPS!! I almost forgot. I must finish taking apart that list of yours. Let's see:
"- loses a shoe/foot/leg (Jebus has his feet washed)" - Are you smoking that sticky-icky? Getting your feet washed equals losing a leg or foot ???
"-betrayed to the tyrant by his brother/twin/lover/disciple" - One, how is Pilate the "tyrant"? Plus, you (or the source of this slapstick comedy) are reaching, trying to wedge generalities to make your story stick.
"-crucified (or similar variant)" - Sorry, chopping your nuts off and bleeding to death (Attis)/being dismembered (Osiris)/barbecued in the womb (Dionysus) is anything but being a "similar variant" to crucifixion. Since you can't seem to find this alleged "mystery religion" versions of their deaths (despite being asked to produce them MULTIPLE TIMES) I will default to the already-known forms of their demise, which of course, DOES NOT MATCH that Of Jesus, whatsoever.
"-placed back in a tomb" - Tombs are where DEAD folk get placed, genius. That's hardly a case for plagiarism.
"-rises from the dead after three days" - One of these days, you'll actually get off your blessed assurance and back your wacky assertions with some specifics, regarding which supposed "mystery religion" was the source for this alleged borrowing.
"-ascends into heaven" - You miss again, at least with regards to Osiris; he remains in the underworld, after his demise.
-
MCWAY is hardcore, all the way hardcore.
-
The chapter and verse that make this claim would be………
MCWAY,
haven't you learned? The Luke is the master of unsubstantiated claims. Just look at this whole thread. It's filled with "facts" he pulled out of his butt.
Mods here should consider doing what Hugo Chavez does on the politics board. If somebody makes bold claims without posting sources, he/she should get a warning, and after that their post should be deleted if they do not comply....just kidding. ;D
-
And my question has gone ignored. Even if the Jebus story were primarily original why does it get special privileges that the other absurd myths/stories do not; they are all ridiculous, why is this particular story more true or 'historically accurate' and others are not?
-
And my question has gone ignored. Even if the Jebus story were primarily original why does it get special privileges that the other absurd myths/stories do not; they are all ridiculous, why is this particular story more true or 'historically accurate' and others are not?
You just answered your own question, Deicide It's about being "historically accurate". The account of Jesus can boast that (despite pitiful claims to the contrary by certain atheists); the others can not.
But, the subject at hand was Luke claim that the account of Jesus Christ was borrowed from other "mystery religions".
Luke, however, has YET to give any specifics about the religions in question (i.e. the name of a particular one and what aspects were supposedly borrowed). To top it all off, his claims about the Jesus account itself and the allegedly borrowed similarities aren't even accurate (you'll notice that he's yet to produce the chapter and verse from Scripture that claims Jesus was born on Dec. 25).
-
You just answered your own question, Deicide It's about being "historically accurate". The account of Jesus can boast that (despite pitiful claims to the contrary by certain atheists); the others can not.
But, the subject at hand was Luke claim that the account of Jesus Christ was borrowed from other "mystery religions".
Luke, however, has YET to give any specifics about the religions in question (i.e. the name of a particular one and what aspects were supposedly borrowed). To top it all off, his claims about the Jesus account itself and the allegedly borrowed similarities aren't even accurate (you'll notice that he's yet to produce the chapter and verse from Scripture that claims Jesus was born on Dec. 25).
So in spite of all the miracles and fantastical claims (which were a dime a dozen in the ancient world), because they were written down in a book, they are true. Well Troy was a real city so I guess Achilles really did die by an arrow to the heel and Athena was pissed off about it.
-
i am simply here to learn. but Why was Jesus never mentioned in other historical texts. i dont want to interupt the flow of the conversation though. the story just doesnt make sense. and all the contradictions? plus the fact that it was written long after He died.
-
i am simply here to learn. but Why was Jesus never mentioned in other historical texts. i dont want to interupt the flow of the conversation though. the story just doesnt make sense. and all the contradictions? plus the fact that it was written long after He died.
Good questions. The times he is 'mentioned' it has been shown that these are Christian forgeries. Quite strange indeed...
-
Good questions. The times he is 'mentioned' it has been shown that these are Christian forgeries. Quite strange indeed...
in all honestly i always wondered why Jesus was never mentioned. if He could raise the dead, wouldnt other scholars have notated that? im not trying to be a jerk or anything.
i just enjoy reading these posts..on both sides thanks.
-
I didn't want to answer lists of points but I will (this once). Afterward perhaps we can go back to individual points (rather than McWay repeating all these points with his petty "na-ha"'s).
"- loses a shoe/foot/leg (Jebus has his feet washed)" - Are you smoking that sticky-icky? Getting your feet washed equals losing a leg or foot ???
...Once the godman has been revealed (or revealed himself to his disciples) as the "son of god" he is then usually represented as the constellation Orion (Osiris to the Egyptians, Hercules to the Greeks and Romans, Mithras to the Persians, Achilles to Macedonians and some older Greek traditions etc etc) for one pre-death chapter/story detailing his thirty third birthday... the first "son of god", Alexander the Great, died before his thirty fourth birthday, so the godman (or new "son of god") knows his time is short.
This story usually has some obvious references to folklore regarding the Orion constellation. Most notably, Orion usually has a female sexual consort: either his sister or mother, in some stories one woman fills both roles in an incestuous reproductive cycle of birth and rebirth. In the Jesus story there is some hint of this... Jesus mother is named Mary (after Mary Isis, the wife/mother of Horus... or sometimes the wife/mother of Osiris), as is Jesus' wife/consort/concubine/sister figure Mary Magdalene.
Mary Magdalene has many astrological roles in the Jesus story.
As Jesus' clandestine thirteenth disciple she represents the hidden thirteenth zodiac symbol Ophiccus (spelling?), which is used in the Northern European barbarian/Gallic lunar calendar (28 days x 13 lunar months = 364 days). As the female reproductive cycle is also linked to the moon she likewise fulfills the role of the lunar representation as the godman's (Jesus) wife: always following Jesus, usually involved in nocturnal activities (prostitution?). Sun and moon continuously entwined.
Other than having a lunar-deity/wife the only interesting thing about Orion is that the constellations "foot" dips below the horizon just before Easter.
-The Aztecs/Incas/Mayans/Toltecs knew Orion as the constellation deity Tezcatlpoca, who loses his foot.
-Perseus (originally a solar deity dying/resurrecting godman) loses his sandal
-Achilles (originally a solar deity dying/resurrecting godman) is killed by an arrow to the heel
Do we have a story in the canonical gospels in which Mary Magdalene does something involving Jesus' feet and which leads to Jesus revealing he may not be long for this world? Something that happens in the lead up to Easter?
Why does Jesus have his feet washed rather than being amputated? Because from Israel the Orion constellations "foot" is obscured by or dips into the sea rather than land/mountains... it's a matter of vantage point.
"-betrayed to the tyrant by his brother/twin/lover/disciple" - One, how is Pilate the "tyrant"? Plus, you (or the source of this slapstick comedy) are reaching, trying to wedge generalities to make your story stick.
...Pilate was a bastard of the highest order. His crowd control methods amounted to indiscriminately hacking member of the the uproarious mob to pieces. First century Jews hated him and considered him a tyrant: a representative of the tyrannical Roman authority that persecuted Christians under Caligula and Nero.
The earliest copies of the Book of Revelations (written during Caligula's pogroms) refer to "the number of the Beast" being the number of a man, and that number being 661... if you write out Gaius Ceasar (Caligula was only his nickname) in Greek, but treat the letters as numerals and add up all the figures it comes to 661, this is known as Gemmatria code and was common practice among Jewish Kabbalist mystics.
Later, during the reign of Nero, this number was changed to 666... if you write out Ceasar Nero (as he was known) in Greek, but treat the letters as numerals and add up all the figures it comes to 666, using Gemmatria code. Claudius openly tolerated Christians and dismissed their refusal to swear allegiance to him, his number is not in any extant copy of Revelations.
Later this was redeemed after the reign of Constantine, when a Gospel according to Pontias Pilate was written portraying Pilate as a sympathetic Christian believer forced to order Christ's death in order to fulfill prophecy... similar to the predicament of a heroic Judas in the Gospel of Judas. But whereas the Judas Gospel is a deep metaphysical thesis on the dual nature of the soul as both corporeal and ethereal entity, the Pilate Gospel in just plain pandering to the Roman base.
You fundies should try reading it, it's provenance is just as good as any of the canonical gospels... and it's a laugh riot!
"-crucified (or similar variant)" - Sorry, chopping your nuts off and bleeding to death (Attis)/being dismembered (Osiris)/barbecued in the womb (Dionysus) is anything but being a "similar variant" to crucifixion. Since you can't seem to find this alleged "mystery religion" versions of their deaths (despite being asked to produce them MULTIPLE TIMES) I will default to the already-known forms of their demise, which of course, DOES NOT MATCH that Of Jesus, whatsoever.
...The solar deity version of Attis is NAILED TO A TREE (representing the constellation of The Southern Cross) and is castrated so he bleeds to death.
Osiris is indeed dismembered... cut into 72 pieces if I remember correctly (by the evil tyrant Sett) which is an important astrological number as the precession of the equinoxes backwards through the zodiac progresses (regresses?) by one degree every 72 years (actually now known to be 71.8 years). But it is the method of dismemberment that you forgot; he's quartered. Nailed up on a rack or tree and chopped into pieces which are then scattered to the four cardinal points: north, south, east and west... represented by the constellation of The Southern Cross.
"-placed back in a tomb" - Tombs are where DEAD folk get placed, genius. That's hardly a case for plagiarism.
...Most poor people are simply buried, and most would be burned in that climate (Jews are buried). Only the rich are placed in a tomb.
Isn't there a big deal made in the gospels about Jesus being placed specifically in a TOMB?
Isn't this always what happens to solar deities? The sun sets further and further down the horizon as it dies (shorter days) setting in an area of sky devoid of stars, known to the ancients as either the "cave" or the "tomb".
This is common to dozens of solar deities all over the world... three days setting in the "cave" or "tomb" only to rise again and be reborn (ie: sun gets stronger).
"-rises from the dead after three days" - One of these days, you'll actually get off your blessed assurance and back your wacky assertions with some specifics, regarding which supposed "mystery religion" was the source for this alleged borrowing.
...I already answered this point: it's an astrological allegory just like the rest of the Jesus story.
Regarding a source... well that might be tricky. I'm more of a mystery enthusiast than a Google-Fu Blackbelt like my opponents here. So it's probably best (and faster) if I let them do the searching.
When he came to power, the Roman Emperor Constantine (a habitual murderer now a canonised saint in the catholic firmament) attempted to harness the burgeoning popularity of newfangled "common man" versions of the Mystery Religion (which offered salvation to ALL those initiated into the Mystery Religion, not just the moneyed donors) by instigating Mithraism as the state religion.
Mithraism (based on the Persian Jesus known as Mithras) was wildly popular among the pagan citizenry of the Roman Empire (especially among legionaries) and offered Constantine (an amoral atheistic alchemist himself) huge sway over the ignorant plebs (and military) if he could institute himself as the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of an empire-wide Church of Mithras.
It didn't work... Constantine thought everyone would accept Mithraism as in his eyes all the solar deity Mystery Religion gods were interchangeable... the populace, mostly ignorant of such symbolism, thought differently.
19 years later he tried again, instituting the Cult of Sol Invictus (the Invincible Sun) as the state religion and declaring himself both "Son of God" and Pontifex Maximus (which is still the Catholic Pope's official title to this day). A religion that openly equated/accepted all other versions of the solar deity (dying resurrecting godman) as interchangeable with their own.
Romans (even the previously suppressed Christians) would be free to worship whichever "facet" of Sol Invictus they preferred... any of the dozens of gods:
-born on 25th December to a virgin
-who were attended/recognized by three kings
-who was wise at an early age
-who was baptised in a river (the Milky Way)
-who chose 12 disciples
-who had a secret wife/consort/discipline
-who performed miracles
-who raised the dead
-who was crucified
-who was buried in a cave
-who rose from the dead after 3 days
(ALL of which are astrological metaphors/allegories)
...so long as they accepted that their particular dying/resurrecting godman was merely an aspect of the generalized Sol Invictus (and thereby recognized Constantine as their religious/secular authority) their beliefs were granted state protection (or at least state tolerance).
In the ensuing centuries the Catholic Church rewrote the history books to re-envision Constantine as the first Holy Roman Emperor... total bullshit.
If you are interested in reading more about the Mystery Religion then look up "The Cult of Sol Invictus", as a composite faith amalgamated from the many and various pre-Christian Mystery Schools it is the best place to start your research. Alternatively, authors Gandy and Freke have written an excellent academic treatise on the Jesus Myth "The Jesus Mysteries" (dismissed by true believers because it is so very convincing). Or perhaps Google the phrase "Christs before Christ".
If you are interested in reading about how the founding Church Fathers (Ireneaus, Eusebius etc) openly admitted that several pre-Christian Mystery Religion gods were substantively indistinguishable from Jesus, then simply research the "Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry". A doctrine, which, though patently laughably absurd is still the Church's official position.
If you want to read about how Christians rewrote history and burned books in an attempt to eradicate the Mystery Religions and co-opt Constantine as the founder of institutionalized Christianity, then look-up the phrase: "Donation of Constantine"... that's a good place to start.
"-ascends into heaven" - You miss again, at least with regards to Osiris; he remains in the underworld, after his demise.
...Actually I think you might be right here McWay. Didn't the Egyptians split their solar-deity dying/resurrecting godman deal into two generations?
Osiris doesn't assume bodily into heaven... my mistuke... it's his son, Horus the miracle child, who mimics just about every detail of the Jesus story thousands of years before Christ.
You got me... my bad.
The Luke
PS... short posts people, so I can give short answers... please.
-
I didn't want to answer lists of points but I will (this once). Afterward perhaps we can go back to individual points (rather than McWay repeating all these points with his petty "na-ha"'s).
...Once the godman has been revealed (or revealed himself to his disciples) as the "son of god" he is then usually represented as the constellation Orion (Osiris to the Egyptians, Hercules to the Greeks and Romans, Mithras to the Persians, Achilles to Macedonians and some older Greek traditions etc etc) for one pre-death chapter/story detailing his thirty third birthday... the first "son of god", Alexander the Great, died before his thirty fourth birthday, so the godman (or new "son of god") knows his time is short.
This story usually has some obvious references to folklore regarding the Orion constellation. Most notably, Orion usually has a female sexual consort: either his sister or mother, in some stories one woman fills both roles in an incestuous reproductive cycle of birth and rebirth. In the Jesus story there is some hint of this... Jesus mother is named Mary (after Mary Isis, the wife/mother of Horus... or sometimes the wife/mother of Osiris), as is Jesus' wife/consort/concubine/sister figure Mary Magdalene.
Mary Magdalene has many astrological roles in the Jesus story.
As Jesus' clandestine thirteenth disciple she represents the hidden thirteenth zodiac symbol Ophiccus (spelling?), which is used in the Northern European barbarian/Gallic lunar calendar (28 days x 13 lunar months = 364 days). As the female reproductive cycle is also linked to the moon she likewise fulfills the role of the lunar representation as the godman's (Jesus) wife: always following Jesus, usually involved in nocturnal activities (prostitution?). Sun and moon continuously entwined.
Other than having a lunar-deity/wife the only interesting thing about Orion is that the constellations "foot" dips below the horizon just before Easter.
-The Aztecs/Incas/Mayans/Toltecs knew Orion as the constellation deity Tezcatlpoca, who loses his foot.
-Perseus (originally a solar deity dying/resurrecting godman) loses his sandal
-Achilles (originally a solar deity dying/resurrecting godman) is killed by an arrow to the heel
Do we have a story in the canonical gospels in which Mary Magdalene does something involving Jesus' feet and which leads to Jesus revealing he may not be long for this world? Something that happens in the lead up to Easter?
Why does Jesus have his feet washed rather than being amputated? Because from Israel the Orion constellations "foot" is obscured by or dips into the sea rather than land/mountains... it's a matter of vantage point.
...Pilate was a bastard of the highest order. His crowd control methods amounted to indiscriminately hacking member of the the uproarious mob to pieces. First century Jews hated him and considered him a tyrant: a representative of the tyrannical Roman authority that persecuted Christians under Caligula and Nero.
The earliest copies of the Book of Revelations (written during Caligula's pogroms) refer to "the number of the Beast" being the number of a man, and that number being 661... if you write out Gaius Ceasar (Caligula was only his nickname) in Greek, but treat the letters as numerals and add up all the figures it comes to 661, this is known as Gemmatria code and was common practice among Jewish Kabbalist mystics.
Later, during the reign of Nero, this number was changed to 666... if you write out Ceasar Nero (as he was known) in Greek, but treat the letters as numerals and add up all the figures it comes to 666, using Gemmatria code. Claudius openly tolerated Christians and dismissed their refusal to swear allegiance to him, his number is not in any extant copy of Revelations.
Later this was redeemed after the reign of Constantine, when a Gospel according to Pontias Pilate was written portraying Pilate as a sympathetic Christian believer forced to order Christ's death in order to fulfill prophecy... similar to the predicament of a heroic Judas in the Gospel of Judas. But whereas the Judas Gospel is a deep metaphysical thesis on the dual nature of the soul as both corporeal and ethereal entity, the Pilate Gospel in just plain pandering to the Roman base.
You fundies should try reading it, it's provenance is just as good as any of the canonical gospels... and it's a laugh riot!
...The solar deity version of Attis is NAILED TO A TREE (representing the constellation of The Southern Cross) and is castrated so he bleeds to death.
Osiris is indeed dismembered... cut into 72 pieces if I remember correctly (by the evil tyrant Sett) which is an important astrological number as the precession of the equinoxes backwards through the zodiac progresses (regresses?) by one degree every 72 years (actually now known to be 71.8 years). But it is the method of dismemberment that you forgot; he's quartered. Nailed up on a rack or tree and chopped into pieces which are then scattered to the four cardinal points: north, south, east and west... represented by the constellation of The Southern Cross.
...Most poor people are simply buried, and most would be burned in that climate (Jews are buried). Only the rich are placed in a tomb.
Isn't there a big deal made in the gospels about Jesus being placed specifically in a TOMB?
Isn't this always what happens to solar deities? The sun sets further and further down the horizon as it dies (shorter days) setting in an area of sky devoid of stars, known to the ancients as either the "cave" or the "tomb".
This is common to dozens of solar deities all over the world... three days setting in the "cave" or "tomb" only to rise again and be reborn (ie: sun gets stronger).
...I already answered this point: it's an astrological allegory just like the rest of the Jesus story.
Regarding a source... well that might be tricky. I'm more of a mystery enthusiast than a Google-Fu Blackbelt like my opponents here. So it's probably best (and faster) if I let them do the searching.
When he came to power, the Roman Emperor Constantine (a habitual murderer now a canonised saint in the catholic firmament) attempted to harness the burgeoning popularity of newfangled "common man" versions of the Mystery Religion (which offered salvation to ALL those initiated into the Mystery Religion, not just the moneyed donors) by instigating Mithraism as the state religion.
Mithraism (based on the Persian Jesus known as Mithras) was wildly popular among the pagan citizenry of the Roman Empire (especially among legionaries) and offered Constantine (an amoral atheistic alchemist himself) huge sway over the ignorant plebs (and military) if he could institute himself as the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of an empire-wide Church of Mithras.
It didn't work... Constantine thought everyone would accept Mithraism as in his eyes all the solar deity Mystery Religion gods were interchangeable... the populace, mostly ignorant of such symbolism, thought differently.
19 years later he tried again, instituting the Cult of Sol Invictus (the Invincible Sun) as the state religion and declaring himself both "Son of God" and Pontifex Maximus (which is still the Catholic Pope's official title to this day). A religion that openly equated/accepted all other versions of the solar deity (dying resurrecting godman) as interchangeable with their own.
Romans (even the previously suppressed Christians) would be free to worship whichever "facet" of Sol Invictus they preferred... any of the dozens of gods:
-born on 25th December to a virgin
-who were attended/recognized by three kings
-who was wise at an early age
-who was baptised in a river (the Milky Way)
-who chose 12 disciples
-who had a secret wife/consort/discipline
-who performed miracles
-who raised the dead
-who was crucified
-who was buried in a cave
-who rose from the dead after 3 days
(ALL of which are astrological metaphors/allegories)
...so long as they accepted that their particular dying/resurrecting godman was merely an aspect of the generalized Sol Invictus (and thereby recognized Constantine as their religious/secular authority) their beliefs were granted state protection (or at least state tolerance).
In the ensuing centuries the Catholic Church rewrote the history books to re-envision Constantine as the first Holy Roman Emperor... total bullshit.
If you are interested in reading more about the Mystery Religion then look up "The Cult of Sol Invictus", as a composite faith amalgamated from the many and various pre-Christian Mystery Schools it is the best place to start your research. Alternatively, authors Gandy and Freke have written an excellent academic treatise on the Jesus Myth "The Jesus Mysteries" (dismissed by true believers because it is so very convincing). Or perhaps Google the phrase "Christs before Christ".
If you are interested in reading about how the founding Church Fathers (Ireneaus, Eusebius etc) openly admitted that several pre-Christian Mystery Religion gods were substantively indistinguishable from Jesus, then simply research the "Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry". A doctrine, which, though patently laughably absurd is still the Church's official position.
If you want to read about how Christians rewrote history and burned books in an attempt to eradicate the Mystery Religions and co-opt Constantine as the founder of institutionalized Christianity, then look-up the phrase: "Donation of Constantine"... that's a good place to start.
...Actually I think you might be right here McWay. Didn't the Egyptians split their solar-deity dying/resurrecting godman deal into two generations?
Osiris doesn't assume bodily into heaven... my mistuke... it's his son, Horus the miracle child, who mimics just about every detail of the Jesus story thousands of years before Christ.
You got me... my bad.
The Luke
PS... short posts people, so I can give short answers... please.
Like I said: Bob Price nails it rather concisely.
-
Like I said: Bob Price nails it rather concisely.
Would it be fair to say that most highly intelligent people are not religious?
-
Would it be a fair to say that most highly intelligent people are not religious?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Thought so...
-
Thought so...
Hardcore, all the way hardcore...
-
Hardcore, all the way hardcore...
I do what i can...
-
I do what i can...
Damn hardcore... :o
-
Damn hardcore... :o
and great genetics. Hard core, great genetics, things are good in the world of webcke.
-
and great genetics. Hard core, great genetics, things are good in the world of webcke.
Exactly, hardcore.
-
Would it be fair to say that most highly intelligent people are not religious?
Depends on what you call religious.
Many of the greatest thinkers of all time called themselves religious.
...yes I know I'm hardcore...
-
Many of the greatest thinkers of all time called themselves religious.
...name one.
The Luke
-
Depends on what you call religious.
Many of the greatest thinkers of all time called themselves religious.
...yes I know I'm hardcore...
Wow...hardcore.
-
...name one.
The Luke
Are you serious? How about Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Thomas von Aquin, Kierkegaard for starters? They all criticized certain aspects of religion of course, but in a philosophic way, 1000 times beyond the reductionistic nonsense of the atheistic simpletons like Dawkins etc.
-
Are you serious? How about Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Thomas von Aquin, Kierkegaard for starters? They all criticized certain aspects of religion of course, but in a philosophic way, 1000 times beyond the reductionistic nonsense of the atheistic simpletons like Dawkins etc.
We say Aquinus in English; so hardcore.
-
Are you serious? How about Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Thomas von Aquin, Kierkegaard for starters? They all criticized certain aspects of religion of course, but in a philosophic way, 1000 times beyond the reductionistic nonsense of the atheistic simpletons like Dawkins etc.
what descartes was wrong about most of what he said, thomas aquinas proofs of god are terrible and easily refuted.
nothing cannot create something therefore something always existed which is its essence to exist bing bang boom its god. thomas aquinas.
-
I didn't want to answer lists of points but I will (this once). Afterward perhaps we can go back to individual points (rather than McWay repeating all these points with his petty "na-ha"'s).
...Once the godman has been revealed (or revealed himself to his disciples) as the "son of god" he is then usually represented as the constellation Orion (Osiris to the Egyptians, Hercules to the Greeks and Romans, Mithras to the Persians, Achilles to Macedonians and some older Greek traditions etc etc) for one pre-death chapter/story detailing his thirty third birthday... the first "son of god", Alexander the Great, died before his thirty fourth birthday, so the godman (or new "son of god") knows his time is short.
Problem is, once again, Osiris NEVER LEAVES the underworld. That's where he is when Isis does the wild thing with him (in falcon form).
This story usually has some obvious references to folklore regarding the Orion constellation. Most notably, Orion usually has a female sexual consort: either his sister or mother, in some stories one woman fills both roles in an incestuous reproductive cycle of birth and rebirth. In the Jesus story there is some hint of this... Jesus mother is named Mary (after Mary Isis, the wife/mother of Horus... or sometimes the wife/mother of Osiris), as is Jesus' wife/consort/concubine/sister figure Mary Magdalene.
Love the slashes. It's your feeble attempt to piece your claims together. There is no incestuous or sexual relationship involving Jesus Christ. Unlike Attis, Jesus doesn't lust after his own mama. Furthermore, (and I don't know how many times this has to be said) Mary Magdalene ain't Jesus' wife or sister or concubine.
Mary Magdalene has many astrological roles in the Jesus story.
As Jesus' clandestine thirteenth disciple she represents the hidden thirteenth zodiac symbol Ophiccus (spelling?), which is used in the Northern European barbarian/Gallic lunar calendar (28 days x 13 lunar months = 364 days). As the female reproductive cycle is also linked to the moon she likewise fulfills the role of the lunar representation as the godman's (Jesus) wife: always following Jesus, usually involved in nocturnal activities (prostitution?). Sun and moon continuously entwined.
You miss again. First, NOWHERE in Scripture is Mary Mags called a "disciple". Second the "13th disiciple", as it were, was Matthias, the guy that replaced Judas.
And, as mentioned before, Jesus wasn't married to Mary Mags and had no sexual relations with her, whatsoever. So, all that gibberish you just posted above here is quite moot.
Other than having a lunar-deity/wife the only interesting thing about Orion is that the constellations "foot" dips below the horizon just before Easter.
-The Aztecs/Incas/Mayans/Toltecs knew Orion as the constellation deity Tezcatlpoca, who loses his foot.
-Perseus (originally a solar deity dying/resurrecting godman) loses his sandal
-Achilles (originally a solar deity dying/resurrecting godman) is killed by an arrow to the heel
And??? None of that has a blessed thing to do with Jesus Christ. One, Jesus doesn't lose his foot or his sandal; nor is he shot in the foot. He was getting his feet washed. It's a TAD easier to do that, when you have your shoes OFF.
You (and/or the authors of the book from which you got this foolishness) are STRECTHING. Even by normal skeptic standards, this is pitiful.
Do we have a story in the canonical gospels in which Mary Magdalene does something involving Jesus' feet and which leads to Jesus revealing he may not be long for this world? Something that happens in the lead up to Easter?
It's called washing his feet. And, last time I checked, Jewish people removed their sandals, before entering someone's house.
Why does Jesus have his feet washed rather than being amputated? Because from Israel the Orion constellations "foot" is obscured by or dips into the sea rather than land/mountains... it's a matter of vantage point.
Yep, people prefer having their feet washed, WHILE THOSE FEET ARE STILL ATTACHED TO THEIR LEGS!!!
...Pilate was a bastard of the highest order. His crowd control methods amounted to indiscriminately hacking member of the the uproarious mob to pieces. First century Jews hated him and considered him a tyrant: a representative of the tyrannical Roman authority that persecuted Christians under Caligula and Nero.
The earliest copies of the Book of Revelations (written during Caligula's pogroms) refer to "the number of the Beast" being the number of a man, and that number being 661... if you write out Gaius Ceasar (Caligula was only his nickname) in Greek, but treat the letters as numerals and add up all the figures it comes to 661, this is known as Gemmatria code and was common practice among Jewish Kabbalist mystics.
Later, during the reign of Nero, this number was changed to 666... if you write out Ceasar Nero (as he was known) in Greek, but treat the letters as numerals and add up all the figures it comes to 666, using Gemmatria code. Claudius openly tolerated Christians and dismissed their refusal to swear allegiance to him, his number is not in any extant copy of Revelations.
Later this was redeemed after the reign of Constantine, when a Gospel according to Pontias Pilate was written portraying Pilate as a sympathetic Christian believer forced to order Christ's death in order to fulfill prophecy... similar to the predicament of a heroic Judas in the Gospel of Judas. But whereas the Judas Gospel is a deep metaphysical thesis on the dual nature of the soul as both corporeal and ethereal entity, the Pilate Gospel in just plain pandering to the Roman base.
You fundies should try reading it, it's provenance is just as good as any of the canonical gospels... and it's a laugh riot!
The problem with that spiel is that much of the prophecies, mentioned in Revelation DO NOT get fulfilled during Nero's time or that of Caesar. All the plagues that are to hit the Earth prior to the return of Christ don't happen during those time period. So, the "666" figure doesn't apply to either of those men.
...The solar deity version of Attis is NAILED TO A TREE (representing the constellation of The Southern Cross) and is castrated so he bleeds to death.
WRONG!!! Attis chops his own nuts off and bleeds to death (perhaps under a tree). That tree, or a log from another one, is used to carry off his ALREADY-DEAD body.
What you also conveniently forget was that crucifixion was one of Rome's preferred ways of executing people. That has NOTHING to do with Attis.
Osiris is indeed dismembered... cut into 72 pieces if I remember correctly (by the evil tyrant Sett) which is an important astrological number as the precession of the equinoxes backwards through the zodiac progresses (regresses?) by one degree every 72 years (actually now known to be 71.8 years). But it is the method of dismemberment that you forgot; he's quartered. Nailed up on a rack or tree and chopped into pieces which are then scattered to the four cardinal points: north, south, east and west... represented by the constellation of The Southern Cross.
Unfortunately for your take, Jesus wasn't dismembered AT ALL. In fact, that's part of the Messianic prophecies (His body would NOT be broken). When the Jews asked that the crucified victims be taken down off their crossed before the Sabbath, the guards break the legs of the thieves to speed up their death. But, they don't break Jesus' legs, because He was already dead. One skeptical guard stabs Him in the side, however, to ensure that He is deceased. But, there's no dismemberment involved, PERIOD.
...Most poor people are simply buried, and most would be burned in that climate (Jews are buried). Only the rich are placed in a tomb.
Isn't there a big deal made in the gospels about Jesus being placed specifically in a TOMB?
I suggest you brush up on your Bible reading. Joseph of Arimthea asked Pilate for custody of Jesus' body and placed it in his own tomb. As for it being a "big deal", that would likely be in relation to that tomb being sealed and guarded to ensure that the disciples didn't steal Jesus' body. The Pharisees feared that would happen and the disciples would claim that Jesus rose from the dead.
...I already answered this point: it's an astrological allegory just like the rest of the Jesus story.
Regarding a source... well that might be tricky. I'm more of a mystery enthusiast than a Google-Fu Blackbelt like my opponents here. So it's probably best (and faster) if I let them do the searching.
In other words, you can't back your claims with actual legitimate references.
When he came to power, the Roman Emperor Constantine (a habitual murderer now a canonised saint in the catholic firmament) attempted to harness the burgeoning popularity of newfangled "common man" versions of the Mystery Religion (which offered salvation to ALL those initiated into the Mystery Religion, not just the moneyed donors) by instigating Mithraism as the state religion.
Mithraism (based on the Persian Jesus known as Mithras) was wildly popular among the pagan citizenry of the Roman Empire (especially among legionaries) and offered Constantine (an amoral atheistic alchemist himself) huge sway over the ignorant plebs (and military) if he could institute himself as the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of an empire-wide Church of Mithras.
It didn't work... Constantine thought everyone would accept Mithraism as in his eyes all the solar deity Mystery Religion gods were interchangeable... the populace, mostly ignorant of such symbolism, thought differently.
19 years later he tried again, instituting the Cult of Sol Invictus (the Invincible Sun) as the state religion and declaring himself both "Son of God" and Pontifex Maximus (which is still the Catholic Pope's official title to this day). A religion that openly equated/accepted all other versions of the solar deity (dying resurrecting godman) as interchangeable with their own.
And NONE of this indicates that the account of Jesus Christ was borrowed from these other so-called "mystery religions". If anything, the opposite occured. The aspects of the Christian faith were grafted onto these other celebrations.
Romans (even the previously suppressed Christians) would be free to worship whichever "facet" of Sol Invictus they preferred... any of the dozens of gods:
-born on 25th December to a virgin
-who were attended/recognized by three kings
-who was wise at an early age
-who was baptised in a river (the Milky Way)
-who chose 12 disciples
-who had a secret wife/consort/discipline
-who performed miracles
-who raised the dead
-who was crucified
-who was buried in a cave
-who rose from the dead after 3 days
(ALL of which are astrological metaphors/allegories)
...so long as they accepted that their particular dying/resurrecting godman was merely an aspect of the generalized Sol Invictus (and thereby recognized Constantine as their religious/secular authority) their beliefs were granted state protection (or at least state tolerance).
That reminds me. You still have yet to back your claim, regarding the Bible citing the date of Jesus' birth as December 25th (or any date from the Hebrew calendar, corresponding to Dec. 25).
For that matter, you also have yet to show in Scripture where exactly three magi/wise men find Jesus.
Mary Magdelene is not identified as Jesus' wife.
John 19:25-27:Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
A married man's top priority is his WIFE, not his mother ("For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife....." With Jesus' death, the priority of care would gone to Mary Magdalene, NOT Jesus' mother, had Mags been Mrs. Christ.
As for crucifixion, Horus, Dionysus, Attis, and others from that list DO NOT DIE IN THAT MANNER.
In the ensuing centuries the Catholic Church rewrote the history books to re-envision Constantine as the first Holy Roman Emperor... total bullshit.
If you are interested in reading more about the Mystery Religion then look up "The Cult of Sol Invictus", as a composite faith amalgamated from the many and various pre-Christian Mystery Schools it is the best place to start your research. Alternatively, authors Gandy and Freke have written an excellent academic treatise on the Jesus Myth "The Jesus Mysteries" (dismissed by true believers because it is so very convincing). Or perhaps Google the phrase "Christs before Christ".
It's dismissed by true believers, because it's been shown to be utterly ridiculous and has been soundly refuted REPEATEDLY!!!
If you are interested in reading about how the founding Church Fathers (Ireneaus, Eusebius etc) openly admitted that several pre-Christian Mystery Religion gods were substantively indistinguishable from Jesus, then simply research the "Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry". A doctrine, which, though patently laughably absurd is still the Church's official position.
If you want to read about how Christians rewrote history and burned books in an attempt to eradicate the Mystery Religions and co-opt Constantine as the founder of institutionalized Christianity, then look-up the phrase: "Donation of Constantine"... that's a good place to start.
I've researched them, already. Again, that's why refuting these claims of yours takes little effort on my part.
...Actually I think you might be right here McWay. Didn't the Egyptians split their solar-deity dying/resurrecting godman deal into two generations?
Osiris doesn't assume bodily into heaven... my mistuke... it's his son, Horus the miracle child, who mimics just about every detail of the Jesus story thousands of years before Christ.
You got me... my bad.
The Luke
PS... short posts people, so I can give short answers... please.
Horus wasn't born of a virgin. His mama had sex with Osiris in the underworld.
-
what descartes was wrong about most of what he said, thomas aquinas proofs of god are terrible and easily refuted.
nothing cannot create something therefore something always existed which is its essence to exist bing bang boom its god. thomas aquinas.
I agree with your statement about Descartes actually, and of course everything can be discussed philosophically.
Just not on the feeble level of scientific positivism.
Still all of those people would be considered great thinkers, at least of their time.
-
McWay,
You're not convincing anyone. (But I think I might be)
Isis isn't a virgin because she had sex with Osiris in the underworld?
Well the ancients didn't think so, so far as I remember Osiris is killed before he and Isis consummate their relationship... hence the version of Isis that travels to the underworld to seek out Osiris is referred to as Mary Isis, the virgin. Seems sex with a ghost doesn't really count.
Mary Magdalene isn't Jesus' wife?
Read between the lines fundie! The wedding at Canae is the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (rightful heir of the House of David uniting with an end-of-dynasty female last member of the Royal House of Macabees... in accordance with prophecy).
Mary (virgin mother) tells Jesus that there is no wine left for the guests at the wedding. Why? Because in the Jewish tradition the grooms mother is responsible for providing the wedding reception. Granted, some of the explicit details have been redacted and rewritten, but there is still enough there to know how the story originally went. The thirty or so dying/resurrecting godmen preceding Jesus also provided a good blueprint.
You also claim Mary Magdalene wasn't the secret disciple representative of the moon/Venus/Ophiccus?
If only there were some source document that could shed some light on this...?
Would the Gospel of Mary Magdalene suffice?
Read it dude. Again, like the Gospels of Pontius Pilate and Judas, it's provenance is the equal of any of the canonical gospels (possibly 60 AD).
Other hints that the Magdalene is Mrs Jesus (canonical gospels):
-she washes Jesus' feet; something only a wife may do. An unmarried Jewish woman certainly wouldn't do this with an unmarried Jewish man.
-she travels to the tomb to anoint/wash Jesus' body. Only a wife or mother is permitted to do this.
-she is the first witness to the risen Jesus and asks the Magdalene not to "embrace" him.
-the wedding at Canae is hinted as being Jesus' wedding.
-she never leaves Jesus side, but stays with the Virgin Mary and Christ till the bitter end.
Other hints that the Magdalene is Mrs Jesus (from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene):
-Jesus keeps kissing her
-Jesus explains secret doctrines of faith to her he doesn't share with the other disciples
-she handles the groups money
-immediately after the crucifixion she heads the disciples till the misogynistic Peter ousts her (that's when Mattias joins up)
-she escapes to France after the crucifixion taking the Virgin Mary with her
-she carries on Jesus ministry in France
-she is carried into heaven each day by angels to have sex with Jesus
The rest of your arguments are patently ludicrous... you're just splitting hairs again and again. There is a definite pattern of coincidence among all the dying/resurrecting godmen... once you understand that the stories are merely astrological allegories (explained by code keys in a revelatory manner) then the coincidences become obvious congruences.
You argue that these congruences might well have been grafted FROM the "original" Jesus story... that's Dubya dumb! Early Church Fathers (living at the time) openly admitted these coincidences in their writings and openly admitted these stories predated the Jesus myth (research the Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry). The first celebration of Easter occurred in 2,400 BC... except Mithras was Da Jesus then.
I don't think you are dumb enough to really believe the silly illogical arguments you are making here... I think rather that you WANT to believe what you believe SO BADLY that you view all the evidence with a preconceived conclusion: you believe the canonical Gospels to be literally true and so any evidence to the contrary must therefore be wrong. A preconceived conclusion
No impartial observer would support such weak arguments... or so selectively choose which points to dismiss and which points to attack.
The Luke
-
what descartes was wrong about most of what he said, thomas aquinas proofs of god are terrible and easily refuted.
nothing cannot create something therefore something always existed which is its essence to exist bing bang boom its god. thomas aquinas.
I agree with you but you have to understand the Spectre; he believes that mental masturbation of the philosophical sort has some inherent value in and of itself and although leading to no answers o any sort, it should be done simply for the sake of it being done.
-
I agree with you but you have to understand the Spectre; he believes that mental masturbation of the philosophical sort has some inherent value in and of itself and although leading to no answers o any sort, it should be done simply for the sake of it being done.
It's like bodybuilding, repetition after repetition.
Some people like to repeat rather than advance further.
-
It's like bodybuilding, repetition after repetition.
Some people like to repeat rather than advance further.
That's not a good analogy; in fact it is idiotic. Progression in matters of bodybuilding and matters of thought have little to do with each other.
Still hardcore though.
-
McWay,
You're not convincing anyone. (But I think I might be)
Wishful thinking on your part.
As I said initially, your "challenge" is anything but that.
Isis isn't a virgin because she had sex with Osiris in the underworld?
Yep. Having sex tends to disqualify you from virgin status.
Well the ancients didn't think so, so far as I remember Osiris is killed before he and Isis consummate their relationship... hence the version of Isis that travels to the underworld to seek out Osiris is referred to as Mary Isis, the virgin. Seems sex with a ghost doesn't really count.
Virgins are those who haven't had sex, period. Unless you can produce this "phantom clause" for getting your freak on, Isis remains a NON-VIRGIN.
Mary Magdalene isn't Jesus' wife?
Read between the lines fundie! The wedding at Canae is the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (rightful heir of the House of David uniting with an end-of-dynasty female last member of the Royal House of Macabees... in accordance with prophecy).
Mary (virgin mother) tells Jesus that there is no wine left for the guests at the wedding. Why? Because in the Jewish tradition the grooms mother is responsible for providing the wedding reception. Granted, some of the explicit details have been redacted and rewritten, but there is still enough there to know how the story originally went. The thirty or so dying/resurrecting godmen preceding Jesus also provided a good blueprint.
Try reading, PERIOD!!! You can start with the Gospel of John, chapter 2.
On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
Why exactly would Jesus need to be called TO HIS OWN WEDDING, genius??
Jesus charged John with the care of His mother. Why? Because the oldest UNMARRIED son was head of his household and care for the mother and younger siblings. If Mary Mags were Jesus' wife, His first priority would be providing for HER, not His mother.
And, nowhere does it indicate that the Cana wedding is that of Christ. He repeatedly stated that His kingdom was not of this world. Hence, He had no need for a family (that is, a wife or kids).
And, to top it all off, Mary was no longer a "virgin mother", has Jesus has four brothers and at least two sisters. You forgot that little detail. "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days."- John 2:12
You also claim Mary Magdalene wasn't the secret disciple representative of the moon/Venus/Ophiccus?
If only there were some source document that could shed some light on this...?
Would the Gospel of Mary Magdalene suffice?
Read it dude. Again, like the Gospels of Pontius Pilate and Judas, it's provenance is the equal of any of the canonical gospels (possibly 60 AD).
Other hints that the Magdalene is Mrs Jesus (canonical gospels):
-she washes Jesus' feet; something only a wife may do. An unmarried Jewish woman certainly wouldn't do this with an unmarried Jewish man.
-she travels to the tomb to anoint/wash Jesus' body. Only a wife or mother is permitted to do this.
-she is the first witness to the risen Jesus and asks the Magdalene not to "embrace" him.
-the wedding at Canae is hinted as being Jesus' wedding.
-she never leaves Jesus side, but stays with the Virgin Mary and Christ till the bitter end.
Wrong, on several counts.
1) While Mags was washing Jesus' feet, she is criticized by Simeon for being a sinful woman.
Luke 7:37-40
And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him]weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe [them] with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
They knew that Mags was NOT Jesus' wife, otherwise they wouldn't have referred to her as "what manner of woman" and a "sinner" .
2) Mary Mags and Jesus' mother weren't the only ones who went to the tomb.
Mark 16:1-3
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first [day] of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
In other words, (as the other Gospels verify and notwithstanding that Mags wasn't Jesus' wife) at least THREE women went to the tomb to finish the preparation of Jesus' body.
3) Nothing "hints" that the Cana wedding is that of Jesus, as no one would need to call Him to his own wedding. Furthermore, the governor of the feasts calls an unnamed groom and credits him, not Jesus, for providing the best-tasting wine.
4) See John, regarding the charge to care for Jesus' mother.
Other hints that the Magdalene is Mrs Jesus (from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene):
-Jesus keeps kissing her
-Jesus explains secret doctrines of faith to her he doesn't share with the other disciples
-she handles the groups money
-immediately after the crucifixion she heads the disciples till the misogynistic Peter ousts her (that's when Mattias joins up)
-she escapes to France after the crucifixion taking the Virgin Mary with her
-she carries on Jesus ministry in France
-she is carried into heaven each day by angels to have sex with Jesus
The canonical Gospels, as well as extra-Biblical writings carve these old claims to pieces:
- Judas carries the money for the group. John 12:4-6
- Peter was named BY JESUS HIMSELF as the leader of the disiciples, post-Resurrection and ascension;
- Mary isn't a virgin at that point (Jesus has four brothers: James, Juda, Simon, Joses, and at least two unamed sisters; see Mark 6:3).
The rest is fodder for the Da Vinci code, long dissected and dismissed by traditional Biblical scholars.
The rest of your arguments are patently ludicrous... you're just splitting hairs again and again. There is a definite pattern of coincidence among all the dying/resurrecting godmen... once you understand that the stories are merely astrological allegories (explained by code keys in a revelatory manner) then the coincidences become obvious congruences.
You ask for one major difference. I've named several. But, since your Geke and Fandy book can't provide you with the goods, you resort to making lame excuses for your inability to produce the goods.
You argue that these congruences might well have been grafted FROM the "original" Jesus story... that's Dubya dumb! Early Church Fathers (living at the time) openly admitted these coincidences in their writings and openly admitted these stories predated the Jesus myth (research the Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry). The first celebration of Easter occurred in 2,400 BC... except Mithras was Da Jesus then.
The accounts from the various religions were MERGED, which means that pieces from all of them (including Christianity) were grafted together. That DOES NOT indicate that the account of Jesus Christ was based on figures from other religions.
I don't think you are dumb enough to really believe the silly illogical arguments you are making here... I think rather that you WANT to believe what you believe SO BADLY that you view all the evidence with a preconceived conclusion: you believe the canonical Gospels to be literally true and so any evidence to the contrary must therefore be wrong. A preconceived conclusion
Nope. I've examined your claims and bounced them against the data found by traditional Biblical scholars and what Scripture itself says on the matter. Then, I examined the figures from which the Jesus account was allegedly forged. And, as clearly shown, that match just ain't there, whatsoever.
No impartial observer would support such weak arguments... or so selectively choose which points to dismiss and which points to attack.
The Luke
Look who's talking!!!
You have made ridiculous claims that the Bible supports your claims. Yet, you can't demonstrate such, when asked.
You said that the Bible shows Jesus' birthday to be Dec. 25? WHERE is that done? (Hint: Only two books of the Bible have Jesus' birth: Matthew and Luke) What's the chapter and verse?
Where's the part about the "kings" (Hint: they're actually "wise men" or "magi), or that there are exactly three of them? You said the Bible mentioned that; provide the chapter and verse.
Not to mention, you said these guys attended Jesus' birth......DEAD WRONG, once again. They don't find Him, until He's about 2 years old. (Matt. 2)
Unlike you, I provide the specifics, line by line or book and chapter, often with the particular verses. When referring to other sources, I provide the books, authors, and the specific passages that make the case.
Let's see you provide some specifics.....FOR ONCE. You can start by defending your earlier claims about the birth of Jesus Christ and that the Bible supports your assertions (with regards to date of birth, the "kings", and when Jesus was found).
-
It's true that dinosaurs co-existed with man. Not many people know this, but...Jesus had a younger brother named Larry. One day, after visiting Adam and Eve, Jesus and Larry went to a fishin' hole, poles in hand. Then they got to talking. Turns out Larry cursed Jesus, and they got into bit of a ruckus. Larry ran off, top speed, tears in his eyes. Next thing you know, Larry was stomped to death by a rabid Tyranosaurus Rex!Jesus was never the same. Which is why you don't hear too much about it. It was in the Bible Part 2, but this text was loss when a herd of Brachiosaurus stampeded Jesus' library.
Jesus was furious.
-
That's not a good analogy; in fact it is idiotic. Progression in matters of bodybuilding and matters of thought have little to do with each other.
say it aint so ;D
-
I agree with you but you have to understand the Spectre; he believes that mental masturbation of the philosophical sort has some inherent value in and of itself and although leading to no answers o any sort, it should be done simply for the sake of it being done.
theology has offered nothing to humanity, absolutely nothing. I challenge wavelength to post something of value from a theologian. Dawkins rapes aquinas on logic,thought,reason etc.. he pwns descartes and his dualist approach.
hegel is quite complex and hard to read.
-
say it aint so ;D
::) ::) ::)
Hardcore deppert.
-
::) ::) ::)
Hardcore deppert.
Compared to your contributions? :D
-
Compared to your contributions? :D
Nein, so insgesamt.
-
It's true that dinosaurs co-existed with man. Not many people know this, but...Jesus had a younger brother named Larry. One day, after visiting Adam and Eve, Jesus and Larry went to a fishin' hole, poles in hand. Then they got to talking. Turns out Larry cursed Jesus, and they got into bit of a ruckus. Larry ran off, top speed, tears in his eyes. Next thing you know, Larry was stomped to death by a rabid Tyranosaurus Rex!Jesus was never the same. Which is why you don't hear too much about it. It was in the Bible Part 2, but this text was loss when a herd of Brachiosaurus stampeded Jesus' library.
Jesus was furious.
Please provide evidence. ;D
-
Nein, so insgesamt.
aha
-
aha
Wie gesagt, hardcore.
-
McWay,
Have you read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?
How can you so easily dismiss something with better provenance than the canonical gospels themselves.
All your arguments are based on dismissal... dismiss the sources quoted; ignore the argument; nit-pick the inaccuracy of some tiny detail and rail against points not raised by deliberately misconstruing and misquoting the opponent. These are the same tactics used by Creationists when the know they can't win a rational argument.
The Luke
-
McWay,
Have you read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?
How can you so easily dismiss something with better provenance than the canonical gospels themselves.
Who says that it has that, other than Jesus-myth proponents and other atheists?
All your arguments are based on dismissal... dismiss the sources quoted; ignore the argument; nit-pick the inaccuracy of some tiny detail and rail against points not raised by deliberately misconstruing and misquoting the opponent. These are the same tactics used by Creationists when the know they can't win a rational argument.
The Luke
My arguments are based on the fact that what you claim the Bible says about Jesus and what it ACTUALLY SAYS about Him are vastly different, as is the case with your assertions about these other figures vs. Jesus.
This was your "challenge":
Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory
Bet you can't."
Since I've done that, and you can't scurry through the Gandy and Feke book fast enough to come up with an answer, you resort to your usual whining.
The simple fact is you made a bunch of claims, which I (or anyone else) can EASILY show to be false.
Recap:
"-she washes Jesus' feet; something only a wife may do. An unmarried Jewish woman certainly wouldn't do this with an unmarried Jewish man." - WRONG, Simon refers to Mags as a sinful woman; obviously, she ain't Jesus' wife. (Luke 7:37-40)
"-she travels to the tomb to anoint/wash Jesus' body. Only a wife or mother is permitted to do this." - Nope. At least three women go to the tomb: Mary, Mags, and Salome (Mark 16:1-3)
"-she is the first witness to the risen Jesus and asks the Magdalene not to "embrace" him." - Again, at least three women are at the tomb (John 20:2, ....They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.).
"-the wedding at Canae is hinted as being Jesus' wedding." - So sorry!!! The governor of the feast addressed an unnamed bridegroom (John 2).
"-she never leaves Jesus side, but stays with the Virgin Mary and Christ till the bitter end" - I'm sorry, where is that written again?
"-born of a virgin on 25th or December" - OOPS!! Nowhere does the Bible claim that Jesus is born on any date, corresponding to 12/25
"-bright star marks his birthplace" - Not quite!!! The stars leads the wise men to where Jesus was located.
"-born in a cave/stable" - You're flip-flopping again, which is it: cave or stable? (And what alleged "mystery religion corresponds to it).
"-three kings attend his birth" - And you cry about people not reading stuff? 1) The Bible NEVER states that just "three kings" attend his birth; the shepherds do that (lay off the Nativity scenes, please); 2) The wise men, however many there were, found Jesus when He was about TWO YEARS OLD.
Plus, your claim of Mary's perpetual virginity is also shot, thanks to the Gospels that give the names of Jesus' brothers.
Then, there's your ridiculous attempt of a correlation, between Jesus getting his feet washed and someone else getting his foot cut off or shot.
And, that's just the short list of your repeated inaccuracies, regarding this so-called "challenge".
-
Please provide evidence. ;D
Jesus forgives.
-
I agree with your statement about Descartes actually, and of course everything can be discussed philosophically.
Just not on the feeble level of scientific positivism.
Still all of those people would be considered great thinkers, at least of their time.
i wouldnt consider them so based on humanity as a whole. They offered nothign in reality, didnt expand our concepts and knowledge, name one relevant theologian today?
-
i wouldnt consider them so based on humanity as a whole. They offered nothign in reality, didnt expand our concepts and knowledge, name one relevant theologian today?
They're the only ones who are able to offer anything in reality, by definition. We had this discussion over and over again. If you think those people are not great thinkers, fine. Dawkins is doing the exact same thing, he uses philosophy and theology to make his points, not science. Simply because, it's not possible to make his points from within science.
-
They're the only ones who are able to offer anything in reality, by definition. We had this discussion over and over again. If you think those people are not great thinkers, fine. Dawkins is doing the exact same thing, he uses philosophy and theology to make his points, not science. Simply because, it's not possible to make his points from within science.
Blah blah, your hardcoreness is slipping along with your zehnfach verriegelten Tuer...
-
Blah blah, your hardcoreness is slipping along with your zehnfach verriegelten Tuer...
Would you prefer if I stopped posting on the religious board?
Honest answer appreciated.
-
Would you prefer if I stopped posting on the religious board?
Honest answer appreciated.
Ich habe dir mittels PN geantwortet.
-
They're the only ones who are able to offer anything in reality, by definition. We had this discussion over and over again. If you think those people are not great thinkers, fine. Dawkins is doing the exact same thing, he uses philosophy and theology to make his points, not science. Simply because, it's not possible to make his points from within science.
sure but dawkins refutes aquinas quite easily, what is so great about someone who makes fallacious arguments?
i havent seen any atheistic philosophical arguments refuted.
-
sure but dawkins refutes aquinas quite easily, what is so great about someone who makes fallacious arguments?
i havent seen any atheistic philosophical arguments refuted.
As long as he is aware of the fact that he must resort to philosophy resp. theology, his critizism is fine, although reviewed by many philosophers as feeble. I have only read parts of his book (God Delusion), but from what I have read and what I have seen in interviews and lectures, he seems to think he can go against the idea of God by means of science.
It also seems like he mainly criticizes the very simplistic views of the religious nuts. I never said anything against that. Whenever scientific fundis think they can disprove any scientific theory by means of spiritual scripture (aka Inteligent Design), it's the right of every scientist to defend the scientific method against that.
-
As long as he is aware of the fact that he must resort to philosophy resp. theology, his critizism is fine, although reviewed by many philosophers as feeble. I have only read parts of his book (God Delusion), but from what I have read and what I have seen in interviews and lectures, he seems to think he can go against the idea of God by means of science.
It also seems like he mainly criticizes the very simplistic views of the religious nuts. I never said anything against that. Whenever scientific fundis think they can disprove any scientific theory by means of spiritual scripture (aka Inteligent Design), it's the right of every scientist to defend the scientific method against that.
philosophy is just thought, reason and logic both products of the natural world. If you think that science can say nothing about reality then either can thought, since it is a product of the brain a material entity based in the same reality as science. Thought is not transcedent.
-
philosophy is just thought, reason and logic both products of the natural world. If you think that science can say nothing about reality then either can thought, since it is a product of the brain a material entity based in the same reality as science. Thought is not transcedent.
I have already proven that none of this is true, see e.g.:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2783709#msg2783709
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2759258#msg2759258
and following.
-
I have already proven that none of this is true, see e.g.:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2783709#msg2783709
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2759258#msg2759258
and following.
you think those are sound arguments?
the mind is a product of a material brain, how can it offer anything other then what the brain (a material) thing can do? it cant. it is not emergent, it is not transcedent, it is epiphenomenal.We can only describe things which we experience, we cannot talk about something that is immaterial. How much does a thought weigh, what is it made of, what does it sound,taste etc... it is fruitless, only a reductionist approach can offer some modicum of knowledge. Being material beings we cannot speak of the immaterial, beign finite, we cannot talk about infinite, being temporal we cannot understand or talk about eternal, existing we cannot talk about nothingness.
by definition the only thing we can observe is that which is avalible to our perception. science has expanded our perception, sure other things might exist but they will be discovered scientifically, not with thought.
-
you think those are sound arguments?
the mind is a product of a material brain, how can it offer anything other then what the brain (a material) thing can do? it cant. it is not emergent, it is not transcedent, it is epiphenomenal.We can only describe things which we experience, we cannot talk about something that is immaterial. How much does a thought weigh, what is it made of, what does it sound,taste etc... it is fruitless, only a reductionist approach can offer some modicum of knowledge. Being material beings we cannot speak of the immaterial, beign finite, we cannot talk about infinite, being temporal we cannot understand or talk about eternal, existing we cannot talk about nothingness.
by definition the only thing we can observe is that which is avalible to our perception. science has expanded our perception, sure other things might exist but they will be discovered scientifically, not with thought.
Those are not new statements resp. arguments. Has all been discussed in the aforementioned thread. The problem with such statements is always that they are self-refuting.
-
Those are not new statements resp. arguments. Has all been discussed in the aforementioned thread. The problem with such statements is always that they are self-refuting.
least to say i am wholely unconvinced by your arguments in the slightest. I dont see what philosophy offers us that science doesnt expand on. We wouldnt know about the big bang with philosophy, we wouldnt have string theory, quantum loop gravity, evolution etc...
these things all answer the question of origins much better then thought, because origin may not be a logical event as evidenced by quantum mechanics. So how the hell is logic and reason suppose to describe or answer an illogical event?
-
least to say i am wholely unconvinced by your arguments in the slightest. I dont see what philosophy offers us that science doesnt expand on. We wouldnt know about the big bang with philosophy, we wouldnt have string theory, quantum loop gravity, evolution etc...
All you talk about here are scientific aspects. You are right, that's the topic of science, not philosophy.
these things all answer the question of origins much better then thought, because origin may not be a logical event as evidenced by quantum mechanics. So how the hell is logic and reason suppose to describe or answer an illogical event?
The "illogical" you talk about only refers to scientific aspects and only to the logic of a certain scientific model. We have also discussed that before.
It's really all in the aformentioned thread. I provided a simple logic deduction that clearly shows that there must be more to the world than what science can say about it. The deduction clearly shows that scientific positivism (like any form of positivism) is illogical. The deduction is still unchallenged. Do you want to try again?
-
All you talk about here are scientific aspects. You are right, that's the topic of science, not philosophy.
The "illogical" you talk about only refers to scientific aspects and only to the logic of a certain scientific model. We have also discussed that before.
It's really all in the aformentioned thread. I provided a simple logic deduction that clearly shows that there must be more to the world than what science can say about it. The deduction clearly shows that scientific positivism (like any form of positivism) is illogical. The deduction is still unchallenged. Do you want to try again?
sure, but you havent offered me anything to argue about. Philosophy is a product of a material brain, how can it then talk about things beyond the material? you cant comment on something immaterial.
you almost sound like your about to start arguing for vitalism
-
I realise this thread has been sidetracked somewhat...
But I think my challenge still stands...?
No one has shown any major detail of the Jesus story that isn't either stolen from an earlier Mystery Religion or conforms to the standard astrological metaphors utilised by such religions.
The Luke
-
I realise this thread has been sidetracked somewhat...
But I think my challenge still stands...?
No one has shown any major detail of the Jesus story that isn't either stolen from an earlier Mystery Religion or conforms to the standard astrological metaphors utilised by such religions.
The Luke
yes even five to six blantant similarities brings the whole story into question. The stories in the bible are borrowed, clearly.
-
sure, but you havent offered me anything to argue about. Philosophy is a product of a material brain, how can it then talk about things beyond the material? you cant comment on something immaterial.
you almost sound like your about to start arguing for vitalism
As I said, no new arguments, your oblivion isn't my fault. In these few statements you pretty much summarize all inaccuracies and misconceptions that have already been debunked in the old thread (philosophy beeing a product of the "material" brain, material vs. immaterial, etc.). If you read through it, you will see that I have already responded to all of those statements and arguments. IMO it makes no sense to start from zero all over again. Besides that, as Luke said, we are off topic.
-
philosophy are questions that may never be answered.
religion are answers that may never be questioned.
-
I realise this thread has been sidetracked somewhat...
But I think my challenge still stands...?
No one has shown any major detail of the Jesus story that isn't either stolen from an earlier Mystery Religion or conforms to the standard astrological metaphors utilised by such religions.
The Luke
This is cute!!!
Exactly what qualifies as a “major” detail, Luke?
Your “challenge” was a bona-fide joke, for several reasons, the most notable of which is every attempt you have to fuse certain details about Christ’s life to fit your claims have been shown to be INACCURATE, based on simple Biblical and historical research.
But, just to reiterate (because your memory appears to be shot at times).
- Jesus was born of a virgin; in other words, his mother did NOT have sex (in human or animal form) with a man (or a god, on the sneak).
- Nowhere in Scripture does it claim that He was born Dec. 25 (or any date on the Hebrew calendar that corresponds to Dec. 25)
- Nowhere in Scripture does it state that “three kings” attend His birth, for three reasons:
• The “kings” were actually wise men
• The exact number is not given in Scripture
• They don’t attend Jesus’ birth; they find him when He’s about 2 years old.
- Mary Magdelene ain’t Jesus’ wife (much to the chagrin of Da Vinci Code addicts)
- Mary Magdelene and Jesus’ mother weren’t the only ones who went to the tomb.
- Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin; Jesus had at least SIX siblings, four of whom (His brothers) we know by name.
- Jesus’ death was by crucifixion; the other figures from whom the account of Jesus was supposedly crafted died in manners, ranging from
dismemberment to self-castration to being barbecued.
- Getting your feet washed is a far cry from getting them chopped off or shot with arrows.
These are some of the "major" details, that cut your "challenge" to ribbons.
-
As I said, no new arguments, your oblivion isn't my fault. In these few statements you pretty much summarize all inaccuracies and misconceptions that have already been debunked in the old thread (philosophy beeing a product of the "material" brain, material vs. immaterial, etc.). If you read through it, you will see that I have already responded to all of those statements and arguments. IMO it makes no sense to start from zero all over again. Besides that, as Luke said, we are off topic.
agreed, the mind is clearly a product of a material brain, philosophy is at odds with science, and immaterial things or non things cannot be commented on by virtue of their nature. You have not debunked anything, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the mind is the brain, you would win a nobel if you debunked this as consciouness research is booming now.
you can beleive what you want, you haven't been scientific in any discussion we have engaged in and you havent displayed any knowledge of philosophy. You have one argument, one sole argument and you seem to think that it is irrefutable.
-
McWay,
I appreciate that as a fundamentalist Christian you aren't capable of rational thought on this subject, but you're just being dishonest here.
-Jesus was born of a virgin; in other words, his mother did NOT have sex (in human or animal form) with a man (or a god, on the sneak)
...and how is this "visitation" from god resulting in Mary's pregnancy any different from the blueprint laid out by the Mystery Religions?
-Nowhere in Scripture does it claim that He was born Dec. 25 (or any date on the Hebrew calendar that corresponds to Dec. 25)
...I didn't claim so. I doubt you could quote a post of mine asserting this. What I did do was explain how the metaphors used in the nativity story clearly coincide with the allegorical astrological description of the 25th December dawn. I remember using the word "indirectly".
-Nowhere in Scripture does it state that “three kings” attend His birth, for three reasons:
-The “kings” were actually wise men
-The exact number is not given in Scripture
...this is just dishonest wordplay.
The phrase used to describe the "wise men" is "magi". Magi are stargazing wandering priest-kings who always travel in threes (lunar, solar and stellar experts). I suspect that you are using gospels that are modern translations from English to English.
-They don’t attend Jesus’ birth; they find him when He’s about 2 years old.
...I'd love to know the specific line of scripture that says this. I certainly don't remember it.
Either way, it STILL conforms to the astrological blueprint.
Mary Magdelene ain’t Jesus’ wife (much to the chagrin of Da Vinci Code addicts)
...the Gospel of Mary Magdalene says otherwise. But then again, you couldn't possibly entertain a source document that predates any of the canonical gospels could you?
Mary Magdelene and Jesus’ mother weren’t the only ones who went to the tomb.
...Mary Magdalene, as Jesus' wife, is the first and sole witness to the risen Jesus.
Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin; Jesus had at least SIX siblings, four of whom (His brothers) we know by name.
...the assertion of Papal Infallibility has only ever been used twice regarding articles of faith. One of those fundamental tenets of Christianity is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead and was subsequently assumed bodily into heaven.
The other fundamental tenet of Christianity backed by Papal Infallibility is the belief that Jesus' mother Mary REMAINED A VIRGIN for her entire life till she was also assumed bodily into heaven.
Again, you are using gospels that have been translated from English to English... previous to Vatican II the phrases in question were ALWAYS translated as "cousins" rather than "siblings" and the phrase "Jesus' brothers" was always translated as "members of Jesus' extended family" or "Jesus' cousins".
So, I take your point... but Vatican scholars and expert translators disagree.
Jesus’ death was by crucifixion; the other figures from whom the account of Jesus was supposedly crafted died in manners, ranging from dismemberment to self-castration to being barbecued.
Those are the FOLKLORE versions of those gods stories.
...Sol Invictus is crucified.
...Osiris was either nailed to a tree or nailed to a rack before he was dismembered, his body parts were then spread to the FOUR CARDINAL POINTS (The Southern Cross constellation) and pieces of him did end up stuck in trees.
...Issa, the Kasmiri/Pakistani/Indian version of Jesus was actually crucified Roman style, in Jerusalem by the Romans on the orders of Pilate.
The Mystery Religion versions of Achilles; Tammuz; Attis; Mithras; Horus; Hercules and even Pythagoras (the mathematician) are all crucified on either a tree; tau or cross.
You're just being dishonest here McWay... you dismiss well made arguments and quality source documents, then CHOOSE to misconstrue some other tiny detail so you can run with that as the thrust of your counter argument.
Rather than continuously nitpick with patently false assertions like a Creationist, perhaps you could explain how it is (in your opinion) that the Jesus story so closely mimics the astrological dying/resurrecting godman blueprint?
The Luke
-
I've gotta say, this is an interesting back and forth. I'm intrigued by some of the evidence put forward by The Luke, and find it very convincing.
-
I've gotta say, this is an interesting back and forth. I'm intrigued by some of the evidence put forward by The Luke, and find it very convincing.
Luke ...1
McWay ...nil
The Luke
-
agreed, the mind is clearly a product of a material brain, philosophy is at odds with science, and immaterial things or non things cannot be commented on by virtue of their nature. You have not debunked anything, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the mind is the brain, you would win a nobel if you debunked this as consciouness research is booming now.
you can beleive what you want, you haven't been scientific in any discussion we have engaged in and you havent displayed any knowledge of philosophy. You have one argument, one sole argument and you seem to think that it is irrefutable.
It is. If it's not, refute it. You can't. Quite obviously it's you who must resort to "belief", not me. Of course my arguments are in no way original. It's philosophic child's play. Scientists are always critizised when they overstep the limits of science, both from philosophers and from other scientists. Dawkins is the best example for that. Regarding my knowledge of philosophy, I think we can agree that we are both laymen in this category. Regarding your comment about me not being "scientific": I understand the methods and restrictions of science, an ability which cannot be assigned to the positivistic pseudo-philosophers.
Of course I could concretely respond to every of your statements above, but a) I already did that numerous times and b) I think it will end again in you bowing out with an insult. If you can come up with any new argument, which was not already disproven in one of the other threads, we can of course continue the discussion. Otherwise, I won't respond here anymore.
-
McWay,
I appreciate that as a fundamentalist Christian you aren't capable of rational thought on this subject, but you're just being dishonest here.
Hardly!
...and how is this "visitation" from god resulting in Mary's pregnancy any different from the blueprint laid out by the Mystery Religions?
Simple! There's no sex involved, PERIOD. God isn't having any sex with Mary. Mary is a virgin, when she has Jesus (i.e. PRIOR TO her conception and birth of Jesus Christ, she has no sex with humans, gods in the guise of humans, or anyone else).
...I didn't claim so. I doubt you could quote a post of mine asserting this. What I did do was explain how the metaphors used in the nativity story clearly coincide with the allegorical astrological description of the 25th December dawn. I remember using the word "indirectly".
Yes, you did and Yes, I can! As for your "indirectly", you were asked to show what verses in the account of Jesus correspond to Dec. 25 date. So far, you have produced NOTHING!!!
...this is just dishonest wordplay.
The phrase used to describe the "wise men" is "magi". Magi are stargazing wandering priest-kings who always travel in threes (lunar, solar and stellar experts). I suspect that you are using gospels that are modern translations from English to English.
Make up your mind, here. Are they priests or are they kings? You're the one with the dishonest word play, attempting to use your "slash" techniques, in order to make the data from the Jesus account fit your pre-conceived (and ill-supported) claims. Plus, what I said was that Scripture does NOT give the specific number of wise men.
Extra-Biblical traditions have the number of wise men as being anywhere from two to twelve. Western tradition usually affixes the number at three, because of the three gifts given to Christ: gold, myrrh, and frankencense. And they are described as priests, astrologers, and men of science. That does NOT automatically equate to "kings".
From WordNet Search 3.0, "Magi":
Noun
S: (n) Wise Men, Magi ((New Testament) the sages who visited Jesus and Mary and Joseph shortly after Jesus was born; the Gospel According to Matthew says they were guided by a star and brought gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh; because there were three gifts it is usually assumed that there were three of them)
S: (n) magus (a magician or sorcerer of ancient times)
S: (n) magus (a member of the Zoroastrian priesthood of the ancient Persians)
...I'd love to know the specific line of scripture that says this. I certainly don't remember it.
Either way, it STILL conforms to the astrological blueprint.
So, you don't remember it; yet you claimed with certainty that the wise men attended Jesus' birth. That's rich!!! This is why I post specifics, because (unlike you) I can actually support my statements with actual references, not speculation and vague generic assertions. As I said before, only 2 books of the Bible chronicle Jesus' early life (Let me make this easy on you; it's Matthew).
Matt. 2:7, 16:, Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry. And he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its districts from TWO YEARS AND UNDER, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.
...the Gospel of Mary Magdalene says otherwise. But then again, you couldn't possibly entertain a source document that predates any of the canonical gospels could you?
One, who says that it predates the canonical Gospels? Two, we have four Gospels that make no indication of Jesus being married vs. one that does. Not good odds, there, especially with one Gospel, detailing Jesus' passing the care of his MOTHER (not his wife) to one of His disciples, as He's dying.
Furthermore, had Mags been Jesus' wife, one of His brothers would have redeemed her, upon Jesus' death anyway. That was according to Hebrew law.
So, any way you slice it, your skewed claims about her being Jesus' wife just don't work.
...Mary Magdalene, as Jesus' wife, is the first and sole witness to the risen Jesus.
Incorrect, on several fronts.
1) Mags ain't Jesus' wife.
2) She wasn't the only one who saw Him. Mary (His mother), Salome, the disciples (including the one who claimed that He wouldn't believe that it was Jesus, UNTIL he touched the wounds in Jesus' hands and side).
...the assertion of Papal Infallibility has only ever been used twice regarding articles of faith. One of those fundamental tenets of Christianity is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead and was subsequently assumed bodily into heaven.
The other fundamental tenet of Christianity backed by Papal Infallibility is the belief that Jesus' mother Mary REMAINED A VIRGIN for her entire life till she was also assumed bodily into heaven.
Again, you are using gospels that have been translated from English to English... previous to Vatican II the phrases in question were ALWAYS translated as "cousins" rather than "siblings" and the phrase "Jesus' brothers" was always translated as "members of Jesus' extended family" or "Jesus' cousins".
You mean just as you claimed that only the wife and mother would visit the tomb....OOOPS!!! There were other women there, according to the Gospels.
This has NOTHING to do with the Pope. And, lest you forget, there's at least one NON-Biblical source confirming the existence of one of Jesus' siblings (that would be Josephus, who commented on the death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James").
Therefore, this whole issue of Mary's perpetual virginity is basically moot. And, nowhere in Scripture is it stated that Mary is assumed into heaven, anyway.
Those are the FOLKLORE versions of those gods stories.
...Sol Invictus is crucified.
So were the thieves, next to Jesus. These were the Romans, who had a thing for crucifying people.
...Osiris was either nailed to a tree or nailed to a rack before he was dismembered, his body parts were then spread to the FOUR CARDINAL POINTS (The Southern Cross constellation) and pieces of him did end up stuck in trees.
Aren’t you using the “folklore”, when referring to Osiris’ dismemberment? Yet, you complain about my using that, when demonstrating just how off-the-mark these figures are, in comparison to Jesus (i.e. Osiris stays in the underworld, the land of the DEAD, thus disqualifying him from any resurrection).
Same goes for Attis and his self-inflicted gonad removal.
...Issa, the Kasmiri/Pakistani/Indian version of Jesus was actually crucified Roman style, in Jerusalem by the Romans on the orders of Pilate.
Some references would be nice. But providing references ain’t your forte’.
The Mystery Religion versions of Achilles; Tammuz; Attis; Mithras; Horus; Hercules and even Pythagoras (the mathematician) are all crucified on either a tree; tau or cross.
You're just being dishonest here McWay... you dismiss well made arguments and quality source documents, then CHOOSE to misconstrue some other tiny detail so you can run with that as the thrust of your counter argument.
Rather than continuously nitpick with patently false assertions like a Creationist, perhaps you could explain how it is (in your opinion) that the Jesus story so closely mimics the astrological dying/resurrecting godman blueprint?
The Luke
You're flip-flopping, again. First you brag that no one that name a specific detail. Then, once the details are given, you resort to silly games, trying to qualify "tiny" details from "major" ones, when your claims are easily demonstated to be FALSE and inaccurate.
Then, you continue your contortions by switching to the “folklore” versions of those other figures, when you think you can find a match between them and Jesus; then, you switch to the alleged “mystery versions” (the specifics to which YOU STILL HAVE YET TO PROVIDE), when you can’t.
-
It is. If it's not, refute it. You can't. Quite obviously it's you who must resort to "belief", not me. Of course my arguments are in no way original. It's philosophic child's play. Scientists are always critizised when they overstep the limits of science, both from philosophers and from other scientists. Dawkins is the best example for that. Regarding my knowledge of philosophy, I think we can agree that we are both laymen in this category. Regarding your comment about me not being "scientific": I understand the methods and restrictions of science, an ability which cannot be assigned to the positivistic pseudo-philosophers.
Of course I could concretely respond to every of your statements above, but a) I already did that numerous times and b) I think it will end again in you bowing out with an insult. If you can come up with any new argument, which was not already disproven in one of the other threads, we can of course continue the discussion. Otherwise, I won't respond here anymore.
i havent isnsulted you and you refuse to answer any or my questions and/or give examples.
what the hell is pseudo philosophy ???
what are you arguing for, im still not sure. State your position on the existence of a god, deity etc... honestly, im confused as to what you are arguing. Are you arguing for dualism of mind and brain? and you arguing for the existence of a immaterial existence beyond ours, are you arguing that philosophy is closer to reality the objective observation?
i am versed in philosophical arguments so in order to move forward state your position and define terms.
you argued that descartes and aquinas were "great thinkers" a patently false statement. How can someone be great but wrong all the time.
-
i havent isnsulted you and you refuse to answer any or my questions and/or give examples.
You haven't in this thread (besides saying that I have no idea about science or philosophy). You have in the other, you called the posts "clusterfuck of pseudo-intellect". I have no problem with it, I just think a pissing match is a waste of time.
what the hell is pseudo philosophy ???
Maybe you could explain what the hell "pseudo intellect" is? ;)
I have given the definition of "pseudo philosophy" several times already. It's when someone is making philosophic statements thinking that they are based in science (or some other restricted body of knowledge). Example: A scientist applies a scientific rule to the term "reality", when in fact all he is allowed to talk about as a scientist are the scientific aspects of reality; thinking that this way he could make a holistic statement about reality.
what are you arguing for, im still not sure. State your position on the existence of a god, deity etc... honestly, im confused as to what you are arguing. Are you arguing for dualism of mind and brain? and you arguing for the existence of a immaterial existence beyond ours, are you arguing that philosophy is closer to reality the objective observation?
Dualism is a misconception, same as material vs. immaterial (science defines neither). Philosophy deals with objective observation just as much as science, just in a less restricted way. Has all been elaborately discussed in the named thread.
i am versed in philosophical arguments so in order to move forward state your position and define terms.
Position about what exactly?
you argued that descartes and aquinas were "great thinkers" a patently false statement. How can someone be great but wrong all the time.
Maybe we shouldn't focus on that anymore. I always like to discuss on my own terms rather than quote other people. Just out of interest, what works of Descartes, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, or Kierkegaard have you read, first hand? Those are the ones I have named.
-
McWay,
You STILL have yet to point out just one detail in the Jesus story that isn't lifted from a dying/resurrecting godman...?
Now you're getting silly... you dismiss the Gospel of Mary Magdalene dated to 60-70 AD in favour of the canonical gospels, the oldest of which dates to 155 AD. That's dishonest.
You keep quoting the references to Jesus in Josephus' Histories... when these references are proven fakes (the recently discovered Slavic Josephus' Histories proves this). That's also dishonest.
You claim Isis doesn't parallel Jesus' mother Mary... because she had sex with Osiris' incorporeal ghost in the underworld, despite the fact that the Egyptians refer to this version of Isis as "Mary Isis, the Virgin". That's also dishonest.
You keep screaming that Jesus had brothers and sisters... but this is a translation trick, for the last two thousand years these passages have been translated as "cousins"; "brethren" and "family members" and Jesus mother was attested an ever-virgin as a doctrinal article of faith by the Christian Church. You have chosen to accept a new translation, seemingly solely for the purposes of this argument. That's also dishonest.
You claim Osiris and Attis (for example) aren't really crucified.... nailed to a tree, nailed to a rack, nailed to beam of wood... seriously dude, that's blatantly dishonest. Then you have the gall to dismiss the example of Issa, the Kashmiri Jesus, who was crucified for blasphemy, in Jerusalem, by the Romans, on the orders of Pilate, at the same time as Jesus.
That's worse than dishonest, that's just plain stoopid.
I'll repeat my challenge, just one detail from the Jesus story... you name it, I'll explain it and give illustrative examples of the precursors... then you can scream: "No, that's not the same... this guy has a funny hat".
I'm winning people over... you're just lowering peoples opinion of you.
The Luke
-
The Luke is takin Mcway to school!
-
The Luke is takin Mcway to school!
The Luke: 2
McWay: nil
The Luke
-
[
McWay,
You STILL have yet to point out just one detail in the Jesus story that isn't lifted from a dying/resurrecting godman...?
Now you're getting silly... you dismiss the Gospel of Mary Magdalene dated to 60-70 AD in favour of the canonical gospels, the oldest of which dates to 155 AD. That's dishonest.
And you dismiss the canonical Gospels, which traditional scholars were written in 1st-century A.D; whereas the "Gospel of Mary Magdelene" is dated early/mid 2nd century A.D.
Regardless, you made a butt-load of assertions, claiming that the canonical Gospels supported them. And, that was easily shown to be incorrect.
And, it appears that you’ve lost your ability to count.
You keep quoting the references to Jesus in Josephus' Histories... when these references are proven fakes (the recently discovered Slavic Josephus' Histories proves this). That's also dishonest.
Please!!!! Loco has covered this more times than I care to count. There are two references to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities. One of them (in the Greek versions, known as the Testimonium Flavinium) has interpolations which emphasize Christ’s deity (Note: the Arabic version of TF does not have such); the other, known as the lesser passage, is the one that identifies James as the brother of Jesus, “who was called Christ”. The authenticity of that passage, according to leading Josephian scholar, Louis Feldman, ” has been almost universally acknowledged."
It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.
Although Josephus' reference to the martyrdom of James is universally accepted by critical scholars, there has been more controversy over the fuller reference to Jesus. The TF contains some obvious Christian glosses that no Jew would have written; such as "he was the Christ" and "he appeared to them alive again the third day."
A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument. - Christopher Price, "Did Josephus Refer to Jesus? A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum"
With the passage involving James (Jesus' brother) being authentic, the perpetual virgin stuff for Mary goes bye-bye.
You claim Isis doesn't parallel Jesus' mother Mary... because she had sex with Osiris' incorporeal ghost in the underworld, despite the fact that the Egyptians refer to this version of Isis as "Mary Isis, the Virgin". That's also dishonest.
What the Egyptians term it makes little difference. There ain’t no hanky-panky (naturally or supernaturally) as it relates to Mary’s conception of Jesus Christ.
divine mother" of ancient Egypt. She was known as the great goddess of magic and "universal nature," and used her powers to raise her dead (and dismembered) husband Osiris back to life (Osiris was represented as the Sun, he also ruled the underworld). As "Virgin of the World," Isis birthed Horus, the Egyptian god of the sun and moon, day and night. Metaphorically speaking, Isis is the celestial mother of the Sun (son) of god. It was her son, Horus, who eventually killed Typhon, the Egyptian devil. And, according to legend, Isis–mother of all–remains eternally virgin. She is often portrayed "as the virgin with child," and is regularly depicted as one crowned with a lunar orb and the horns of a bull.
Goddess veneration of the "virgin with child" has been a central belief for various societies throughout history, including some aspects of Christianity. Indeed, many leading occultists see striking parallels between the Roman Catholic "Virgin Mary"–the "Queen of Heaven"–and the goddess Isis. And the comparison is startling. Presently, Roman Catholicism holds Mary to be eternally virgin, just as Isis was. Catholicism also contends that Mary was without sin, making her into a type of "god." In fact, there are some who claim that Mary is the "fourth person" within the Trinity. This belief is linked to Catholicism’s claim that Mary now has a direct say in mankind’s salvation through her (Catholic) role of co-redemption and mediation. Hence, the elevated Mary becomes a "goddess" in the Catholic faith, just as Isis was a goddess in the pantheon of Egyptian deities. And just as Isis was (and still is) called "Mother of the World" and "Queen of Heaven," so too Mary is now exalted with these same titles.
While the Roman Catholic/Isis comparison shows a tangible link between Catholicism and the mystery religions, Mary as Biblically understood shows little connection. Yes, Mary was the virgin mother of Jesus, Son of God, but she didn't remain a virgin. Mark 6:3 actually lists four of Jesus’ brothers and mentions sisters as well. Nor was the Biblical Mary sinless. Romans 3:23 makes it clear that "all have sinned"–which would include Mary. The only exception to this rule is found in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:15 is one example among many that attests to Jesus’ sinless character).
The Bible makes it clear that Christ’s death and resurrection was a completed act. The Biblical Mary plays no direct role in His work of salvation. As Jesus Himself said, "It is finished." He didn’t say, "It’s finished, subject to the continuing work of Mother Mary." - Carl Teichrib "Isis: 'Queen of Heaven'"
You keep screaming that Jesus had brothers and sisters... but this is a translation trick, for the last two thousand years these passages have been translated as "cousins"; "brethren" and "family members" and Jesus mother was attested an ever-virgin as a doctrinal article of faith by the Christian Church. You have chosen to accept a new translation, seemingly solely for the purposes of this argument. That's also dishonest.
Wrong again! No matter what translation I choose, the term is the same, with regards to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, the Greek words for those are “adelpho” and “adelpha”, respectively. Plus, in the context of Mark 6, it’s referring to Jesus’ relatives.
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
That’s talking about His mama, brothers, and sisters. Nothing in this or supporting text indicates that these are distance relatives.
As for the perpetual virgin stuff with Mary, that may be true of the Catholic church, but it definitenly is NOT a doctrinal article of faith in Protestant circles, as many Christians on this forum will tell you.
You claim Osiris and Attis (for example) aren't really crucified.... nailed to a tree, nailed to a rack, nailed to beam of wood... seriously dude, that's blatantly dishonest. Then you have the gall to dismiss the example of Issa, the Kashmiri Jesus, who was crucified for blasphemy, in Jerusalem, by the Romans, on the orders of Pilate, at the same time as Jesus.
That's worse than dishonest, that's just plain stoopid.
I don’t claim that; the accounts of those two speak for themselves. Of course, when faced with that, you start flip-flopping, between the so-called “folklore” versions and the “mystery” ones.
From Encylopedia Mythica:
Osiris
Osiris was killed by his brother Seth, who shut his body in a chest and threw it into the Nile, where it washed up onto the shore and was trapped in a huge tree. The King Byblos turned it into a pillar in his palace. Isis (who had been searching for her husband) discovered the trunk, and retrieved the trunk and the body. While Isis was away, Seth found the body, and chopped it up into many pieces, and scattered them throughout Egypt. Isis and her sister, Nephthys, found the pieces and made wax models of them to give to priests to be worshipped. When they found all of his pieces, they were so sad they wailed loudly enough for Re, the father god, to have pity on them. He sent Anubis and Thoth to help. They mummified Osiris, and put his body in a lion headed pier. Isis changed into a kite and fanned breath into Osiris.
He was not allowed to stay in the land of the living, and was sent to the underworld to serve as king, and to judge the souls of the dead.
Here’s a hint: If his body were shut in a chest that means he was ALREADY DEAD, killed by method OTHER than crucifixion.
From Theoi.com –
Attis:
His story is related in different ways. According to Ovid (Fast. iv. 221), Cybele loved the beautiful shepherd, and made him her own priest on condition that he should preserve his chastity inviolate. Atys broke the covenant with a nymph, the daughter of the river-god Sangarius, and was thrown by the goddess into a state of madness, in which he unmanned himself. When in consequence he wanted to put an end to his life, Cybele changed him into a firtree, which henceforth became sacred to her, and she commanded that, in future, her priests should be eunuchs. (Compare Arnob. adv. Gent. v. 4, and AGDISTIS.) Another story relates, that Atys, the priest of Cybele, fled into a forest to escape the voluptuous embraces of a Phrygian king, but that he was overtaken, and in the ensuing struggle unmanned his pursuer. The dying king avenged himself by inflicting the same calamity upon Atys. Atys was found by the priests of Cybele under a fir-tree, at the moment he was expiring. They carried him into the temple of the goddess, and endeavoured to restore him to life, but in vain. Cybele ordained that the death of Atys should be bewailed every year in solemn lamentations, and that henceforth her priests should be eunuchs.
By the way, how do you chop off your own nuts, if you’re crucified to a tree or beam? The tree involved is where he DIED and the beam of wood is what his followers used to carry off his ALREADY-DEAD corpse.
To top it all off, we have one version where he gets TURNED INTO A TREE, a far cry from being crucified on one. This is where you start sniveling about the “folklore” stuff, to make up for the fact that Attis’ account doesn’t mirror that of Jesus Christ, in the least.
From Answers.com
In Phrygian the spring festival was held in honour of the self-mutilated and resurrected god Attis, the son of the mother goddess Cybele. According to one legend, Attis was so harassed by an affectionate monster that he castrated himself. Another recounts that he was put to death because of his love for Cybele, daughter of the King of Phrygia and Lydia. The sanctuary of the mother goddess was at Pessinus, hard by the River Sangarius, in the reeds of which she discovered her youthful lover. Cybele equates with Inanna, Attis with Tammuz. She was attended by lions, and the castration, death, and rebirth of her consort, usually shown as an effeminate youth, was recalled in an annual ceremony full of bloodletting. Rams were sacrificed, their blood used for baptism; initiates unmanned themselves, and her eunuch priests cut their own flesh in a frenzy. At Rome, where the ‘mystery’ cult was introduced in 205 BC, we know that the pine was connected with Attis, whose effigy wore grave linen. Just as the god died and was restored to life again, so the initiate, in union with him, entered a state of blessedness which was thought to endure beyond the grave. Union was achieved through either self-mutilation or a sacred marriage: to all devotees was open what had once been the prerogative of West Asian kingship.
Of course, lost in ALL is the “major” detail that dying for man’s sin (Christ) is a tad different from hacking off your nuts out of feverish LUST FOR YOUR OWN MAMA!
Let's see: That's self-castration (Attis) and death by suffocation or drowning in a pine box (Osiris).......A FAR CRY from being crucified, as you so erroneously claimed happened to those two.
I'll repeat my challenge, just one detail from the Jesus story... you name it, I'll explain it and give illustrative examples of the precursors... then you can scream: "No, that's not the same... this guy has a funny hat".
I'm winning people over... you're just lowering peoples opinion of you.
The Luke
Oh, you mean like your claim that the canonical Gospels has Mags being the only woman at the tomb. Or the one that has “three kings” finding Jesus Dec. 25?
Or, the one that had Mags alone seeing a resurrected Christ?
You’ll repeat your “challenge” and it’ll get taken apart, just as it’s been the other 50 times you’ve propped it up. When your claims are shown to be false, you’ll flip to the “mystery religion” excuse. When that doesn’t work, you’ll flop back to what you deem the “folklore” stuff. Then, you’ll make screwball claims that the canonical Gospels, which I will repeatedly show to be inaccurate (citing chapter and verse, for all to see).
-
Oh, you mean like your claim that the canonical Gospels has Mags being the only woman at the tomb. Or the one that has “three kings” finding Jesus Dec. 25?
Or, the one that had Mags alone seeing a resurrected Christ?
More dishonesty, I never made any such claims... unless you are going to edit my posts to make it seem so.
I also notice that you are now drawing distinctions between being nailed to a cross pre and post-mortem... being nailed to a board, and being crucified... being crucified, and being quartered and placed into a box (The Coffin constellation) then thrown into the Nile (the Milky Way) only to wash up in a tree (the Southern Cross constellation). How is that substantively different from Jesus (the sun) being crucified upon a tree/cross (The Southern Cross constellation), placed in a tomb (the Milky Way Void)???
Suffice it to say, ALL of these are obvious astrological metaphors... but your "This one has a funny hat" argument is well taken. Still wrong, but you get points for chronic moronic persistence.
I also notice that you aren't even trying to hide the fact that you are just Google-fu'ing answers.
I also notice the conspicuous absence of any mention of the Kashmiri Jesus, Issa.
Afraid to dismiss the case of a "son of god" who was crucified... Roman-style... in Jerusalem... by the Romans... for blasphemy... on the orders of Pilate... at the same time as Jesus...
Well, I understand, that one is a little too close to simply dismiss without consideration (your only tactic).
The Luke
PS- ...none of the canonical gospels are First century, the oldest is a copy of the Gospel of Mark which dates to about 155 AD, and every reference to Jesus in Josephus is a forgery (or addition). Josephus' mention of a prophecy foretelling the birth of a miracle child refers to the birth of Augustus. Only Christian apologists argue differently.
-
More dishonesty, I never made any such claims... unless you are going to edit my posts to make it seem so.
I see the amnesia is kicking into gear, again. Here’s a refresher (these are YOUR WORDS):
- she washes Jesus' feet; something only a wife may do. An unmarried Jewish woman certainly wouldn't do this with an unmarried Jewish man.
- she travels to the tomb to anoint/wash Jesus' body. Only a wife or mother is permitted to do this.
- she is the first witness to the risen Jesus and asks the Magdalene not to "embrace" him.
- the wedding at Canae is hinted as being Jesus' wedding.
- she never leaves Jesus side, but stays with the Virgin Mary and Christ till the bitter end.
You claimed that Mags was Jesus’ wife – INCORRECT (Mags wasn’t redeemed after Jesus’ death; Jesus charges John to care for His mother, not his so-called wife)
You claimed that only a wife would wash Jesus' feet - INCORRECT (The Pharisee, Simon, called her a "sinful woman" and murmured about the "manner of woman" Mags was).
You claimed that the wedding at Cana was that of Jesus Christ – INCORRECT (The actual unnamed groom is called by the governor of the feast)
You claimed that Mary (Jesus’ mother) was a perpetual virgin – INCORRECT (Jesus’ brothers: Juda, James, Joses, and Simon; plus he has unnamed sisters)
A virgin birth marked by a bright star and attended by "three wise men"? Come on guys....
It's always the same stuff:
-born of a virgin on 25th or December
-bright star marks his birthplace
-born in a cave/stable
-three kings attend his birth
-knows everything by age 12
-baptised in a river
-chooses twelve disciples (and a hidden thirteenth secret female disciple associated with a snake)
-performs miracles: heals the sick; the lame; the blind; raises the dead; feeds a multitude
-loses a shoe/foot/leg (Jebus has his feet washed)
-betrayed to the tyrant by his brother/twin/lover/disciple
-crucified (or similar variant)
-placed back in a tomb
-rises from the dead after three days
-ascends into heaven
You claimed that the Bible “indirectly” states Jesus was born Dec. 25 – INCORRECT (The “Dog Star” has nothing to do with tabulating when Jesus was born; or did you forget that the shepherds found Jesus Christ, as a newborn baby, WITHOUT the use of a star, whatsoever.)
You claimed that the wise men were kings – INCORRECT (“Magi” are priests, astrologers, and scientists; see the definition of “Magi”, posted earlier)
You claimed that they “always” travel in groups of three – INCORRECT (Eastern tradition has them in groups as high as 12)
You claimed that they attended Jesus’ birth – INCORRECT (They find him when Jesus was around two years old)
You claimed that Jesus getting His feet washed is the same as getting them chopped off, shot, or losing a shoe - OH BROTHER!!!!
Mary Magdalene, as Jesus' wife, is the first and sole witness to the risen Jesus
You claimed that Mags was the only woman at Jesus’ tomb – INCORRECT (Salome, Jesus’ mother, and Joanna were there, along with other unnamed women)
Osiris was either nailed to a tree or nailed to a rack before he was dismembered, his body parts were then spread to the FOUR CARDINAL POINTS (The Southern Cross constellation) and pieces of him did end up stuck in trees.
...Issa, the Kasmiri/Pakistani/Indian version of Jesus was actually crucified Roman style, in Jerusalem by the Romans on the orders of Pilate.
The Mystery Religion versions of Achilles; Tammuz; Attis; Mithras; Horus; Hercules and even Pythagoras (the mathematician) are all crucified on either a tree; tau or cross.
You claimed that Osiris died via crucifixion – INCORRECT (He got stuffed in a box and DROWNED)
You claimed that Attis died via crucifixion – INCORRECT (He castrated himself)
You claim that Dionysus died via crucifixion – INCORRECT (He and his mother get burned to death)
You claimed that Mithras died via crucifixion - That's BULL....literally (Mithras either died as a bull or killed one in some heroic motif).
I also notice that you are now drawing distinctions between being nailed to a cross pre and post-mortem... being nailed to a board, and being crucified... being crucified, and being quartered and placed into a box (The Coffin constellation) then thrown into the Nile (the Milky Way) only to wash up in a tree (the Southern Cross constellation). How is that substantively different from Jesus (the sun) being crucified upon a tree/cross (The Southern Cross constellation), placed in a tomb (the Milky Way Void)
Those “distinctions” are known as something else…..DETAILS, the things you claimed that I couldn’t provide to show that Jesus wasn’t crafted from those other figures (that’s when you start playing the “tiny” vs. “major” game).
But, don't take my word for it. From Dr. Ronald Nash's, "Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?"
The Cult of Isis and Osiris
The cult of Isis originated in Egypt and went through two major stages. In its older Egyptian version, which was not a mystery religion, Isis was regarded as the goddess of heaven, earth, the sea, and the unseen world below. In this earlier stage, Isis had a husband named Osiris. The cult of Isis became a mystery religion only after Ptolemy the First introduced major changes, sometime after 300 B.C. In the later stage, a new god named Serapis became Isis's consort. Ptolemy introduced these changes in order to synthesize Egyptian and Greek concerns in his kingdom, thus hastening the Hellenization of Egypt.
From Egypt, the cult of Isis gradually made its way to Rome. While Rome was at first repelled by the cult, the religion finally entered the city during the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37-41). Its influence spread gradually during the next two centuries, and in some locales it became a major rival of Christianity. The cult's success in the Roman Empire seems to have resulted from its impressive ritual and the hope of immortality offered to its followers.
The basic myth of the Isis cult concerned Osiris, her husband during the earlier Egyptian and nonmystery stage of the religion. According to the most common version of the myth, Osiris was murdered by his brother who then sank the coffin containing Osiris's body into the Nile river. Isis discovered the body and returned it to Egypt. But her brother-in-law once again gained access to the body, this time dismembering it into fourteen pieces which he scattered widely. Following a long search, Isis recovered each part of the body. It is at this point that the language used to describe what followed is crucial. Sometimes those telling the story are satisfied to say that Osiris came back to life, even though such language claims far more than the myth allows. Some writers go even further and refer to the alleged "resurrection" of Osiris. One liberal scholar illustrates how biased some writers are when they describe the pagan myth in Christian language: "The dead body of Osiris floated in the Nile and he returned to life, this being accomplished by a baptism in the waters of the Nile."
This biased and sloppy use of language suggests three misleading analogies between Osiris and Christ: (1) a savior god dies and (2) then experiences a resurrection accompanied by (3) water baptism. But the alleged similarities, as well as the language used to describe them, turn out to be fabrications of the modern scholar and are not part of the original myth. Comparisons between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris are greatly exaggerated. Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes king of the underworld. Equally far-fetched are attempts to find an analogue of Christian baptism in the Osiris myth. The fate of Osiris's coffin in the Nile is as relevant to baptism as the sinking of Atlantis.
As previously noted, during its later mystery stage, the male deity of the Isis cult is no longer the dying Osiris but Serapis. Serapis is often portrayed as a sun god, and it is clear that he was not a dying god. Obviously then, neither could he be a rising god. Thus, it is worth remembering that the post-Ptolemaic mystery version of the Isis cult that was in circulation from about 300 B.C. through the early centuries of the Christian era had absolutely nothing that could resemble a dying and rising savior-god.
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0169a.html (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0169a.html)
Dr. Nash also covers the wacky claims, regarding Attis and Mithras.
Suffice it to say, ALL of these are obvious astrological metaphors... but your "This one has a funny hat" argument is well taken. Still wrong, but you get points for chronic moronic persistence.
Please!!! This has zip to do with astrology. What makes your bleating even more pitiful is that YOU are the one who made the claims about the “funny hat”. You said that Osiris died via crucifixion, which is DEAD WRONG. And, lest you start crying about my alleged dishonesty, these are more of YOUR WORDS!!!
Osiris is indeed dismembered... cut into 72 pieces if I remember correctly (by the evil tyrant Sett) which is an important astrological number as the precession of the equinoxes backwards through the zodiac progresses (regresses?) by one degree every 72 years (actually now known to be 71.8 years). But it is the method of dismemberment that you forgot; he's quartered. Nailed up on a rack or tree and chopped into pieces which are then scattered to the four cardinal points: north, south, east and west... represented by the constellation of The Southern Cross
More “de-Nile” on your part ;D. You specifically stated that the one of the supposed commonalities between Jesus and those other figures is DEATH by CRUCIFIXION.
Problem is that Osiris doesn’t die by crucifixion. When I mentioned that he got dismembered, you started flapping your lips about his being crucified, which is FALSE (as shown by the reference I posted about Osiris). He got drowned, after being sealed in a wooden box.
Stating that Jesus was crafted from Osiris, because Osiris’ casket gets washed ashore and lands in a tree, is utterly ridiculous. And, to top it all, he was cut into FOURTEEN (14) pieces, not 72 (What excuse are you going to use to cover up that particular blunder?).
Crucifixion is a form of EXECUTION, which obviously wouldn’t apply to someone who’s ALREADY DEAD. Once again, you continue to flip-flop, when your assertions get sliced.
Same goes for Attis. The only thing involving a “tree” with regards to his death is that he’s either turned into one after he dies, bleeds to death underneath one, or a log is used to carry off his ALREADY-DEAD body. That is a far cry from death via crucifixion. And, his death was because of his obsession of wanting to get his freak on with his own mama.
I also notice that you aren't even trying to hide the fact that you are just Google-fu'ing answers.
I have to “google-fu” the answers, because (as is nearly always the case), you don’t provide the references to back your screwball claims. Yet, you whine about my not wanting to read about stuff and look it up for myself.
When I make claims, I use references to back them, rather than the “cluck-and-duck” method you tend to use (“Cluck” referring to your grandiose declaration of statements as fact; “Duck” referring to the repeated back-tracking and excuse-making you undertake, when your ramblings are shown to be inaccurate).
I also notice the conspicuous absence of any mention of the Kashmiri Jesus, Issa.
Afraid to dismiss the case of a "son of god" who was crucified...
Roman-style... in Jerusalem... by the Romans... for blasphemy... on the orders of Pilate... at the same time as Jesus...
Well, I understand, that one is a little too close to simply dismiss without consideration (your only tactic).
The Luke
You’ve been DEAD WRONG about the others. I’m sure once I ‘google-fu’ this one, it will likely turn out that your claim about him is off the mark, just as the rest of them are.
PS- ...none of the canonical gospels are First century, the oldest is a copy of the Gospel of Mark which dates to about 155 AD, and every reference to Jesus in Josephus is a forgery (or addition). Josephus' mention of a prophecy foretelling the birth of a miracle child refers to the birth of Augustus. Only Christian apologists argue differently.
PS - There are only two references to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities (neither of which talks about Jesus' birth or His being a miracle child); and, as mentioned earlier (per the research of Josephian historian, Louis Feldman, Alice Whealey, and others) the second passage, which called James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ”, is authentic.
As for the dates of the Gospels…..
“There is a great deal of contemporary thought that tries to late-date the Gospels and argues that none of the canonical gospels were written before A.D. 70. I don’t agree with that; and, historically, most Christian scholars haven’t agree with it.” – Dr. D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Seminary
“I’d be willing to put the earliest Gospel anytime after 40 A.D., and the lastest Gospel as late as the 90s A.D.” – Dr. Robert Yarborough, Trinity Evangelical Seminary
-
You claimed that Mags was Jesus’ wife – INCORRECT (Mags wasn’t redeemed after Jesus’ death; Jesus charges John to care for His mother, not his so-called wife)
...there's an entire gospel (Gospel of Mary Magdalene), with better provenance than any of the canonical gospels, that says otherwise. There is also an 800 year history of Christian sects believing this (the Cathars; Bogomils; Albigensians; Hibernians; Aryans etc). In fact, for about a thousand years, more Christians believed Jesus and the Magdalene were a couple... than didn't. Besides a widowed wife isn't allowed to take charge of a mother, nor assume the role of head of household according to Jewish custom.
But I suppose I too should dismiss all this because you dismiss it.
You claimed that only a wife would wash Jesus' feet - INCORRECT (The Pharisee, Simon, called her a "sinful woman" and murmured about the "manner of woman" Mags was).
...how do Simon's comments change first century Jewish tradition?
In first century Judea, among traditional Jews (and even Hellenized Jews), the washing of feet was only done by a mans mother or wife. This isn't a matter of interpretation. That's why the disciples are so surprised when Jesus assumes the role of servant and washes their feet.
You claimed that the wedding at Cana was that of Jesus Christ – INCORRECT (The actual unnamed groom is called by the governor of the feast)
...let's see the scriptural quote.
The wedding at Canae is obviously Jesus' wedding for the reasons I already gave: according to Jewish tradition the grooms mother is responsible for the reception... Mary (Virgin) is the one who tells Jesus about the wine shortage. As a guest she wouldn't have even been aware of such.
You claimed that Mary (Jesus’ mother) was a perpetual virgin – INCORRECT (Jesus’ brothers: Juda, James, Joses, and Simon; plus he has unnamed sisters)
...learn your Church history.
The perpetual virginity of Mother Mary is one of only two fundamental Christian tenets backed with the seal of Papal Infallibility (the other being that Christ is risen). This is fact, and has been Church teaching for two thousand years... despite what your particular creepy Protestant Evangelical cult might have believed for the past century or so.
Again with the brothers and sisters... sigh, didn't I already explain that this is a modern translation of a term that just as easily applies to cousins; clansmen; tribe members; extended family; as it does to "siblings"?... didn't YOU already explain that it is a translation of a term that is not specific to siblings but includes most family members?
You claimed that the Bible “indirectly” states Jesus was born Dec. 25 – INCORRECT (The “Dog Star” has nothing to do with tabulating when Jesus was born; or did you forget that the shepherds found Jesus Christ, as a newborn baby, WITHOUT the use of a star, whatsoever.)
...it does.
On the 25th of December, when the sun rises in the east, it dawns on the horizon just one degree beyond it's weakest ever dawn (21st of December, the midwinter solstice and shortest/weakest day of the year). So the 25th of December is the "birth" of the new sun: the first time a solar measurement will reveal a strengthening of the sun after 6 months of waning.
The 25th of December dawning sun rises directly below Sirius the Dog Star (the "brightest star" in the sky) and the Dog Star "leads" the trio of stars known as the "Three Kings" or "Three Wise Men" that point in a straight line to the EXACT point on the horizon beneath Sirius where the newborn sun rises.
So, a story about a "son of god" (the sun) "born" under a "bright star" that involves "Three Kings" or "Three Wise Men" IS INDEED referencing the 25th of December dawn. That's why the births of Mithras; Attis; Horus; Hercules and ALL 30-odd other solar deities (Jesus included) are all celebrated on the 25th of December.
Your assertion that the Jesus story is completely original makes the nativity story pretty suspicious if we are to believe (as you seem to insist we should) that the Jesus story just happens to accidentally include ALL of these astrological metaphors.
You claimed that the wise men were kings – INCORRECT (“Magi” are priests, astrologers, and scientists; see the definition of “Magi”, posted earlier)
You claimed that they “always” travel in groups of three – INCORRECT (Eastern tradition has them in groups as high as 12)
...that's a misunderstanding, but an understandable misunderstanding.
Since the time of Ashuribal II (Emperor of Chaldea upon whom Moses is modelled) and the historian Berossus, an implicit understanding spread across the ancient world: that state-sponsored traveling academics were to be beneficiaries of the protection of whichever potentates domain they traveled within.
Hence a historian such as Berossus could travel from centre of learning to centre of learning just as assuredly, and with all the confidence, of a king.
Here in Ireland this class of learned storytellers/historians/astrologers were referred to as "Filiocht". Should any of them be harmed, the local tribal chief would massacre the entire population of the town responsible for fear that the other tribal kings would challenge his standing as warlord. The Filiocht, travelling form town to town and demanding food and shelter from the locals were referred to as "a nation of kings" due to this special status.
The same convention also applied in the Middle East. Some of these traveling "Magi" even retained small armies to protect themselves in bandit country... hence they were often known as "Priest Kings".
That is why the constellation of three stars which mark the 25th December dawn are known interchangeably as either the "Three Kings" or "The Three Wise Men".
You claimed that they attended Jesus’ birth – INCORRECT (They find him when Jesus was around two years old)
...your reasoning here is faulty. Just because Herod supposedly ordered the deaths of ALL children under two (another astrological metaphor) doesn't mean Jesus was two years old.
You claimed that Mags was the only woman at Jesus’ tomb – INCORRECT (Salome, Jesus’ mother, and Joanna were there, along with other unnamed women)
...I think I claimed the Magdalene (as Jesus' wife and/or secret disciple) was the first and sole witness to the risen Jesus. She was, wasn't she... everyone else sees the risen Jesus later on.
You claimed that Osiris died via crucifixion – INCORRECT (He got stuffed in a box and DROWNED)
You claimed that Attis died via crucifixion – INCORRECT (He castrated himself)
You claim that Dionysus died via crucifixion – INCORRECT (He and his mother get burned to death)
...I claimed they were crucified. I never claimed they "died via crucifixion". That's just your attempt to paraphrase and then nitpick.
For the record, the dying/resurrecting godmen named were:
-nailed to a tree/rack then quartered/dismembered, piled into a box that then ended up stuck in a tree
-bled to death then was either nailed to a tree or nailed to a cross
-burned to death, or in another version of the story: flogged to death while nailed to a cross
So... potaTOE... poTAtoe...
Those “distinctions” are known as something else…..DETAILS, the things you claimed that I couldn’t provide to show that Jesus wasn’t crafted from those other figures (that’s when you start playing the “tiny” vs. “major” game).
...so are you claiming the Jesus story is NOT copied, but rather... plagiarised?
Please!!! This has zip to do with astrology. What makes your bleating even more pitiful is that YOU are the one who made the claims about the “funny hat”. You said that Osiris died via crucifixion, which is DEAD WRONG. And, lest you start crying about my alleged dishonesty, these are more of YOUR WORDS!!!
More “de-Nile” on your part ;D. You specifically stated that the one of the supposed commonalities between Jesus and those other figures is DEATH by CRUCIFIXION.
Problem is that Osiris doesn’t die by crucifixion. When I mentioned that he got dismembered, you started flapping your lips about his being crucified, which is FALSE (as shown by the reference I posted about Osiris). He got drowned, after being sealed in a wooden box.
Stating that Jesus was crafted from Osiris, because Osiris’ casket gets washed ashore and lands in a tree, is utterly ridiculous. And, to top it all, he was cut into FOURTEEN (14) pieces, not 72 (What excuse are you going to use to cover up that particular blunder?).
Crucifixion is a form of EXECUTION, which obviously wouldn’t apply to someone who’s ALREADY DEAD. Once again, you continue to flip-flop, when your assertions get sliced.
Same goes for Attis. The only thing involving a “tree” with regards to his death is that he’s either turned into one after he dies, bleeds to death underneath one, or a log is used to carry off his ALREADY-DEAD body. That is a far cry from death via crucifixion. And, his death was because of his obsession of wanting to get his freak on with his own mama.
I have to “google-fu” the answers, because (as is nearly always the case), you don’t provide the references to back your screwball claims. Yet, you whine about my not wanting to read about stuff and look it up for myself.
When I make claims, I use references to back them, rather than the “cluck-and-duck” method you tend to use (“Cluck” referring to your grandiose declaration of statements as fact; “Duck” referring to the repeated back-tracking and excuse-making you undertake, when your ramblings are shown to be inaccurate).
You’ve been DEAD WRONG about the others. I’m sure once I ‘google-fu’ this one, it will likely turn out that your claim about him is off the mark, just as the rest of them are.
...you still have yet to find a single detail that isn't an astrological metaphor/allegory lifted from a previous religion.
Haven't you noticed that all your dismissals involve you downplaying obvious congruences... Attis isn't crucified because he either dies under a tree; or is nailed to a tree after he bleeds to death; or turns into a tree... ?
Isn't it obvious that the story always involves the death of a solar deity in conjunction with the Southern Cross constellation (a tree/cross)?
If you are so willing to accept the three different alternate endings of the Attis story (all of them astrological), then why won't you accept the alternate versions of the Dionysus; Tammuz; Hercules; Mithras; Bacchus and Achilles stories in which each of them are crucified?
PS - There are only two references to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities (neither of which talks about Jesus' birth or His being a miracle child); and, as mentioned earlier (per the research of Josephian historian, Louis Feldman, Alice Whealey, and others) the second passage, which called James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ”, is authentic.
...forgery only defended by Christian apologists unwilling to denounce the very last hope of a historical Jesus.
As for the dates of the Gospels…..
“There is a great deal of contemporary thought that tries to late-date the Gospels and argues that none of the canonical gospels were written before A.D. 70. I don’t agree with that; and, historically, most Christian scholars haven’t agree with it.” – Dr. D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Seminary
“I’d be willing to put the earliest Gospel anytime after 40 A.D., and the lastest Gospel as late as the 90s A.D.” – Dr. Robert Yarborough, Trinity Evangelical Seminary
...the oldest copy of ANY gospel is a 155 AD copy of Mark.
All the canonical gospels are believed to be copies of a lost source document, usually named "Q" by linguists. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, on the other hand is considered to be first century. That's a lifetime closer to the first person in this game of Chinese Whispers.
The wishful opinions of Christian true believers don't change any of these FACTS.
Spectral analysis of this oldest Gospel of Mark document has shown it to be original manuscript... EXCEPT for one important detail: the final line... "After three days he arose from the dead and ascended into heaven"... that was added later... much later.
The Luke
-
“I’d be willing to put the earliest Gospel anytime after 40 A.D., and the lastest Gospel as late as the 90s A.D.” – Dr. Robert Yarborough, Trinity Evangelical Seminary
Hmm, not sure if I trust this Yarborough chap... ;D
-
...there's an entire gospel (Gospel of Mary Magdalene), with better provenance than any of the canonical gospels, that says otherwise. There is also an 800 year history of Christian sects believing this (the Cathars; Bogomils; Albigensians; Hibernians; Aryans etc). In fact, for about a thousand years, more Christians believed Jesus and the Magdalene were a couple... than didn't. Besides a widowed wife isn't allowed to take charge of a mother, nor assume the role of head of household according to Jewish custom.
But I suppose I too should dismiss all this because you dismiss it.
What are you talking about? John is the one who takes charge of Mary, NOT Mags.
Whether they believed Jesus and Mags were a couple or not isn't the issue. And, notwithstanding the spurious nature of your claim concerning the "Gospel of Mary Magdelene" vs. the canonical Gospels, it's a simple case of four vs. one, a difference made even clearer by the fact that:
- Jesus' claim that His kingdom was not an earthly one
- Mags, had He been Jesus' wife, would have been redeemed by one of Jesus' unmarried brothers.
...how do Simon's comments change first century Jewish tradition?
Simon's comments show that he knows Mags WAS NOT Jesus' wife, as a Jewish man would not refer to another man's Mrs. in such a manner. And, from the gist of his comments (and those of Jesus). The issue of wives only being able to wash a man's feet is a dubious one. Though Simon isn't pleased about the incident, no formal (or informal) charges are brought up, concerning her behavior.
In first century Judea, among traditional Jews (and even Hellenized Jews), the washing of feet was only done by a mans mother or wife. This isn't a matter of interpretation. That's why the disciples are so surprised when Jesus assumes the role of servant and washes their feet.
The disciples are astonished because they believe He's the Messiah and that the LAST thing the Messiah would do, in their minds. Mags was not Jesus' mother nor His wife. Again, one of Jesus' brothers would have been sought to redeem her, had she been that.
...let's see the scriptural quote.
The wedding at Canae is obviously Jesus' wedding for the reasons I already gave: according to Jewish tradition the grooms mother is responsible for the reception... Mary (Virgin) is the one who tells Jesus about the wine shortage. As a guest she wouldn't have even been aware of such.
So obvious that the ruler of the feast thanks, NOT JESUS, but an unnamed groom for the good wine, not to mention that the wedding had more or less started BEFORE HE EVEN GOT THERE.
I already posted it, Luke. Apparently, you didn't read it the first time.
John 2:1-11
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: butthou hast kept the good wine until now.
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
Jesus would NOT need to be summoned at His own wedding. The passage ends with the wine as being the BEGINNING of miracles. Jesus always performed miracles for others, NOT FOR HIMSELF.
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
...learn your Church history.
The perpetual virginity of Mother Mary is one of only two fundamental Christian tenets backed with the seal of Papal Infallibility (the other being that Christ is risen). This is fact, and has been Church teaching for two thousand years... despite what your particular creepy Protestant Evangelical cult might have believed for the past century or so.
Take your own advice, again, and learn yours.
Perprtual virginity may be an issue for Catholics. But to Protestants, the Pope ain't nothing but an old guy in a "funny hat".
Again with the brothers and sisters... sigh, didn't I already explain that this is a modern translation of a term that just as easily applies to cousins; clansmen; tribe members; extended family; as it does to "siblings"?... didn't YOU already explain that it is a translation of a term that is not specific to siblings but includes most family members?
Ummm....NO!! The primary meaning of "aldepho" is "brothers". The surrounding context in which it's used validates whether or not is it talking about actual brothers or other relatives. The context of that verse talks about Jesus' IMMEDIATE FAMILY, starting with His mother. It identifies Jesus as a carpenter and asks about His immediate family. The only ones claiming that it's talking about more distant relatives are people like you, foolishly assuming that the Scripture talks about Mary being a virgin indefinitely. Mary's virginity is only mentioned twice: in the opening chapters of Luke and Matthew.
...it does.
On the 25th of December, when the sun rises in the east, it dawns on the horizon just one degree beyond it's weakest ever dawn (21st of December, the midwinter solstice and shortest/weakest day of the year). So the 25th of December is the "birth" of the new sun: the first time a solar measurement will reveal a strengthening of the sun after 6 months of waning.
The 25th of December dawning sun rises directly below Sirius the Dog Star (the "brightest star" in the sky) and the Dog Star "leads" the trio of stars known as the "Three Kings" or "Three Wise Men" that point in a straight line to the EXACT point on the horizon beneath Sirius where the newborn sun rises.
So, a story about a "son of god" (the sun) "born" under a "bright star" that involves "Three Kings" or "Three Wise Men" IS INDEED referencing the 25th of December dawn. That's why the births of Mithras; Attis; Horus; Hercules and ALL 30-odd other solar deities (Jesus included) are all celebrated on the 25th of December.
And NONE of that to do with Jesus Christ being born Dec. 25, for reasons, mentioned multiple times. But, since you don't grasp hints, that well:
1) The number of wise men is UNDETERMINED by Scripture. It is Western Tradition that fixes the number at three; Eastern Tradition has magi traveling in groups of 12.
2) The shepherds find Jesus, immediately after His birth......AND THEY DON'T USE A STAR, AT ALL
3) When the wise men find Jesus, He's around TWO YEARS OLD. They don't find Him as a newborn baby.
Your assertion that the Jesus story is completely original makes the nativity story pretty suspicious if we are to believe (as you seem to insist we should) that the Jesus story just happens to accidentally include ALL of these astrological metaphors.
That is merely Jesus-mythers like you, trying to dismiss the account of His actual life by foolishly and inaccurately trying to wedge accounts of other figures into the Jesus account or vice versa. The trick is old, fairly easy to spot, and has been refuted by traditional scholars early and often.
...that's a misunderstanding, but an understandable misunderstanding.
Since the time of Ashuribal II (Emperor of Chaldea upon whom Moses is modelled) and the historian Berossus, an implicit understanding spread across the ancient world: that state-sponsored traveling academics were to be beneficiaries of the protection of whichever potentates domain they traveled within.
Hence a historian such as Berossus could travel from centre of learning to centre of learning just as assuredly, and with all the confidence, of a king.
Here in Ireland this class of learned storytellers/historians/astrologers were referred to as "Filiocht". Should any of them be harmed, the local tribal chief would massacre the entire population of the town responsible for fear that the other tribal kings would challenge his standing as warlord. The Filiocht, travelling form town to town and demanding food and shelter from the locals were referred to as "a nation of kings" due to this special status.
The same convention also applied in the Middle East. Some of these traveling "Magi" even retained small armies to protect themselves in bandit country... hence they were often known as "Priest Kings".
That is why the constellation of three stars which mark the 25th December dawn are known interchangeably as either the "Three Kings" or "The Three Wise Men".
Again, look up Magi.
...your reasoning here is faulty. Just because Herod supposedly ordered the deaths of ALL children under two (another astrological metaphor) doesn't mean Jesus was two years old.
There'd be no reason for Herod to kill two-year-old boys, unless He believe Jesus to be around that age. Had the wise men seen the "star" any sooner than that, Herod would have been able to narrow his search for Christ, based on age.
...I think I claimed the Magdalene (as Jesus' wife and/or secret disciple) was the first and sole witness to the risen Jesus. She was, wasn't she... everyone else sees the risen Jesus later on.
Look at what you just said!!
"SOLE" means one. If someone else, besides Mags, see the risen Jesus (and there are at least a dozen who do), that means Mags isn't the "SOLE" witness, is she?
...I claimed they were crucified. I never claimed they "died via crucifixion". That's just your attempt to paraphrase and then nitpick.
What was that you were saying about dishonesty again?
Crucifixion is a method of EXECUTION; it's how you kill people. You don't crucify those who are ALREADY DEAD, as Osiris, Attis, and others were.
For the record, the dying/resurrecting godmen named were:
-nailed to a tree/rack then quartered/dismembered, piled into a box that then ended up stuck in a tree
-bled to death then was either nailed to a tree or nailed to a cross
-burned to death, or in another version of the story: flogged to death while nailed to a cross.
So... potaTOE... poTAtoe...
Boy are you struggling or what? Attis wasn't nailed to a tree. In fact, depending on which version you pick, Attis may or may not be the tree himself. In any event, he's already dead. The "tree" has no bearing on the cause of his death.
Jesus wasn't burned to death, nor was He flogged while on a cross. Once again, you're struggling to fuse pieces and bits together to make your weak claims stick.
You can't even gets your facts straight about the other figures. Osiris was put in that box ALIVE AND WHOLE. Isis finds his body and takes it away. It is Set who catches up to her, took the box, and dismembered AN ALREADY-DEAD Osiris into 14....NOT 72....pieces.
If that ain't bad enough, Osiris remained in the underworld. So, the resurrection stuff don't fly on him.
...so are you claiming the Jesus story is NOT copied, but rather... plagiarised?
...you still have yet to find a single detail that isn't an astrological metaphor/allegory lifted from a previous religion.
Wrong, and myopic, yet again. But, what else is new? ;D
Haven't you noticed that all your dismissals involve you downplaying obvious congruences... Attis isn't crucified because he either dies under a tree; or is nailed to a tree after he bleeds to death; or turns into a tree... ?
What part of "crucifixion is a form of EXECUTION" fails to register in that head of yours? You said that's how Attis died; that ain't the case. He cuts his balls off and bleeds to death.
Isn't it obvious that the story always involves the death of a solar deity in conjunction with the Southern Cross constellation (a tree/cross)?
Jesus ain't a solar deity; so all of that gibberish is moot.
If you are so willing to accept the three different alternate endings of the Attis story (all of them astrological), then why won't you accept the alternate versions of the Dionysus; Tammuz; Hercules; Mithras; Bacchus and Achilles stories in which each of them are crucified?
Because the "alternate" endings DO NOT involve crucifixion, contrary to your repeated and inaccurate claims.
...forgery only defended by Christian apologists unwilling to denounce the very last hope of a historical Jesus.
That's funny!! I could have sworn that Louis Feldman was JEWISH. Jesus' existence is hardly in question, with the lone exception and ramblings of the "Jesus-myth" posse, whose rehashes from the so-called "Enlightenment" period have been torn into almost as many pieces as Osiris. ;D
...the oldest copy of ANY gospel is a 155 AD copy of Mark.
Key word......COPY!!!!!!
All the canonical gospels are believed to be copies of a lost source document, usually named "Q" by linguists. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, on the other hand is considered to be first century. That's a lifetime closer to the first person in this game of Chinese Whispers.
The wishful opinions of Christian true believers don't change any of these FACTS.
The day you start quoting some facts is the day the Bills win a Super Bowl.
Spectral analysis of this oldest Gospel of Mark document has shown it to be original manuscript... EXCEPT for one important detail: the final line... "After three days he arose from the dead and ascended into heaven"... that was added later... much later.
The Luke
I believe Loco covered the spectral analysis stuff. Of course, the fact that there are fragments of the Gospels (other than Mark) that date around that time OR EARLIER, not to mention the writings of early Christians from late 1st/early2nd-century AD (loaded with verses from the Gospels), pretty much cancelled this feeble quip of yours.
-
Hmm, not sure if I trust this Yarborough chap... ;D
You'd probably trust him more, if he said what I meant to post....."and the LATEST Gospel anytime after the 90s A.D."
;D
-
You'd probably trust him more, if he said what I meant to post....."and the LATEST Gospel anytime after the 90s A.D."
;D
I'm enjoying this thread, and I wish I had some knowledge of the subject so that I could join in. I do believe that there was a person, who Christians call Jesus, who existed at that time. I also think that incidents throughout his life were recorded (kind of in folklore), and those incidents were then turned into miracles through word of mouth and 2000 years later here we are. (Kind of basic, I know :D)
However, as the 'Son of God', I'm just not buying it.
-
I'm enjoying this thread, and I wish I had some knowledge of the subject so that I could join in. I do believe that there was a person, who Christians call Jesus, who existed at that time. I also think that incidents throughout his life were recorded (kind of in folklore), and those incidents were then turned into miracles through word of mouth and 2000 years later here we are. (Kind of basic, I know :D)
However, as the 'Son of God', I'm just not buying it.
Well you know...
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/Jesus.jpg)
-
I'm enjoying this thread, and I wish I had some knowledge of the subject so that I could join in. I do believe that there was a person, who Christians call Jesus, who existed at that time. I also think that incidents throughout his life were recorded (kind of in folklore), and those incidents were then turned into miracles through word of mouth and 2000 years later here we are. (Kind of basic, I know :D)
However, as the 'Son of God', I'm just not buying it.
That's fine! This is what discussion is all about. You make your case and, when possible and practical, use references to support your statements.
-
That's fine! This is what discussion is all about. You make your case and, when possible and practical, use references to support your statements.
As long as he agrees with you MCWAY.
-
That's fine! This is what discussion is all about. You make your case and, when possible and practical, use references to support your statements.
As I read through both sides of the argument here, I keep wondering what you and The Luke's beliefs are? Outside of all the scientific/evidence stuff, do either of you believe in God? Are you atheists?
I ask because I have never believed in God, or any higher power, and maybe sometimes it's hard to look at evidence objectively if it goes against what you already believe?
-
As I read through both sides of the argument here, I keep wondering what you and The Luke's beliefs are? Outside of all the scientific/evidence stuff, do either of you believe in God? Are you atheists?
I ask because I have never believed in God, or any higher power, and maybe sometimes it's hard to look at evidence objectively if it goes against what you already believe?
MCWAY is a bible thumping fundy, just read some of his posts.
-
As I read through both sides of the argument here, I keep wondering what you and The Luke's beliefs are? Outside of all the scientific/evidence stuff, do either of you believe in God? Are you atheists?
I ask because I have never believed in God, or any higher power, and maybe sometimes it's hard to look at evidence objectively if it goes against what you already believe?
[/quote]
I believe in God. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, who died on the cross to save mankind from sin.
There have been times in my life, where I have questioned my beliefs (contrary to what some posters may think about believers). I've done my research and had those questions answered to my satisfaction. Therefore, I have maintained my faith in God.
MCWAY is a bible thumping fundy, just read some of his posts.
I believe this gentleman (or lady) asked ME what I believe. So, if you don't mind (welll....even if you do), I will answer for myself.
-
I believe in God. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, who died on the cross to save mankind from sin.
There have been times in my life, where I have questioned my beliefs (contrary to what some posters may think about believers). I've done my research and had those questions answered to my satisfaction. Therefore, I have maintained my faith in God.
I respect anyone who has a belief, as long as that faith is used correctly, there are too many people in the world who take it the wrong way. It's a shame that something that helps people in so many ways is also probably the greatest cause of human death.
As a religious person though, do you accept everything contained in the Bible as truth?
I believe this gentleman (or lady) asked ME what I believe. So, if you don't mind (welll....even if you do), I will answer for myself.
Gentleman thank you! >:(
-
I respect anyone who has a belief, as long as that faith is used correctly, there are too many people in the world who take it the wrong way. It's a shame that something that helps people in so many ways is also probably the greatest cause of human death.
As a religious person though, do you accept everything contained in the Bible as truth?
Gentleman thank you! >:(
Sorry about that!!! Usually I assume a poster is a guy, if I can't tell from the screen name or the post. But, as of late, I've missed a couple of guesses (not necessarily here on GetBig).
To answer your next question, much of what I've read in Scripture, I've found to be true, with the rest taken by faith.
-
Sorry about that!!! Usually I assume a poster is a guy, if I can't tell from the screen name or the post. But, as of late, I've missed a couple of guesses (not necessarily here on GetBig).
To answer your next question, much of what I've read in Scripture, I've found to be true, with the rest taken by faith.
What about Genesis though? Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, stuff like that?
-
What about Genesis though? Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, stuff like that?
If you're asking whether or not I believe in Creation, the answer is "Yes"!
-
I respect anyone who has a belief, as long as that faith is used correctly, there are too many people in the world who take it the wrong way. It's a shame that something that helps people in so many ways is also probably the greatest cause of human death.
Probably not. There has been far more human death caused by secular ideas:
WWI(1914 - 1918): 19,772,701 casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#References
WWII(1930s – 1945): 62,000,000
- World War II: Combatants and Casualties (1937 — 1945). Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
- Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
- World War II Fatalities. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
Great Leap Forward(1958 - 1960): 43,000,000
- Peng Xizhe (彭希哲), "Demographic Consequences of the Great Leap Forward in China's Provinces," Population and Development Review 13, no. 4 (1987), 639-70.
Great Purge(1937 -1938): 1,200,000
- Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments by Historian Michael Ellman, 2002
Pol Pot's agrarian collectivization (1975 -1979): 1,700,000
- Sophal Ear (May 1995). The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.In Chapter 1: Introduction
- The Cambodian Genocide Program. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.
That's what? 127,672,701 casualties for just these few, that's not counting the emotional, cultural, economic trauma, etc. Keep in mind that the above did not happen in ancient times or by religious beliefs. It was done by "modern civilized people", moved by secular ideologies.
-
Get faith in God out of the way and you may see far more death in a secular society:
Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities
Where is our world headed? This goes beyond abortion. I believe in freedom of speech, but this guy, professor Peter Singer, is teaching our future leaders at Princeton University. He is a professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton. Look at what he is saying:
''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''
''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''
"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260
http://www.utilitarian.guy/by/1993----.htm
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
-
Is this the work of a Getbigger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
Mmmm.... boobs
Damnit, it's changed now. It just said boobs dow the whole page. ;D
-
Probably not. There has been far more human death caused by secular ideas:
I agree that's a lot of dead folks there. The problem is that it's impossible to estimate how many people have been killed over religion. I'm sure the numbers would be fairly high. Over 5.7 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust alone.
This site lists conflicts with religious grounds. One guy has estimated the total to be 809,000,000 deaths, although I haven't gone through to check his maths!
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon
-
I agree that's a lot of dead folks there. The problem is that it's impossible to estimate how many people have been killed over religion. I'm sure the numbers would be fairly high. Over 5.7 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust alone.
This site lists conflicts with religious grounds. One guy has estimated the total to be 809,000,000 deaths, although I haven't gone through to check his maths!
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon
I gave you hard evidence. You gave me just estimates, but yes religious conflicts have caused much death and suffering too. I'm not going to deny that.
My point is that it's time to admit that unnecessary human death and suffering is caused by human nature, with or without religion. It's time to stop blaming religion for all the world's problems.
Is religion responsible for the Holocaust? Didn't the Nazis simply falsely blame the Jews for all of Germany's problems, much like some secular people today falsely blame religion for all of the world's problems?
-
Probably not. There has been far more human death caused by secular ideas:
WWI(1914 - 1918): 19,772,701 casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#References
WWII(1930s – 1945): 62,000,000
- World War II: Combatants and Casualties (1937 — 1945). Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
- Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
- World War II Fatalities. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
Great Leap Forward(1958 - 1960): 43,000,000
- Peng Xizhe (彭希哲), "Demographic Consequences of the Great Leap Forward in China's Provinces," Population and Development Review 13, no. 4 (1987), 639-70.
Great Purge(1937 -1938): 1,200,000
- Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments by Historian Michael Ellman, 2002
Pol Pot's agrarian collectivization (1975 -1979): 1,700,000
- Sophal Ear (May 1995). The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.In Chapter 1: Introduction
- The Cambodian Genocide Program. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.
That's what? 127,672,701 casualties for just these few, that's not counting the emotional, cultural, economic trauma, etc. Keep in mind that the above did not happen in ancient times or by religious beliefs. It was done by "modern civilized people", moved by secular ideologies.
All aided and abbetted by modern technology. Put that technology in the hands of the medieval inquisitors and you would see similar such results. The key word here is ideology. Secular ideologies are no different from faith based religions and their tenets are not based on questioning things too much or demanding too much evidence. Atheism in itself lacks any ideological frramework and those events were never done in the name of atheism, quite different from things done in the name of the Church and expunging infidels.
-
I just want to be sure that I'm getting McWay's point of view right here...
McWay believes that the Jesus story is original because he:
-dismisses the 76 other gospels relying only on HIS interpretation of the four canonical gospels
-dismisses the Gospel of Mary Magdalene despite it being older than any of the canonical gospels
-dismisses the Gospel of Judas, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Gospel of Pilate, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Gospel of Thomas, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Nag Hammadi texts
-dismisses the Dead Sea Scrolls
-dismisses the work of secular archaeologists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of secular folklorists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of secular historians if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of scientists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs (he's a Creationist)
-dismisses the tenets of science itself if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses 1500 years of Christian tradition
-dismisses Church history that is not in question
-dismisses the astrological nature of the Jesus myth
-dismisses the entire concept of a Mystery Religion (won't even Google it)
-dismisses the similarities between the Jesus myth and the dying/resurrecting godman Sol Invictus
-dismisses the role of crucifixion in previous religions because those gods didn't explicitly die on the cross
-dismisses the similarities between any previous religion and the Jesus myth because they are similarities and not word for word substitutions
...okay, now I understand.
I suppose there is no need for him to address the issue of similarities between Jesus and Issa, the Kashmiri dying/resurrecting godman, who mimics Jesus in every single detail (crucified for blasphemy in Jerusalem by the Romans at the same time as Jesus).
Probably just easier to simply dismiss that one two.
The Luke
-
If you're asking whether or not I believe in Creation, the answer is "Yes"!
From a religious viewpoint then, how can you explain Noah's Ark? 2 of every single creature on the planet? Surely that's impossible?
-
From a religious viewpoint then, how can you explain Noah's Ark? 2 of every single creature on the planet? Surely that's impossible?
...it's probably possible once you dismiss reality itself.
The Luke
-
I gave you hard evidence. You gave me just estimates, but yes religious conflicts have caused much death and suffering too. I'm not going to deny that.
My point is that it's time to admit that unnecessary human death and suffering is caused by human nature, with or without religion. It's time to stop blaming religion for all the world's problems.
Is religion responsible for the Holocaust? Didn't the Nazis simply falsely blame the Jews for all of Germany's problems, much like some secular people today falsely blame religion for all of the world's problems?
I can't give you anything other than estimates, there are no hard facts available for the last 2000+ years. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I'm right, but there is no way of proving it either way. My original point is just that religion has a lot to answer for, and does the positive aspect of it outweigh the negatives?
And with the Holocaust, you said yourself the Nazi's blamed the Jews. They wasn't just a particular type of person, they targeted a religious group, so you have to count the Holocaust deaths as being attributable to religion.
-
...it's probably possible once you dismiss reality itself.
The Luke
Well, he could have gone to a zoo and picked up some animals, that would have covered about 1% of the species on the planet.
-
I can't give you anything other than estimates, there are no hard facts available for the last 2000+ years. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I'm right, but there is no way of proving it either way. My original point is just that religion has a lot to answer for, and does the positive aspect of it outweigh the negatives?
And with the Holocaust, you said yourself the Nazi's blamed the Jews. They wasn't just a particular type of person, they targeted a religious group, so you have to count the Holocaust deaths as being attributable to religion.
Secular ideals, as I've shown you, have just as much if not more to answer for, yet I'm not calling for the end of secularism or for the end of secular people.
The Nazis targeted the Jewish ethnic group, not just the Jewish religion. The Nazis were anti-Semitic, not just anti-Judaism. The Nazis killed both, secular and religious Jews.
-
I just want to be sure that I'm getting McWay's point of view right here...
McWay believes that the Jesus story is original because he:
-dismisses the 76 other gospels relying only on HIS interpretation of the four canonical gospels
-dismisses the Gospel of Mary Magdalene despite it being older than any of the canonical gospels
-dismisses the Gospel of Judas, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Gospel of Pilate, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Gospel of Thomas, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Nag Hammadi texts
-dismisses the Dead Sea Scrolls
-dismisses the work of secular archaeologists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of secular folklorists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of secular historians if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of scientists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs (he's a Creationist)
-dismisses the tenets of science itself if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses 1500 years of Christian tradition
-dismisses Church history that is not in question
-dismisses the astrological nature of the Jesus myth
-dismisses the entire concept of a Mystery Religion (won't even Google it)
-dismisses the similarities between the Jesus myth and the dying/resurrecting godman Sol Invictus
-dismisses the role of crucifixion in previous religions because those gods didn't explicitly die on the cross
-dismisses the similarities between any previous religion and the Jesus myth because they are similarities and not word for word substitutions
...okay, now I understand.
No, you don't understand. You're nowhere near the ball park.
Your "challenge" was to name ONE detail about the Jesus account that wasn't lifted from these "mystery religions" and the figures that correspond with them, which I've been able to do quite easily.
"dismisses the 76 other gospels relying only on HIS interpretation of the four canonical gospels
-dismisses the Gospel of Mary Magdalene despite it being older than any of the canonical gospels
-dismisses the Gospel of Judas, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Gospel of Pilate, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Gospel of Thomas, despite its provenance"
For all your yakking about the "gospels" of Mary Magdelene, Judas, Thomas and the others, you have YET (despite being asked to do so, mutliple times) provided any specific references to back your claims. I, on the other hand, used specific references and texts to support my statements, while simultaneously skewering yours.
What's even more ridiculous is that your claim about the canonical Gospels weren't even correct, as easily shown by posting the specific texts. As for the dates of the canonical Gospels vs. the others, that all depends on which scholars you ask. I
"dismisses the entire concept of a Mystery Religion (won't even Google it)" - Try again!! I covered that with the reference to Dr. Nash's work, genius and elsewhere with the references to Attis and Osiris.
But, since I prefer to give the particulars, unlike you, from Dr. Nash's link.....
WHAT WERE THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS?
Other than Judaism and Christianity, the mystery religions were the most influential religions in the early centuries after Christ. The reason these cults were called "mystery religions" is that they involved secret ceremonies known only to those initiated into the cult. The major benefit of these practices was thought to be some kind of salvation.
The mystery religions were not, of course, the only manifestations of the religious spirit in the eastern Roman Empire. One could also find public cults not requiring an initiation ceremony into secret beliefs and practices. The Greek Olympian religion and its Roman counterpart are examples of this type of religion.
Each Mediterranean region produced its own mystery religion. Out of Greece came the cults of Demeter and Dionysus, as well as the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery religions, which developed later. Asia Minor gave birth to the cult of Cybele, the Great Mother, and her beloved, a shepherd named Attis. The cult of Isis and Osiris (later changed to Serapis) originated in Egypt, while Syria and Palestine saw the rise of the cult of Adonis. Finally, Persia (Iran) was a leading early locale for the cult of Mithras, which -- due to its frequent use of the imagery of war -- held a special appeal to Roman soldiers. The earlier Greek mystery religions were state religions in the sense that they attained the status of a public or civil cult and served a national or public function. The later non-Greek mysteries were personal, private, and individualistic.
"dismisses the role of crucifixion in previous religions because those gods didn't explicitly die on the cross" - Ummm....genius, YOU were the one who claimed that these guys (Attis, Osiris, Mithras, et. al) were crucified, which is patently FALSE. I've shown that on numerous occasions, which is why you resort to your pitiful "folklore" vs. "mystery" routine. The simple fact is that there is little difference between the two, with NEITHER VERSION matching that of the Jesus Christ account.
"dismisses Church history that is not in question" - That history has little to do with what Scripture says about Jesus (and about Mary). The issue isn't whether the Catholic Church deemed Mary a perpetual virgin (or if such is a requirement of the Catholic faith); it's whether such was actually the case. From the canonical Gospels, it clearly is NOT.
"-dismisses the similarities between the Jesus myth and the dying/resurrecting godman Sol Invictus
The bait-and-switch continues. Every time you find out that one of your figures doesn't fit the bill, you throw in another one, hoping to salvage your weak arguments. Plus, lest you forget, you were the one that claimed that these figures DIED by crucifixion, which is hardly the case. Therefore, you've resulted to using any vague and weak reference to a tree as a similarity, despite the fact that (in many of the cases) the tree has NOTHING to do with their deaths, whatsoever (as shown by references to these figures).
As for Sol Invictius, that deity propped up by Aurelian in 3rd century A.D., by which time Christianity had already been established, a composite of three or more other deities, the most dominant of which was Mithras. And (surprise, surprise ::) ), that account doesn't match that of Jesus Christ, in the least: No virgin birth; no crucifixion, no dying for man's sins.....etc. And, you continue your pathetic fixation on Dec. 25, despite the fact that Scripture (contrary to your unfounded claims) says NOTHING about Jesus Christ being born on that date or any date on the Hebrew calendar, corresponding to that date.
"- dismisses the similarities between any previous religion and the Jesus myth because they are similarities and not word for word substitutions"
Your paper-thin, poor-excuse-for-a challenge was to list the details that are DIFFERENT and NOT taken from these so-called "mystery religions". The more I continue to do that, the more excuses and doubletalk you produce, to save your pitiful hide.
More from Dr. Nash's link:
SEVEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIAN DEPENDENCE ON THE MYSTERIES
I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.
(1) Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.
(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word "savior" with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.
(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.
(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:8).
(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. "A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone." This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.
(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christ's death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.
(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction." It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.
Yet more differences and details, that I supposedly can't find, that shatter your "challenge" to bits.
dismisses the work of secular archaeologists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of secular folklorists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of secular historians if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of scientists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs (he's a Creationist)
-dismisses the tenets of science itself if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
The references I've used (past and present) to make the case for my arguments render these accusations as a bunch of bull!!!
Far from dismissing them, I've often used them, when making statements about certain subjects. You, on the other hand, continue to run your mouth, making claim after claim, without so much as providing the specifics. You frequently demand that people look it up for themselves; but (in a chronic case of talking-out-of-both-sides-of-your-neck), you cry about "Google-Fu'ing" references, particularly the ones that shrerd your assertions to ribbons.
I suppose there is no need for him to address the issue of similarities between Jesus and Issa, the Kashmiri dying/resurrecting godman, who mimics Jesus in every single detail (crucified for blasphemy in Jerusalem by the Romans at the same time as Jesus).
Probably just easier to simply dismiss that one two.
The Luke
AHHHHH!!!! The lastest of your feeble attempts to save your claims, since Osiris, Attis, Dionysus, etc ain't getting it done. This is just sad!!! The claim, regarding Issa, is not that he is a mimic of Jesus, but that HE IS JESUS!!!! (as Issa is what the Muslims call him). Then, it goes to say that Jesus Christ supposedly traveled to India. Notwithstanding the questionable nature of this, IT'S ABOUT THE SAME GUY!!
Why doesn't it surprise me that you can't get your facts straight about this one? Of course, you're the same guy that said that Osiris got chopped in 72 pieces, later going into some gibberish about the magical number of 72 (since he actually got hacked in 14 pieces, what is the mumbo-jumbo significance of that number?).
-
Secular ideals, as I've shown you, have just as much if not more to answer for, yet I'm not calling for the end of secularism or for the end of secular people.
The Nazis targeted the Jewish ethnic group, not just the Jewish religion. The Nazis were anti-Semitic, not just anti-Judaism. The Nazis killed both, secular and religious Jews.
Millenium plus of Christian based antisemitism...
-
McWay,
You still haven't listed a single detail from the Jesus story that isn't plagiarised.
You say I don't give sources... how honest is that? I list books and religions and phrases anyone interested can Google or research themselves... you STILL harp on about me not citing sources... what do you want? Do you want me to copy and paste the actual words for you to dismiss?
Is that what you want me to do?
Fight your scripture quoting with more scripture quoting?
What's the point of that when I'm arguing against infantile hair-splitting? You've actually gone so far as to say that the Jesus story couldn't possibly be based on Attis because Jesus was crucified and Attis was nailed to a tree after he died and that technically isn't crucifixion... seriously dude, that's just plain dishonest.
Hate to break it to you, but to every reasonable person reading this that IS crucifixion. Argue that the victim has to actually die upon the cross all you want... but the parallels are clear.
You argue that I am wrong to cite Osiris being dismembered into 72 pieces... okay, but there are 3 different versions of this story: chopped into 4 pieces; chopped into 14 pieces and chopped into 72 pieces... so who's wrong? You? Me? Both of us?
Instead of claiming that I'm not citing sources, perhaps you could give me a list of sources you will accept?
As it stands now, you dismiss:
-ALL 76 gospels (apart from the 4 canonicals and even then only in the translation YOU prefer)
-ALL historical evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL literary evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL archaeological evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL astrological evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
...it is obvious that you cannot be convinced by evidence, so why do you still demand it?
This thread was started in the form of a challenge... I've convinced every reasonable person reading this thread... on every point raised... you, who is willing to accept only the evidence that supports your own delusion, are the only holdout.
Seriously dude... word games, hair-splitting, dismissals, evasion and equivocation... you, sir, are an embarrassment to reason.
The Luke
-
McWay,
You still haven't listed a single detail from the Jesus story that isn't plagiarised.
I suggest you break out the bifocals and have another "Hooked on Phonics" session.
You say I don't give sources... how honest is that? I list books and religions and phrases anyone interested can Google or research themselves... you STILL harp on about me not citing sources... what do you want? Do you want me to copy and paste the actual words for you to dismiss?
Weren't you whining about my using "Google-Fu", not too long ago? Now, you want me to use it, which I've already done. And by doing so, I've dismantled virtually all of your silly claims. When I make a reference to the canonical Gospels, I ACTUALLY use the specifc texts (chapter and verse) from the Gospels to make my point. When I cite a non-Biblical source to support my claims, I actually provide a quote, a link, (in some rare cases), a video, or any combination of the three. That's called using specifics.
Is that what you want me to do?
Fight your scripture quoting with more scripture quoting?
When you make a specific claim, you use SPECIFIC references. When I mentioned that Jesus was about two years old, when the wise men find Him, I didn't just say "The BIBLE SAYS......"; I used chapter and verse to back it. That's because, boy genius, of all 66 books, only TWO of them chronicle Jesus' early life.
I suspect the reason you don't provide the specifics is because, quite frankly, you're AFRAID to do so. Once someone sees the actual references for themselves, they can pluck your arguments like turkey being prepped for next's week Thanksgiving feast. I provided the specifics about Osiris to show that he doesn't match Jesus in the slightest degree. Same goes for Attis. I've done that in the past for Dionysus, Mithras and others. And, I can do it again, as many times as I deem necessary to torpedo your weak arguments.
What's the point of that when I'm arguing against infantile hair-splitting? You've actually gone so far as to say that the Jesus story couldn't possibly be based on Attis because Jesus was crucified and Attis was nailed to a tree after he died and that technically isn't crucifixion... seriously dude, that's just plain dishonest.
Would you like some more tissue? What you erroneously call "infantile hair-splitting" is, in fact, the VERY DETAILS that your wobbly "challenge" claimed no one could meet. The details are there. There is but scant difference between what you call the "folklore" and the "mystery" versions of these religions and figures. And NEITHER of them match the account of Jesus Christ, in form, function, life, purpose, death, or resurrection.
What's the point of that when I'm arguing against infantile hair-splitting? You've actually gone so far as to say that the Jesus story couldn't possibly be based on Attis because Jesus was crucified and Attis was nailed to a tree after he died and that technically isn't crucifixion... seriously dude, that's just plain dishonest.
Hate to break it to you, but to every reasonable person reading this that IS crucifixion. Argue that the victim has to actually die upon the cross all you want... but the parallels are clear.
You mean parallels like Jesus' dying for man's sins vs Attis' chopping off his nuts, lusting after his mama. ::)
And, just in case you missed it, THIS is what crucifixion is:
From WordNet:
the act of executing by a method widespread in the ancient world; the victim's hands and feet are bound or nailed to a cross
the death of Jesus by crucifixion
the infliction of extremely painful punishment or suffering
From the Free Dictionary:
a. The act of crucifying; execution on a cross.
b. Crucifixion The crucifying of Jesus on Calvary. Used with the.
c. A representation of Jesus on the cross.
2. An extremely difficult, painful trial; torturous suffering
From Answers.Com
The act of crucifying; execution on a cross. Crucifixion The crucifying of Jesus on Calvary.
Notice the pattern here.....EXECUTION!!!
Jesus was crucified; that's how He died. No matter how much you (and your Jesus-myth buddies) try to re-define it, drowning (Osiris), self-castration (Attis), being burned (Dionysus), and being gored by/killing bulls (Mithras) DO NOT EQUATE to crucifixion, no matter how many "trees" are in the picture.
What makes your sniveling even more ridiculous is Attis wasn't even nailed under a tree. He died underneath one (or get turned into one, depending on what version you prefer). The tree is chopped down and is either carried off (as Attis himself) or used to carried ALREADY DEAD body off to who-knows-where. Check the references to Attis, some of which I posted here.
And if all that weren't bad enough (and I nearly forgot about this one), this "mystery" version of Attis is PRECEDED by a version where Attis literally gets porked to death.......he gets gored by a wild boar.
You argue that I am wrong to cite Osiris being dismembered into 72 pieces... okay, but there are 3 different versions of this story: chopped into 4 pieces; chopped into 14 pieces and chopped into 72 pieces... so who's wrong? You? Me? Both of us?
Considering that Gospels cite that Jesus' body wasn't broken AT ALL (corresponding to an OT prophecy), it really doesn't matter. You use the 72-pieces thing to rail about some magical/mystical mess about the number and what not. And, regardless of how many versions of the Osiris account exists, NONE OF THEM mirror that of Jesus Christ (No being stuffed in a box and drowned, no dismemberment, no being stuck in the underworld, no birdie-sex, NADA!!!!).
Instead of claiming that I'm not citing sources, perhaps you could give me a list of sources you will accept?
Add some Visine, along with the bifocals. I said SPECFICS (that would be book, chapter, verses, passages, etc). This ain't new! You've been asked to do this more times than the law allows. Yet, you cluck, duck, and cry, when it's time to put up.
As it stands now, you dismiss:
-ALL 76 gospels (apart from the 4 canonicals and even then only in the translation YOU prefer)
-ALL historical evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL literary evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL archaeological evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL astrological evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
...it is obvious that you cannot be convinced by evidence, so why do you still demand it?
It's obvious that you CANNOT provide this alleged "evidence". And, your presumptuous use of the word "ALL" set you and your claims up for yet another plucking. The Jesus-myth hypothesis has been torn apart by Biblical and non-Biblical scholars (traditional and not-so-traditional) alike. That's why the debate about Jesus Christ, by and large, centers more around His divinity, not His mere existence.
This thread was started in the form of a challenge... I've convinced every reasonable person reading this thread... on every point raised... you, who is willing to accept only the evidence that supports your own delusion, are the only holdout.
As I said, when I first posted here, I reject your challenge, because this IS NO CHALLENGE. But, I was more than happy to beat on this tired Enlightenment-Period rehash. And, until I get bored with it, I will continue to beat on it.
Seriously dude... word games, hair-splitting, dismissals, evasion and equivocation... you, sir, are an embarrassment to reason.
The Luke
You are an embarrassment to simple reading comprehension. You make a bold claim, daring someone to challenge your assertion. Then, the specifics (for which you asked in the first place) get brought to the table, not only showing your supreme lack of knowledge in the details, but exposing your continued dependency on flawed claims.
You scream that Osiris was crucified. The references to him say he was not; you cry and make excuses
You wail that Attis was cruficied; Two posts (and a set of removed testicles later), you slither away, looking for another way out
You bleat about Jesus mimicking Issa; It finally dawns on you (thanks to my post) that Issa is Jesus' name is Islam; let the weasling continue.
You come with "Sol Invicitus"; that turns out to be a re-hash of Mithra, already shown NOT to be a source of supposed plagiarism....cue the whining about dishonesty.
You chirp about how I won't even look up "mystery religion", foolishly forgetting that not only have I done that (with the references to Osiris and Attis, posted for all to see). But, I did so, yet again, with the link to Dr Nash's article.
And the list of foolishness goes ON!!!!
-
You bleat about Jesus mimicking Issa; It finally dawns on you (thanks to my post) that Issa is Jesus' name is Islam; let the weasling continue.
...I was referring to the Kashmiri Issa. (Jesus has a few different versions of his name)
He was a "son of god", who was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans under Pilate's order in Jerusalem around 30 AD. He is, in essence what you might be most afraid of... an exact duplicate of Jesus.
I realise that there isn't going to be any way to convince you. If I name a god, you research it find a few different versions of the story and pick the one that best suits your argument. Then you quote the opinions of Jebus-freak academics to support your deliberately misconstrued straw man argument.
You won't even concede any parallel... even if it means differentiating between nailed to a tree and crucified, that's weak.
Perhaps some of the people reading could chime in letting us know who is making the better argument?
I think the current score is 4:nil to me.
The Luke
-
...I was referring to the Kashmiri Issa. (Jesus has a few different versions of his name)
He was a "son of god", who was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans under Pilate's order in Jerusalem around 30 AD. He is, in essence what you might be most afraid of... an exact duplicate of Jesus.
Earth to Luke, they're talking about the same guy. What part of "Issa is Jesus' name in Islam" don't you understand?
I realise that there isn't going to be any way to convince you. If I name a god, you research it find a few different versions of the story and pick the one that best suits your argument. Then you quote the opinions of Jebus-freak academics to support your deliberately misconstrued straw man argument.
WAAAH, WAAAH, WAAAAH!!!! When the facts don't match your cornball claims, you go into baby-with-wet-diaper mode. The simple fact is that all the versions of these figures, so-called "folklore", "mystery religion", etc. have been examined. And, the result is, boy genius, the same: THEY DO NOT MATCH, meaning that Jesus Christ wasn't crafted from these figures. Every time that get pointed out, you have more excuse than a convict, headed back to jail.
Once again, you've been asked (far too many times) to produce the SPECIFIC "mystery religions", regarding these figures that shows their alleged parallel with Jesus Christ, indicating that Christ was crafted from them. To this very day, you have not done so.
To spell it out, produce the "mystery religion" version of Osiris, and show the specifics; do the same for Attis.
Show that those alleged version, not only differ significantly from what I printed, regarding those guys, but that they match the aspects of Christ's account. In essence, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Let me save you some of the trouble, though. The difference between the "folklore" version of Osiris and the "mystery religion" one is that Osiris gets a name change, which I believe is Serapis. Outside of that, it's business as usual.
You got references that say something to the contrary, let's see them (and spare me, and the rest of us, your tired excuses for not putting your money where your mouth is).
You won't even concede any parallel... even if it means differentiating between nailed to a tree and crucified, that's weak.
I concede no parallel, because there is no parallel. Attis wasn't nailed to a tree, genius, as a form of death. All of the references to him, "mystery religion" or otherwise, have him dying in the same manner.....SELF-CASTRATION. Crucifixion is a form of execution. Since that ain't how Attis (or Osiris, or Dionysus or Mithras or....<<fill in the blank with some other goofball figure, alleged to be someone from whom Jesus was crafted>>>) died, there's no parallel.
Said another way: Attis didn't die from crucifixion, didn't die for mankind's sins, wasn't betrayed by his buddy for 30 pieces of silver, wasn't born of a virgin (that is, no hanky-panky with anyone, human, deity, or otherwise).....stop me anytime you like.
Perhaps some of the people reading could chime in letting us know who is making the better argument?
I think the current score is 4:nil to me.
The Luke
Wow!! I'm ssssoooooooo crushed. ::)
-
Earth to Luke, they're talking about the same guy. What part of "Issa is Jesus' name in Islam" don't you understand?
...there was a Kashmiri/Pakistani wiseman/healer named Issa. I know the word "Issa" is utilised in the Koran to refer to Jebus, but that's not the guy I'm referring to.
If you insist that Jesus and the Kashmiri Issa are the same person, then you're in for devastating reveal.
The Luke
-
...there was a Kashmiri/Pakistani wiseman/healer named Issa. I know the word "Issa" is utilised in the Koran to refer to Jebus, but that's not the guy I'm referring to.
If you insist that Jesus and the Kashmiri Issa are the same person, then you're in for devastating reveal.
The Luke
Yep, just like all the other devastating reveals that were supposed to result from your ramblings. Nobody mentioned the Koran, Luke. The claim is that Jesus Christ visited India (the city of Kashmir, in particular), during or prior to His ministry.
Once again, another one of your wild claims goes up in smoke.
-
Yep, just like all the other devastating reveals that were supposed to result from your ramblings.
...the Kashmiri Issa, was a faith-healer/miracle-worker who (supposedly) traveled to Jerusalem to spread the good word of Buddhist humanism around 20-30 AD. As a religious rabble-rouser he was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans on the orders of Pilate. He then rose from the dead three days later, said goodbye to his disciples and wandered off home to the mountains of Kashmir.
The Kashmiri Issa openly claimed to actually BE the Jewish Jesus upon whom the Christian cult was founded till the end of his life (if memory serves he lived to be 88)... and hundreds of thousands of his followers believed/believe this to be true right up to today.
I realise that you're eager to somehow PROVE I'm wrong about all this Jesus myth stuff McWay, (which is why I don't take offense at your tactics), but haven't you found yourself continuously having to champion flawed arguments and having to cherry-pick your sources in order to do so?
Take a long, hard look at the (Kasmiri) Issa, do due diligence with the research... at the least it should give you pause.
The Luke
-
...the Kashmiri Issa, was a faith-healer/miracle-worker who (supposedly) traveled to Jerusalem to spread the good word of Buddhist humanism around 20-30 AD. As a religious rabble-rouser he was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans on the orders of Pilate. He then rose from the dead three days later, said goodbye to his disciples and wandered off home to the mountains of Kashmir.
The Kashmiri Issa openly claimed to actually BE the Jewish Jesus upon whom the Christian cult was founded till the end of his life (if memory serves he lived to be 88)... and hundreds of thousands of his followers believed/believe this to be true right up to today.
I realise that you're eager to somehow PROVE I'm wrong about all this Jesus myth stuff McWay, (which is why I don't take offense at your tactics), but haven't you found yourself continuously having to champion flawed arguments and having to cherry-pick your sources in order to do so?
Take a long, hard look at the (Kasmiri) Issa, do due diligence with the research... at the least it should give you pause.
The Luke
It does........pause for hysterical laughter.
The Kashmiri Issa openly claimed to actually BE the Jewish Jesus upon whom the Christian cult was founded till the end of his life (if memory serves he lived to be 88)... and hundreds of thousands of his followers believed/believe this to be true right up to today........Openly claimed by WHOM?
The claims about Jesus and city of Kashmir are that Jesus Christ, aka, Issa (the same one in the New Testament) traveled to India, at some point in His life.
This is why your ramblings get picked apart so easily. You make these grandiose statements with absolutely NOTHING to back them up, of course.
You then demand that people do the research. Once they do, and find that your positions are full of bull, cue your crying about "cherry-picking" sources and what not. Of course, one would not have to do any of this alleged "cherry-picking", if you actually provided specific references (book-chapter-verse style).
But, of course, you're too lazy, cowardly, or both to do that.
I guess it hasn’t dawned on you that you’ve shot yourself in the foot, once more. Earlier you claim that Issa died in the exact same manner that Jesus did (i.e. put to death by Pilate via crucifixion). Now, you claim that you’re talking about a different Issa, who died at age 88.
And before you start howling about my being dishonest or claiming that you didn't say that...........
...I was referring to the Kashmiri Issa. (Jesus has a few different versions of his name)
He was a "son of god", who was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans under Pilate's order in Jerusalem around 30 AD. He is, in essence what you might be most afraid of... an exact duplicate of Jesus.
Which is it? Did this Issa die via crucifixion or did he died of old age? Here's a hint: Dying at age 88 is NOT an "exact duplicate" of the life of Jesus Christ.
Maybe, instead of keeping score, you should start counting how many toes you have left.
-
Perhaps some of the people reading could chime in letting us know who is making the better argument?
I think the current score is 4:nil to me.
The Luke
Definitely not you. Why in the world do you not list your sources? And when are you going to give us the book, chapter and verse in the Bible that says that Jesus was born on December 25, and that he was visited by 3 kings?
Hey, how is that reconstruction of the 4 Biblical gospels from ancient myths coming along? I'm looking forward to reading it when you are done. You better post sources too, don't just make stuff up as you go.
-
Definitely not you. Why in the world do you not list your sources? And when are you going to give us the book, chapter and verse in the Bible that says that Jesus was born on December 25, and that he was visited by 3 kings?
...why didn't you quote my post where I said so?
You are asking me to copy and paste source material when you guys are busily paraphrasing what I post in order to discredit me. Dishonest.
The Luke
-
...why didn't you quote my post where I said so?
You are asking me to copy and paste source material when you guys are busily paraphrasing what I post in order to discredit me. Dishonest.
The Luke
Nobody has to paraphrase your statements, Luke. They’re right here in black-and-white, in all their silliness, for all to see.
And, while you're trying to scramble to answers Loco's question, you can also address this Issa thing. One minute you claim, he's an exact duplicate of Jesus Christ; the next, you're saying that Issa died an 88-year-old man. Which is it?
-
Nobody has to paraphrase your statements, Luke. They’re right here in black-and-white, in all their silliness, for all to see.
...quote the post where I claimed there was a Gospel passage claiming Jesus was born on 25th of December.
Both of you are using the same dishonest tactic here... attacking YOUR own sloppy paraphrasing.
And, while you're trying to scramble to answers Loco's question, you can also address this Issa thing. One minute you claim, he's an exact duplicate of Jesus Christ; the next, you're saying that Issa died an 88-year-old man. Which is it?
...do some research and see just how much he parallels the Jesus myth. People in Kashmir STILL believe Jesus to be a mythologised version of Issa.
The Luke
-
...quote the post where I claimed there was a Gospel passage claiming Jesus was born on 25th of December.
Both of you are using the same dishonest tactic here... attacking YOUR own sloppy paraphrasing.
Get a grip, Luke. Nobody’s misinterpreting your words or distorting them.
Quote from: The Luke on November 13, 2008, 02:25:52 PM
McWay,
The Bible does give Jesus birthdate as 25th December... just indirectly.
Once again, where is this chapter and verse that "indirectly" give this date? Your last pitiful attempt of an explanation was......
Quote from: The Luke on November 13, 2008, 02:25:52 PM
The bright star that leads the three kings to Jesus is Sirius (the Dog Star) which is the brightest star in the night sky. The sun rises further and further along the horizon as the days get shorter leading up to the mid-winter solstice (December 21st), then suddenly the sun turns back and begins to gain strength (longer days).
The first day when a solar measurement will show this (one degree of reversal) is the 25th of December when the sun rises below Sirius at a point on the horizon indicated by the line of three stars known as the "Three Kings" or "Three Wise Men".
You just have to know the code to the allegory: Jesus is the sun, the story is an astrological allegory.
Seriously, isn't it suspicious that the Jebus story includes ALL these astrological symbols? In the correct order?
A virgin birth marked by a bright star and attended by "three wise men"? Come on guys...
The Luke
Once again, you forget that the shepherds find Jesus, immediately after his birth, WITHOUT the use of a star. The stars merely leads the wise men to where Jesus was. And, based on the Gospels (Matt. 2, to be more precise), they find Him when He’s about 2 years old. Jesus was born in a manger, inside a stable. The wise men find Him in a house, meaning that they don’t find Jesus the day He was born. And, whenever they find Him, there is NO INDICATION of a date, much less Dec. 25.
...do some research and see just how much he parallels the Jesus myth. People in Kashmir STILL believe Jesus to be a mythologised version of Issa.
The Luke
I've already done that, and you'll start blubbering about my using "Google-Fu", when shown that your claims don't match.
All of the flap about Jesus and the city of Kashmir is based on the assertion that Jesus Christ HIMSELF traveled to India, at some point in his life, that point supposedly being the 18-year gap in His chronicled history from the gospel of Luke.
You said that Issa died EXACTLY the same way that Jesus did. Yet, in this latest blunder of yours, you stated that Issa dies at age 88. Which is it?
-
...why didn't you quote my post where I said so?
You are asking me to copy and paste source material when you guys are busily paraphrasing what I post in order to discredit me. Dishonest.
The Luke
Nowhere, I repeat, NOWHERE does Scripture claim that Jesus was born Dec. 25. That day was picked because the Roman Catholic Church wanted a Christian celebration to replace a pagan one.
McWay,
The Bible does give Jesus birthdate as 25th December... just indirectly.
The bright star that leads the three kings to Jesus is Sirius (the Dog Star) which is the brightest star in the night sky
Where? Where? Dec. 25? 3 Kings? Post book, chapter and verse in the Bible.
You might be showing us that Roman Catholic traditions about Jesus and Mary are based on certain myths, but you are not proving that the 4 Biblical gospels, "every detail" as you said, are all based on ancient myths.
-
I still have yet to see this supposed post of mine wherein I claimed the canonical gospels give Jesus date of birth as 25th of December...
I see a quote of one of my posts in which I referred to an INDIRECT date given by a preponderance of astrological references which mimic such astrological allegory in other stories that DO include the 25th of December date. But not the post you two accused me of making.
Is this the character of Christian discussion... misquoting in order to falsely undermine your opponent?
Once again, you forget that the shepherds find Jesus, immediately after his birth, WITHOUT the use of a star. The stars merely leads the wise men to where Jesus was.
...which Angel was it that directed the shepherds again? Just out of interest?
All of the flap about Jesus and the city of Kashmir is based on the assertion that Jesus Christ HIMSELF traveled to India, at some point in his life, that point supposedly being the 18-year gap in His chronicled history from the gospel of Luke.
...wrong. Issa (the Kasmiri Issa) is actually buried in Kashmir.
Your Google-fu is weak young paduwan.
You said that Issa died EXACTLY the same way that Jesus did. Yet, in this latest blunder of yours, you stated that Issa dies at age 88. Which is it?
...he died on the cross and rose from the dead. But rather than being assumed bodily into heaven, he lived out his life in India/Kashmir/Pakistan.
By the way, doesn't the gospel of Thomas (or some such suppressed Dead Sea Scroll, Nag Hamaddi text) have Thomas and a very aged Jesus meeting up at a wedding in the hills of India around 70 AD?
When you manage to verify this, might an apology be in order?
The Luke
-
I can't believe that people are still arguing about this.... :-X
-
I can't believe that people are still arguing about this.... :-X
...I'm not arguing, I'm winning!
The Luke
-
I still have yet to see this supposed post of mine wherein I claimed the canonical gospels give Jesus date of birth as 25th of December...
I see a quote of one of my posts in which I referred to an INDIRECT date given by a preponderance of astrological references which mimic such astrological allegory in other stories that DO include the 25th of December date. But not the post you two accused me of making.
The Luke
Nowhere, I repeat, NOWHERE does Scripture claim that Jesus was born Dec. 25. That day was picked because the Roman Catholic Church wanted a Christian celebration to replace a pagan one.
McWay,
The Bible does give Jesus birthdate as 25th December... just indirectly.
The bright star that leads the three kings to Jesus is Sirius (the Dog Star) which is the brightest star in the night sky.
-
Loco,
Question for you...
Can you see the word "indirectly" in the following post?
The Bible does give Jesus birthdate as 25th December... just indirectly.
...if you can, then just how do you expect me to quote the chapter and verse that DOESN'T overtly mention the 25th of December?
For the record, as I already explained, the "bright star"; "three kings" or "three magi"; a "cave" or "stable"; a "virgin"; the constellation Virgo ("Beth-le-hem" in Hebrew) are ALL common astrological allegories that denote the 25th of December dawn "birth" of the new sun.
The gospel stories conform to this blueprint.
The Luke
-
We could always talk about the contradictions in the date of birth...
-
Loco,
Question for you...
Can you see the word "indirectly" in the following post?
...if you can, then just how do you expect me to quote the chapter and verse that DOESN'T overtly mention the 25th of December?
For the record, as I already explained, the "bright star"; "three kings" or "three magi"; a "cave" or "stable"; a "virgin"; the constellation Virgo ("Beth-le-hem" in Hebrew) are ALL common astrological allegories that denote the 25th of December dawn "birth" of the new sun.
The gospel stories conform to this blueprint.
The Luke
I understand Luke. You are interpreting the Bible for us, just like the Roman Catholic Church does for Roman Catholics. :)
-
Loco,
Question for you...
Can you see the word "indirectly" in the following post?
...if you can, then just how do you expect me to quote the chapter and verse that DOESN'T overtly mention the 25th of December?
For the record, as I already explained, the "bright star"; "three kings" or "three magi"; a "cave" or "stable"; a "virgin"; the constellation Virgo ("Beth-le-hem" in Hebrew) are ALL common astrological allegories that denote the 25th of December dawn "birth" of the new sun.
The gospel stories conform to this blueprint.
The Luke
Try that again!!! All of your allegories have been shown to be inconclusive, at best, and incorrect, at worst.
Does Scripture hold that the “three kings” find Jesus at His birth? NO!
Are these “three kings” actually “kings”? NO!
Is the word "cave" mentioned in the account of Jesus? NO!
Do they find Jesus in a "cave" or "stall"? NO! (Matt. 2:11, And when they had come into the HOUSE, they saw the young Child with Mary, His mother, and fell down and worshipped Him.)
Does it say that there are exactly three of them in Scripture? NO! (The number is unknown from the texts. Eastern and Western traditions hold the number of “Magi” as anywhere from two to twelve, with Western tradition settling on three, because of the three gifts that Jesus received).
In short, an inexact number of Magi find an approximately 2-year-old Jesus in a house, hardly an indication of a Dec. 25 date.
As for this Virgo/Bethlehem thing, the city's name in Hebrew means "House-of-Bread". Virgo is said to be a goddess holding a sheaf of wheat. To claim that Bethlehem was named, because of that, is a major stretch. BTW, in Arabic, Bethlehem means "house of meat"; so why isn't Virgo toting livestock? I guess the Arabs didn't get the memo.
Bethlehem was and is a city about 5 miles from Jerusalem, which has existed since the days of the OT. For example, Naomi returns to Bethlehem with Ruth to find shelter and to find Ruth a new husband (redeemer), from her family, since Naomi's husband and sons died in war (see Ruth 1:22). The city existed for CENTURIES and was not fabricated to fit some astrological "blueprint".
In fact, Ruth is the grandmother (or great-grandmother) of King David, who came to power in Israel between 1000 and 900 B.C., almost a MILLENIUM before Jesus was even born.
-
Come on guys... give it up.
The Luke
-
Come on guys... give it up.
The Luke
You want this one, Loco?
-
You want this one, Loco?
I can't see what he posted. Whatever it is, it's being blocked here at work. It'll have to wait until I get a chance to look at it at home.
-
I can't see what he posted. Whatever it is, it's being blocked here at work. It'll have to wait until I get a chance to look at it at home.
You, too!?
No biggie!!!
Luke's claims have been supremely flimsy to this point. I doubt these videos buck the trend.
Back to this Bethlehem thing, the OT has at least a dozen verses that mention the city of Bethlehem, most of which can be found in the Pentateuch (the first 5 books), written over a millennium before the birth of Christ.
And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which [is] Bethlehem.
Gen 48:7 And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet [there was] but a little way to come unto Ephrath: and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same [is] Bethlehem.
Jos 19:15 And Kattath, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Idalah, and Bethlehem: twelve cities with their villages.
Jdg 12:8 And after him Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel.
Jdg 12:10 Then died Ibzan, and was buried at Bethlehem.
Rth 1:19 So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, [Is] this Naomi?
Rth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.
Rth 2:4 And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The LORD [be] with you. And they answered him, The LORD bless thee.
Rth 4:11 And all the people that [were] in the gate, and the elders, said, [We are] witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:
1Sa 16:4 And Samuel did that which the LORD spake, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, Comest thou peaceably?
1Sa 17:15 But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.
1Sa 20:6 If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked [leave] of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for [there is] a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.
1Sa 20:28 And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked [leave] of me [to go] to Bethlehem:
2Sa 2:32 And they took up Asahel, and buried him in the sepulchre of his father, which [was in] Bethlehem. And Joab and his men went all night, and they came to Hebron at break of day.
2Sa 23:14 And David [was] then in an hold, and the garrison of the Philistines [was] then [in] Bethlehem.
2Sa 23:15 And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which [is] by the gate!
2Sa 23:16 And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that [was] by the gate, and took [it], and brought [it] to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD.
2Sa 23:24 Asahel the brother of Joab [was] one of the thirty; Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem,
1Ch 11:16 And David [was] then in the hold, and the Philistines' garrison [was] then at Bethlehem.
1Ch 11:17 And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, that [is] at the gate!
1Ch 11:18 And the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that [was] by the gate, and took [it], and brought [it] to David: but David would not drink [of] it, but poured it out to the LORD,
1Ch 11:26 Also the valiant men of the armies [were], Asahel the brother of Joab, Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem,
And that's just the short list (from Blueletterbible.org)! So, the idea that the town was conveniently fabricated to correspond to some astrological stuff (Virgo), and thus making Jesus Christ a product of some "mystery religion" is quite ridiculous. Not to mention what I said earlier about there being:
- No “three kings” (they’re simply “Magi”, wise men)
- No “cave” (He’s found in a house)
- No “three” wise men finding Jesus at birth (He’s about two, when they show up, exact number unknown)
-
You, too!?
No biggie!!!
Luke's claims have been supremely flimsy to this point. I doubt these videos buck the trend.
Back to this Bethlehem thing, the OT has at least a dozen verses that mention the city of Bethlehem, most of which can be found in the Pentateuch (the first 5 books), written over a millennium before the birth of Christ.
And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which [is] Bethlehem.
Gen 48:7 And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet [there was] but a little way to come unto Ephrath: and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same [is] Bethlehem.
Jos 19:15 And Kattath, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Idalah, and Bethlehem: twelve cities with their villages.
Jdg 12:8 And after him Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel.
Jdg 12:10 Then died Ibzan, and was buried at Bethlehem.
Rth 1:19 So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, [Is] this Naomi?
Rth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.
Rth 2:4 And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The LORD [be] with you. And they answered him, The LORD bless thee.
Rth 4:11 And all the people that [were] in the gate, and the elders, said, [We are] witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:
1Sa 16:4 And Samuel did that which the LORD spake, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, Comest thou peaceably?
1Sa 17:15 But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.
1Sa 20:6 If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked [leave] of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for [there is] a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.
1Sa 20:28 And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked [leave] of me [to go] to Bethlehem:
2Sa 2:32 And they took up Asahel, and buried him in the sepulchre of his father, which [was in] Bethlehem. And Joab and his men went all night, and they came to Hebron at break of day.
2Sa 23:14 And David [was] then in an hold, and the garrison of the Philistines [was] then [in] Bethlehem.
2Sa 23:15 And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which [is] by the gate!
2Sa 23:16 And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that [was] by the gate, and took [it], and brought [it] to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD.
2Sa 23:24 Asahel the brother of Joab [was] one of the thirty; Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem,
1Ch 11:16 And David [was] then in the hold, and the Philistines' garrison [was] then at Bethlehem.
1Ch 11:17 And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, that [is] at the gate!
1Ch 11:18 And the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that [was] by the gate, and took [it], and brought [it] to David: but David would not drink [of] it, but poured it out to the LORD,
1Ch 11:26 Also the valiant men of the armies [were], Asahel the brother of Joab, Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem,
And that's just the short list (from Blueletterbible.org)! So, the idea that the town was conveniently fabricated to correspond to some astrological stuff (Virgo), and thus making Jesus Christ a product of some "mystery religion" is quite ridiculous. Not to mention what I said earlier about there being:
- No “three kings” (they’re simply “Magi”, wise men)
- No “cave” (He’s found in a house)
- No “three” wise men finding Jesus at birth (He’s about two, when they show up, exact number unknown)
you doubt these videos buck the treand?so your saying you didn't bother to watch them and yet you judge the content.very typical of christians I must say.
-
you doubt these videos buck the treand?so your saying you didn't bother to watch them and yet you judge the content.very typical of christians I must say.
I can't judge the content because (as you apparently missed), like Loco, I'm using my computer at work, which blocks YouTube broadcasts.
If Luke had the specific references to back any of his claims, he would have posted them long before now. Since he hasn't, combined with his feeble claims and gross misstatements about the figures from which Jesus Christ was supposedly crafted, I wouldn't be my house that these videos contain any that he hasn't spewed beforehand.
My guess is he's trying to cover for that blunder of his, regarding the Bible's "indirect" statement of Jesus' birth date being Dec. 25.
-
you doubt these videos buck the treand?so your saying you didn't bother to watch them and yet you judge the content.very typical of christians I must say.
The Luke: 4
Christianity: nil
The Luke
-
Millenium plus of Christian based antisemitism...
I won't deny that the Roman Catholic Church, and even the reformer Martin Luther to an extent, contributed to much Antisemitism in their time. But Antisemitism had already been around for many centuries before Christianity. So stop blaming Christianity for all your problems.
-
The Luke: 4
Christianity: nil
The Luke
That's right. The Luke has lost 4. Christianity has lost nil. ;D
-
That's right. The Luke has lost 4. Christianity has lost nil. ;D
Though it lists some of the points I’ve already made, here a link to a site that addresses these claims of Luke and gives the reasons why they fall flat.
Dying and Rising Gods?
The assertion made by skeptics is that the story of Jesus found in the New Testament is patterned after the alleged "dying and rising gods" of antiquity that existed long before Christianity. This view became popular among scholars during the so-called "history of religions" school at the turn of the 20th century. The category of "dying and rising gods," along with the pattern of its mythic and ritual associations, received its earliest full formulation in the influential work of James G. Frazer The Golden Bough (1st edition 1890 in two volumes, 2nd edition 1900 in three volumes, 3rd edition in 12 volumes, 1906-1915, with an abridged one-volume edition published in 1922). This theme was repeated by other scholars of mythology such as Joseph Campbell who edited Pagan and Christian Mysteries (1955), and his more famous The Hero with a Thousand Faces (originally 1949), whose views were made popular through a 1988 PBS series "The Power of Myth" interviews with Bill Moyers. However, on the "dying and rising gods" motif the Encyclopedia of Religion (1987) concludes:
"The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts....In most cases, the decipherment and interpretation of texts in the language native to the deity's cult has led to questions as to the applicability of the category. The majority of evidence for Near Eastern dying and rising deities occurs in Greek and Latin texts of late antiquity, usually post-Christian in date." ("Dying and Rising Gods", volume 4, pages 521, 522 article by Jonathan Z. Smith, from The Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade, emphasis added)
Smith is emphatic: "Some of these divine figures simply disappear, some disappear only to return again in the near or distant future; some disappear and reappear with monotonous frequency. All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return. There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity." (volume 4, page 521-522, emphasis added)
Boyd/Eddy state in The Jesus Legend: "While the claim that aspects of the Christian view of Jesus parallel, even are indebted to, ancient pagan legends and myths has a long history, it gained prominence with the birth of the history of religions school (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries....The history of religions school was extremely popular in academic circles for several decades, but owing to trenchant critiques by such scholars as Samuel Cheetham, H.A.A. Kennedy, J. Gresham Machen, A.D. Nock, Bruce Metzger, and Gunter Wagner, it eventually fell out of fashion." (The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition [Baker Academic, 2007], pages 134,136).
Although the category was largely abandoned by most reputable scholars and historians by the mid-20th century, there are exceptions. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger of Lund University in Sweden, wrote a recent (2001) scholarly critique challenging the modern consensus and attempts to "resurrect" the dying and rising theme. He nonetheless admits:
"There is now what amounts to a scholarly consensus against the appropriateness of the concept [of dying and rising gods]. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species....The situation during the last half of the century was thus one when it seemed fairly clear that there were no ideas of resurrection connected with Dumuzi / Tammuz, and that the ideas of a resurrection in connection with Adonis are very late. The references to a resurrection of Adonis have been dated mainly to the Christian Era....Frazer's category was broad and all encompassing. To Frazer, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, and Attis were all deities of the same basic type, manifesting the yearly decay and revival of life. He explicitly identified Tammuz and Adonis. The category of dying and rising deities as propagated by Frazer can no longer be upheld." (T.N.D. Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East [2001], page 7, 40, 41)
The category is still revived among the hyper-skeptical and "freethought" community (sometimes in the reckless non-scholarly form of Kersey Graves, sometimes in the revised James G. Frazer The Golden Bough form) as a supposed valid argument against historical Christianity. Evangelical author Ronald Nash has a book-length reply to these claims titled The Gospel and The Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? (P & R, 1992, 2003 2nd edition). Nash examines in detail Hellenistic philosophy, the mystery religions, and Gnosticism and their relationship to early Christianity. He concludes:
"Was first-century Christianity a syncretistic religion? Was early Christianity a synthesis of ideas and practices borrowed from different sources, some of them pagan? To the extent that key words like dependence, influence, accommodation, and borrowed are understood in a strong sense, my answer to this question will be an unequivocal no." (Ronald Nash, page 10)
After this, sixteen figures, from whom Jesus was supposedly crafted are listed. Here's an example.......
Attis (and Cybele)
Cybele is a goddess, probably of Oriental origin, known in the Greek world from approximately the seventh century BC. She became known in Rome as Magna Mater ("great mother of the gods") when her cult was imported to the city at the end of the third century BC. She is also known under variants Cybebe, Cybelis, and at Locri in Italy, Cybala. Cybele was adopted as goddess by the Phrygians who established her central cult in Pessinus. From Phrygia the cult probably passed to Sardis, capital of the kingdom of Lydia, and to Hellenic cities of Asia Minor and Europe. In several places, the cult of Cybele was combined with that of Attis (sometimes spelled Attys or Atys). In the picture (right), Cybele is depicted next to her lover Attis. She holds a tympanum and a staff. Next to her is her sacred animal the lion. The fact that Attis is shown as equal in size to Cybele suggests that in this case he was being worshipped as a god in his own right. Usually, humans appear smaller than gods in such reliefs (c. 230 BC, discovered in a Greek city in Italy, now in Venice Museo Archeologico).
From a distinction originally made by Hugo Hepding (1903), there is a "Lydian" version of the Attis myth that is marked by his killing by a boar; and a "Phrygian" version that ends with his castration and death. In the latter version, the sources in chronological order are Ovid, Pausanias, and Arnobius. In the account by Ovid, Attis is a beautiful Phrygian youth who consecrates himself to Cybele but then betrays her with the tree-nymph Sagaritis who dies from blows inflicted on her tree by the goddess. Attis is driven mad and finally emasculates himself. In one variation he is transformed into a pine-tree (Ovid in Metamorph X vv. 103-105); in another he is killed by a pine tree (Ibis, vv. 505-506, see Lancellotti, page 2, note 4). In the Arnobius version (Adv nat V, 5-7), Attis castrates himself under a pine tree. In no sense is this a death by "crucifixion" on a pine-tree. Attis' death is from loss of blood by his own castration.
In this longer Arnobius version, Attis' mother is Nana, the daughter of King Sangarius. She became pregnant and conceived Attis from a pomegranate fruit produced from the blood of Agdistis the fierce hunter, after an attempt by Liber to kill him. Endowed with extraordinary beauty, Attis became the favorite of Cybele along with Agdistis, both who were born from a huge rock called "Agdos." Attis dies from castration and the longer story ends like this:
"The Mother of the gods also shed bitter tears from which an almond tree sprang up, and then she took the sacred pine-tree, under which Attis had emasculated himself, into her den and joined the funeral laments of Agdistis, smiting her breasts and walking around the trunk of the tree. Agdistis begged Jupiter [or Zeus] to bring Attis back to life (revivisceret), but that was not permitted. Instead the god agreed that the body of Attis should not putrefy, that his hair should always grow and that his little finger should move for eternity. Satisfied with these favours, Agdistis consecrated the dead man's body to Pessinous and honoured him with yearly ceremonies and priestly services." (Lancellotti, page 4-5)
The complex mythology of Attis is irrelevant to the question of dying and rising deities. In the Phrygian version, Attis is killed by castration; in the Lydian version, he is killed by a boar. In neither case is there any question of his returning to life. Two late, post-Christian theological reflections on the myth hint at rebirth: the allegory in Naassene Sermon and the "euhemerist" account in Firmacus Maternus (third book of De errore profanarum religionum from the fourth century AD), in which a pretended resurrection is mentioned, although it is doubtful this ever played any part in the actual cult.
The attempts in the earlier scholarly literature to identify Attis as a "dying and rising deity" depend not on the mythology but rather on the ritual of the five-day festival of Cybele on March 22-27. Some scholars saw the "Day of Blood" (March 24) and the "Day of Joy" (March 25) as an analogy of the Christian relationship between Good Friday to Easter Sunday, and reasoned that if there was "mourning" on the first day, the object of the "joy" on the following day must be Attis' "resurrection." But there is no evidence this is the case. The Day of Joy is a late addition to what was once a three-day ritual in which the Day of Blood was followed by a purificatory ritual and the return of the statue of the goddess to the temple. The Day of Joy in the cult celebrated Cybele, not Attis.
(Note: In this festival, Attis worshippers chopped down a tree and brought it to the temple. Then they put an effigy of Attis on it and mourned. This is, no doubt, where Luke keeps getting his spiel of Attis being "crucified". But all the version of the Attis cult have him dying, via self-castration; priests of Attis hacked off their own nuts to emulate their gods.)
The sole text that connects the Day of Joy with Attis is a fifth-century AD biography of Isidore the Dialectician by the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius who reports that Isidore once had a dream in which he was Attis and the Day of Joy was celebrated in his honor!
The ritual of the taurobolium (bull slaying) came to be associated with this cult at least from the second century AD and was frequently performed as an explicit homage to the emperor. At least in the fourth century AD the taurobolium was a kind of "baptism" performed with the blood of a sacrificed bull and described as such about 400 AD by Prudentius in his Peristephanon (10.1006-1050).
Neither myth nor ritual offers any warrant for classifying Attis as a dying and rising deity. There are some scholars who even question the "divine nature" of the original Phrygian Attis until he was turned into a "god" much later when imported in Greece and Rome (Lancellotti, page 10-11).
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Attis (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Attis)
-
Back to this Bethlehem thing, the OT has at least a dozen verses that mention the city of Bethlehem, most of which can be found in the Pentateuch (the first 5 books), written over a millennium before the birth of Christ.
...I was under the impression that there is absolutely NO archaeological evidence to support the existence of any town/city/village anywhere near Jerusalem or Israel BEFORE the fourth century AD.
Bethlehem is the Hebrew name for the constellation Virgo (the virgin): "Bethlehem" translates literally as "The house of Bread" (which is an alternate name for the Virgo constellation in the Hebrew/Kabbalah tradition).
Bethlehem has sometimes been referred to by archaeologists as "the town that faith built" in light of it being a pilgrimage centre built from the need to find an apparently fictitious/mythical place. It's as if someone were to open an official "Harry Potter's House" three centuries from now, after Potterism became a major religion.
The Luke
-
Come on guys... give it up.
The Luke
utter destruction of christianity right here. Brutal parellels.
-
utter destruction of christianity right here. Brutal parellels.
The Luke: 6
Christianity: nil
The Luke
-
I can't judge the content because (as you apparently missed), like Loco, I'm using my computer at work, which blocks YouTube broadcasts.
If Luke had the specific references to back any of his claims, he would have posted them long before now. Since he hasn't, combined with his feeble claims and gross misstatements about the figures from which Jesus Christ was supposedly crafted, I wouldn't be my house that these videos contain any that he hasn't spewed beforehand.
My guess is he's trying to cover for that blunder of his, regarding the Bible's "indirect" statement of Jesus' birth date being Dec. 25.
yea but you still dismissed what he posted before reviewing the content.and now you have had time to view it.So....what say you?
-
yea but you still dismissed what he posted before reviewing the content.and now you have had time to view it.So....what say you?
The Luke: 7
Christianity: nil
The Luke
-
The Luke: 7
Christianity: nil
The Luke
An Luke...
-
An Luke...
...as Ghaeilge? An bhfuil cupla focal agat?
The Luke
-
Or it looks like:
Lions 7
Christians 0
;)
Who wins in the end? ;D
-
yea but you still dismissed what he posted before reviewing the content.and now you have had time to view it.So....what say you?
It's exactly as I thought it would be.......utter gibberish.
I'll start with the first video. Once again, the obsession with Dec. 25 continues. I don't know what part of "The Gospels DO NOT CLAIM Jesus was born Dec. 25, or on any date in the Hebrew calendar, corresponding to Dec. 25" you fail to grasp, but it is well known that the celebration of Christ's birth was CHOSEN BY THE ROMAN EMPIRE and/or THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to be on that date.
And, much like Luke, the narrator of video on repeatedly harps on the "three kings" thing. Apparently, he suffers from the same lack of simple reading comprehension Luke does, as (once again) the Gospel give no mention to "three kings", only to wise men (magi) who find where Jesus is located, with the exact number of them UNKNOWN.
This, of course, doesn't take into consideration that the shepherds found Jesus, immediately after His birth, WITHOUT THE USE OF A STAR.
It appears that Luke is a bit late. The link I posted deals with the very videos that Luke posted. In fact, the following link gives the transcript of this movie (Zeitgeist, a movie that happens to have someone's wacky theory about the destruction of the Twin Towers being an "inside job"....but that's another story for another time).
Notice that the guy made NO references to the texts, regarding Horus that says he was born Dec. 25.
As has been pointed out several times, Horus was NOT born of a virgin. His mama, Isis, has sex (in birdie form) with Osiris in the underworld, producing Horus.
Let's look at the wacky claims, regarding Horus (The video claims are BOLDED;the rebuttals to the video claims are in GREEN )
This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC.
Horus is not (simply) the sun god, although that became one of his forms. Horus in ancient Egypt was the falcon god whose name means the high, far-off, or distant one. Re (or Ra) was the sun god who came to be identified with the mid-day (or noon) sun. Horus was also the sky god, whose good or sound eye was the sun, and injured eye the moon.
He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky.
He is not the sun, but came to be identified with the position of the rising sun (the sun rises in the east), in such Greek forms as Harakhti = "Horus of the horizon"; and Harmachis (-khis) = "Horus in the horizon." Later he was associated with the sun-god Re and known as Re-Harakhti. Atum was the god of the setting sun.
From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night.
It is hieroglyphs, not hieroglyphics. Hieroglyphic is an adjective (e.g. hieroglyphic writings). The term "messiah" comes from the Hebrew Moshiach for "Anointed One." It is a Judaeo-Christian concept; it does not go back to ancient Egypt. Set (or Seth) was Horus' brother, or in other versions, his uncle. In one tradition of the Egyptian myth, Seth was Horus' rival (and usurper of Egypt's throne), in others, his balance (a bipolar, balanced embodiment of kingship). As mentioned above: since the beginning of the 20th century in Egyptological research, much debate has ensued over whether the struggle between Horus and Seth was primarily historical/geo-political, or cosmic/symbolic. When the full Osiris complex became visible, Seth appears as the murderer of Osiris and would-be killer of the child Horus.
And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.
Horus was never sent to the underworld. That was Osiris who was killed and became lord of the underworld (i.e. the dead), while Horus was king of the living. In one version of the myth, Horus battles with Seth over an 80 year period, the earth-god Geb in a judgment awards the whole inheritance of Egypt to Horus, and Horus then becomes ruler of Egypt. From then on, the dead Egyptian king becomes an "Osiris", and his successor the living king is a "Horus." That is the primary meaning of the Horus-Seth battle myth. In the Egyptian Coffin Texts (Spell 148, quoted above), Horus appears as a falcon who soars up into the sky beyond the flight of the original bird-soul, beyond the stars and all the divinities of olden time whose souls inhabit the constellations. In so doing he brings back light and the assurance of a new day, thus subduing Seth, who personifies the terrors of darkness and death.
Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th.
Wrong. The Persian/Roman god Mithras came to be seen as born on that date, as did Jesus later in the early Church. The December 25th date is not found in the Gospels or the New Testament. It was a later adoption by the Catholic Church: "In the first half of the fourth century AD the worship of the Sol Invictus was the last great pagan cult the Church had to conquer, and it did so in part with the establishment of Christmas...At the head of the Deposition Martyrum of the so-called Roman Chronograph of 354 AD (the Philocalian Calendar) there is listed the natus Christus in Betleem Judaeae ('the birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea') as being celebrated on December 25. The Deposition was originally composed in 336 AD, so Christmas dates back at least that far." (See "Santa or Satan: Reply to a Funny Fundy")
The date of the birth of Horus according to some online sources is during the Egyptian month of Khoiak (which corresponds to our November month). The Egyptian calendar had three seasons, each four months and 30 days/month. The season of Akhet is months (in Greek) Thot, Phaophi, Athyr, Khoiak; the season of Peret (or Winter) is months (in Greek) Tybi, Mekhir, Phamenoth, Pharmouthi; the season of Chemou (or Summer) is months (in Greek) Pakhon, Payni, Epiph, Mesorê. See online sources: Egyptian Festival Calender ; Egyptian calendar months and seasons ; Grand Festivals ; Festival Rituals. We also know where Horus was supposedly born (at Khemmis or Chemmis in the Nile Delta of northern Upper Egypt).
of the virgin Isis-Meri.
Wrong again. Her name was simply Isis (in Greek). Her true Egyptian name is transliterated simply A-s-e-t or 3st (all woman names in Egyptian end with the "t"). Her name (Aset) means "seat" or "throne" (Oxford Encyclopedia, vol 2, "Isis" p. 188) and "the goddess's name is written in hieroglyphs with a sign that represents a throne, indicating the crucial role that she plays in the transmission of the kingship of Egypt" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 80).
And she definitely was not a virgin when she conceived Horus with the revivified Osiris, if these words mean anything: "[Osiris was] revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife" (Lesko, p. 162); "After having sexual intercourse..." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, p. 39); "revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him" (Richard Wilkinson, p. 146); "revive the sexual powers of Osiris" (Pinch, p. 80).
A virgin birth, or more properly, a virginal conception, is by definition non-sexual.
His birth was accompanied by a star in the east
No evidence any stars are mentioned in the birth of Horus.
which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior
There are no "three kings" in the birth of Horus, and there are no "three kings" in the Bible either. Read Matthew 2 for yourself:
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.'" (Matthew 2:1-2 KJV)
They are not called "kings" but "wise men" -- and they are not three in number, we don't know how many there were. Three gifts are later mentioned (gold, frankincense, myrrh) in verse 11, and these were equated with the wise men. Perhaps we are thinking of the Christmas carol "We three kings of Orient are...." ? Nice tune and lyrics, but it's always best to cross-check with the biblical text.
At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher
There is a form known as "Horus the Child" but he wasn't a prodigal teacher. He was kept hidden away by his mother, until he was ready to be ruler of Egypt. The young god was hidden in the papyrus marshes, hence his epithet Har-hery-wadj or "Horus who is upon his papyrus plants."
and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry
No evidence of any baptism for Horus, and no evidence of any "ministry" of Horus. Anubis (or Anup or Anpu) means Royal Child, and is usually depicted as jackal-headed or a wild dog-headed man, or a reclining black jackal. Anubis was the great protector god, guiding the soul through the underworld. He was also the Lord of embalming, and through this is connected with incense and perfumery. No baptism here. (See The Jackal Headed God or Egyptian Animal Gods).
Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with
Horus had NO 12 disciples he traveled with: remember he became ruler of Egypt after a long battle with Seth. Perhaps you could call all the subjects in Egypt his "disciples" (which means followers).
There were technically the "Followers of Horus [son of Isis]" called the Shemsu Heru, mentioned in the Liturgy of Funeral Offerings and purification ceremony. These were a group of beings who were closely connected with Osiris, and having "followed" him in this world they passed after him into the Other World (of the dead), where they became his ministrants and messengers. There were also followers (a different group) of Horus the Elder called the Mesentiu who are "workers in metal" or blacksmiths (see The Liturgy of Funeral Offerings, the fourth ceremony, commentary by Budge).
performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water
There are some healing "miracles" or magic associated with Horus, but this is with Horus the Child, not Horus the Elder or his adult forms. In the Late Dynastic cippi objects, Harpokrates (Horus-the-child) acts as an amuletic force warding off dangerous creatures such as crocodiles, serpents, and other noxious animals, etc. "Horus-on-the-Crocodiles" was a common manifestation of the importance of Horus in healing ritual. The healing of Horus from scorpian stings by Isis provided the reason for the production of the cippi of Horus and his role in healing. The power of this healing seems to come from his mother, Isis, who was indeed the "goddess of immense magical power" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 79ff).
Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Annointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others
Wrong, no evidence for these names. The "forms" of the Horus-god are precisely what I listed above, under these categories: Horus the Child (healing / magical titles such as "Horus-on-the-Crocodiles"); Horus as son of Isis and Osiris ("pillar of his mother"; "savior of his father"); and Horus as a sun-god ("lord of the sky"; god "of the east"; Horus of / in "the horizon"; and later associated with Re).
After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.
Typhon is also known as Seth, his rival brother (or uncle). Horus was NOT crucified, was NOT buried for 3 days, and thus, was NOT resurrected. Your sources are wrong. In some versions of his battle with Seth, Horus had one or both of his eyes injured, but he was not killed. It was his father Osiris who was killed, dismembered, reconstituted, and revived by Isis, his magical mother.
These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate in many cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have the same general mythological structure
No, they do not. They are unique to Jesus Christ (crucifixion, burial, bodily resurrection). I have demolished these claims in my long, detailed, documented article "Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan 'Crucified Saviors' Examined."
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm#ZEITGEIST (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm#ZEITGEIST)
As for videos two and three, little of the claims made there is different than what I've heard before now. So, the refuting of such will be quite easy.
-
It's exactly as I thought it would be.......utter gibberish.
I'll start with the first video. Once again, the obsession with Dec. 25 continues. I don't know what part of "The Gospels DO NOT CLAIM Jesus was born Dec. 25, or on any date in the Hebrew calendar, corresponding to Dec. 25" you fail to grasp, but it is well known that the celebration of Christ's birth was CHOSEN BY THE ROMAN EMPIRE and/or THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to be on that date.
And, much like Luke, the narrator of video on repeatedly harps on the "three kings" thing. Apparently, he suffers from the same lack of simple reading comprehension Luke does, as (once again) the Gospel give no mention to "three kings", only to wise men (magi) who find where Jesus is located, with the exact number of them UNKNOWN.
This, of course, doesn't take into consideration that the shepherds found Jesus, immediately after His birth, WITHOUT THE USE OF A STAR.
It appears that Luke is a bit late. The link I posted deals with the very videos that Luke posted. In fact, the following link gives the transcript of this movie (Zeitgeist, a movie that happens to have someone's wacky theory about the destruction of the Twin Towers being an "inside job"....but that's another story for another time).
Notice that the guy made NO references to the texts, regarding Horus that says he was born Dec. 25.
As has been pointed out several times, Horus was NOT born of a virgin. His mama, Isis, has sex (in birdie form) with Osiris in the underworld, producing Horus.
Let's look at the wacky claims, regarding Horus (The video claims are BOLDED;the rebuttals to the video claims are in GREEN )
This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC.
Horus is not (simply) the sun god, although that became one of his forms. Horus in ancient Egypt was the falcon god whose name means the high, far-off, or distant one. Re (or Ra) was the sun god who came to be identified with the mid-day (or noon) sun. Horus was also the sky god, whose good or sound eye was the sun, and injured eye the moon.
He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky.
He is not the sun, but came to be identified with the position of the rising sun (the sun rises in the east), in such Greek forms as Harakhti = "Horus of the horizon"; and Harmachis (-khis) = "Horus in the horizon." Later he was associated with the sun-god Re and known as Re-Harakhti. Atum was the god of the setting sun.
From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night.
It is hieroglyphs, not hieroglyphics. Hieroglyphic is an adjective (e.g. hieroglyphic writings). The term "messiah" comes from the Hebrew Moshiach for "Anointed One." It is a Judaeo-Christian concept; it does not go back to ancient Egypt. Set (or Seth) was Horus' brother, or in other versions, his uncle. In one tradition of the Egyptian myth, Seth was Horus' rival (and usurper of Egypt's throne), in others, his balance (a bipolar, balanced embodiment of kingship). As mentioned above: since the beginning of the 20th century in Egyptological research, much debate has ensued over whether the struggle between Horus and Seth was primarily historical/geo-political, or cosmic/symbolic. When the full Osiris complex became visible, Seth appears as the murderer of Osiris and would-be killer of the child Horus.
And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.
Horus was never sent to the underworld. That was Osiris who was killed and became lord of the underworld (i.e. the dead), while Horus was king of the living. In one version of the myth, Horus battles with Seth over an 80 year period, the earth-god Geb in a judgment awards the whole inheritance of Egypt to Horus, and Horus then becomes ruler of Egypt. From then on, the dead Egyptian king becomes an "Osiris", and his successor the living king is a "Horus." That is the primary meaning of the Horus-Seth battle myth. In the Egyptian Coffin Texts (Spell 148, quoted above), Horus appears as a falcon who soars up into the sky beyond the flight of the original bird-soul, beyond the stars and all the divinities of olden time whose souls inhabit the constellations. In so doing he brings back light and the assurance of a new day, thus subduing Seth, who personifies the terrors of darkness and death.
Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th.
Wrong. The Persian/Roman god Mithras came to be seen as born on that date, as did Jesus later in the early Church. The December 25th date is not found in the Gospels or the New Testament. It was a later adoption by the Catholic Church: "In the first half of the fourth century AD the worship of the Sol Invictus was the last great pagan cult the Church had to conquer, and it did so in part with the establishment of Christmas...At the head of the Deposition Martyrum of the so-called Roman Chronograph of 354 AD (the Philocalian Calendar) there is listed the natus Christus in Betleem Judaeae ('the birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea') as being celebrated on December 25. The Deposition was originally composed in 336 AD, so Christmas dates back at least that far." (See "Santa or Satan: Reply to a Funny Fundy")
The date of the birth of Horus according to some online sources is during the Egyptian month of Khoiak (which corresponds to our November month). The Egyptian calendar had three seasons, each four months and 30 days/month. The season of Akhet is months (in Greek) Thot, Phaophi, Athyr, Khoiak; the season of Peret (or Winter) is months (in Greek) Tybi, Mekhir, Phamenoth, Pharmouthi; the season of Chemou (or Summer) is months (in Greek) Pakhon, Payni, Epiph, Mesorê. See online sources: Egyptian Festival Calender ; Egyptian calendar months and seasons ; Grand Festivals ; Festival Rituals. We also know where Horus was supposedly born (at Khemmis or Chemmis in the Nile Delta of northern Upper Egypt).
of the virgin Isis-Meri.
Wrong again. Her name was simply Isis (in Greek). Her true Egyptian name is transliterated simply A-s-e-t or 3st (all woman names in Egyptian end with the "t"). Her name (Aset) means "seat" or "throne" (Oxford Encyclopedia, vol 2, "Isis" p. 188) and "the goddess's name is written in hieroglyphs with a sign that represents a throne, indicating the crucial role that she plays in the transmission of the kingship of Egypt" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 80).
And she definitely was not a virgin when she conceived Horus with the revivified Osiris, if these words mean anything: "[Osiris was] revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife" (Lesko, p. 162); "After having sexual intercourse..." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, p. 39); "revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him" (Richard Wilkinson, p. 146); "revive the sexual powers of Osiris" (Pinch, p. 80).
A virgin birth, or more properly, a virginal conception, is by definition non-sexual.
His birth was accompanied by a star in the east
No evidence any stars are mentioned in the birth of Horus.
which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior
There are no "three kings" in the birth of Horus, and there are no "three kings" in the Bible either. Read Matthew 2 for yourself:
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.'" (Matthew 2:1-2 KJV)
They are not called "kings" but "wise men" -- and they are not three in number, we don't know how many there were. Three gifts are later mentioned (gold, frankincense, myrrh) in verse 11, and these were equated with the wise men. Perhaps we are thinking of the Christmas carol "We three kings of Orient are...." ? Nice tune and lyrics, but it's always best to cross-check with the biblical text.
At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher
There is a form known as "Horus the Child" but he wasn't a prodigal teacher. He was kept hidden away by his mother, until he was ready to be ruler of Egypt. The young god was hidden in the papyrus marshes, hence his epithet Har-hery-wadj or "Horus who is upon his papyrus plants."
and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry
No evidence of any baptism for Horus, and no evidence of any "ministry" of Horus. Anubis (or Anup or Anpu) means Royal Child, and is usually depicted as jackal-headed or a wild dog-headed man, or a reclining black jackal. Anubis was the great protector god, guiding the soul through the underworld. He was also the Lord of embalming, and through this is connected with incense and perfumery. No baptism here. (See The Jackal Headed God or Egyptian Animal Gods).
Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with
Horus had NO 12 disciples he traveled with: remember he became ruler of Egypt after a long battle with Seth. Perhaps you could call all the subjects in Egypt his "disciples" (which means followers).
There were technically the "Followers of Horus [son of Isis]" called the Shemsu Heru, mentioned in the Liturgy of Funeral Offerings and purification ceremony. These were a group of beings who were closely connected with Osiris, and having "followed" him in this world they passed after him into the Other World (of the dead), where they became his ministrants and messengers. There were also followers (a different group) of Horus the Elder called the Mesentiu who are "workers in metal" or blacksmiths (see The Liturgy of Funeral Offerings, the fourth ceremony, commentary by Budge).
performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water
There are some healing "miracles" or magic associated with Horus, but this is with Horus the Child, not Horus the Elder or his adult forms. In the Late Dynastic cippi objects, Harpokrates (Horus-the-child) acts as an amuletic force warding off dangerous creatures such as crocodiles, serpents, and other noxious animals, etc. "Horus-on-the-Crocodiles" was a common manifestation of the importance of Horus in healing ritual. The healing of Horus from scorpian stings by Isis provided the reason for the production of the cippi of Horus and his role in healing. The power of this healing seems to come from his mother, Isis, who was indeed the "goddess of immense magical power" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 79ff).
Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Annointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others
Wrong, no evidence for these names. The "forms" of the Horus-god are precisely what I listed above, under these categories: Horus the Child (healing / magical titles such as "Horus-on-the-Crocodiles"); Horus as son of Isis and Osiris ("pillar of his mother"; "savior of his father"); and Horus as a sun-god ("lord of the sky"; god "of the east"; Horus of / in "the horizon"; and later associated with Re).
After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.
Typhon is also known as Seth, his rival brother (or uncle). Horus was NOT crucified, was NOT buried for 3 days, and thus, was NOT resurrected. Your sources are wrong. In some versions of his battle with Seth, Horus had one or both of his eyes injured, but he was not killed. It was his father Osiris who was killed, dismembered, reconstituted, and revived by Isis, his magical mother.
These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate in many cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have the same general mythological structure
No, they do not. They are unique to Jesus Christ (crucifixion, burial, bodily resurrection). I have demolished these claims in my long, detailed, documented article "Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan 'Crucified Saviors' Examined."
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm#ZEITGEIST (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm#ZEITGEIST)
As for videos two and three, little of the claims made there is different than what I've heard before now. So, the refuting of such will be quite easy.
Jeez. Yawn. See you got nothing to refute Bob Price with...hehe.
-
Jeez. Yawn. See you got nothing to refute Bob Price with...hehe.
You don't comprehend very well, Deicide, and neither does the guy who came up with those videos.
His claims about Horus are absolutely BOGUS. The refutations to such claims are easy to find, and, unlike Luke, the specific references addressing those claims are given.
For example, where does it state that Horus was killed via crucifixion?
Furthermore, this dude claims tha Horus get sent to the underworld, which, per the account of Horus is INCORRECT. Horus' daddy, Osiris, is in the underworld (you will recall that's where Isis has birdie-sex with him to conceive Horus, which disqualifies his birth as being a "virgin" one). More from the "All About Horus" link!!
Here is some commentary on the "conception of Horus" from various Egyptian scholars:
"...drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show her as a kite hovering above Osiris, who is revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife." (Lesko, Great Goddesses of Egypt, p. 162)
"After having sexual intercourse, in the form of a bird, with the dead god she restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, Horus." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt, p. 39)
"Through her magic Isis revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him, eventually giving birth to their child, Horus." (Richard Wilkinson, Complete gods and goddesses of Ancient Egypt, p. 146)
"Isis already knows that she is destined to bear a child who will be king. In order to bring this about, she has to revive the sexual powers of Osiris, just as the Hand Goddess aroused the penis of the creator to create the first life." (Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology, p. 80)
In short, this was NO "virgin birth" as is clear also from repeated references to Osiris' "seed." A "miraculous birth" perhaps because it involves a dead and then revived husband, but not a virginal conception (sometimes wrongly called an "immaculate conception" -- that has to do in Catholic theology with Mary's conception without Original Sin, not Jesus' conception) nor a virgin birth as contained in the Bible (cf. Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38).
I'll deal with the blunders from the other two videos a bit later. But, suffice it to say that, if this guy ain't got his facts straight in that one, the other two can't be much better.
-
As for the claim that the narrative of Jesus Christ was taken from an Egyptian inscription from Luxor.....
For example, inscribed about 3500 years, on the walls of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt are images of the enunciation, the immaculate conception, the birth, and the adoration of Horus. The images begin with Thaw announcing to the virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus, then Nef the holy ghost impregnating the virgin, and then the virgin birth and the adoration. This is exactly the story of Jesus' miracle conception.
The "enunciation" should be the "Annunciation" (March 25 is the feast day in Catholic liturgical calendars), and "immaculate conception" refers to the Catholic teaching about Mary's conception without Original Sin (December 8 is the feast day), not to a virginal conception. Just to be clear: Mary's own conception and birth from her mother was normal in the biological sense; it was Jesus who was virginally conceived and virgin born (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38).
Skeptic and historian Richard Carrier makes a couple points about the Egyptian Luxor birth inscription which I will summarize:
- the Luxor inscription does not depict impregnation by a spirit, but involves very real sex
- the woman involved is not Isis (e.g. Horus' mother) but the mythical Queen of Egypt in an archetypal sense
- Panel 4: (often cited as key) describes the god Amun jumping into bed with the human Queen on her wedding night.
- Amun's buddy Thoth stands by the bed to watch, and after Amun "does everything he wished with her" -- she and Amun engage in some divine pillow talk
- Amun tells her that she is impregnated and will bear his son, Amenophis (or "Amun is loved [or satisfied]")
- Amun, not Thoth, announces the conception; and Kneph only forms the fetus and the soul and unites them, he does not impregnate the Queen
- Panel 8: the ankh touched to the Queen's nose, does not depict an impregnation since she is already pregnant and "showing"
- Rather, it is the birth that is announced, not the conception; Kneph proceeds to impart the god's soul into the divine fetus using the ankh
- Panel 9: depicts the birth
- the adoration scene only involves important state officials (or perhaps lesser divinities), not kings or "magi"
- the cycle depicted at Luxor does not match up in the same sequence with the Christian narrative: the annunciation follows the conception in the Egyptian cycle (but in the same panel)
- the actual Luxor sequence is conception and annunciation in panel 4, gestation and quickening in panel 8 (also a second speech of assurance), birth in panel 9, and then in panels 9 onward an adoration, and a confirmation
- this type of sequence is found throughout Greek and Roman mythology, so Christians need not have gotten the idea from Egypt
Now, for some of the claims from video 3.
There's the claim that the Hebrews stole the Ten Commandments from the Egyptians' "Negative Confession".....I haven't heard that one in years. Conspicuously absent from the commandments supposedly "taken outright" from the Negative Confession are the first four commandments:
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me
- Thou shalt not make unto thee any grave image.....
- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.....
- Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.
The other six commamdments cover stealing, lying, murder, and adultery, which a number of cultures have. To say that any culture with such laws yanked them from the Egytians is utterly ridiculous, to say the least.
-
You don't comprehend very well, Deicide, and neither does the guy who came up with those videos.
His claims about Horus are absolutely BOGUS. The refutations to such claims are easy to find, and, unlike Luke, the specific references addressing those claims are given.
For example, where does it state that Horus was killed via crucifixion?
Furthermore, this dude claims tha Horus get sent to the underworld, which, per the account of Horus is INCORRECT. Horus' daddy, Osiris, is in the underworld (you will recall that's where Isis has birdie-sex with him to conceive Horus, which disqualifies his birth as being a "virgin" one). More from the "All About Horus" link!!
Here is some commentary on the "conception of Horus" from various Egyptian scholars:
"...drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show her as a kite hovering above Osiris, who is revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife." (Lesko, Great Goddesses of Egypt, p. 162)
"After having sexual intercourse, in the form of a bird, with the dead god she restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, Horus." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt, p. 39)
"Through her magic Isis revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him, eventually giving birth to their child, Horus." (Richard Wilkinson, Complete gods and goddesses of Ancient Egypt, p. 146)
"Isis already knows that she is destined to bear a child who will be king. In order to bring this about, she has to revive the sexual powers of Osiris, just as the Hand Goddess aroused the penis of the creator to create the first life." (Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology, p. 80)
In short, this was NO "virgin birth" as is clear also from repeated references to Osiris' "seed." A "miraculous birth" perhaps because it involves a dead and then revived husband, but not a virginal conception (sometimes wrongly called an "immaculate conception" -- that has to do in Catholic theology with Mary's conception without Original Sin, not Jesus' conception) nor a virgin birth as contained in the Bible (cf. Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38).
I'll deal with the blunders from the other two videos a bit later. But, suffice it to say that, if this guy ain't got his facts straight in that one, the other two can't be much better.
I am not taking about the videos.
-
Let's look at the claims from part 1 of the Zeitgeist video about the gods, from which Jesus Christ was supposedly crafted.
Attis of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.
In this longer Arnobius version, Attis' mother is Nana, the daughter of King Sangarius. She became pregnant and conceived Attis from a pomegranate fruit produced from the blood of Agdistis the fierce hunter, after an attempt by Liber to kill him. Endowed with extraordinary beauty, Attis became the favorite of Cybele along with Agdistis, both who were born from a huge rock called "Agdos." Attis dies from castration and the longer story ends like this:
"The Mother of the gods also shed bitter tears from which an almond tree sprang up, and then she took the sacred pine-tree, under which Attis had emasculated himself, into her den and joined the funeral laments of Agdistis, smiting her breasts and walking around the trunk of the tree. Agdistis begged Jupiter [or Zeus] to bring Attis back to life (revivisceret), but that was not permitted. Instead the god agreed that the body of Attis should not putrefy, that his hair should always grow and that his little finger should move for eternity. Satisfied with these favours, Agdistis consecrated the dead man's body to Pessinous and honoured him with yearly ceremonies and priestly services." (Lancellotti, page 4-5)
In other words, contrary to Luke's claims (and those of the video narrator):
- No death by crucifixion (death by self-castration or goring by a wild boar, depending on which version you pick)
- No resurrection
- "Virgin birth" is dubious (a deceptive conception with sperm disguised as fruit, tantamount to a form of rape, since the mother did not consent to impregnation).
Mithra of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.
Mithra is essentially a deity of light; he draws the sun with rapid horses; he is the first to reach the summit of Mount Hara at the center of the earth; he shines with his own light in the morning and makes the many forms of the world visible; he is a divinity both of light and salvation. In the Iranian world he has a clear significance as a warrior god, and has the traits of a divinity who ensures rain and prosperity and protects cattle by providing it ample pasturage. The nature of the Iranian god as one of salvation can be inferred from myriad indications: in the Parthian epoch there existed a great syncretic myth of the Cosmocrator Redemptor, of which Mithra, born of a rock or out of a cave, was the protagonist. His rock-birth, later celebrated on December 25, was accompanied by special signs and luminous epiphanies taken as a symbol of royal initiation.
"The literary sources here are few but unmistakable: Mithras was known as the rock-born god. The inscriptions confirm this nomenclature: one even reads D(eo) O(omipotenti) S(oli) Invi(cto), Deo Genitori, r(upe) n(ato), 'To the almighty God Sun invincible, generative god, born from the rock'....Mithras also appears in the archaeological record as the rock-born god. Many images represent the god growing out of a rock with both arms raised aloft....After the bull-slaying, the rock-birth is the most frequently represented event of the myth, either as a detail on reliefs or, quite commonly, as a free-standing image." (Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras, page 62-63)
Again, we find with Mithra, as with Attis and Horus:
- No virgin birth (Mithras didn't even come from a woman, PERIOD; he came from blasted ROCK!!!)
- No death via crucifixion (The only death mentioned in his account is that of a bull)
- No resurrection (of course, there wouldn't be such, if he's never killed)
- Disciples? I see no such men mentioned, let alone there being 12 of them. If somebody has a references to these guys (some names would be nice), let's see them.
Alas, we have the same off-the-wall claims from folks, doing a rather pitiful job at scholarship....SIGH!!!
-
I am not taking about the videos.
Don't tell me you're talking about that mess on your thread about Price. You've posted that long diatribe multiple times here, and much of it is the same re-hashed mess that Luke is spouting, here.
-
McWay,
Either you aren't even reading the articles you are copy and pasting, or you don't understand them...
Note: In this festival, Attis worshippers chopped down a tree and brought it to the temple. Then they put an effigy of Attis on it and mourned. This is, no doubt, where Luke keeps getting his spiel of Attis being "crucified". But all the version of the Attis cult have him dying, via self-castration; priests of Attis hacked off their own nuts to emulate their gods.)
...am I right in thinking that you actually know the details of this festival?
Attis followers would cut down a sacred tree and a designated priest/disciple would carry it back to the temple through the streets (on his back Jebus style). The followers of Attis would then set up the tree in the temple and a statue of the prostrate (arms out) dying Attis would then be nailed to the tree.
This crucifxion-ish celebration of Attis' death happens on Easter eve and is known as "The Day of Mourning", then a couple of days later Attis' followers meet in secret for a celebration known as the "Day of Joy" which begins the "rebirth" of the cycle of Attis' yearly celebrations.
You know all this and you STILL don't see any parallels with Christianity?
What is that? Hysterical blindness?
The Luke
-
McWay,
Either you aren't even reading the articles you are copy and pasting, or you don't understand them...
...am I right in thinking that you actually know the details of this festival?
The details were given in the link I posted, and elsewhere. Just in case you forgot:
The attempts in the earlier scholarly literature to identify Attis as a "dying and rising deity" depend not on the mythology but rather on the ritual of the five-day festival of Cybele on March 22-27. Some scholars saw the "Day of Blood" (March 24) and the "Day of Joy" (March 25) as an analogy of the Christian relationship between Good Friday to Easter Sunday, and reasoned that if there was "mourning" on the first day, the object of the "joy" on the following day must be Attis' "resurrection." But there is no evidence this is the case. The Day of Joy is a late addition to what was once a three-day ritual in which the Day of Blood was followed by a purificatory ritual and the return of the statue of the goddess to the temple. The Day of Joy in the cult celebrated Cybele, not Attis.
The sole text that connects the Day of Joy with Attis is a fifth-century AD biography of Isidore the Dialectician by the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius who reports that Isidore once had a dream in which he was Attis and the Day of Joy was celebrated in his honor!
The ritual of the taurobolium (bull slaying) came to be associated with this cult at least from the second century AD and was frequently performed as an explicit homage to the emperor. At least in the fourth century AD the taurobolium was a kind of "baptism" performed with the blood of a sacrificed bull and described as such about 400 AD by Prudentius in his Peristephanon (10.1006-1050).
Neither myth nor ritual offers any warrant for classifying Attis as a dying and rising deity. There are some scholars who even question the "divine nature" of the original Phrygian Attis until he was turned into a "god" much later when imported in Greece and Rome (Lancellotti, page 10-11).
(Sources: see "Cybele" and "Dying and Rising Gods" in The Encyclopedia of Religion, and Attis: Between Myth and History by Maria Lancellotti, pages 1 ff).
Attis followers would cut down a sacred tree and a designated priest/disciple would carry it back to the temple through the streets (on his back Jebus style). The followers of Attis would then set up the tree in the temple and a statue of the prostrate (arms out) dying Attis would then be nailed to the tree.
Tell me something I don't know. That is based on the "Day of Mourning" ritual. And, lost in all of this is the fact that Attis DOES NOT DIE VIA CRUCIFIXION. He cuts his nuts off, which is why many priests and followers of the Attis/Cybele cult did the same. The tree is cut down, simply because Attis died underneath a tree (or got turned into one, as his "resurrection"). NEITHER correlates to death via crucifixion.
The stake or "tree" is what is used to carry off Attis' corpse. It has no bearing on how (or why) he died. Jesus, on the other hand, not only died of crucifixion, but He was removed from the cross to be placed in the tomb of Joseph of Aramithea. Try as you might, you can't stretch Attis' death with that of Jesus Christ in form, function, or purpose.
This crucifxion-ish celebration of Attis' death happens on Easter eve and is known as "The Day of Mourning", then a couple of days later Attis' followers meet in secret for a celebration known as the "Day of Joy" which begins the "rebirth" of the cycle of Attis' yearly celebrations.
You know all this and you STILL don't see any parallels with Christianity?
What is that? Hysterical blindness?
The Luke
There is no "crucifixion-ish celebration", genius, because that's not how Attis died. And, unlike Jesus, Attis un-manned himself, out of lust for his own mother. He DID NOT do so for the redemption of mankind.
-
Hysterical blindness it is then...
The Luke
-
Hysterical blindness it is then...
The Luke
That affliction would fall on you, especially since YOU claimed that Attis, Osiris, Mithras, etc. DIED VIA CRUCIFIXION. Of course, since you can't back that up with any actual facts, you (in a classic case of severe desperation) look for any reference to a "tree" to claim that cruficixion occured, thus resulting in the account of Christ being lifted from these other figures.
It's a simple question. Does Attis die via crucifixion (as you claimed, earlier)? YES or NO!!!
Attis followers would cut down a sacred tree and a designated priest/disciple would carry it back to the temple through the streets (on his back Jebus style). The followers of Attis would then set up the tree in the temple and a statue of the prostrate (arms out) dying Attis would then be nailed to the tree.
Is that right.......?
On the first day of the festival, a pine tree was carried to Rome. It had the effigy of a young man tied to it and was enveloped with woolen bandages like a corpse and covered in wreaths and violets--the flower which sprang from the blood of Attis, when he died.....The burial of this effigy took place on the third day, the 'day of blood'. We hardly know the rites on the second day. Attis, dead and buried, was mourned with threnoi, but by a frenzied dance in which the priests wounded themselves. At an early date, undoubtedly, they castrated themselves, miming the castration of Attis. But, at night, the Chief Priest, in the role of Messenger, announced the ressurection of the god, and on the following day there followed the Festival of Joy, on which all kinds of licentiousness of Carnival type was practiced--complete freedom of expression, disguises. The last day, as I have said, was dedicated to Cybele. - Francisco Rodrigues Adrado, "Festival, Comedy, and Tragedy"
Let's see: an effigy of already DEAD man, covered in a woolen shroud and carried on a pine tree vs. Jesus carrying a cross, later carried by another man (Simon of Cyrene), on which He would actually be crucified.
Yep....those are DEAD ringers for one another! ::)
BTW, Loco is still waiting for you to support your earlier claims about the Bible "indirectly" stating that Jesus was born Dec. 25. I just hope he hasn't died laughing from these pitiful videos you got from YouTube.
And, on another note, that "72" you mentioned about Osiris wasn't in reference to the piece in which he got sliced. It was the number of conspirators that joined Set in plotting Osiris' death (which, contrary to your earlier claims, was NOT by crucifixion).
The basic Egyptian myth goes like this: Osiris became ruler of the land, but was tricked and slain by his jealous brother, Seth. According to the Greek version of the story, Typhon (Seth) had a beautiful coffin made to Osiris' exact measurements, and with 72 conspirators at a banquet, promised it to the one who would fit it. Each guest tried it for size, and Osiris was the one to fit exactly. Immediately Seth and the conspirators nailed the lid shut, sealed the coffin in lead, and threw it into the Nile. The coffin was eventually borne across the sea to Byblos, where Isis, who had been continually searching for her husband, finally located it. She returns the body to Egypt where Seth discovers it, cuts the corpse into pieces, and scatters them throughout the country. Isis transforms herself into a kite, and with her sister Nephthys, searches for and finds all the pieces (except the male member, which she replicates), reconstitutes the body, and before embalming to give Osiris eternal life, she revivifies it, couples with it, and thus conceives Horus.
"Of the parts of Osiris's body the only one which Isis did not find was the male member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honour of which the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival." (Plutarch, Moralia V, On Isis and Osiris, 18)
BTW, the part where Isis "couples with it" (the newly-crafted penis of Osiris) DISQUALIFIES her from being a virgin; thus also disqualifies Horus' appearance as being a "virgin birth".
-
McWay,
Again, just like there is a version of the Hamlet story where Hamlet kills the conspirators; marries Ophelia and lives happily ever after (Google: "Amlodhi" the Viking Hamlet)... there are alternate versions of the Horus; Mithras; Perseus; Achilles; Attis; Tammuz; Dionysus; Bacchus etc stories in which ALL these different gods are in some manner crucified, buried and then rise from the dead after three days.
This isn't open for debate. Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr openly admitted these parallels.
Similarly there is no need to keep harping on about my supposed failure to show how the Gospels INDIRECTLY give Jesus' birth date as 25th of December. I've explained my reasoning to the satisfaction of any reasonable reader... I've explained the astrological metaphors in detail and I've even posted videos that demonstrate the alignments in an easy to follow manner.
The Luke
-
Now you just need to mention the birth date contradictions between Luke and Matthew...
Conclusion
There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html
-
McWay,
Again, just like there is a version of the Hamlet story where Hamlet kills the conspirators; marries Ophelia and lives happily ever after (Google: "Amlodhi" the Viking Hamlet)... there are alternate versions of the Horus; Mithras; Perseus; Achilles; Attis; Tammuz; Dionysus; Bacchus etc stories in which ALL these different gods are in some manner crucified, buried and then rise from the dead after three days.
There is no "some manner" crucified. Either they were or they weren't. And, every version of these gods says that they weren't. Vague references to tree do not equate to crucifixion. That is a specific form of execution which NONE of these gods suffer.
This isn't open for debate. Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr openly admitted these parallels.
You mean THIS Justin Martyr .....
But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation." - Justin Martyr, "First Apology, chapter 55".
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidence4.htm (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidence4.htm)
Both you and the guy who made this Zeitgeist video foolishly tried to use his quotes to make your case. Unfortunately, in your haste, you neglected to mention the rest of his words, in which he clearly points out the differences.
Similarly there is no need to keep harping on about my supposed failure to show how the Gospels INDIRECTLY give Jesus' birth date as 25th of December. I've explained my reasoning to the satisfaction of any reasonable reader... I've explained the astrological metaphors in detail and I've even posted videos that demonstrate the alignments in an easy to follow manner.
The Luke
Easy-to-follow....if you throw your reading comprehension out the door. One simple read of the Gospels puts an end to all the astrological silliness, as those who attempt to prop up this nonsense do so by reading things in the Gospels that aren't simply there. Once again:
- No mention of "three kings" (they ain't kings and the exact number of "wise men" is not known)
- The wise men don't find Jesus in "cave" or "stable" (that's more stretching and falsehood by you and this video guy); Jesus is said to be in a HOUSE.
- Whenever they find Him has no bearing on when He was born, because Jesus is about TWO YEARS OLD, when they show up.
Quit mixing up Western tradition with the Scripture and get your facts straight.....for once.
-
Now you just need to mention the birth date contradictions between Luke and Matthew...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html
I would, except for one minor problem.....
The first periodic enrollment of Syria was made under Saturninus in BC. 8-7. The enrollment of Palestine was delayed by the causes described until the late summer or autumn of BC. 6. At that time, Varus was controlling the internal affairs of Syria, while Quirinius was commanding its armies and directing its foreign policy.
Tertullian, finding that the first periodic enrollment in Syria was made under Saturninus, inferred too hastily that the enrollment in Palestine was made under that governor. With full consciousness and intention, he corrects Luke’s statement, and declares that Christ was born during the census taken by Sentius Saturninus. Luke, more accurately, says that the enrollment of Palestine was made while Quirinius was acting as leader (ἡγεμών) in Syria.
The question will perhaps be put whether Luke could rightly describe the authority of Quirinius by the words “holding the Hegemonia of Syria”. The preceding exposition leaves no doubt on this point. The usage of Luke shows that he regards Hegemonia in the provinces as the attribute both of the Emperor and of the officers to whom the Emperor delegates his power. Now that is quite true in point of fact. The Emperor primarily held the supreme authority in Syria (which was one of the Imperatorial provinces, as distinguished from those which were administered by the Senate through the agency of its officers, entitled Proconsuls). But the Emperor could not himself be present in Syria or in Palestine, hence he delegated to substitutes, or Lieutenants, the exercise of his authority in the various provinces which were under his own direct power. These substitutes, when of senatorial rank, bore the title Legatus Augusti pro praetore, and when of equestrian rank the title Procurator cum jure gladii; but both Legati and Procuratores are called by Luke Hegemones, as exercising the Hegemonia that belongs to the Emperor. Now Quirinius was exercising this delegated Hegemonia over the armies of the Province Syria, and it seems quite in keeping with Luke’s brief pregnant style to say that he held the Hegemonia of Syria.
But why did Luke not name Varus, the ordinary governor, in place of dating by the extraordinary officer? If he had had regard to the susceptibilities of modern scholars, and the extreme dearth of knowledge about the period, which was to exist 1800 years after he wrote, he would certainly have named Varus. But he was writing for readers who could as easily find out about Quirinius as about Varus, and he had no regard for us of the nineteenth century. Quirinius ruled for a shorter time than Varus, and he controlled the foreign relations of the province, hence he furnished the best means of dating.
But why did Luke not distinguish clearly between this enrollment and the later enrollment of A. D. 7, which was held by Quirinius in Syria and in Palestine? We answer that he does distinguish, accurately and clearly. He tells that this was the first enrollment of the series, but the moderns are determined to misunderstand him. They insist that Luke confused the use of comparative and superlative in Greek, and that we cannot take the full force of the word “first” as “first of many”. They go on to put many other stumbling-blocks in the way, but none of these cause any difficulty if we hold fast to the fundamental principle that Luke was a great historian who wrote good Greek of the first century kind.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.iv.vii.html (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.iv.vii.html)
-
I would, except for one minor problem.....
The first periodic enrollment of Syria was made under Saturninus in BC. 8-7. The enrollment of Palestine was delayed by the causes described until the late summer or autumn of BC. 6. At that time, Varus was controlling the internal affairs of Syria, while Quirinius was commanding its armies and directing its foreign policy.
Tertullian, finding that the first periodic enrollment in Syria was made under Saturninus, inferred too hastily that the enrollment in Palestine was made under that governor. With full consciousness and intention, he corrects Luke’s statement, and declares that Christ was born during the census taken by Sentius Saturninus. Luke, more accurately, says that the enrollment of Palestine was made while Quirinius was acting as leader (ἡγεμών) in Syria.
The question will perhaps be put whether Luke could rightly describe the authority of Quirinius by the words “holding the Hegemonia of Syria”. The preceding exposition leaves no doubt on this point. The usage of Luke shows that he regards Hegemonia in the provinces as the attribute both of the Emperor and of the officers to whom the Emperor delegates his power. Now that is quite true in point of fact. The Emperor primarily held the supreme authority in Syria (which was one of the Imperatorial provinces, as distinguished from those which were administered by the Senate through the agency of its officers, entitled Proconsuls). But the Emperor could not himself be present in Syria or in Palestine, hence he delegated to substitutes, or Lieutenants, the exercise of his authority in the various provinces which were under his own direct power. These substitutes, when of senatorial rank, bore the title Legatus Augusti pro praetore, and when of equestrian rank the title Procurator cum jure gladii; but both Legati and Procuratores are called by Luke Hegemones, as exercising the Hegemonia that belongs to the Emperor. Now Quirinius was exercising this delegated Hegemonia over the armies of the Province Syria, and it seems quite in keeping with Luke’s brief pregnant style to say that he held the Hegemonia of Syria.
But why did Luke not name Varus, the ordinary governor, in place of dating by the extraordinary officer? If he had had regard to the susceptibilities of modern scholars, and the extreme dearth of knowledge about the period, which was to exist 1800 years after he wrote, he would certainly have named Varus. But he was writing for readers who could as easily find out about Quirinius as about Varus, and he had no regard for us of the nineteenth century. Quirinius ruled for a shorter time than Varus, and he controlled the foreign relations of the province, hence he furnished the best means of dating.
But why did Luke not distinguish clearly between this enrollment and the later enrollment of A. D. 7, which was held by Quirinius in Syria and in Palestine? We answer that he does distinguish, accurately and clearly. He tells that this was the first enrollment of the series, but the moderns are determined to misunderstand him. They insist that Luke confused the use of comparative and superlative in Greek, and that we cannot take the full force of the word “first” as “first of many”. They go on to put many other stumbling-blocks in the way, but none of these cause any difficulty if we hold fast to the fundamental principle that Luke was a great historian who wrote good Greek of the first century kind.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.iv.vii.html (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.iv.vii.html)
You fish out some crap that is over a hundred years old; fundies love doing this. :D In the last 100+ years scholarship has taken vast leaps away from Ramsay, William Mitchell (1851-1939).
-
You fish out some crap that is over a hundred years old; fundies love doing this. :D In the last 100+ years scholarship has taken vast leaps away from Ramsay, William Mitchell (1851-1939).
Yep, because this refutes the "crap" you've been dishing out that's over a hundred years old (namely, the tired rehashed claims about the contradictory dates of Jesus' birth, the accusations that Jesus was crafted from Horus, Osiris, Attis, etc......all old rubbish from the so-called "Enlightenment" period, which Biblical scholars have dismantled, long before now).
Why reinvent the wheel? ;D
When you come up with something new, let me know.
-
"But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation."
- Justin Martyr, "First Apology, chapter 55".
...that's dishonest McWay.
Justin Martyr was only doing what you are doing here... he was facetiously differentiating between the actual supposed physical real-world crucifixion suffered by Jesus, and the allegorical/metaphorical crucifixions suffered by these other gods he deems "imitators" of Christ.
He was NOT claiming that these gods weren't crucified... just that whereas Jesus was physically crucified, these gods were merely symbolically transfixed upon the Southern Cross constellation (aka: the Southern Tree constellation in Attis' case).
If you won't concede the parallels between the Jesus story and these other gods... will you at least concede the parallels between your ridiculous insistence that Attis being nailed to a tree isn't a proper crucifixion because he was already dead, and Justin Martyr's equally laughable distinction between symbolic/astrological and physical crucifixion?
The Luke
-
Yep, because this refutes the "crap" you've been dishing out that's over a hundred years old (namely, the tired rehashed claims about the contradictory dates of Jesus' birth, the accusations that Jesus was crafted from Horus, Osiris, Attis, etc......all old rubbish from the so-called "Enlightenment" period, which Biblical scholars have dismantled, long before now).
Why reinvent the wheel? ;D
When you come up with something new, let me know.
I don't recall sayig that Jesus was crafted from Horus, Osiris, etc. That is not my perspective. I don't really care. I simply think that this figure never existed because there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support the idea.
I saw nothing in that which refuted Carrier's essay.
-
...that's dishonest McWay.
Justin Martyr was only doing what you are doing here... he was facetiously differentiating between the actual supposed physical real-world crucifixion suffered by Jesus, and the allegorical/metaphorical crucifixions suffered by these other gods he deems "imitators" of Christ.
He was NOT claiming that these gods weren't crucified... just that whereas Jesus was physically crucified, these gods were merely symbolically transfixed upon the Southern Cross constellation (aka: the Southern Tree constellation in Attis' case).
There's nothing dishonest about it. It's merely your usual cry, when the facts don't match your claims. To date, every god that you claim died via crucifixion has been shown to have died via some other means. That is why you repeatedly grasp at straws, trying to link any remote reference to a tree to "crucifixion".
If you won't concede the parallels between the Jesus story and these other gods... will you at least concede the parallels between your ridiculous insistence that Attis being nailed to a tree isn't a proper crucifixion because he was already dead, and Justin Martyr's equally laughable distinction between symbolic/astrological and physical crucifixion?
The Luke
YOU said Attis died via crucifixion (so, did the guy in that video); the simple fact is he did not. I'm not conceding anything. I need not do so, because your ridiculous claims (and his) have been deemed FALSE. Charging that the corpse of Attis being strapped to a tree is the same as death via crucifixion makes about as much sense as giving someone the electric chair, after he's been killed in the gas chamber.
-
I don't recall sayig that Jesus was crafted from Horus, Osiris, etc. That is not my perspective. I don't really care. I simply think that this figure never existed because there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support the idea.
And, that statement is just as wrong, as it was the last time you mentioned it.
Your quibble about your Price thread, in which you paste his words, mentions the same gibberish that Luke keeps bringing up here. My point was that the claims of the Gospels contradicting each other, with regards to when Jesus was born, is "over a hundred years old". That's why using Ramsay's findings will work just dandy. The claim ain't new, and neither is the refutation.
I saw nothing in that which refuted Carrier's essay.
Then, I'd suggest a re-read!!! ;D
-
YOU said Attis died via crucifixion (so, did the guy in that video); the simple fact is he did not.
...why do you insist upon bearing false witness against me in this way? Aren't you supposed to be a Christian? If you can't produce the post of mine in this thread which explicitly claimed such, then I would put it to you that you owe me an apology.
Misquoting your opponent in order to invalidate their argument is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
I claimed Attis was crucified... there were several traditions which held that he was.
It is you who has decided to narrowly define crucifixion as EXECUTION upon a cross solely in order to score points here. The dead Attis being nailed to a tree DOES constitute Attis being crucified. By your definition, you'd stand at the bottom of the cross for three long excruciating hours claiming Jesus wasn't crucified at all... and only proclaiming him crucified when he actually expired.
Now you are extending the misquote to include my claiming Attis DIED upon the cross. That's just a blatant lie.
The Luke
-
...why do you insist upon bearing false witness against me in this way? Aren't you supposed to be a Christian? If you can't produce the post of mine in this thread which explicitly claimed such, then I would put it to you that you owe me an apology.
Misquoting your opponent in order to invalidate their argument is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Indulging in your usual whine-fest, I see. I don't owe you an apology, because I posted YOUR VERY OWN WORDS, in black-and-white. And, I can do it again, like so:
McWay,
1) ALL the gods I listed are virgin births (in their Mystery Religion form).
They have to be, when the sun is "born" on the 25th of December it rises in the constellation Virgo (the virgin) also known as the "House of Bread" or "Beth-le-hem" in Hebrew.
2) ALL the gods I listed are either crucified on a tree or a cross by an evil tyrant (again I'm referring to the Mystery Religion form)
They have to be. When the sun "dies" at Easter time, it happens near the stars of the Southern Cross. Allegorically this is represented by the sun (Jebus) being transfixed upon a cross/tree/tau. The first celebration of this happened in 2,400 BC... the first Mithras Easter.
3) Not sure about the "30 pieces of silver"; but I believe most of the Mystery Religion godmen are betrayed by a male lover/friend/disciple/confident... I think Issa was betrayed for crucifixion on a Tau (t-shape) for a "handful of coins".
Again, I'm referring to the Mystery religion versions of these godmen... which may differ from the folklore version. Listing differences between Jebus and the folklore version of these gods is tantamount to claiming the movie ET isn't based on the Jesus story (which it is).
The Luke
PS... one point at a time, let's keep the posts readable.
I owe YOU an apology? I don't think so.
BTW, who's the evil tyrant that crucified Attis? After all, you claimed that "ALL" of the gods were crucified. So, what's his name (and, for once, let's have a specific reference: chapter and verse).
I claimed Attis was crucified... there were several traditions which held that he was.
And these traditions would be.........
Indeed, you did claim that Attis was crucified. That means THAT'S HOW HE WAS KILLED. But, that ain't how the account goes. I've posted at three accounts about Attis, and his death is in one of two manners: Gored to death by a wild boar, or (the far more popular and noted manner) SELF-CASTRATION.
You've been asked for the better part of a week to produce the specific accounts, which state that Attis died in this manner. And, you've produced.....NOTHING (with the exception of excuses).
For you to actually think that the mention of crucifixion would involve someone that's already dead, instead of it being used to kill someone is, quite frankly, PREPOSTEROUS.
It is you who has decided to narrowly define crucifixion as EXECUTION upon a cross solely in order to score points here. The dead Attis being nailed to a tree DOES constitute Attis being crucified.
Me, and WordNet, and Webster's Dictionary, and darn near every dictionary, encylopedia, or thesaurus that mentions and defines the word. But, I guess all of those folks are in some global conspiracy to re-define crucifixion for the expressed purpose of "misquoting" you. ::)
By your definition, you'd stand at the bottom of the cross for three long excruciating hours claiming Jesus wasn't crucified at all... and only proclaiming him crucified when he actually expired.
No, boy genius, I'd proclaim that Jesus was crucified, BECAUSE THE CROSS WAS THE INSTRUMENT USED TO KILL HIM. The same CANNOT be said for Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, etc., all of whom you claimed were crucified.
Stop your sniveling and excuse-making. You can't back your words about Attis, or you would have done so by now. Crucifixion is a form of EXECUTION, how you kill people. Your desperately trying to salvage the use of a tree to carry off a corpse into crucifixion is downright PATHETIC. And, to top it all off, the effigy of Attis was strapped to a tree, anyway, representing an already deceased dude, killed by his own hand that removed his own balls.
Now you are extending the misquote to include my claiming Attis DIED upon the cross. That's just a blatant lie.
The Luke
Genius, that was crucifixion means.....DEATH BY being put on a cross, period. If that's not how Attis died, then he DIDN'T GET CRUCIFIED. Same goes for Osiris, Dionysus, and the rest.
One cuts off his nuts and bleeds to death; another gets stuck in a coffin and DROWNED; yet another gets burned and/or eaten (except for his heart). NONE OF THAT equals crucifixion. Put all the trees in the equation you like. That changes nothing.
-
Well then, by that definition Jebus wasn't crucified either...
There is no way to know if he died on the cross or was killed by Longinus' spear... never know, he could have just slipped into a coma when the spear put him out of his misery.
You've taken a leap into absurdity here McWay... are you really insisting that had Jesus fallen off the cross and died hitting the ground that he then wasn't crucified?
You quote from dictionaries then decide to use only one of the listed definitions, that's weak?
The Luke
-
Well then, by that definition Jebus wasn't crucified either...
There is no way to know if he died on the cross or was killed by Longinus' spear... never know, he could have just slipped into a coma when the spear put him out of his misery.
You've taken a leap into absurdity here McWay... are you really insisting that had Jesus fallen off the cross and died hitting the ground that he then wasn't crucified?
You quote from dictionaries then decide to use only one of the listed definitions, that's weak?
The Luke
An Luke, MCWAY is one of those faith heads who practices 'belief at all costs'; he would never even consider a single shred of anything that would run counter to his fundamentalist faith as it would be antithetical to his stance that the entire Bible is factual in all its details. I used to have these sparing matches with him all the time and he has been annihilated by other people with doctoral degrees in the field of ancient history and still did not concede defeat. He is the ultimate faith head.
-
Challenge to Christians/Evangelicals:
Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory
Bet you can't.
The Luke
PS... short succinct posts please so I can answer them.
Zorastonians (sp?) even have rebirth after 3 days.
-
I've gotta say, this is an interesting back and forth. I'm intrigued by some of the evidence put forward by The Luke, and find it very convincing.
I second that. Very intriguing indeed and I'm also quite convinced.
-
Luke mentioned a lot of astrological metaphors within the Bible and it's a very simple idea that different people will observe the same thing and take a different meaning from it.
For example, the constellation dipping below the horizon signified both washing of the feet, loss of the foot, and the losing of a shoe. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that three people looked at that same constellation and came up with three different stories.
Similarly, the Southern Cross was supposed to signify the crucifixion? Well, if you showed a group of people a picture of the constellation, and ask them what they see happening, they will all give a different answer.
The point being that arguing about washing vs. losing a foot vs. losing a show, is pointless, because the original incident/story/picture is very likely to be the same. All that has happened is that the original incident/story/picture was seen through three different sets of eyes, and passed down through three different channels of communication.
I thought I'd pop this pic in here, as it seems to illustrate some of the points being discussed here. One picture, but there is more than one way of looking at it.
-
Die, thread!
-
Well then, by that definition Jebus wasn't crucified either...
There is no way to know if he died on the cross or was killed by Longinus' spear... never know, he could have just slipped into a coma when the spear put him out of his misery.
Nice try. But trying to cast dobut on the scenario to save your behind, now that your claims have repeatedly been shown to be FALSE won't cut it.
As for your futile attempt to flip the script, regarding the spear wound Jesus received, as usual, that is but another limp-wristed skeptic claim, long refuted and sent to the scrap heap.
The reason Jesus’ legs weren’t broken, as were those of the men crucified with them, is because He’d died. Of course, there was one skeptic who thought differently. That would be the one who jabbed Him with the spear, causing “blood and water” to come out.
The Piercing of His Side
In the case of our Lord, the Gospel of John describes the piercing of Christ's side and the overflowing of blood and water [John 19:34]. Many have assumed that the passage referred to the piercing of the abdomen, and that the water resulted from puncturing the bladder or the presence of ascites (intra-abdominal fluid that can collect as a result of stress or disease). However, a study of the Greek word for "side" used in the passage is pleura, which clearly refers to the chest rather than the abdomen. Our lungs and the walls of the internal chest cavity are lined with a thin, clear membrane called the "pleural lining." Thus it seems probable that the spear wound was to one side of the chest wall. Tradition has depicted the right side, although John is not specific. Medically speaking, this would support the idea of the flow "blood and water ..." from Christ's side since the spear would first puncture the lung and allow the accumulated water, probably due to pulmonary edema, to flow out.
In congestive heart failure caused by stress, the right side of the heart enlarges and results in fluid collecting in the lungs (pulmonary edema) and pericardium. As the spear continued through the lung, it would next puncture the pericardium (sac around the heart) allowing more "water" to drain out of the wound. Finally, the enlarged right ventricle of the heart would be punctured causing a large flow of blood from the wound. Thus the water probably represents clear fluid from the lungs and pericardial sac, and the blood is from a direct puncture of the right side of the heart. - Dr. Dan Brown, M.D., "A Doctor's View of the Crucifixion".
Death by crucifixion is essentially death by asphyxiation; you don’t get down off the cross alive. Plus, there’s the nature of the spear wound, entering the chest cavity and piercing the heart. In short, it would have killed Him, if He weren't already dead" - Dr. Gary Habermas, from "Who is This Jesus? Is He Risen?"
You've taken a leap into absurdity here McWay... are you really insisting that had Jesus fallen off the cross and died hitting the ground that he then wasn't crucified?
WHAT!!!??? Now, you're resorting to concocting scenarios, that nobody has even mentioned to hide the fact that you STILL CANNOT PRODUCE the specific references to this "mystery religion" that claims Attis was crucified.
So, what’s the holdup? You find plenty of time to blubber, but when it’s time produce the references, it’s excuse, whine, complaint, excuse, whine, complaint, ad infinitum. Even by your standards, this is pathetic.
And, by definition, Jesus WAS crucified, because, boy genius, that’s what crucifixion means; you DIE on a cross. Jesus stayed on the cross, until it was confirmed that He was dead. He wasn’t drowned; He wasn’t castrated (by His own hand or by anyone else); He wasn’t set on fire, etc. THE CROSS WAS THE INSTRUMENT OF HIS DEATH.
Was a cross (or even a tree) the instrument used in Attis’ death? NO!!
Was a cross (or even a tree) the instrument used in Osiris’ death? NO!!
Was a cross (or even a tree) the instrument used in Dionysus death? NO!!
And the list goes on!!!
You quote from dictionaries then decide to use only one of the listed definitions, that's weak?
The Luke
I'm sorry!! Which one of those defintions of crucifixion mentioned something about chopping off your nuts or drowning to dying on a cross again?
One more time!! Where are these "mystery religion" accounts that specifically state that Attis died via crucifixion? Tick, tock, tick, tock.......
-
attis,osiris,dionysus,jesus,alah.there all man made.
-
An Luke, MCWAY is one of those faith heads who practices 'belief at all costs'; he would never even consider a single shred of anything that would run counter to his fundamentalist faith as it would be antithetical to his stance that the entire Bible is factual in all its details. I used to have these sparing matches with him all the time and he has been annihilated by other people with doctoral degrees in the field of ancient history and still did not concede defeat. He is the ultimate faith head.
As usual, Deicide, you suffer from a chronic case of revision history.
You did have these "sparing matches" with me. But, what you neglected to tell Luke is that every time the inaccuracies of your claims were exposed, you ran like a scalded dog to a site loaded with atheists, begging them for help, because you couldn't stand up to me by yourself. Unable to come up with any statements of your own, you kept cutting and pasting my posts here, taking them to that site, and using someone else's posts to make up for your own inadequacies.
Since that bastion of bravery failed to come here and address me directly (though he wasted little time, calling me names, despite not engaging with me directly), I went there and, as expected, for all his cursing, swearing, and shouting, his assertions were every bit as empty as yours. And, as usual, when the folks there with doctoral degrees in ancient history were confronted with material from those with comparable credentials, the result was more swearing, cursing, and name-calling (with precious little substance, afterward).
But, what else is new?
-
McWay,
No one is going to argue with you at this point... you won't accept ANY evidence outside the four measly canonical gospels. So you've tied your opponents hands by dismissing any and all evidence outside the Gospel of Mark and the three other gospels known to be rewrites of Mark.
That's akin to asking for evidence that Harry Potter is a fictional character, when you'll only accept quotes from the Harry Potter Books themselves as evidence.
You'd win more people over (notice NO ONE except your fellow delusionist Loco has agreed with you) if you didn't so selectively pick which points to counter...
-you haven't addressed the obvious astronomical metaphors and imagery
-you haven't addressed any of the archaeological evidence (Bethlehem not existing etc)
-you haven't addressed the conformity of the Jesus myth with the long established dying/resurrected godman blueprint
You might have a point that Jesus died on the cross whereas Attis was nailed to a tree AFTER he bled to death... but the parallels can't be dismissed.
The Luke
-
McWay,
No one is going to argue with you at this point... you won't accept ANY evidence outside the four measly canonical gospels. So you've tied your opponents hands by dismissing any and all evidence outside the Gospel of Mark and the three other gospels known to be rewrites of Mark.
That's akin to asking for evidence that Harry Potter is a fictional character, when you'll only accept quotes from the Harry Potter Books themselves as evidence.
Ummmm.....genius. Evidence outside the canonical Gospels has been the very thing I've used to tear your measley arguments apart. Or, did you forget about the numerous references to the very mystery religions, about which you keep clucking that state, in no uncertain terms, how these figures (Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, etc.) died.
You'd win more people over (notice NO ONE except your fellow delusionist Loco has agreed with you) if you didn't so selectively pick which points to counter...
-you haven't addressed the obvious astronomical metaphors and imagery
What metaphors? You tried foolishing fusing the Jesus account with some astronomical mess. But, when asked to specifically show where the Gospels match that (which you claimed you could do), you came up with ZIP!!
As yet another friendly reminder, the Gospels give no indication of "three kings" visiting Jesus at His birth on Dec. 25, which was your assertion about the astronomical metaphors from the start. Not only do the accounts of Jesus not match this astrological foolishness, the accounts OF THE OTHER FIGURES DO NOT MATCH.
This isn't an issue of winning people over (as if the Necrosis, Deicide, and L Dawg, long known to be atheists/agnostics here, needed any help from your ramblings to agree with you). It's about whether the account of Jesus Christ was formed from these other religions. Based on the data from the Jesus account AND THOSE of these other figures, it is clear that they DO NOT match, not in form, not in function, nor in purpose.
-you haven't addressed any of the archaeological evidence (Bethlehem not existing etc)
There goes that selective memory again. I do recall stating that Bethlehem had been in existence at least ONE THOUSAND YEARS, before Jesus was even born. In fact, I gave as an example the account of Ruth, in which she and her mother-in-law return to Bethlehem, in order for Naomi to find other memories of her family. Naomi looks for a male member of her family to redeem Ruth and become her new husband, as a reward for her standing by her, after the death of her husband and son (Ruth's first husband). Unless you forgot (or never knew in the first place) Ruth is the GRANDMOTHER of King David, who became ruler of Israel, nearly a millienum before Christ's birth.
Those accounts would be part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, about which you were mumbling earlier.
Of course, this wouldn't be the first time, skeptics have claimed that something in the Bible never existed, only to be royally embarrased, once archaeological discovery verifies what Scripture stated to be true, from the get-go.
But, since you insist on setting yourself up for stuff like this.....
Bethlehem was first settled by the Canaanite tribes, naming the city Beit Lahama. They built a temple to the God Lahama on the present mount of the Nativity. Around 1200 BCE, the Philistines had a garrison stationed in Bethlehem because of its strategic location.
The city also is significant to Jews because it is the burial place of the matriarch Rachel and the birthplace of King David. Samuel anointed David king in Bethlehem (I Sam. 16:1-13) and David was a descendant of Ruth and Boaz, who were married in Bethlehem. Bethlehem is the birthplace of Jesus and therefore a holy site to Christians around the world. Following the Israelites rule, the Greeks occupied the region unitl the arrival of the Romans in 160 BCE.
The city, just 5 miles south of Jerusalem, was turned over to the Palestinian Authority as a result of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement. Bethlehem has a population of approximately 50,000 people, with the Muslims holding a slight majority. In Hebrew, the town is Bet Lehem ("House of Bread" ) and, in Arabic, it is Bet Lahm ("House of Meat"). For centuries, Christian pilgrims have made the roughly 2½ hour walk from Jerusalem to Manger Square. Today, the trip typically begins at the train station in Abu Tor and proceeds along the Hebron Road.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/archtoc.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/archtoc.html)
-you haven't addressed the conformity of the Jesus myth with the long established dying/resurrected godman blueprint
You mean that one used for Attis.....OOPS!! He wasn't resurrected; He was either turned into a tree or simply buried, with his nails and hair still growing
Or, perhaps, you meant Osiris....WAIT A MINUTE!!!! He gets stuck in the underworld.
Or, you really meant Mithras......UH OH!!!!! Mithras doens't even die, according the accounts about him. He kills a bull, instead.
So, what's was that "blueprint" again? Of course, that still doesn't take into the account your flawed claims that the figures that actually died did so by crucifixion. Again, what's the holdup, here? Where are the specific references about the "mystery religions" that show Attis, Osiris, Mithras, or any of the others, dying in that manner?
You might have a point that Jesus died on the cross whereas Attis was nailed to a tree AFTER he bled to death... but the parallels can't be dismissed.
The Luke
Problem is, the accounts about Attis DO NOT STATE that he was nailed to a tree, whatsoever (That is YOUR assertion which, you cannot back up with specific account references, despite numerous requests to do so). Of course, lost in all of this is what would be the point of nailing him to a tree, if he's already dead.
Recap:
How did he bleed to death, again..............BY SELF-CASTRATION.
Why did he do this to himself.......OUT OF LUST FOR HIS MAMA.
Jesus Christ did NOT chop off his nuts, nor did He lust for His mother. And, unlike Attis, He actually rose from the dead.
I almost forgot!!! You also stated that Attis was "crucified" by an evil tyrant. Yet, you have NOT produced this guy's name. Again, what's the holdup?
-
Ummmm.....genius. Evidence outside the canonical Gospels has been the very thing I've used to tear your measley arguments apart. Or, did you forget about the numerous references to the very mystery religions, about which you keep clucking that state, in no uncertain terms, how these figures (Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, etc.) died.
What metaphors? You tried foolishing fusing the Jesus account with some astronomical mess. But, when asked to specifically show where the Gospels match that (which you claimed you could do), you came up with ZIP!!
As yet another friendly reminder, the Gospels give no indication of "three kings" visiting Jesus at His birth on Dec. 25, which was your assertion about the astronomical metaphors from the start. Not only do the accounts of Jesus not match this astrological foolishness, the accounts OF THE OTHER FIGURES DO NOT MATCH.
This isn't an issue of winning people over (as if the Necrosis, Deicide, and L Dawg, long known to be atheists/agnostics here, needed any help from your ramblings to agree with you). It's about whether the account of Jesus Christ was formed from these other religions. Based on the data from the Jesus account AND THOSE of these other figures, it is clear that they DO NOT match, not in form, not in function, nor in purpose.
There goes that selective memory again. I do recall stating that Bethlehem had been in existence at least ONE THOUSAND YEARS, before Jesus was even born. In fact, I gave as an example the account of Ruth, in which she and her mother-in-law return to Bethlehem, in order for Naomi to find other memories of her family. Naomi looks for a male member of her family to redeem Ruth and become her new husband, as a reward for her standing by her, after the death of her husband and son (Ruth's first husband). Unless you forgot (or never knew in the first place) Ruth is the GRANDMOTHER of King David, who became ruler of Israel, nearly a millienum before Christ's birth.
Those accounts would be part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, about which you were mumbling earlier.
Of course, this wouldn't be the first time, skeptics have claimed that something in the Bible never existed, only to be royally embarrased, once archaeological discovery verifies what Scripture stated to be true, from the get-go.
But, since you insist on setting yourself up for stuff like this.....
Bethlehem was first settled by the Canaanite tribes, naming the city Beit Lahama. They built a temple to the God Lahama on the present mount of the Nativity. Around 1200 BCE, the Philistines had a garrison stationed in Bethlehem because of its strategic location.
The city also is significant to Jews because it is the burial place of the matriarch Rachel and the birthplace of King David. Samuel anointed David king in Bethlehem (I Sam. 16:1-13) and David was a descendant of Ruth and Boaz, who were married in Bethlehem. Bethlehem is the birthplace of Jesus and therefore a holy site to Christians around the world. Following the Israelites rule, the Greeks occupied the region unitl the arrival of the Romans in 160 BCE.
The city, just 5 miles south of Jerusalem, was turned over to the Palestinian Authority as a result of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement. Bethlehem has a population of approximately 50,000 people, with the Muslims holding a slight majority. In Hebrew, the town is Bet Lehem ("House of Bread" ) and, in Arabic, it is Bet Lahm ("House of Meat"). For centuries, Christian pilgrims have made the roughly 2½ hour walk from Jerusalem to Manger Square. Today, the trip typically begins at the train station in Abu Tor and proceeds along the Hebron Road.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/archtoc.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/archtoc.html)
You mean that one used for Attis.....OOPS!! He wasn't resurrected; He was either turned into a tree or simply buried, with his nails and hair still growing
Or, perhaps, you meant Osiris....WAIT A MINUTE!!!! He gets stuck in the underworld.
Or, you really meant Mithras......UH OH!!!!! Mithras doens't even die, according the accounts about him. He kills a bull, instead.
So, what's was that "blueprint" again? Of course, that still doesn't take into the account your flawed claims that the figures that actually died did so by crucifixion. Again, what's the holdup, here? Where are the specific references about the "mystery religions" that show Attis, Osiris, Mithras, or any of the others, dying in that manner?
Problem is, the accounts about Attis DO NOT STATE that he was nailed to a tree, whatsoever (That is YOUR assertion which, you cannot back up with specific account references, despite numerous requests to do so). Of course, lost in all of this is what would be the point of nailing him to a tree, if he's already dead.
Recap:
How did he bleed to death, again..............BY SELF-CASTRATION.
Why did he do this to himself.......OUT OF LUST FOR HIS MAMA.
Jesus Christ did NOT chop off his nuts, nor did He lust for His mother. And, unlike Attis, He actually rose from the dead.
I almost forgot!!! You also stated that Attis was "crucified" by an evil tyrant. Yet, you have NOT produced this guy's name. Again, what's the holdup?
Head meet wall. ::)
As I said Robert Price has not been addressed and he has annhilated you.
Owned by Bob.
-
Anyone care to summarize this debate in point form?
-
If there is indeed no parallel between the astrological allegory Mystery Religions and the Jesus story, then why did early Chrurch fathers openly admit such parallels and concoct the risible Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry?
Christian leaders living in the first and second century actually went to the trouble of explaining to their detractors that the Divil (like the Devil but more of a prankster), knowing Jesus was coming to fulfill prophecy had preemptively created many other dying/resurrecting godmen in order to discredit the "original" Jebus story.
If these gods didn't mimic Jesus (or Jesus didn't mimic them) then why the need to explain the parallels?
Why did Justin Martyr admit that Perseus (of Golden Fleece fame) had been born without sexual intercourse; was crucified; only to rise from to the dead? We have no record nowadays of such a story, and anyone searching for such a story would only be able to find the folklore version, with the trip to Colchis; Medea and the Golden Fleece.
Could it be that when the astrological dying/resurrecting godman Mystery Religion story came to Greece the folklore hero Perseus was grafted into the story?
The Luke
-
If there is indeed no parallel between the astrological allegory Mystery Religions and the Jesus story, then why did early Chrurch fathers openly admit such parallels and concoct the risible Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry?
Christian leaders living in the first and second century actually went to the trouble of explaining to their detractors that the Divil (like the Devil but more of a prankster), knowing Jesus was coming to fulfill prophecy had preemptively created many other dying/resurrecting godmen in order to discredit the "original" Jebus story.
If these gods didn't mimic Jesus (or Jesus didn't mimic them) then why the need to explain the parallels?
Why did Justin Martyr admit that Perseus (of Golden Fleece fame) had been born without sexual intercourse; was crucified; only to rise from to the dead? We have no record nowadays of such a story, and anyone searching for such a story would only be able to find the folklore version, with the trip to Colchis; Medea and the Golden Fleece.
Could it be that when the astrological dying/resurrecting godman Mystery Religion story came to Greece the folklore hero Perseus was grafted into the story?
The Luke
Head meet Wall.
-
If there is indeed no parallel between the astrological allegory Mystery Religions and the Jesus story, then why did early Chrurch fathers openly admit such parallels and concoct the risible Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry?
Christian leaders living in the first and second century actually went to the trouble of explaining to their detractors that the Divil (like the Devil but more of a prankster), knowing Jesus was coming to fulfill prophecy had preemptively created many other dying/resurrecting godmen in order to discredit the "original" Jebus story.
This was already covered here - http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidence4.htm (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidence4.htm)
The actual quote is:
"Be well assured, then, Trypho," I continued, "that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus [or Dionysos], son of Jupiter [or Zeus], was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? But since I have not quoted to you such Scripture as tells that Christ will do these things, I must necessarily remind you of one such: from which you can understand, how that to those destitute of a knowledge of God, I mean the Gentiles, who, 'having eyes, saw not, and having a heart, understood not,' worshipping the images of wood, [how even to them] Scripture prophesied that they would renounce these [vanities], and hope in this Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 69)
Commentary: Justin notes Dionysos was not virgin born (Zeus had intercourse with Semele, etc) and was "torn in [to] pieces" (by the Titans), not crucified. He also notes it was the O.T. prophecies recorded by Moses that the Greeks were "imitating."[/quote]
If these gods didn't mimic Jesus (or Jesus didn't mimic them) then why the need to explain the parallels?
He's not explaining the "parallels"; he's explaining the DIFFERENCES. Jesus was virgin-born; Dionysus was not. Jesus was crucified; Dionysus was not, etc.
Why did Justin Martyr admit that Perseus (of Golden Fleece fame) had been born without sexual intercourse; was crucified; only to rise from to the dead? We have no record nowadays of such a story, and anyone searching for such a story would only be able to find the folklore version, with the trip to Colchis; Medea and the Golden Fleece.
Could it be that when the astrological dying/resurrecting godman Mystery Religion story came to Greece the folklore hero Perseus was grafted into the story?
The Luke
Try that again, Luke!!!
Justin also writes:
“From what has been already said, you can understand how the devils, in imitation of what was said by Moses, asserted that Proserpine was the daughter of Jupiter, and instigated the people to set up an image of her under the name of Kore [Cora, i.e., the maiden or daughter] at the spring-heads. For, as we wrote above, Moses said, "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and unfurnished: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." In imitation, therefore, of what is here said of the Spirit of God moving on the waters, they said that Proserpine [or Coral] was the daughter of Jupiter. And in like manner also they craftily feigned that Minerva was the daughter of Jupiter, not by sexual union, but, knowing that God conceived and made the world by the Word, they say that Minerva is the first conception; which we consider to be very absurd, bringing forward the form of the conception in a female shape. And in like manner the actions of those others who are called sons of Jupiter sufficiently condemn them.”
Notice that Justin is arguing that demons mostly copied the older Jewish beliefs—not the Christian beliefs. For some reason Justin draws a parallel between God, the Father using God the Son to imagine and create the world, with the Roman goddess Minerva being “the first conception.” Minerva was believed to be the Roman goddess of wisdom who had leaped out of Jupiter’s head fully grown. Further, the New Testament never states that God “conceived the World.” This is hardly a strong parallel with Jesus’ virgin birth.
http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/jmq.shtml (http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/jmq.shtml)
And, there's more!!!!
Zeus may have had union with Danae not in human form, but in a shower of gold, but all the same the union is a satisfaction of his lust for the
human maid. Everywhere it is the love of the god for the mortal woman, and not merely the exclusion of a human father of the child, which stands in the forefront of interest....Could anything be more utterly remote from the representation in Matthew and Luke than these stories of the amours of Zeus?
We should never forget that the appeal of Justin Martyr and Origen to the pagan stories of divine begetting is an argumentum ad hominen. "You hold", Justin and Origen say in effect to their pagan opponents, "that the virgin birth of Chirstis unbelievable; well is it any more unbelieveable than the story that you yourselves believe?" When Justin....refers to the birth of Perseus as a birth from (or through) a virgin, he is going beyond what the pagan sources contained. There seems to be no clear evidence that pagan sources used the word "virgin" as referring to the mothers of heroes, mythical or historical, who were represented as being begotten of the gods". - Dr. J. Gresham Machen, Princeton Theological Seminary, "The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ".
'We propound nothing new or different'
The other quote from Justin appearing in the movie is this one (my emphasis):
When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter."
- Justin Martyr, church father [21:30]
Here Justin is trying to convince a skeptical pagan audience that there were parallels between pagan myths and the Christ story. It was the pagans who didn't see this, as explained above. However, the parallels that Justin gives aren't between Christianity and pagan ideas, they are between Hebrew writings and pagan myths. But what actual examples did he use?
Let's look at some of the parallels listed in Justin's "First Apology", and see how convincing they sound. These are all taken from Chapters 32 and 33. Notice how Justin is tying back to Hebrew prophecies (my emphasis below):
The prophet Moses, then, Was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: "There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape." The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine [or, the ass] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven.
Remember Price's comment about what the pagans were saying: "What you say about Jesus we've been saying about Dionysus and Hercules all the time". Well, ironically, Justin is actually saying, "What you say about Bacchus/Dionysus the Hebrews were saying about Jesus all this time". Would a pagan have accepted that similarity as valid, do you think?
Jesus Mythers who use Justin rarely show that Justin is showing the similarities between pagan myths and Hebrew ones. But if there is a similarity between Christianity on the one hand, and the Bacchus myth and Moses passage on the other hand, then the most obvious candidate for copying would have been from the Hebrew writings (Though I suspect that some Jesus Mythers may even claim that Christians copied from both the Moses passage in the Old Testament AND the Bacchus myth).
Justin gets into a bit of a tangle with this next parallel, believing the pagans have confused the story of Jesus riding a foal and ascending into heaven to produce the tale of Bellerophon ascending to heaven on a flying horse:
And because in the prophecy of Moses it had not been expressly intimated whether He who was to come was the Son of God, and whether He would, riding on the foal, remain on earth or ascend into heaven, and because the name of "foal" could mean either the foal of an ass or the foal of a horse, they, not knowing whether He who was foretold would bring the foal of an ass or of a horse as the sign of His coming, nor whether He was the Son of God, as we said above, or of man, gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus.
Here you can see that Justin is stretching to find the parallel between Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek myth. Another example:
And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of.
This is a closer parallel. There are only one or two gods "born of a virgin" outside of Christ (despite the numerous claims otherwise around the internet). Perseus is one of those. His mother had been locked away since she was a young girl, and Jupiter had come down in a golden shower to impregnate her.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part2.htm (http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part2.htm)
Lost in all of this (notwithstanding the shower stuff about Zeus, which is effectively his finding another way to get his freak on, with an unsuspecting mortal woman), I'm sad to say that Perseus' death is not reported to be by crucifixion.
-
no one better say nuthin bad about scientology,or I'll show them how there wrong by quoting an L Ron Hubbard book. ::)
-
"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter."
- Justin Martyr, Church Father [21:30]
...or perhaps he was referring to the Ephesian Mystery Religions which differed from the folklore versions of Hercules; Mithras; Perseus; Prometheus etc wherein each of these gods were crucified and then rose again three days later.
There's even a tradition (which also predates Christianity) in which Buddha himself was crucified, only to rise from the dead three days later.
The Luke
-
...or perhaps he was referring to the Ephesian Mystery Religions which differed from the folklore versions of Hercules; Mithras; Perseus; Prometheus etc wherein each of these gods were crucified and then rose again three days later.
There's even a tradition (which also predates Christianity) in which Buddha himself was crucified, only to rise from the dead three days later.
The Luke
And where, oh where, are all these traditions? I'm losing count of how many times I've asked you to produce the specific references about these guys that back your claims about crucifixion. If you can't produce them, your saying that these "mystery religions" differ from the "folklore versions" is basically hollow.
Plus, you forgot about the rest of Justin's quote:
The prophet Moses, then, Was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: "There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape." The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine [or, the ass] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven.
Again, the distinction between this son of Jupiter and Jesus Christ is being made. Dionysus gets torn to pieces (and those pieces eaten, except his heart). That does NOT happen to Jesus Christ; His body isn't broken at all, much less dismembered and devoured by animals or fish.
To top it all off, I've posted the "mystery religion" versions of some of these figures and, as mentioned some time ago, their birth, purpose, and death DO NOT MATCH that of Jesus Christ. They ain't following this so-called "blueprint" you mention.
At least two gods die without resurrecting; one doens't die at all. Those that do meet their end don't croak via crucifixion. Several of them are anything but "virgin-born". And the differences get more staggering, as more investigation is done about them.
-
McWay,
You keep skipping over the Kashmiri Issa...
You know, the guy who was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans on the orders of Pilate around 30 AD in Jerusalem, then rose from the dead three days later. That guy.
Seeing as his life story/gospel was written decades before any of the canonical gospels, surely the Jesus story is in breach of copyright?
Expecting a side-step...
The Luke
-
McWay,
You keep skipping over the Kashmiri Issa...
You know, the guy who was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans on the orders of Pilate around 30 AD in Jerusalem, then rose from the dead three days later. That guy.
Seeing as his life story/gospel was written decades before any of the canonical gospels, surely the Jesus story is in breach of copyright?
Expecting a side-step...
The Luke
You keep experiencing memory loss. I do recall stating that Issa was Jesus' Muslim name and that the belief by some folks is that He traveled to India. He supposedly studied Buddhism and took those teaching back to Israel. And all of this allegedly occured during the 18-year gap, between His going to the temple in Jerusalem at age 12 and the start of His ministry around age 30.
In other words, the Kashmiri Issa and Jesus are believed to be one and the same.
But, since you want to talk about skipping stuff, how many times are you going to skip over delivering the goods, about the references that back your claims about Attis (or any of those other dudes) dying via crucifixion?
The short answer is, of course, that you'll do that indefinitely, because you can't produce the goods, just as you can't do such to support this latest extracted-from-your-rectum claim.
Here's a little reminded about Attis:
"The Mother of the gods also shed bitter tears from which an almond tree sprang up, and then she took the sacred pine-tree, under which Attis had emasculated himself, into her den and joined the funeral laments of Agdistis, smiting her breasts and walking around the trunk of the tree. Agdistis begged Jupiter [or Zeus] to bring Attis back to life (revivisceret), but that was not permitted. Instead the god agreed that the body of Attis should not putrefy, that his hair should always grow and that his little finger should move for eternity. Satisfied with these favours, Agdistis consecrated the dead man's body to Pessinous and honoured him with yearly ceremonies and priestly services." (Lancellotti, page 4-5)
I believe Attis counts as one of those sons of Jupiter. But, guess what, dear old dad keeps him DEAD!!!
-
In other words, the Kashmiri Issa and Jesus are believed to be one and the same.
...you do know that Issa is buried in Kashmir, don't you?
How can he be Jesus if he died in Kashmir in 80ish AD?
The Luke
-
...you do know that Issa is buried in Kashmir, don't you?
How can he be Jesus if he died in Kashmir in 80ish AD?
The Luke
Why don't you ask this guy?
Reviewed by Chris Mercogliano
This truly extraordinary - some would claim utterly unbelievable - piece of scholarship contains no messages from the Archangel Gabriel, no interviews with extra-terrestrials, and no Elvis, Princess Di (or Jesus) sightings. What it does contain are decades of verifiable research performed by a distinguished seventy-three-year-old Indian Professor of History who has drawn the - some would also claim utterly fantastic - conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth did not die on the cross as hundreds of millions of Christians like myself are taught to believe. Instead, he spent the second half of his life studying and teaching in the East before he died in the Himalayan province now known as Kashmir.
Obviously, if the theory that Christ lived to a ripe old age were somehow proven, it would stand the entire Christian world on its head overnight, thanks to a millennium of emotional, spiritual, political and economic investment in his supposed martyrdom at the hands of the Roman conquerors of the Holy Land. But Professor Hassnain is not out to discredit modern Christianity, with which he says he has no axe to grind. Though a traditional Northern Indian Muslim by birth, over time he crossed over into Sufism, a mystical branch of Islam, and therefore now believes that all religions should be honored equally as expressions of a divine oneness. Hassnain is careful to point out that Judaism, Christianity and Islam can all be traced to the same historical root: Abraham. He says that his motivation for spending so many years of his life researching the earthly existence of the flesh and blood Jesus owes itself to his reverence for one of humanity's great prophets and to his deeply-held desire to free up Christianity's monopoly on Him whom they call the Son of God.
His hope in so doing is that at least some of the chasm of misunderstanding between the world's great religions might thereby be bridged. No, Fida Hassnain is no crackpot, which I'm sure he will be labeled by Christian "authorities" everywhere should they ever happen to get their hands on this admittedly incredible book. Rather he is a scholar of the highest order who himself is a direct descendent of a grandson of Mohammed on his mother's side. And he has left few stones unturned in his voluminous research, which as Director of Archives for the Jammu and Kashmir states in the 1960s, he was then in a rare position to begin. Nor is he the first to write a book alleging that Jesus physically survived the crucifixion. The previously published Jesus Lived in India, by Holger Kersten, made the same claim. Kersten, it should be noted, relied heavily on Professor Hassnain's discoveries about Jesus' "second life" in the East.
http://www.spinninglobe.net/histjesusearch.html (http://www.spinninglobe.net/histjesusearch.html)
Since a number of Muslims believe that Jesus existed BUT did not die on the cross, the idea that He's buried in Kashmir isn't that hard to grasp, from that perspective.
Now, I believe you're supposed to be producing some of those references that state that Attis, Osiris, Buddha, and those other gods died via crucifixion. The clock keeps ticking and you keep running.
-
I've actually watched documentaries in which film crews traveled up the Kasmiri holy mountain, past the sacred tomb of Issa's loyal donkey, up to Issa's tomb (a later Muslim holy man is also interned there).
You can even see the carved footprints of Issa's feet in the stone... including the nail holes from his crucifixion. It's not a wild eyed claim that Jesus is buried SOMEWHERE in Kashmir... the tomb is a tourist attraction, and has been since 80 AD.
The carvings on the mausoleum walls which proclaimed Issa's assertion that he was in fact the same Jesus that Christians worship as a risen god were hacked off by early Christian pilgrims... luckily Muslim scholars had already recorded them.
So which is it McWay?
Was there another Christ named Issa, who also performed miracles; died on the cross and rose from the dead?
Or is the one and only original Jesus buried in Kashmir?
The Luke
-
I've actually watched documentaries in which film crews traveled up the Kasmiri holy mountain, past the sacred tomb of Issa's loyal donkey, up to Issa's tomb (a later Muslim holy man is also interned there).
You can even see the carved footprints of Issa's feet in the stone... including the nail holes from his crucifixion. It's not a wild eyed claim that Jesus is buried SOMEWHERE in Kashmir... the tomb is a tourist attraction, and has been since 80 AD.
The carvings on the mausoleum walls which proclaimed Issa's assertion that he was in fact the same Jesus that Christians worship as a risen god were hacked off by early Christian pilgrims... luckily Muslim scholars had already recorded them.
So which is it McWay?
Was there another Christ named Issa, who also performed miracles; died on the cross and rose from the dead?
Or is the one and only original Jesus buried in Kashmir?
The Luke
Personally, I'd say none of the above. But the guy who believes that Issa/Jesus is buried in India feels differently.
A Search for the Historical Jesus, like other works disputing the death on the cross theory, then takes us through a microanalysis of what little written record remains of the crucifixion, as well as of possible physical evidence like the Shroud of Turin, in which Jesus' body is believed to have been wrapped after it was removed from the cross. Hassnain's argument that Jesus survived his ordeal is quite convincing; more so, I have found, than the account offered by the New Testament, as is his argument that Christ then slowly traveled back to the East, where he would die of natural causes many decades later. Along the way Hassnain cites numerous sources in addition to the Tibetan scrolls which he never got to see&emdash;including the Bible, the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea scrolls, as well as substantial archaeological evidence, to make his case.
In essence, this Dr. Hassnain is basically using the old Swoon theory, claiming that Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion, was somehow revived by being in that tomb, and (having never died) He appeared to His disciples and others, which apparently is how He allegedly ends up back in India.
But, going back to the words of Dr. Habermas, "you don't get down from the cross alive". Add to that, the extra-Biblical references that report Jesus' death, and the Swoon theory basically comes up short.
BTW, the clock's still ticking. Where are these specific references to the "mystery religions", claiming that Attis (or even Buddha, for that matter) died via crucifixion and was raised from the dead? You keep making the claims; but, to this day, you've come up with NOTHING!!!!
-
Personally, I'd say none of the above. But the guy who believes that Issa/Jesus is buried in India feels differently.
A Search for the Historical Jesus, like other works disputing the death on the cross theory, then takes us through a microanalysis of what little written record remains of the crucifixion, as well as of possible physical evidence like the Shroud of Turin, in which Jesus' body is believed to have been wrapped after it was removed from the cross. Hassnain's argument that Jesus survived his ordeal is quite convincing; more so, I have found, than the account offered by the New Testament, as is his argument that Christ then slowly traveled back to the East, where he would die of natural causes many decades later. Along the way Hassnain cites numerous sources in addition to the Tibetan scrolls which he never got to see&emdash;including the Bible, the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea scrolls, as well as substantial archaeological evidence, to make his case.
In essence, this Dr. Hassnain is basically using the old Swoon theory, claiming that Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion, was somehow revived by being in that tomb, and (having never died) He appeared to His disciples and others, which apparently is how He allegedly ends up back in India.
But, going back to the words of Dr. Habermas, "you don't get down from the cross alive". Add to that, the extra-Biblical references that report Jesus' death, and the Swoon theory basically comes up short.
BTW, the clock's still ticking. Where are these specific references to the "mystery religions", claiming that Attis (or even Buddha, for that matter) died via crucifixion and was raised from the dead? You keep making the claims; but, to this day, you've come up with NOTHING!!!!
...complete evasion.
You just copy and paste for the sake of copy and pasting... your answer here is a complete non-sequitur.
Issa's tomb is open to the public. It's been a pilgrimage centre since 80 AD.
So either there was a Christ before Christ, making the Jesus story plagiarism... or Jesus IS Issa.
Which one will you admit to, a buried Jesus... or an obvious source for the Jesus myth?
The Luke
-
...complete evasion.
You just copy and paste for the sake of copy and pasting... your answer here is a complete non-sequitur.
Issa's tomb is open to the public. It's been a pilgrimage centre since 80 AD.
So either there was a Christ before Christ, making the Jesus story plagiarism... or Jesus IS Issa.
Which one will you admit to, a buried Jesus... or an obvious source for the Jesus myth?
The Luke
I admit to neither, as the historical and archaeological evidence does NOT point to Issa being Jesus Christ. Again, the scholarship behind this is but yet another rehash of the "Swoon theory".
The evasion would fall on you, as you brought up this Issa mess, in a futile attempt to cover your behind, since you CANNOT back up your claim about Attis or the other gods, dying via crucifixion. Every time, and I mean, EVERY TIME, you get asked to do this, you cry, whine, bleat, complain, change the subject, and come up with a buttload of excuses.
-
If Issa isn't Jesus, as you assert, then you now have your EXACT DUPLICATE of Jesus from which the Jesus myth was plagiarised (Issa's history was written decades before any of the gospels).
Just to recap, Issa:
-healed the sick
-healed the lame
-healed the blind
-raised the dead
-was crucified by the Romans in Jerusalem, for heresy
-died on the cross
-was placed in a tomb
-rose from the dead on the third day
-he even showed his followers the holes in his hands and feet
...so isn't this the Christ before Christ you claimed couldn't exist?
Expecting another side-step...
The Luke
-
utter destruction of christianity right here. Brutal parellels.
Come on Necrosis, you are an intelligent and educated person. Why would you say something like this from watching something on YouTube, without investigating it yourself? You're not the type to take at faith value everything you see on the Internet, or what The Luke preaches to you.
Did you look in the Bible to see if it's true that Jesus was born on December 25th, or that he was visited by 3 kings? I have, and it is not in the Bible. The videos provide no references and nothing to back up their claims, much like our own The Luke here.
Did you do your own research to see if these ancient mythical deities were really born on December 25th and were really visited by 3 kings? It is probably not true for all of them, just like it isn't true about Jesus. And if it is true about those ancient myths, all you have proven is that some Roman Catholic Church traditions are based on ancient myths, that's all.
These videos are not any different than the unsubstantiated claims The Luke has been making already.
-
The Luke, Deicide, Necrosis,
Please let me see your explanation for Christianity's explosive growth in the 1st century in the mist of so much persecution, unlike all these ancient myths that you claim Christianity is a copy of?
How did Christianity manage to grow so quickly in such a short period of time, then continue to grow in the mist of horrible persecution for almost 300 years before Christianity was finally legalized, before the Roman Catholic Church came into power?
The Bible has the only explanation. Jesus Christ is not only real, but multitudes saw him die, then he rose from the dead and over 500 people saw him alive again.
Unlike you, I do not have enough faith to believe otherwise.
But please, do state your alternative explanation for Christianity's rapid success and growth, while explaining why these many competing myths you talk about did not follow the same fate.
-
If Issa isn't Jesus, as you assert, then you now have your EXACT DUPLICATE of Jesus from which the Jesus myth was plagiarised (Issa's history was written decades before any of the gospels).
Just to recap, Issa:
-healed the sick
-healed the lame
-healed the blind
-raised the dead
-was crucified by the Romans in Jerusalem, for heresy
-died on the cross
-was placed in a tomb
-rose from the dead on the third day
-he even showed his followers the holes in his hands and feet
...so isn't this the Christ before Christ you claimed couldn't exist?
Expecting another side-step...
The Luke
Then, you must be looking in the mirror, because side-stepping is your specialty. ;D
As usual, you are making claims out the wazoo, with no references to support them. But, that should hardly come as a surprise, seeing as you have YET to answer the call, with regards to producing references about those other gods, being crucified.
When your Osiris claims got shot down, you switched to Attis. After your Attis takes got tanked, you jumped to Perseus. And, since that got put down, now you’re on the Issa bandwagon. And, as the trend continues to be, when your feeble assertions collapse about Issa, you’ll try to prop up another “flavor-of-the-month” deity.
-
The Luke, Deicide, Necrosis,
Please let me see your explanation for Christianity's explosive growth in the 1st century in the mist of so much persecution, unlike all these ancient myths that you claim Christianity is a copy of?
How did Christianity manage to grow so quickly in such a short period of time, then continue to grow in the mist of horrible persecution for almost 300 years before Christianity was finally legalized, before the Roman Catholic Church came into power?
The Bible has the only explanation. Jesus Christ is not only real, but multitudes saw him die, then he rose from the dead and over 500 people saw him alive again.
Unlike you, I do not have enough faith to believe otherwise.
But please, do state your alternative explanation for Christianity's rapid success and growth, while explaining why these many competing myths you talk about did not follow the same fate.
It's funny you should mention that, Loco. If you've had a chance to see "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?", you may remember that it addressed this very same issue (I can pull up my thread for the video, if you like).
”Where did Christianity first begin, in terms of the organized proclamation that Jesus rose from the dead? Only one place on Earth, Jerusalem. There, least of all, could Christianity have ever gotten started, if the moldering body of Jesus of Nazareth were available, anytime after Sunday morning.” – Dr. Paul Meier, Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University.
Another topic in discussion on that video is the non-Christian sources that documented the life of Jesus.
Indeed, people came even from the cities in Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero. They show incredible speed whenever any such public action is taken; for in no time they lavish their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them by reason of his imprisonment, and he procured not a little revenue from it. The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once, for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk. - Lucian of Samosata
-
"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
- The non-Christian historian Tacitus
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15#44
-
The Luke, Deicide, Necrosis,
Please let me see your explanation for Christianity's explosive growth in the 1st century in the mist of so much persecution, unlike all these ancient myths that you claim Christianity is a copy of?
How did Christianity manage to grow so quickly in such a short period of time, then continue to grow in the mist of horrible persecution for almost 300 years before Christianity was finally legalized, before the Roman Catholic Church came into power?
The Bible has the only explanation. Jesus Christ is not only real, but multitudes saw him die, then he rose from the dead and over 500 people saw him alive again.
Unlike you, I do not have enough faith to believe otherwise.
But please, do state your alternative explanation for Christianity's rapid success and growth, while explaining why these many competing myths you talk about did not follow the same fate.
Faith to believe otherwise? Mass undead, magic godmen, etc...I guess Mo-ham-head must have ascended to heaven on a winged horse because Islam was so successful? ::)
Here Robert Price refutes your silly notion that Christianity had no sociological variable of explanation...
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_holding.htm
Internet apologist James Patrick Holding (as he chooses to be known) has thus far seen fit to by-pass the pages of published books, though one can only imagine numerous evangelical publishers would love to have him. He maintains a website containing a whole raft of apologetical essays, most of them aiming to refute unbelievers and biblical critics, all of whom he considers to be enemies of the faith. He is amazingly prolific and erudite as well, though he seems to me sometimes perversely to misread his opponents’ arguments and to reduce them to strawman status. In the essay to be addressed here, Holding sets forth a wide-ranging version of an old argument one hears more and more these days from fundamentalist apologists: that the initial success of Christianity defies sociological common sense and demands a miraculous explanation. The sheer scope of the argument, as well as its increasingly common use in debate, make a critical review of it advisable.
Holding here attempts “to put together a comprehensive list of issues that we assert that critics must deal with in explaining why Christianity succeeded where it should have clearly failed or died out” like many another messianic cult. For example, that of Sabbatai Sevi in the seventeenth century. Holding deems it unlikely, first of all, that Christianity could have begun with the hoodwinking of a sufficient number of gullible dupes. Imposture is no basis for a successful religion, a notion asserted as if self-evident by many apologists past and present. And yet it is easy to show how Mormonism started with a hoax, though, given the paradoxes of human psychology, we cannot for that reason dismiss Joseph Smith as not also being a sincere religious founder. But a hoax it was, and here today, look at it: it is a thriving world religion in its own right. So such things can happen. On the other hand, I believe the parallels to Sabbatai Sevi are important and show how some of the greatest challenges facing early Christianity may have been overcome, especially the crushing defeat in the wake of Messiah's death. It also illustrates the thinking that led to retrospective claims of "passion predictions" and scriptural prophecies, as well as the framing of atonement theories as after-the-fact rationales of an embarrassing death. Plus resurrection appearance- and miracle- rumors. Most devastating of all, as I show in Beyond Born Again, the rapid, contemporary formation of legends, and that against the attempts to the Apostle (Nathan of Gaza) to prevent miracle-mongering, utterly destroys the apologist's claim that such legendary embellishment could not have taken place in the case of the Jesus tradition.
Holding argues that “Christianity ‘did the wrong thing’ in order to be a successful religion” and that thus “the only way Christianity did succeed is because it was a truly revealed faith -- and because it had the irrefutable witness of the resurrection.” Here he serves notice that we will be asked to "admit" that miracles are the only way to account for the rise and success of Christianity. In any other field of inquiry this would be laughed off stage. I am thinking of a cartoon in which a lab-coated scientist is standing at the chalkboard, which is full of integers, and he is pointing to a hollow circle in the midst of it all, saying, "Right here a miracle takes place." Appealing to miracles as a needful causal link is tantamount to confessing bafflement. But in fact, there will be no need for this.
Cross Examination
Citing 1 Corinthians 1:18 (“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”), Holding asks rhetorically, “Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?” He contends that crucifixion was so repulsive and degrading a punishment that no one could have taken a crucified man seriously as a religious founder. On top of that, no one could have envisioned the notion of a god stooping to undergo such treatment. “This being the case, we may fairly ask… why Christianity succeeded at all. The ignominy of a crucified savior was as much a deterrent to Christian belief as it is today - indeed, it was far, far more so! Why, then, were there any Christians at all? At best this should have been a movement that had only a few strange followers, then died out within decades as a footnote, if it was mentioned at all. The historical reality of the crucifixion could not of course be denied. To survive, Christianity should have either turned Gnostic (as indeed happened in some offshoots), or else not bothered with Jesus at all, and merely made him into the movement's first martyr for a higher moral ideal within Judaism. It would have been absurd to suggest, to either Jew or Gentile, that a crucified being was worthy of worship or died for our sins. There can be only one good explanation: Christianity succeeded because from the cross came victory, and after death came resurrection! The shame of the cross turns out to be one of Christianity's most incontrovertible proofs!” This is completely futile and does not begin to take into account the religious appetite (in many people) for the grotesque and the sanguine. Just look at the eagerly morbid piety of Roman Catholics and fundamentalist advocates of "the Blood" who wallow in every gruesome detail of the crucifixion, real or imagined. Consider the box office receipts of Mel Gibson’s pious gore-fest The Passion of the Christ. In ancient times, think of the Attis cult which centered upon the suicide of its savior who castrated himself and bled to death. Street corner celebrations of such rites invariably attracted bystanders, even initially hostile ones, swept up in the music and chanting, to castrate themselves and join the sect on the spot!
And even if one stops short of the Christ Myth theory, one must still reckon with the possibility, as advocated by Bultmann and others, that the crucifixion of Jesus would still have been readily embraceable as a means of salvation because of the familiarity of the dying and rising god mytheme. It was a familiar religious conception, and no less so because of Hellenistic Judaism's martyrdom doctrine as glimpsed in 2 and 4 Maccabees, where the hideous deaths (much more fulsomely dwelt upon than the crucifixion is in the gospels) are set forth as expiations for the sins of Israel. See Sam K. Williams, The Death of Jesus as Saving Event.
Finally, crucifixion was not a taboo subject, as witnessed by the frequent occurrence of crucifixion in dream interpretation manuals, where dreaming of being crucified was typically taken as a good omen of impending success.
-
Good Jews, Bad News?
Holding thinks that “Jesus' Jewishness…was also a major impediment to spreading the Gospel beyond the Jews themselves. Judaism was regarded by the Romans and Gentiles as a superstition. Roman writers like Tacitus willingly reported… all manner of calumnies against Jews as a whole, regarding them as a spiteful and hateful race. Bringing a Jewish savior to the door of the average Roman would have been only less successful bringing one to the door of a Nazi.” This is ludicrous. There were Roman anti-Semites aplenty, though this seems to have prevailed mainly during periods of Jewish revolt against Rome. But in fact, Judaism was quite attractive to Gentiles in general, Romans in particular, as witnessed by the number of conversions and the unofficial adherence of Gentile God-fearers (like Cornelius in Acts 10 and the Lukan Centurion who bankrolled the synagogue). It had the appeal of an "Oriental" religion as well as the sterling teaching of Ethical Monotheism to recommend it.
“The Romans… believed that superstitions (such as Judaism and Christianity) undermined the social system established by their religion – and… anyone who followed or adopted one of their foreign superstitions would be looked on not only as a religious rebel, but as a social rebel as well.” No, Judaism was considered a legitimate religion and for that reason Jews were exempt from military service. The Roman attitude seems to have been that an ancient religion was okay, even if silly by the standards of Romans like Juvenal, who felt the same way about the religion of Isis and Osiris, Cybele and Attis, etc. But these, too, were legal and quite popular. It was only new religions, like Christianity or the Bacchanalia (new to Rome), that aroused suspicion. (Holding will acknowledge this fact later, when it seems to prove useful to him.)
This Accursed Multitude
Furthermore, says Holding, “Christianity had a serious handicap [in] the stigma of a savior who undeniably hailed from Galilee -- for the Romans and Gentiles, not only a Jewish land, but a hotbed of political sedition; for the Jews, not as bad as Samaria of course, but a land of yokels and farmers without much respect for the Torah, and worst of all, a savior from a puny village of no account. Not even a birth in Bethlehem, or Matthew's suggestion that an origin in Galilee was prophetically ordained, would have [de]tached such a stigma: Indeed, Jews would not be convinced of this, even as today, unless something else first convinced them that Jesus was divine or the Messiah.” I cannot imagine anybody would have been this snobbish. Romans and other non-Palestinians could hardly have drawn much of a distinction between Galilee and Timbuktu. But even if they had been so choosy, does Holding seriously imagine that any such blue-nosed scoffer would have been convinced only by the miracle of the resurrection, as opposed to the assertion of the resurrection? They would no longer have been in a position to be convinced by the real thing, though they might have found the preaching of the resurrection emotionally or spiritually compelling, as many still do. It is foolish to argue in effect that "They were convinced by it, so it must have been convincing. So you, too, should be convinced."
Again, “Assigning Jesus the work of a carpenter was the wrong thing to do; Cicero noted that such occupations were ‘vulgar’ and compared the work to slavery.” Must early Christian preaching have won over the worst sort of snobs? No one, not even the special pleading Crossan, argues that Jesus was one of the Untouchables or Outcasts. Don't tell me there weren't plenty of people then as now who would not have relished the notion of a faith started by a rustic carpenter. But I think the identification of Jesus as a carpenter, a la Geza Vermes, was an early error, a Gentile misunderstanding of the Jewish acclamation that he was an erudite rabbi, skilled in scripture exposition. At any rate, it did not seem to hinder the fantastic success of Stoicism that one its most beloved sages, Epictetus, had been a slave, even less classy, one might suppose, than a carpenter.
“Placing Jesus' birth story in a suspicious context where a charge of illegitimacy would be all too obvious to make would compound the problems as well. If the Gospels were making up these things, how hard would it have been… to take an "adoptionist" Christology and give Jesus an indisputably honorable birth (rather than claiming honor by the dubious, on the surface, claim that God was Jesus' Father)?” Tell that to all the myth-mongers who ascribed divine paternity to their saviors and heroes! Must these miraculous nativities be factual, too?
Let’s Get Physical
Holding ventures that a fabricated religion such as he supposes critics imagine Christianity to have been, would never have chosen a version of exaltation for its hero that entailed a physical resurrection since many ancients are on record as finding the whole notion repugnant, preferring Platonic soul-survival. Indeed, many rejected the idea: Sadducees, some philosophers, even pagan Arabs in Muhammad's day. Does that mean no one else liked it? We never find denunciations of a belief that no one holds. I find fundamentalism grossly repugnant, but that doesn't mean everyone else does.
Holding knows that many Jews did share the Christian belief in a physical resurrection, but he says this would not have facilitated their belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since Jews supposedly restricted resurrection to the end of the age (John 11: 23-24, “Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise again.’ Martha said to him, ‘I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.’”) Holding, like all evangelical apologists, claim that belief in a man rising from the grave before the time, in the midst of “this age,” would have been unthinkable. Hence on the one hand, it cannot even have occurred to Christians as a possibility unless they knew Jesus had actually arisen. And on the other, it would have struck the ears of other Jews as the rankest heresy. But think of John the Baptist, transformed into a miracle-working entity by virtue of resurrection, according to the belief of many (Mark 6:14). Of course Mark makes it a false opinion, but the point is that such a belief, closely paralleling the resurrection kerygma of Jesus himself, was readily available in the immediate environment of early Christianity according to the gospels themselves.
As for the venue of the Gentile Mission, “what makes this especially telling is that a physical resurrection was completely unnecessary for merely starting a religion. It would have been enough to say that Jesus' body had been taken up to heaven, like Moses' or like Elijah's. Indeed this would have fit… what was expected, and would have been much easier to ‘sell’ to the Greeks and Romans.” But this only means the early Christians didn't concoct Christianity like a bunch of network execs fashioning a sitcom according to focus group surveys. The question is: where did they get the belief in resurrection that they were shortly (if not from the first) "saddled" with? It might have been because of a real resurrection, sure, but they might simply have inherited it from an environment more friendly to the idea.
-
Too New to be True
Holding first argued that Judaism was repulsive to Romans, but now he has to switch hats. He says, correctly, that Romans paid grudging respect to Judaism because it had an ancient pedigree. “Old was good. Innovation was bad.” Thus a new faith like Christianity should have failed. Should we then conclude that no new religions ever started or were accepted on their appearance in the West? You just can't take the opinions of the intellectual caste as definitive for what everyone would have thought. Especially since the very expression of such opinions presupposes a regrettable (to these snobs) prevalence of precisely such "superstitions" as the snobs were condemning. Such faiths famously could and did succeed--even to the extent of becoming the official religion of Rome: Mithraism and even Baalism, for example. Holding argues as if the success of Christianity couldn't happen and so it must have taken a miracle for it to have happened. The scientific approach, taken by Rodney Stark (The Rise of Christianity) and others, is to take as established that it did happen and then explain it, not piously refuse to explain it and claim "It's a miracle!" With that utter abdication of the scientific method, we would still be in the Dark Ages.
Of course, no one denies there were persecutions of the Christian faith and, before that, the Isis and the Dionysus cults. They were occasioned by the fact that many, many people did like these religions and practiced them. That is why Juvenal has occasion in the first place to ridicule them, why Plutarch warns young matrons against them--because they were so prevalent, even among the aristocracy. Their husbands didn't like it, but they couldn't ultimately stop it.
Novelty was in large measure responsible for official distaste for the new faith. But as always, many people are looking for something new, however much the establishment hates and forbids it. And even they may eventually succumb: they yielded to Mithraism as the official state religion, and similarly later to Christianity. Hurdles are meant to be jumped, and hardy religions have jumped them. Christianity had much going for it, many noble features, just as Judaism did, and they won out.
Raising the Bar
Where, Holding wonders, would have potential converts have derived the wherewithal to repent of their nice, cozy sins to swallow the bitter pill of early Christian abstinence, if the whole thing were simply a matter of joining one more man-made religion? Can he ignore the fact that all the (very popular) Mystery Religions called their recruits to an initial stage of repentance and purification, too?
And neither must we suppose that all Christians were heroic cross-bearers. The whole crisis of a second repentance seen in the Shepherd of Hermas and witnessed in Constantine's deferral of baptism to his deathbed attests to the general mediocrity of Christian lay behavior as the rule. They were all no doubt good folks, just not heroic like Jesus or the martyrs. As Stark (The Rise of Christianity) shows, the growth rate of Christianity seems to have matched that of analogous modern "new religions" like Mormonism and the Unification Church. One reason it expanded was its narrowness. Unlike other faiths, it insisted that theirs was the only way, so if you joined Christianity you left your other affiliations behind, whereas others could and did belong to several movements at once, with naturally watered down devotion to any one of them.
Another way it grew was that Christianity provided a constant safety zone for assimilating Hellenistic Jews who wanted to slough off parochial Jewish ethnic markers like circumcision (already Paul is telling the Corinthian men not to undertake the epispasm operation to “undo” circumcision—ouch!) yet without abandoning the biblical tradition. Yet another growth factor was Christianity's opposition to abortion and infanticide, both quite common among pagans. This meant there were many more Christian women surviving to adulthood, perforce marrying pagan men and converting them. And of course the sterling conduct of Christians, ministering to the sick and destitute in times of plague and famine while pagan priests headed for their countryside villas, like Prince Prospero in Poe's Masque of the Red Death, must have attracted many of those helped--and justifiably so! Christianity has much to be proud of in all this. But we don't need any overt miracle to explain it.
And as for the unlikelihood that a great number should have welcomed a new faith that offered moral guidance and discipline--I don't see a problem, unless one already takes for granted a doctrine of total depravity.
Intolerance of Intolerance
Christianity began in the Hellenistic age of cosmopolitan tolerance. It was common for members of various religions to regard all the gods as the same, just wearing different names from nation to nation. Even some Jews, like the writer of the Epistle of Aristaeus, regarded Jehovah and Zeus as the same. One result was that anyone might join several different religions or cults simultaneously. So mustn’t Christianity have disgusted Roman society because of the new faith’s exclusivism? Mustn’t the preaching of Jesus as the only way to heaven have appeared a piece of tasteless bigotry? Surely no one would have found such a faith attractive, would they? Actually, it was a mixed bag. As I have just said, a la E.R. Dodds (Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety) and Rodney Stark, exclusivism was also a factor accounting for Christian expansion, not necessarily making it unlikely. The same thing is evident in the modern day in Dean M. Kelly's famous book, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: people feel they are getting the red meat of authentic Christianity with evangelicalism, not the vapid tofu of liberalism, so they flock to the clear notes of the fundamentalist/orthodox trumpet.
On the other hand, what Holding notes about the guardians of the social order being enraged by this, or even some of the people, is true too: there were plenty of lynch mobs before Diocletian and Decius declared open season on Christians. But not everybody reacted the same way. And much of the reaction was conducive to Christian growth--even the persecutions! For, as Tertullian said, the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. And then what if significant elements of the establishment embrace the new faith? Things change rapidly.
“Jews, too, would be intolerant to the new faith. Jewish families would feel social pressure to cut off converts and avoid the shame of their conversion. Without something to overcome Roman and even Jewish intolerance, Christianity was doomed.” But Christianity appealed to Hellenistic Jews and to Gentile God-fearers precisely because it offered Jewish morality, added to something like Mystery Religion salvationism (and this independent of the question of whether its symbolism and soteriology were borrowed from these faiths. Let's assume for the sake of argument that they weren't), and freedom from what Gentiles and assimilating Jews regarded as the burden of the Law. As Stark (chapter 3) shows, Hellenistic Jews found Christianity a bonanza!
No doubt Ebionite Jewish Christianity did eventually dry up on the vine for the reasons Holding gives: Non-Christian Jews came to associate the name Jesus with what appeared to them a new Gentile cult and wanted nothing to do with Torah-Christianity, either. The plaintive pleas of the latter, "But we're not like them! We're like you!" fell on deaf ears. Meanwhile, Gentiles faced with the choice of Law-free Christianity or Torah Christianity would surely choose the former, not so much because they were lazy, but because it seemed less inauthentic for them. Why should you have to adopt alien cultural markers to become a Christian?
An Omniscient Public
Holding next cites Acts 26:26, “For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.” Here Paul is making his defense before King Herod Agrippa II. “The NT is filled with claims of connections to and reports of incidents involving ‘famous people.’ [For instance,] Herod Agrippa … ‘was eaten of worms’ as Luke reported in Acts 12:20-23. Copies of Acts circulated in the area and were accessible to the public. Had Luke reported falsely, Christianity would have been dismissed as a fraud and would not have ‘caught on’ as a religion. If Luke lied in his reports, Luke probably would have been jailed and/or executed by Agrippa's son, Herod Agrippa II… because that was the fellow Paul testified to in Acts 25-26… And Agrippa II was alive and in power after Luke wrote and circulated Acts.” No, sorry. For one thing, Luke’s account of the first Agrippa’s death sounds remarkably like that in Josephus (Antiquities 19:8:2) as well as the tale of the worm-devouring death of Antiochus Epiphanes in 2 Maccabees 9:9. For another, there are many reasons to think that Acts stems from the second century, and many scholars think so. Merely mentioning that opinion does not make it true. It does mean, however, that the reader is not entitled to take Holding’s assertion of Luke’s contemporaneity with Herod Agrippa II for granted either. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, Agrippa "was dead and couldn't blow the gaff." It is typical of the Hellenistic novels to have fictional heroes interact with famous historical figures, just as in such novels today. Does Holding imagine that the spurious letters between Paul and Seneca must be authentic because otherwise somebody would have definitively put the hoax to rest? Look how hard it is to lay the ghost of Nicholas Notovitch's bogus Unknown Life of Jesus Christ which keeps getting revived after the public has forgotten both it and the refutations it garnered in earlier generations.
"People outside the area of Lystra may not have known enough about what happened in Lystra, or wanted to check it, but Christianity was making claims at varied points across the Empire, and there were also built in ‘fact checkers’ stationed around the Empire who could say something about all the claims central to Jerusalem and Judaea -- the Diaspora Jews.” Thus Acts’ stories must be true. But this is unrealistic and anachronistic--fact checkers? No doubt there were local skeptics who, as in the case of Sabbatai Sevi's miracle reports, denied anything was really going on, but who listens to them? Not the true believers. Like Holding himself, they will mount any argument so as not to have to take threatening factors seriously. Rastafarians refuse to belief Haillie Selassie died. Premies refuse to believe their Satguru's mom fired him. Also, does Holding expect us to accept that the temple of Diana in Ephesus collapsed at the preaching of John because it says so in the Acts of John?
“The NT claims countless touch-points that could go under this list. An earthquake, a darkness at midday, the temple curtain torn in two, an execution, all at Passover (with the attendant crowds numbering in the millions), people falling out of a house speaking in tongues at Pentecost…-- all in a small city and culture where word would spread fast.” Word spreads fast—word of what? Events and non-events. Rumors spread as fast as facts, faster even. And besides, a little event called the fall of Jerusalem supervened between the time described and the writing of the gospels and Acts. Any witnesses pro or con were long dead and unavailable. “In short, Christianity was highly vulnerable to inspection and disproof on innumerable points -- any one of which, had it failed to prove out, would have snowballed into further doubt, especially given the previous factors above which would have been motive enough for any Jew or Gentile to say or do something.” Oh please! If such claims were even made in the time of apostolic contemporaries, we have no way of knowing they were not as thoroughly and adequately refuted as the claims of Joseph Smith were. Christian tradition and documents would hardly inform us of the fact. And once Jerusalem fell, as it had before the New Testament was written, all hope of corroboration is sheer fantasy.
Sticks, Stones, and Names
Holding mounts a version of the argument from martyrdom that is slightly more nuanced than the usual one, and for that we may give him credit. He admits that we have no reliable information as to the possible martyrdom of any specific early Christians. Most of the supposed data comes from apocryphal, legendary sources like the fanciful Acts of Paul. But, following Robin Lane Fox, Holding widens the scope of social ostracism to which early Christians were subjected: “rejection by family and society, relegation to outcast status. It didn't need to be martyrdom -- it was enough that you would suffer socially and otherwise.” But this sword cuts both ways, if you are trying to determine its likely effect on the growth and consolidation of membership in a new religion. Such ostracism, when not spontaneously forthcoming at the hands of outsiders, is famously cultivated (even simulated) by "cults" who seek to cement the loyalty of new members by isolating them from natural family and old friends so they will bond more strongly with "brothers and sisters in the faith." This is why cult deprogramming was such a waste of time--it only drove the victim into the arms of the cult more deeply than ever.
But as for outright persecution, e.g., lynchings, seizure of property, just observe how the censured and persecuted Mormons reacted to such hardships--by succeeding fabulously! “It is quite unlikely that anyone would have gone the distance for the Christian faith at any time -- unless it had something tangible behind it.” Or, unless they believed it did, which no one doubts, and which is all Holding can ever show.
Monolithic Monotheism?
Holding has already expressed his reluctance to credit any ancient believing in a crucified god. But what about the general belief that Jesus was God incarnate? Would that notion have proven so repugnant to ancient Jews and Gentiles that none of them could have seriously entertained it—unless either irrefutable evidence for the resurrection (how is this a proof for the Incarnation?) forced one to accept it? But Holding, like C.S. Lewis and so many others who use the same argument, is stuck on the discredited notion that something like second-century rabbinic orthodoxy prevailed or even existed in the first centuries BC and AD. A lot of weird stuff was going on in the Holy Land and elsewhere that would later be forced out under the post-70 hegemony of the rabbis. One might as well ignore the diversity of theologies in Islam and conclude that the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim was Allah incarnate, as the Druze maintain, or that Ali already was God in the flesh, as many Shi'ite sects believe today. How could such beliefs have arisen in the context of absolutely and fiercely monotheistic Islam? Well, it turns out it wasn't so monolithic, and neither was first-century Judaism.
“And it would be no better in the Gentile world. The idea of a god condescending to material form, for more than a temporary visit, of sweating, stinking, going to the bathroom, and especially suffering and dying here on earth -- this would be too much to swallow!” But exactly such was believed of the various demigods, like Asclepius, Pythagoras, Apollonius. Besides, many early Christians did not believe in a genuine incarnation, but were docetists, and it is far from certain that Paul was a real incarnationist, with his talk of Christ taking on the likeness of human flesh, the form of a servant, etc. I for one do not take for granted that orthodox definitions of incarnation can be assumed for the earliest Christians.
Armchair Radicalism
“‘Neither male nor female, neither slave nor free.’ You might be so used to applauding this sort of concept that you don't realize what a radical message it was for the ancient world. And this is another reason why Christianity should have petered out in the cradle if it were a fake.” It is a notorious matter of debate even among “literalist” evangelicals whether statements like the one Holding quotes meant any more than that all the listed categories had equal access to salvation, or whether they also denoted the abolition of traditional social distinctions among Christians. We don’t know how progressive a face early Christians presented to their contemporaries. Besides, some of the pre-Socratic Sophists had already preached male-female equality, as did the Pythagoreans and Stoics. And Christians were by no means, except for Marcionites and Gnostics, quick to implement texts like Galatians 3:28, as the Pastoral Epistles show.
“Note that this is not just to those in power or rich; it is an anachronism of Western individualism to suppose that a slave or the poor would have found Christianity's message appealing on this basis.” On the contrary, part of the appeal of such "cults" is that they offer esteem and honor to someone in the eyes of his brethren that he cannot achieve in the secular world. A slave could be a Christian leader.
“Christianity turned the norms upside down and said that birth, ethnicity, gender, and wealth -- that which determined a person's honor and worth in this setting -- meant zipola.” This is characteristic of all sectarian movements in their infancy. It is partly "Know-Nothingism," because education is disparaged, partly true egalitarianism, of course. But hardly unusual for a new religious movement. Buddhism, too, repudiated caste and succeeded. Is it the only true religion, too?
“The group-identity factor makes for another proof of Christianity's authenticity. In a group-oriented society, you took your identity from your group leader, and people needed the support and endorsement of others to support their identity… Moreover, a person like Jesus could not have kept a ministry going unless those around him supported him. A merely human Jesus could not have met this demand and must have provided convincing proofs of his power and authority to maintain a following, and for a movement to have started and survived well beyond him. A merely human Jesus would have had to live up to the expectations of others and would have been abandoned, or at least had to change horses, at the first sign of failure.” This is outrageous special pleading. What about the Buddha, John the Baptist, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and many others who were let down temporarily or permanently by their followers? And if there were anything special about such persistence, you needn't posit an incarnation. It would be adequate to say Jesus was strengthened by God. Were the indefatigable Paul and Peter God incarnate, too?
“If Christianity wanted to succeed, it should never have admitted that women were the first to discover the empty tomb or the first to see the Risen Jesus. It also never should have admitted that women were main supporters (Luke 8:3) or lead converts (Acts 16).” Similar traditions stem from the ritual mourning of women devotees of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14), Attis, Baal (Zechariah 12:11), etc. They are not supposed to be "evidence for the resurrection" any more than the Oberammergau Passion Play is. And plenty of Mystery cults gave leadership roles to women. That's part and parcel of sectarianism and its first-generation rejection of mainstream norms.
Holding appeals to the bumpkin status of Jesus, John, and Peter (Acts 4:13), and even of the early Christians generally, as another factor militating against the success of the new faith. On the contrary, the supposed illiteracy of prophets and founders is part of apologetic rhetoric, used of Jesus, Peter and John, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith so as to argue they must have been incapable of making this stuff up--"Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my father in heaven." It is a common, predictable, and fictive topos, much like the common rhetorical trope that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 2:1-2, the claim to have renounced or to be inept at clever rhetoric, to throw readers off the track and set them up to fall for it.
Besides, how would Christianity's being "real" or "fake" as to miracle claims have anything to do with the success or failure of its progress in society decades later? Wouldn't we have to look to the strengths of the movement at the time? Or are we to picture the Holy Ghost hypnotizing people as they heard the gospel? If instead Holding means they found ancient Christian apologetics so compelling, then he must reproduce them for us to be convinced by. He can't adopt the approach of the Catholic Church, a call for "implicit faith," second-hand faith in the faith of the early Christians.
-
Standing Up for Jesus
Bruce “Malina and [Jerome] Neyrey note that in the ancient world, people took their major identity from the various groups to which they belonged. Whatever group(s) they were embedded in determined their identity. Changes in persons (such as Paul's conversion) were abnormal. Each person had certain role expectations they were expected to fulfill. The erasure or blurring of these various distinctions… would have made Christianity seem radical and offensive.” Right! Of course! That's what happens when people join new or different religions. Not everyone has the guts to do it (though many have long felt alienated, and have silently waited for some new option to present itself). Holding seems to be arguing that no one converts to new religions except by a miracle of God.
Holding, then, insists that ancient people, much more part of a group-mentality than we are, would not have been likely to break with family and convention to join a new sect. I doubt this, in view of the cosmopolitan character of the Hellenistic Roman Empire when it would have been scarcely less difficult than it is today to run into members of other religions. There was already beginning to be what Peter Berger calls a “heretical imperative” to choose for oneself. But this was probably less true for Palestinian Jews. And yet some did break with their ancestral creeds to joining Christianity. Or did they? Remember, Christianity would have begun among Jews. “Faith in Jesus” may not even have amounted to a sect allegiance any more than did Rabbi Johannon ben-Zakkai’s controversial belief in the messianic claims of Simon bar-Kochbah.
But let us admit that the earliest Christians, as well as other venturesome souls who went out on a limb and joined a new sectarian group, had a lot of guts. All honor to them! But is this miraculous? I know Holding is ultimately trying to say that the evidence for the resurrection must have been pretty darn compelling to prompt such wrenching changes. But it isn't in our day, nor is it even the reason most people give for such conversions. And even supposing there were a few eyewitnesses of the resurrection, assuming it happened, how many of the early conversions can they have accounted for? And then, once you look at the next generation of second- and third-hand converts, the air is out of the tire. "Hey Crispus! I heard this really convincing guy talk about a vision he had!" That is lame. "I guess you had to be there." I see early conversions as motivated by something else than clincher apologetics. "Have you believed because you have seen? Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe" (John 20:29). "Without having seen him you love him; though you do not see him now, you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy" (1 Peter 1:8)
Every Idle Word
In the ancient world, we are told, everybody kept an eye on everybody else. Little escaped a neighbor’s scrutiny. Surveillance and gossip were rife—much like today! “So now the skeptic has another conundrum. In a society where nothing escaped notice, there was indeed every reason to suppose that people hearing the Gospel message would check against the facts -- especially where a movement with a radical message like Christianity was concerned.” All salvationist sects required repentance and new birth. Jews required righteousness. What was so radical about it? “The empty tomb would be checked.” Maybe it was, and maybe it was found occupied, and maybe Christians with their will to believe found it as easy to ignore it as Creationists do the fossil record. Many people, after all, did not come to faith. Maybe this is why. We, at any rate, are in no position to check it out. And Holding begs the question by supposing that the earliest Christians even told such a story. I agree with Burton L. Mack (A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins; The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins; and Who Wrote the New Testament?) and others who suggest that the empty tomb story is a late addition to the preaching.
“Matthew's story of resurrected saints would be checked out.” Two generations later? Not likely. Besides who would be reading/hearing this story but the members of Matthew's church in Antioch? “Lazarus would be sought out for questioning.” What, sixty or seventy years after event? He would be dead again by that time, supposing he was ever a historical character at all, and not just borrowed from the Lazarus of the Luke 16 parable. “Excessive honor claims, such as that Jesus had been vindicated, or his claims to be divine, would have been given close scrutiny.” By whom? It is a safe bet Malina and his Social Science colleagues do not mean to depict the ancients as mirror-image apologists as Holding does.
“And later, converts to the new faith would have to answer to their neighbors.” How many hearers of the resurrection preaching, which may not at first have included the empty tomb anyway, would have been in any position at all to "check it out"? "Master, I'd like several months off so I can travel over to Palestine and see if I can verify a story I heard from some street corner preacher, that a man rose from the dead over there fifty years ago. I'm hoping I can find his tomb, or maybe somebody who saw it a few days after the execution." And if we are thinking of hypothetical hearers of empty tomb claims in AD 34 or so, what makes Holding think they would be any more inclined to "check it out" than anybody in our day who heard Oral Roberts claiming he had witnessed a King Kong-sized apparition of Jesus in Tulsa one night?
Besides, Holding's whole argument is misguided, as if one could adjudicate historical questions of what did happen by appealing to general tendencies of ancient temperaments and what would have happened. You can't just squeeze history out of peasant sociology, as Crossan does. He and Malina and the crew all tend to reduce Jesus to a mere instantiation of current trends, mores, etc.
“I Believe Because it is Absurd”
“Scholars of all persuasions have long recognized the ‘criteria of embarrassment’ as a marker for authentic words of Jesus. Places where Jesus claims to be ignorant (not knowing the day or hour of his return; not knowing who touched him in the crowd) or shows weakness are taken as honest recollections and authentic (even where miracles stories often are not!).” Surely, Holding reasons, the framers of a merely concocted religion would take more care to make their imaginary savior deity look good! Hence no one would take the gospel Jesus seriously—unless they had to. As usual, Holding grossly oversimplifies the historical situation. As John Warwick Montgomery observed, every gospel saying must have been offensive to somebody here or there in the early church. What offended Matthew (Jesus declining to be called "good," for example) did not offend Mark, and we may be able to suggest reasons Mark would have created it. At least no criterion of embarrassment will shield it. Other embarrassing sayings may yet be damage control, fending off something yet more embarrassing. Certainly Schmiedel was naive in thinking no Christian would ever have fabricated Mark 13:32, where Jesus says he does not know the time of the end. Obviously the point is to correct the impression of the immediate context that he did claim to know and that he was wrong, as C.S. Lewis (“The World’s Last Night”) admitted. For Jesus to disclaim knowledge was better than having him mistaken.
Junior Detectives
“Encouraging people to verify claims and seek proof (and hence discouraging their gullibility) is a guaranteed way to get slammed if you are preaching lies. Let us suppose for a minute that you are trying to start a false religion. In order to support your false religion, you decide to make up a number of historical (i.e., testable) claims, and then hope that nobody would check up on them. What is the most important thing to do, if you have made up claims that are provably false? Well, of course, you don't go around encouraging people to check up on your claims, knowing that if they do so you will be found out!” Once a student in a class of mine insisted that the CEO of Proctor and Gamble had admitted on the Donahue TV show that he was a Satanist and that the corporate logo was Satanic symbolism as well. I told my student that this was an urban legend. Next time he brought in the crudely copied hand-bill he had read. It offered a New York City phone number and urged the reader to call and ask for the transcript of the show for so and so date. I called it. There was no connection at all with Donahue. The hoaxer had evidently assumed that the mere provision of this (fake) information would be so convincing as to deceive the reader into thinking just as my student did and just as Holding does. When the reader of 1 Corinthians 15 reads that Paul challenged him to go and ask the 500 brethren about their resurrection sightings, something Paul knew well the Corinthians would never have the leisure to do, he may be impressed, but Paul was taking no risks. The mere challenge in such a case functions as sufficient "proof." Note that he provides no clue as to the names or locations of these supposed witnesses. In the late Syriac hagiography, The Life of John Son of Zebedee, the apostle similarly invites his hearers to check out the story of Jairus’ daughter, resurrected by Jesus. The idea is that the reader will understand that once upon a time the facts could have been checked out, even though it is too late for him personally to do so. This all proves nothing and indeed invites suspicion of imposture where it might not have arisen otherwise.
Holding imagines, with the eye of faith that calls thing which are not as though they were, that “Throughout the NT, the apostles encouraged people to check seek proof and verify facts: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 [says to] ‘Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.’” But this text refers, in context, to prophetic utterances which should not be dismissed out of hand but scrutinized, as in 1 Corinthians 14:29.
“And when fledgling converts heeded this advice, not only did they remain converts (suggesting that the evidence held up under scrutiny), but the apostles described them as ‘noble’ for doing so: Acts 17:11[says,] ‘These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.’” But this is only a much later description of a dubiously historical scene and in any case means only "See? The smart people agree with us!" And if Luke means us to take as representative the fanciful scripture "proofs" he has the apostles offer elsewhere in the book, we can hang it up right now.
Stigma and Dogma
“Christianity, as we can see, had every possible disadvantage as a faith… I propose that there is only one, broad explanation for Christianity overcoming these intolerable disadvantages, and that is that it had the ultimate rebuttal -- a certain, trustworthy, and undeniable witness to the resurrection of Jesus, the only event which, in the eyes of the ancients, would have vindicated Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmata of his life and death. It had certainty that could not be denied; in other words, enough early witnesses (as in, the 500!) with solid and indisputable testimony (no "vision of Jesus in the sky" but a tangible certainly of a physically resurrected body).” Finally we are reduced to this: It was plenty convincing to those in a position to know the inside story, so you ought to be convinced, too! Sorry, but I can only look at the meager fragments of evidence that survive, and they do not look promising.
If Holding deems the evidence for the resurrection to be so strong, then what is the point of all this business of “disadvantages” and so forth? Why beat around the bush rather than getting to the real business at hand? It is not as if he is shy to discuss the evidence in its own right, but the argument considered here is not only fallacious; it is wholly superfluous even if he is right in his other arguments for the resurrection.
-
Faith to believe otherwise? Mass undead, magic godmen, etc...I guess Mo-ham-head must have ascended to heaven on a winged horse because Islam was so successful? ::)
Here Robert Price refutes your silly notion that Christianity had no sociological variable of explanation...
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_holding.htm
Islam? I thought we were talking about ancient, before Christianity, myths that you claim Christianity copied. And you bring up Islam now?
Robert Price? Okay. Now, let's see your explanation, deity killer.
-
Islam? I thought we were talking about ancient, before Christianity, myths that you claim Christianity copied. And you bring up Islam now?
Robert Price? Okay. Now, let's see your explanation, deity killer.
I never said Christianity 'copied' myths. My position is slightly different from An Luke's. I maintain that all these ideas and myths were freely borrowed in the ancient world and it's impossible to tell who came up with them first, needless to say, they were in wide circulation and there is nothing remarkable about the NT in this respect.
The point I am makin as well as R.Price is that appealing to miracles as the only possible explanation for the success of Christianity would be laughed off the stage in any academic circle, for example, if you were to write a dissertation on the factors contributing to the success of Christianity in the 1st century and your conclusion was that the miracles of the saviour are the only plausible explanation, you would fail. You cannot say: there is no reasonable, sociological reason why Christianity succeeded, hence it had to have been a miracle. No rational, educated person accepts this as an explanation.
If the NT is a 'biography' of a real person, why do we have no physical description whatsoever of Jesus? Why no other biographical data such as the 20 some years he was hanging out (apparently somewhere else in the world)? Why does indeed Jesus' life conform to the hero archetype pattern?:
Author Alan Dundes has compared this archetype with events in the life of Jesus, as recorded in the Christian Scriptures. 2 He found that Jesus' life contained almost all of the twenty two elements. Element #3 is missing, and #12 is a weak match. But the remaining twenty events are relatively precise matches:
His mother is a royal virgin. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke state that Jesus' mother is a virgin. (e.g. Matthew 1:23). The genealogies in the two gospels indicate that Joseph is of royal descent; Mary would partake of royalty by being married to Joseph. (e.g. Matthew 1:1-16).
His father is a king. Jesus is regarded to be the Son of God, and God is often referred to as King of Kings.
His father and mother are related. There is no match here. Nothing is known about the genealogy of Mary, so this cannot be confirmed. If the early Christians believed that Joseph and Mary were related, then this information did not make it into the Gospels.
His conception was unusual. Both the Gospels of Luke and of Matthew state that Jesus was conceived by Mary "from the Holy Spirit" without having engaged in sexual intercourse with a man. (Matthew 1:20),
He was said to be the son of God. This is seen throughout the Christian Scriptures. Considering only the first chapter of the Gospel of John, there are seven references to Jesus as the Son of God: as "The Word" being with God.
as the "only begotten of the Father."
as the "only begotten Son"
as "the Lamb of God." (2 times)
as the "Son of God." (2 times)
There was an attempt to kill the hero while he was a child. In Matthew 2:16, Herod ordered that "all the Children who were in Bethlehem" and its vicinity were to be murdered. (KJV) 3 The NIV says that the slaughter was to be restricted to only male infants.
He was spirited away. Matthew 2:13-14 relates how an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to flee to Egypt with his family.
He was reared by foster parents in a country far away. Matthew 2:15 states that Jesus was raised in Egypt until Herod died, and it was safe for the family to return to Nazareth. Most hero myths involve a foster family. In the case of Yeshua, Joseph was not Jesus' father; Joseph was a type of foster father.
Little or no information is known about his childhood. The Christian Scriptures give almost no details about the life of Jesus, from the time that he was circumcised at the age of eight days (Luke 2:21) until his baptism at about the age of 30. The only exception is Luke 2:46-49 where, at the age of 12, he was described as having been taken to Jerusalem at the time of Passover. He is described as debating theological matters with the priests. Presenting the hero as a child prodigy does not appear in the Mythic Hero Archetype being considered here. However, Robert Price states that "it is a frequent mytheme in other hero tales not considered by Raglan..." 1
He goes to a future kingdom. Jesus went to Jerusalem just before his last Passover, where he was declared king by the public. John 12:12-13 says that "a great multitude took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out: 'Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! The King of Israel!' " (NKJ)
He is victorious over the king. The passage in John 18:36-37 describes how Jesus demonstrated superior debating skill when interviewed by Pilate. More importantly, Jesus' resurrection which was mentioned in all four Gospels and many additional locations in the Christian Scriptures is the ultimate victory over the king who was responsible for ordering the crucifixion. Pilate ordered Jesus death and Jesus was triumphant. Pilate was not a king; he was a procurator -- a type of governor. But he still had enormous power.
He marries a princess. There is no match here -- only the suggestion of a tie-in. There is no record of Jesus having been married. However, some theologians have suggested that the miracle story in which he converts water into wine may have taken place at his own wedding. The Gospels talk extensively about women being in Jesus' retinue during his ministry. In the culture of Palestine during the 1st century CE, these female followers would have had to be married to Jesus and/or the disciples, or they were prostitutes. One assumes the former, because one would otherwise expect the Pharisees to repeatedly and viciously criticize Jesus for moral laxity if he was followed by a crowd of hookers. It has been argued that Jesus was probably married. Jewish society strongly pressured men to marry while young; if Jesus remained single, then one would have expected the Pharisees to criticize him for remaining a bachelor. Luke 8:3 indicates that one of the women who followed Jesus was at least close to King Herod.
He becomes king. John 18:36-37 describes how the people of Jerusalem proclaimed him the King of Israel. Pilate jokingly recognizes that the public considered Jesus as a king in Mark 15:12 and John 19:15. In Mark 15:18, the Roman soldiers jokingly referred to him as king of the Jews. A plaque was placed above his head during the execution. It called him "The King of the Jews." (e.g. Mark 15:26).
He reigns uneventfully, for a while. He does not reign in the sense of having temporal power. However, Mark 12:27 to 13: describes how he holds court in the Jerusalem temple.
He prescribes laws. In Mark 12 and 13, "...He issues teachings, parables, and prophecies, which are taken with legal force by his followers." 1
He loses favor with the gods or his subjects. The Gospels record how the public turns against Jesus and demands that he be crucified. (e.g. John 19:15).
He is driven from the throne and city. In Luke 23:26-32, he is led out of the city by Roman soldiers.
He has a mysterious death. During Jesus' crucifixion, he died after an unexpectedly short time. (John 19:31-33). More mysterious than that were the events at the time of his death. Luke 23:44-45 describes how the sun stopped shining and the curtain in the temple was torn in two. Matthew 27:51-53 describes major earthquakes sufficiently strong to split rocks. Matthew also discusses the resurrection of many people from their graves, who subsequently entered the city and appeared to many people.
He dies at the top of a hill: He was executed on the hill of Golgotha, on top of Mount Calvary.
If he has any children, they do not succeed him. There is nothing in the Christian Scriptures to indicate that Jesus had children. It was Jesus brother, James, who succeeded him as leader of the disciples, and the head of the Jewish Christian group in Jerusalem. (Some faith groups regard James as Jesus' step-brother, cousin or friend).
His body was not buried: Rather that being buried in an earthen grave, his body was temporarily laid out in a rock cave. At some unknown time between late Friday afternoon, when he was laid in the tomb, and the following Sunday morning, the Gospels all say that Jesus was resurrected. Price comments that this "would seem to be within legitimate variant-distance of the ideal legend type." 1
One or more holy sepulchers are built: The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was built over the place where many Christians believe that Jesus was executed.
Jesus gets 18 or 19 points of 22 in total, which is exceptionally high.
Why do we have no detailed, written documentation outside of the Bible? We have plenty for Apollonius of Tyana and we even have letters written by him; many of the same miracles are attributed to him.
Why was the NT compiled some 40 years after the alleged death of the Christ? Why are Luke and Matthew copies of Mark?
Why is the NT a muck of contradictions and countervailing observations?
Yup...only a miracle expplains it all. ::)
-
I never said Christianity 'copied' myths. My position is slightly different from An Luke's. I maintain that all these ideas and myths were freely borrowed in the ancient world and it's impossible to tell who came up with them first, needless to say, they were in wide circulation and there is nothing remarkable about the NT in this respect.
The point I am makin as well as R.Price is that appealing to miracles as the only possible explanation for the success of Christianity would be laughed off the stage in any academic circle, for example, if you were to write a dissertation on the factors contributing to the success of Christianity in the 1st century and your conclusion was that the miracles of the saviour are the only plausible explanation, you would fail. You cannot say: there is no reasonable, sociological reason why Christianity succeeded, hence it had to have been a miracle. No rational, educated person accepts this as an explanation.
Except for:
Dr. Bruce Metzger (deceased)
Dr. Gary Habermas
Dr. Sam Lamerson
Dr. Paul Meier
Dr. D. James Kennedy (deceased)
Dr. Edwin Yamauchi
Dr. D.A. Carson
........stop me anytime you like ;D
If the NT is a 'biography' of a real person, why do we have no physical description whatsoever of Jesus? Why no other biographical data such as the 20 some years he was hanging out (apparently somewhere else in the world)? Why does indeed Jesus' life conform to the hero archetype pattern?:
Jesus gets 18 or 19 points of 22 in total, which is exceptionally high.
Why do we have no detailed, written documentation outside of the Bible? We have plenty for Apollonius of Tyana and we even have letters written by him; many of the same miracles are attributed to him.
Ummmmm.....Apolonius came from a prestigious family and taught at the finest schools. Jesus was a carpenter, by trade, tried and executed as a criminal. Exactly what royal scribe is going to undertake any major biography of someone with that profile?
Once again, you make the erroneous assumption that the celebrity (for lack of a better term), that Jesus would have hundreds of years later, He would have had during His lifetime.
Why was the NT compiled some 40 years after the alleged death of the Christ? Why are Luke and Matthew copies of Mark?
Why is the NT a muck of contradictions and countervailing observations?
Yup...only a miracle expplains it all. ::)
Your claim of Luke and Matthew being copies of Mark is quite dubious, espeically given the information to the contrary by traditional scholars. As for the compliation thing, you'll excuse me if I missed the rule that dictates that information about a historical figure MUST be gathered immediately after His death. Or do you keep forgetting that most historical data, regarding ancient figures, come from sources and authors who lived after their lifetime.
As for the "muck of contradictions", that is little but skeptic fodder, most of which has been dismantled by Christian scholars hundreds of years ago (i.e. the alleged contradiction about the date of birth for Jesus Christ).
Author Alan Dundes has compared this archetype with events in the life of Jesus, as recorded in the Christian Scriptures. 2 He found that Jesus' life contained almost all of the twenty two elements. Element #3 is missing, and #12 is a weak match. But the remaining twenty events are relatively precise matches:
Precise matches……..Is that right?
His mother is a royal virgin. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke state that Jesus' mother is a virgin. (e.g. Matthew 1:23). The genealogies in the two gospels indicate that Joseph is of royal descent; Mary would partake of royalty by being married to Joseph. (e.g. Matthew 1:1-16).
Yep, royalty by becoming the wife of a CARPENTER. As for the virgin stuff, Mary’s virginity is mentioned ONLY in regards to her conception and giving birth to Jesus Christ. NOTHING is mentioned about her being a virgin afterwards.
His father is a king. Jesus is regarded to be the Son of God, and God is often referred to as King of Kings.
His father and mother are related. There is no match here. Nothing is known about the genealogy of Mary, so this cannot be confirmed. If the early Christians believed that Joseph and Mary were related, then this information did not make it into the Gospels.
His heavenly Father is such; His earthly father is NOT. And in the book of Mark, Jesus is referenced as the son of the carpenter.
His conception was unusual. Both the Gospels of Luke and of Matthew state that Jesus was conceived by Mary "from the Holy Spirit" without having engaged in sexual intercourse with a man. (Matthew 1:20),
He was said to be the son of God. This is seen throughout the Christian Scriptures. Considering only the first chapter of the Gospel of John, there are seven references to Jesus as the Son of God: as "The Word" being with God.
as the "only begotten of the Father."
as the "only begotten Son"
as "the Lamb of God." (2 times)
as the "Son of God." (2 times)
Yep, Mary did conceive without sexual intercourse, a far cry from the other figures from which Jesus was supposedly crafted, nearly all of which is some male deity (i.e. Zeus) getting his freak on, either outright or on the sneak with some mortal woman, with or without her cognizance.
There was an attempt to kill the hero while he was a child. In Matthew 2:16, Herod ordered that "all the Children who were in Bethlehem" and its vicinity were to be murdered. (KJV) 3 The NIV says that the slaughter was to be restricted to only male infants.
He was spirited away. Matthew 2:13-14 relates how an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to flee to Egypt with his family.
He was reared by foster parents in a country far away. Matthew 2:15 states that Jesus was raised in Egypt until Herod died, and it was safe for the family to return to Nazareth. Most hero myths involve a foster family. In the case of Yeshua, Joseph was not Jesus' father; Joseph was a type of foster father.
Oh brother!!! Jesus was about two when this decree hit and Joseph took Him to Egypt. Nothing in the Gospels states that He was raised in Egypt. Since Herod died in 4 B.C., Jesus would have been all of 3 or 4 years old, when Herod croaks, Archaleus takes the throne, and Joseph returns to Nazareth.
Little or no information is known about his childhood. The Christian Scriptures give almost no details about the life of Jesus, from the time that he was circumcised at the age of eight days (Luke 2:21) until his baptism at about the age of 30. The only exception is Luke 2:46-49 where, at the age of 12, he was described as having been taken to Jerusalem at the time of Passover. He is described as debating theological matters with the priests. Presenting the hero as a child prodigy does not appear in the Mythic Hero Archetype being considered here. However, Robert Price states that "it is a frequent mytheme in other hero tales not considered by Raglan..." 1
I hope that, unlike so many others here, Price actually has some backup about his claims about a “child prodigy”. With that said, the Gospels record His doing that just once. His ministry doesn’t start until about two decades later. Exactly what riveting information does one need to know about a young carpenter boy?
He goes to a future kingdom. Jesus went to Jerusalem just before his last Passover, where he was declared king by the public. John 12:12-13 says that "a great multitude took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out: 'Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! The King of Israel!' " (NKJ)
He is victorious over the king. The passage in John 18:36-37 describes how Jesus demonstrated superior debating skill when interviewed by Pilate. More importantly, Jesus' resurrection which was mentioned in all four Gospels and many additional locations in the Christian Scriptures is the ultimate victory over the king who was responsible for ordering the crucifixion. Pilate ordered Jesus death and Jesus was triumphant. Pilate was not a king; he was a procurator -- a type of governor. But he still had enormous power.
He marries a princess. There is no match here -- only the suggestion of a tie-in. There is no record of Jesus having been married. However, some theologians have suggested that the miracle story in which he converts water into wine may have taken place at his own wedding. The Gospels talk extensively about women being in Jesus' retinue during his ministry. In the culture of Palestine during the 1st century CE, these female followers would have had to be married to Jesus and/or the disciples, or they were prostitutes. One assumes the former, because one would otherwise expect the Pharisees to repeatedly and viciously criticize Jesus for moral laxity if he was followed by a crowd of hookers. It has been argued that Jesus was probably married. Jewish society strongly pressured men to marry while young; if Jesus remained single, then one would have expected the Pharisees to criticize him for remaining a bachelor. Luke 8:3 indicates that one of the women who followed Jesus was at least close to King Herod.
The Pharisees would have criticized Jesus, regardless of what He did. In fact, they kept trying to trip Him up, regarding matters of the Hebrew Law.
He becomes king. John 18:36-37 describes how the people of Jerusalem proclaimed him the King of Israel. Pilate jokingly recognizes that the public considered Jesus as a king in Mark 15:12 and John 19:15. In Mark 15:18, the Roman soldiers jokingly referred to him as king of the Jews. A plaque was placed above his head during the execution. It called him "The King of the Jews." (e.g. Mark 15:26).
He reigns uneventfully, for a while. He does not reign in the sense of having temporal power. However, Mark 12:27 to 13: describes how he holds court in the Jerusalem temple.
He prescribes laws. In Mark 12 and 13, "...He issues teachings, parables, and prophecies, which are taken with legal force by his followers." 1
He loses favor with the gods or his subjects. The Gospels record how the public turns against Jesus and demands that he be crucified. (e.g. John 19:15).
We know the reason for that. Again, it’s because Jesus wasn’t the Roman-killing, restore-Israel-to-prominence Messiah they wanted.
He is driven from the throne and city. In Luke 23:26-32, he is led out of the city by Roman soldiers.
He has a mysterious death. During Jesus' crucifixion, he died after an unexpectedly short time. (John 19:31-33). More mysterious than that were the events at the time of his death. Luke 23:44-45 describes how the sun stopped shining and the curtain in the temple was torn in two. Matthew 27:51-53 describes major earthquakes sufficiently strong to split rocks. Matthew also discusses the resurrection of many people from their graves, who subsequently entered the city and appeared to many people.
And what’s so strange about crucifixion, especially during the Roman empire?
He dies at the top of a hill: He was executed on the hill of Golgotha, on top of Mount Calvary.
If he has any children, they do not succeed him. There is nothing in the Christian Scriptures to indicate that Jesus had children. It was Jesus brother, James, who succeeded him as leader of the disciples, and the head of the Jewish Christian group in Jerusalem. (Some faith groups regard James as Jesus' step-brother, cousin or friend).
James? I thought Peter became the leader of the disciples. As for James, that’s the listed name of one of Jesus’ four brothers, according to Mark 6.
His body was not buried: Rather that being buried in an earthen grave, his body was temporarily laid out in a rock cave. At some unknown time between late Friday afternoon, when he was laid in the tomb, and the following Sunday morning, the Gospels all say that Jesus was resurrected. Price comments that this "would seem to be within legitimate variant-distance of the ideal legend type."
That would be a tomb, specifically the tomb of one Joseph of Arimithea. I’d love to know what’s so unusual about a DEAD Man being buried in a tomb. Plus, as stated earlier, many of the so-called legends DO NOT resurrect from the dead.
It appears that Dundes doesn't have all his facts straight (am I the only one that's noticing this recurring pattern with these guys, claiming that Jesus was formed from some pagan "blueprint"?).
-
See above for a prime example of hysterical blindness.
The Luke
-
See above for a prime example of hysterical blindness.
The Luke
I repeat that: 'it was a miracle' is not an acceptacle explanation of anything. It fails in the natural sciences and in the social sciences and it certainly fails in history as well. The claim is quite laughable really; Christianity's success can only be explained by the miraculous. I can't even begin to bother addressing such a point.
With MCWAY, there is just no point, he claims there are no contradictions in the Bible, particularly the NT; even if Jesus had been a real person, the accounts of him are MUCKS of contradictions.
-
See above for a prime example of hysterical blindness.
The Luke
I see well enough to know that you continue to punk out and NOT produce the sources from which you claim that Attis and the other gods from the so-called “mystery religions” died via crucifixion.
Maybe I should refer to that as “hysterical cowardice”. After all, here’s a poster (that would be you), who keeps running his mouth about “mystery religion”-this and “mystery religion”-that. But, when asked to bring forth the references, you clam up like an oyster.
-
I see well enough to know that you continue to punk out and NOT produce the sources from which you claim that Attis and the other gods from the so-called “mystery religions” died via crucifixion.
Maybe I should refer to that as “hysterical cowardice”. After all, here’s a poster (that would be you), who keeps running his mouth about “mystery religion”-this and “mystery religion”-that. But, when asked to bring forth the references, you clam up like an oyster.
I repeat: calling something a miracle explains nothing and is unacceptable in virtually all circles of discourse.
-
I repeat that: 'it was a miracle' is not an acceptacle explanation of anything. It fails in the natural sciences and in the social sciences and it certainly fails in history as well. The claim is quite laughable really; Christianity's success can only be explained by the miraculous. I can't even begin to bother addressing such a point.
With MCWAY, there is just no point, he claims there are no contradictions in the Bible, particularly the NT; even if Jesus had been a real person, the accounts of him are MUCKS of contradictions.
Not acceptable explanation to WHOM?
Not acceptable to whom?
Something happened to make the disciples go from being fearful, saying “Our Master has been crucified” to being ready to die for this Jesus. The question is what? The only thing that fits the criteria is the Resurrection- Dr. Sam Lamerson, Knox Theological Seminary (from "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?)
"The interesting thing about the early Christians is not just that they went from being a dejected, frightened, and muddle group, to being a brave, dynamic, and lively and outgoing group--though that's true, too--is that they didn't get another Messiah they said that Jesus was the Messiah. And since everyone knew that a crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah, the only thing that explains why they said that Jesus was the Messiah is that they believed that He'd been bodily raised from the dead" - Dr. N.T. Wright, Westminster Abbey (also from "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?")
-
I repeat: calling something a miracle explains nothing and is unacceptable in virtually all circles of discourse.
I repeat: Who is making up this rule about what is or isn’t acceptable?
-
I repeat: Who is making up this rule about what is or isn’t acceptable?
Every major scholar/scientist in the world.
-
Every major scholar/scientist in the world.
That's funny!!!
The scholars I just mentioned (hardly an exhaustive list) don't quite see it that way......NEXT!!!!!
And, on another note, since you're so eager to post Robert Price's statements, regarding his take on the words of apologetic website owner, J.P. Holding, it's only fitting that we hear Mr. Holding's reaction in kind. Here's a sample; the rest can be found on the link (Price's words are in red; Holding's words are in green):
Feeling Cross?
Citing 1 Corinthians 1:18 (“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”), Holding asks rhetorically, “Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?” He contends that crucifixion was so repulsive and degrading a punishment that no one could have taken a crucified man seriously as a religious founder. On top of that, no one could have envisioned the notion of a god stooping to undergo such treatment. “This being the case, we may fairly ask… why Christianity succeeded at all. The ignominy of a crucified savior was as much a deterrent to Christian belief as it is today - indeed, it was far, far more so! Why, then, were there any Christians at all? At best this should have been a movement that had only a few strange followers, then died out within decades as a footnote, if it was mentioned at all. The historical reality of the crucifixion could not of course be denied. To survive, Christianity should have either turned Gnostic (as indeed happened in some offshoots), or else not bothered with Jesus at all, and merely made him into the movement's first martyr for a higher moral ideal within Judaism. It would have been absurd to suggest, to either Jew or Gentile, that a crucified being was worthy of worship or died for our sins. There can be only one good explanation: Christianity succeeded because from the cross came victory, and after death came resurrection! The shame of the cross turns out to be one of Christianity's most incontrovertible proofs!”
One would wish to see Price interact as well with my material on honor and shame. But no, from here we have:
This is completely futile and does not begin to take into account the religious appetite (in many people) for the grotesque and the sanguine.
Please note that in essence, Price's reply is like Carrier's own "well, there must have been exceptions, people who liked crucified men" deal, for which he provides not a shred of evidence (against the data of Hengel, et al.); moreover, his comparisons below are entirely misplaced. None are related by Price to the honor-shame dichotomy (in fact, of all of his first examples come from modern, Western society, where the dichotomy has disappeared), and moreover:
Just look at the eagerly morbid piety of Roman Catholics and fundamentalist advocates of "the Blood" who wallow in every gruesome detail of the crucifixion, real or imagined. Consider the box office receipts of Mel Gibson’s pious gore-fest The Passion of the Christ.
...all come from "after the fact" of Christianity as a millennias-old religion. Jesus did not have the advantage of 2000 years of sanitizing of crucifixion as an acceptable form of death. Price moves though to a familiar ancient example:
In ancient times, think of the Attis cult which centered upon the suicide of its savior who castrated himself and bled to death. Street corner celebrations of such rites invariably attracted bystanders, even initially hostile ones, swept up in the music and chanting, to castrate themselves and join the sect on the spot!
And this we have already answered: As for Attis, good point -- do you see a church of Attis today? The Attis cults fit the Sabbatai model, although they also did have the advantage of being in a time when the body was considered by many to be base and evil. Under such considerations castration was arguably not absurd at all. In any event there isn't any parallel here to Christianity, which did not die off, and had much worse to defend itself on. Price would have done well, we may note, to have read all of my supplemental essays as well as the main one.
And even if one stops short of the Christ Myth theory, one must still reckon with the possibility, as advocated by Bultmann and others, that the crucifixion of Jesus would still have been readily embraceable as a means of salvation because of the familiarity of the dying and rising god mytheme.
This of course is one of Price's particular fancies; we have shown either that the candidates from DARGs are nothing like Jesus, or postdated Christianity. In addition, of all the DARGs none ever suffered a humiliating death (other than Inanna and perhaps Attis, who are irrelevant because the former was also restored, and the latter did not offer salvation). More cannot be said since Price does not name a particular DARG for discussion other than Attis above.
It was a familiar religious conception, and no less so because of Hellenistic Judaism's martyrdom doctrine as glimpsed in 2 and 4 Maccabees, where the hideous deaths (much more fulsomely dwelt upon than the crucifixion is in the gospels) are set forth as expiations for the sins of Israel. See Sam K. Williams, The Death of Jesus as Saving Event.
Carrier too attempted a comparison to the Maccabees, and our answer is the same: No one was called to worship them, and the Maccabbeans were heroes fighting in favor of a common cause of political and religious freedom, already popular with the people (which does NOT apply to Jesus and to new converts).
Finally, crucifixion was not a taboo subject, as witnessed by the frequent occurrence of crucifixion in dream interpretation manuals, where dreaming of being crucified was typically taken as a good omen of impending success.
Unfortunately Price fails to give a single example of this, or what date it comes from, or what source it derives from. What little I can find does not support his claim. A site on modern dream interpretation at http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Meaning_of_Dreams/id/35696 says, If you chance to dream of the crucifixion, you will see your opportunities slip away, tearing your hopes from your grasp, and leaving you wailing over the frustration of desires. Price gives us nothing to show that this was a dream interpretation from an ancient or relevant source.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose_CC3.html (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose_CC3.html)
-
i opened this thread to read it but i realized i dont care anymore, carry on.
-
i opened this thread to read it but i realized i dont care anymore, carry on.
It is dragging on a bit now.
At the end of the day, miracles don't happen, God doesn't exist, you can't fit 2 of every animal on a boat, and when you die you're dead. As in dead dead.
The only way to prove me wrong is for God to come down and turn every blade of grass in my garden into a £50 note. (I wonder if David Copperfield could... maybe he's God?) ;D ;D ;D
-
It is dragging on a bit now.
The reason this thread has dragged onward is primarily because, for all of his bold claims, Luke has not produced what has been asked of him numerous times: The “mystery religion” accounts that verify that Attis, Osiris, Buddha, of any of these other deities died via crucifixion, as Jesus Christ did.
The crux of his “challenge” was that no one could produce aspects of the account and life of Jesus Christ that wasn’t supposedly lifted from pagan religions.
He then rattled off a bunch of similarities, claiming that these other gods lived and died in the same fashion as Jesus Christ. But, when it came time for him to back up his words, all we got was empty rhetoric (and a Zeitgeist video, filled with more of the same).
I pointed out the differences between those Jesus Christ and those other gods, posting not only, what Luke called the “folklore” accounts but the “mystery religion” aspects as well, giving references and using numerous sources.
What did Luke produce? Excuses, false accusations of misquoting his words (despite copying and pasting his very statements, word for word), and attempts to reinterpret the word, “crucifixion”, in order to bolster his hollow claims.
Not only were his statements about the information in the Gospels way off, but those about the accounts of the pagan gods were shown to be faulty as well. He can’t make up his mind. When you ask him to provide references, he ducks away and demands that you look it up for yourself. But, once you do that and find that the accounts don’t match his declarations, he starts whining about using “Google-Fu” and claiming that you’re not looking in the right places, etc.
His assertion about this "dying/resurrecting godman blueprint" is, to say the least, inaccurate. Why?
- At least three deities listed do not resurrect after dying (Osiris, Attis, Dionysus).
- At least one doesn't die at all. (Mithras)
- At least three deities listed were NOT "virgin-born"; many involve a male god, getting his swerve on with mortal women; one involved some necrophilia-bestality stuff.
- None of them, except perhaps Mithras, have been shown to be born Dec. 25, notwithstanding the fact that Jesus was not shown to be born on that date, anyway.
- None of them died via crucifixion, despite Luke's flimsy attempts to salvage a post-mortem crucifixion from vague "tree" references.
At the end of the day, miracles don't happen, God doesn't exist, you can't fit 2 of every animal on a boat, and when you die you're dead. As in dead dead.
There are billions of people who disagree with your conclusion, for various reasons. But, that's another subject for another time. Of course, one would think that, if most atheists were as confident about that, they wouldn't spend so much energy getting bent out of shape about something they don't believe to exist.
The only way to prove me wrong is for God to come down and turn every blade of grass in my garden into a £50 note. (I wonder if David Copperfield could... maybe he's God?) ;D ;D ;D
The BUCS won a Super Bowl.............That's "miracle" enough for me!!!! ;D
-
The reason this thread has dragged onward is primarily because, for all of his bold claims, Luke has not produced what has been asked of him numerous times: The “mystery religion” accounts that verify that Attis, Osiris, Buddha, of any of these other deities died via crucifixion, as Jesus Christ did.
The crux of his “challenge” was that no one could produce aspects of the account and life of Jesus Christ that wasn’t supposedly lifted from pagan religions.
He then rattled off a bunch of similarities, claiming that these other gods lived and died in the same fashion as Jesus Christ. But, when it came time for him to back up his words, all we got was empty rhetoric (and a Zeitgeist video, filled with more of the same).
I pointed out the differences between those Jesus Christ and those other gods, posting not only, what Luke called the “folklore” accounts but the “mystery religion” aspects as well, giving references and using numerous sources.
What did Luke produce? Excuses, false accusations of misquoting his words (despite copying and pasting his very statements, word for word), and attempts to reinterpret the word, “crucifixion”, in order to bolster his hollow claims.
Not only were his statements about the information in the Gospels way off, but those about the accounts of the pagan gods were shown to be faulty as well. He can’t make up his mind. When you ask him to provide references, he ducks away and demands that you look it up for yourself. But, once you do that and find that the accounts don’t match his declarations, he starts whining about using “Google-Fu” and claiming that you’re not looking in the right places, etc.
His assertion about this "dying/resurrecting godman blueprint" is, to say the least, inaccurate. Why?
- At least three deities listed do not resurrect after dying (Osiris, Attis, Dionysus).
- At least one doesn't die at all. (Mithras)
- At least three deities listed were NOT "virgin-born"; many involve a male god, getting his swerve on with mortal women; one involved some necrophilia-bestality stuff.
- None of them, except perhaps Mithras, have been shown to be born Dec. 25, notwithstanding the fact that Jesus was not shown to be born on that date, anyway.
- None of them died via crucifixion, despite Luke's flimsy attempts to salvage a post-mortem crucifixion from vague "tree" references.
There are billions of people who disagree with your conclusion, for various reasons. But, that's another subject for another time. Of course, one would think that, if most atheists were as confident about that, they wouldn't spend so much energy getting bent out of shape about something they don't believe to exist.
The BUCS won a Super Bowl.............That's "miracle" enough for me!!!! ;D
MCWAY, you have owned yourself by claiming that 'miracle' is an acceptable explanation of phenomena. I am a graduate student in linguistics; if I produced a paper with the conclusion that a miracle is responsible for said phenomenon, I would fail. Rightly so. You have lost all credit here.
-
MCWAY, you have owned yourself by claiming that 'miracle' is an acceptable explanation of phenomena. I am a graduate student in linguistics; if I produced a paper with the conclusion that a miracle is responsible for said phenomenon, I would fail. Rightly so. You have lost all credit here.
Maybe, if you actually put a coherent thought together, instead of obsessing over who is “owning” whom, you’d actually make some sense.
You're a graduate student in linguistics....good for you. But, what you conveniently forget is that the conclusion that you swear would fail has been reached by many who have PH.Ds in the subject matter, such as the late Dr. Bruce Metzger, retired professor from Princeton Theological Seminary.
And, before you spout off about my owning myself, get your story straight. The issue you brought to the table, with your post from Price's works, was some attempt to explain the growth of the Christian church WITHOUT the Ressurection of Jesus Christ, as old tactic that atheists have been trying to use for nearly two centuries, that has failed miserably.
All of these stale arguments have been bulldozed to the ground, by the historical/archaeological data, regarding the early Christians.
To reiterate the words from Bible scholars on this issue of Christianity, itself (and the first one’s for you, Loco ;D ):
"If it (the Resurrection) had just been a spiritual resurrection, the enemies of the New Testament church would have taken the body of Jesus Christ, put it on a cart and walked it down the streets of Jerusalem, killing Christianity not just in the cradle but in the womb. There would have been no New Testament church, if they had the body" – Josh McDowell
”Where did Christianity first begin, in terms of the organized proclamation that Jesus rose from the dead? Only one place on Earth, Jerusalem. There, least of all, could Christianity have ever gotten started, if the moldering body of Jesus of Nazareth were available, anytime after Sunday morning.” – Dr. Paul Meier, Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University.
Something happened to make the disciples go from being fearful, saying “Our Master has been crucified” to being ready to die for this Jesus. The question is what? The only thing that fits the criteria is the Resurrection- Dr. Sam Lamerson, Knox Theological Seminary (from "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?)
"The interesting thing about the early Christians is not just that they went from being a dejected, frightened, and muddle group, to being a brave, dynamic, and lively and outgoing group--though that's true, too--is that they didn't get another Messiah they said that Jesus was the Messiah. And since everyone knew that a crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah, the only thing that explains why they said that Jesus was the Messiah is that they believed that He'd been bodily raised from the dead" - Dr. N.T. Wright, Westminster Abbey (also from "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?")
Of course, my previous post wasn't even about this issue. It was a summation of Luke's pitiful challenge (or lack thereof) and how easy it was to flatten.
His take that the life of Jesus Christ was taken from other pagan figures, following some generic "dying/resurrecting godman blueprint" rings all to hollow. Not only is that not true of Jesus Christ, it isn't even true (in most cases) for the figures from which he claims Jesus was crafted.
Again, how does it fit this so-called “blueprint”, when you have:
- gods that don’t die at all
- gods that don’t die via crucifixion
- gods that die but don’t’ rise from the dead
- gods who aren’t virgin-born
- gods who weren’t born Dec. 25
- gods who don’t redeem mankind from anything for any reason?
Luke's inability to give reference to these other gods, meeting this "blueprint" (much less Jesus Christ Himself) exposes his takes for the weak and unsubstantiated drivel that it is.
And, the ease by which Price's attempts to account for something, other than the Resurrection, as being the foundation of Christianity, exposes YOUR takes for much the same thing.
-
Deicide,
This thread has stagnated because McWay is using obstructionist practices to run circles around the original challenge... it's the typical Creationist/Christian "You can't prove it doesn't!" tactic., albeit a little more subtly applied.
The original challenge was for anyone to find a single original detail in the Jesus story... no one has.
We have to be careful not to play into his game. When he insists upon turning the challenge around we must resist the temptation to assume we are having a logical debate with a rational person... we are not.
Notice how he has always steered the conversation towards imposing the onus of proving a negative upon his opponents... then claims victory.
Notice how he has couched his arguments... he sets the definition so as to immediately invalidate the opposing (rational) viewpoint:
-the virgin birth is original... because McWay deems the birth of Horus merely magical. The Egyptians obviously DID consider the birth of child via impregnation by a ghost to be a virgin birth as they named the mother version of Isis "Mary Isis, the Virgin". So why do we listen to McWay's opinion on this, aren't the ancient Egyptians more versed in ancient Egyptian belief?
-Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December according to McWay... because no such date is explicitly given in the gospels. When I argue that such a date is hinted at by the collusion of astrological metaphors in the nativity story: the traveling magi, the bright star in the east etc etc... rather than argue the validity of these conspicuous astrological symbols, he places the onus on me to quote the Gospel verse that explicitly gives 25th of December as the date of Jesus' birth (ie: prove a negative), when I never made any such claim.
Rather than address this dishonest misquoting, he simply insists on MY quoting verses that don't exist in order to back up a claim I never made... then chides me for failing to do the impossible. Again, why do we listen to McWay on this point... the early Church Fathers came to the conclusion that the astrological symbolism encoded in the Nativity story did indeed indicate December 25th as Jesus' birth date (hence our celebration of Christmas). Did the early Church Fathers know more about this that McWay?
-Attis wasn't crucified according to McWay... as he was merely nailed to a cross/tree after his death. While this may be a valid criticism, it relies upon a chronically narrow interpretation of the word "crucifixion". McWay has posted dictionary definitions... and if you purposely chose to selectively accept only the one particular dictionary definition of the word which McWay wishes to use as the basis of an intellectually dishonest exclusionary argument... then yes, maybe he might have a point.
But again we are playing his game... and we shouldn't. The real question as it pertains to this thread is whether the crucifixion of Jesus has any precursors in previous religions... obviously it does in Attis being nailed to a tree. Again, why do we listen to McWay on this point... is he the definer of terms? The arbiter of what does and does not meet the standard of plagiarism?
What we must note is what McWay is NOT arguing... for it is in what he merely dismisses that we find the purpose of his hair-splitting and minutiae nit-picking. He simply makes a fuss about something trivial hoping we don't notice what he ISN'T addressing.
He keeps chiding me to produce the gospel verse giving Jesus' birth date as 25th December, using such admonishments as "as you claimed it did"... I never made any such claim, and McWay knows it. I merely stated that the gospel stories hint at such a date ("indirectly") through the preponderance of Mystery Religion astrological metaphors used, which they do. But the purpose of such an argument is not merely to deliberately misquote me... it is to steer the conversation in such a way that he can continuously goad me for apparently failing to meet his supposed "challenge" all the while being able to state and restate for emphasis that such an explicit date is not found in the gospels.
This way it SEEMS as if he is winning the argument... while he never has to address the patently obvious plagiarism of pagan Mystery Religion blueprint in the Jesus story.
Similarly, McWay won't touch:
-the Kashmiri Issa, who story previsions Jesus' in almost every detail
-the patently astrological nature of some of the gospel stories (Bethlehem being the Hebrew name for the Zodiac constellation Virgo, for instance)
-the non-canonical gospels
-the role of Mary Magdalene as an astrological symbol
We should call him to task on these above issues whenever he resorts to quoting the "Jesus is magic" apologetics of those bible-thumping pseudo-academics HE esteems to be credible sources.
Or more aggressively, we should forcefully assert the form of this thread: a CHALLENGE for anyone to state a single solitary ORIGINAL detail of the Jesus myth.
This challenge has gone unanswered.
Your friend in atheism,
The Luke
-
Deicide,
This thread has stagnated because McWay is using obstructionist practices to run circles around the original challenge... it's the typical Creationist/Christian "You can't prove it doesn't!" tactic., albeit a little more subtly applied.
The original challenge was for anyone to find a single original detail in the Jesus story... no one has.
This merely shows that, much like Osiris was, you are in "de-Nile". The details have been given clearly and plainly, for all to see, which is why you've had to resort to pitifuly trying to redefine crucifixion, to save your faulty claims about Attis and Osiris.
We have to be careful not to play into his game. When he insists upon turning the challenge around we must resist the temptation to assume we are having a logical debate with a rational person... we are not.
Notice how he has always steered the conversation towards imposing the onus of proving a negative upon his opponents... then claims victory.
No, I steer my conversation towards asking YOU to produce the specific references to back your lame claims, which you haven't done to this day.
Notice how he has couched his arguments... he sets the definition so as to immediately invalidate the opposing (rational) viewpoint:
-the virgin birth is original... because McWay deems the birth of Horus merely magical. The Egyptians obviously DID consider the birth of child via impregnation by a ghost to be a virgin birth as they named the mother version of Isis "Mary Isis, the Virgin". So why do we listen to McWay's opinion on this, aren't the ancient Egyptians more versed in ancient Egyptian belief?
The one problem with this flap is that the ancient Egyptians didn't refer to her as the "Mary Isis" (nice try!!!!) I believe I covered that earlier. But, just to refresh your memory (from the "All About Horus: An Egyptian Copy of Christ?" link):
"Zeitgeist" on Horus
"By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." (1 John 4:6, Douay-Rheims)
Now I will respond to the transcript section of "Zeitgeist" that talks about Horus and Jesus. I have removed the transcript's references, although I will talk about the film's sources at the end. My own documentation, information, and sources are contained above, with a short bibliography at bottom.
From the transcript of www.ZeitgeistMovie.com in red.
This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC.
Horus is not (simply) the sun god, although that became one of his forms. Horus in ancient Egypt was the falcon god whose name means the high, far-off, or distant one. Re (or Ra) was the sun god who came to be identified with the mid-day (or noon) sun. Horus was also the sky god, whose good or sound eye was the sun, and injured eye the moon.
He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky.
He is not the sun, but came to be identified with the position of the rising sun (the sun rises in the east), in such Greek forms as Harakhti = "Horus of the horizon"; and Harmachis (-khis) = "Horus in the horizon." Later he was associated with the sun-god Re and known as Re-Harakhti. Atum was the god of the setting sun.
From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night.
It is hieroglyphs, not hieroglyphics. Hieroglyphic is an adjective (e.g. hieroglyphic writings). The term "messiah" comes from the Hebrew Moshiach for "Anointed One." It is a Judaeo-Christian concept; it does not go back to ancient Egypt. Set (or Seth) was Horus' brother, or in other versions, his uncle. In one tradition of the Egyptian myth, Seth was Horus' rival (and usurper of Egypt's throne), in others, his balance (a bipolar, balanced embodiment of kingship). As mentioned above: since the beginning of the 20th century in Egyptological research, much debate has ensued over whether the struggle between Horus and Seth was primarily historical/geo-political, or cosmic/symbolic. When the full Osiris complex became visible, Seth appears as the murderer of Osiris and would-be killer of the child Horus.
Ra (Re) was the sun god and creator of the universe
Osiris was the king of the underworld (the dead), wife of Isis, and father of Horus
Isis was the sister and wife of Osiris, and mother of Horus
Seth was brother and killer of Osiris
Horus, represented by the Falcon symbol, was the son of Osiris and Isis
Ra-Harakhti (Re-Harakhti) or simply Harakhti is "Horus of the two horizons"
See Jim Loy's Egyptian Gods page for the Hierglyphs and names of all the major gods of Egypt.
And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.
Horus was never sent to the underworld. That was Osiris who was killed and became lord of the underworld (i.e. the dead), while Horus was king of the living. In one version of the myth, Horus battles with Seth over an 80 year period, the earth-god Geb in a judgment awards the whole inheritance of Egypt to Horus, and Horus then becomes ruler of Egypt. From then on, the dead Egyptian king becomes an "Osiris", and his successor the living king is a "Horus." That is the primary meaning of the Horus-Seth battle myth. In the Egyptian Coffin Texts (Spell 148, quoted above), Horus appears as a falcon who soars up into the sky beyond the flight of the original bird-soul, beyond the stars and all the divinities of olden time whose souls inhabit the constellations. In so doing he brings back light and the assurance of a new day, thus subduing Seth, who personifies the terrors of darkness and death.
Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th
Wrong. The Persian/Roman god Mithras came to be seen as born on that date, as did Jesus later in the early Church. The December 25th date is not found in the Gospels or the New Testament. It was a later adoption by the Catholic Church: "In the first half of the fourth century AD the worship of the Sol Invictus was the last great pagan cult the Church had to conquer, and it did so in part with the establishment of Christmas...At the head of the Deposition Martyrum of the so-called Roman Chronograph of 354 AD (the Philocalian Calendar) there is listed the natus Christus in Betleem Judaeae ('the birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea') as being celebrated on December 25. The Deposition was originally composed in 336 AD, so Christmas dates back at least that far." (See "Santa or Satan: Reply to a Funny Fundy")
The date of the birth of Horus according to some online sources is during the Egyptian month of Khoiak (which corresponds to our November month). The Egyptian calendar had three seasons, each four months and 30 days/month. The season of Akhet is months (in Greek) Thot, Phaophi, Athyr, Khoiak; the season of Peret (or Winter) is months (in Greek) Tybi, Mekhir, Phamenoth, Pharmouthi; the season of Chemou (or Summer) is months (in Greek) Pakhon, Payni, Epiph, Mesorê. See online sources: Egyptian Festival Calender ; Egyptian calendar months and seasons ; Grand Festivals ; Festival Rituals. We also know where Horus was supposedly born (at Khemmis or Chemmis in the Nile Delta of northern Upper Egypt).
of the virgin Isis-Meri.
Wrong again. Her name was simply Isis (in Greek). Her true Egyptian name is transliterated simply A-s-e-t or 3st (all woman names in Egyptian end with the "t"). Her name (Aset) means "seat" or "throne" (Oxford Encyclopedia, vol 2, "Isis" p. 188) and "the goddess's name is written in hieroglyphs with a sign that represents a throne, indicating the crucial role that she plays in the transmission of the kingship of Egypt" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 80).
And she definitely was not a virgin when she conceived Horus with the revivified Osiris, if these words mean anything: "[Osiris was] revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife" (Lesko, p. 162); "After having sexual intercourse..." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, p. 39); "revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him" (Richard Wilkinson, p. 146); "revive the sexual powers of Osiris" (Pinch, p. 80).
A virgin birth, or more properly, a virginal conception, is by definition non-sexual.
His birth was accompanied by a star in the east
No evidence any stars are mentioned in the birth of Horus.
which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior
There are no "three kings" in the birth of Horus, and there are no "three kings" in the Bible either. Read Matthew 2 for yourself:
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.'" (Matthew 2:1-2 KJV)
They are not called "kings" but "wise men" -- and they are not three in number, we don't know how many there were. Three gifts are later mentioned (gold, frankincense, myrrh) in verse 11, and these were equated with the wise men. Perhaps we are thinking of the Christmas carol "We three kings of Orient are...." ? Nice tune and lyrics, but it's always best to cross-check with the biblical text.
-Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December according to McWay... because no such date is explicitly given in the gospels. When I argue that such a date is hinted at by the collusion of astrological metaphors in the nativity story: the traveling magi, the bright star in the east etc etc... rather than argue the validity of these conspicuous astrological symbols, he places the onus on me to quote the Gospel verse that explicitly gives 25th of December as the date of Jesus' birth (ie: prove a negative), when I never made any such claim.
Ummm....genius! I know what you claimed, and that was that the Gospels "indirectly" pointed to a Dec. 25th date. I then asked you for the specifics, from which you started rambling about the "Dog Star", the "three kings", a "cave", etc.
All of which is supreme faulty. You kept harping about "three kings" corresponding to a certain cluster of stars, despite the fact that the Gospels mention ZIP about three kings. It mentions an undetermined number of wise men. Then, you started wailing about finding Jesus at His birth, another whiff, considering Jesus' approximate age of 2, upon His being found by the wise men. Next came the cave mess, deflated by the fact that Jesus is in a house, when the wise men found them.
Therefore, the validity of these "astrological symbols" is simple: There is none, just as there was no validity about your claim of Osiris being hacked into 72 pieces, corresponding to some other astrological stuff, relating to that number (Osiris got cut into 14 pieces; and, it appears you can't conjure up any star stuff to rant on about that).
Rather than address this dishonest misquoting, he simply insists on MY quoting verses that don't exist in order to back up a claim I never made... then chides me for failing to do the impossible. Again, why do we listen to McWay on this point... the early Church Fathers came to the conclusion that the astrological symbolism encoded in the Nativity story did indeed indicate December 25th as Jesus' birth date (hence our celebration of Christmas). Did the early Church Fathers know more about this that McWay?
If these verses don't exist, why are you running your mouth about Attis being crucified (a claim that YOU DID, IN FACT, MAKE), Osiris being crucified (another claim that YOU, INDEED, MADE), only to try and save your rear end by claiming that they somehow got put on a tree after dying the well-known deaths ascribed to them?
-Attis wasn't crucified according to McWay... as he was merely nailed to a cross/tree after his death. While this may be a valid criticism, it relies upon a chronically narrow interpretation of the word "crucifixion". McWay has posted dictionary definitions... and if you purposely chose to selectively accept only the one particular dictionary definition of the word which McWay wishes to use as the basis of an intellectually dishonest exclusionary argument... then yes, maybe he might have a point.
And, if I'm not mistaken, I asked to show how cutting your own nuts (the way Attis actually died) off corresponds with crucifixion. As usual, you produced nothing. Instead,you continued trying to save your hide on your flimsy Attis' take by sheepishly attempting to assume that crucifixion means any vague reference to a tree, rather than a specific form of execution in which a cross/tree is involved .
But again we are playing his game... and we shouldn't. The real question as it pertains to this thread is whether the crucifixion of Jesus has any precursors in previous religions... obviously it does in Attis being nailed to a tree. Again, why do we listen to McWay on this point... is he the definer of terms? The arbiter of what does and does not meet the standard of plagiarism?
I'm not the definer of the term, crucifixion. In fact, boy genius, I showed you what the definitions were and from where those definitions came. On the contrary, you have YET to mention the reference that has Attis being nailed to a tree, despite being asked more times than the Detroit Lions have losses. Then, of course, you'd have to give your ridiculous justification as to how someone killed in a totally different manner equates to Jesus being crucified (i.e. that's how Jesus actually died, CRUCIFIXION, not self-castration).
What we must note is what McWay is NOT arguing... for it is in what he merely dismisses that we find the purpose of his hair-splitting and minutiae nit-picking. He simply makes a fuss about something trivial hoping we don't notice what he ISN'T addressing.
He keeps chiding me to produce the gospel verse giving Jesus' birth date as 25th December, using such admonishments as "as you claimed it did"... I never made any such claim, and McWay knows it. I merely stated that the gospel stories hint at such a date ("indirectly") through the preponderance of Mystery Religion astrological metaphors used, which they do. But the purpose of such an argument is not merely to deliberately misquote me... it is to steer the conversation in such a way that he can continuously goad me for apparently failing to meet his supposed "challenge" all the while being able to state and restate for emphasis that such an explicit date is not found in the gospels.
Yet, despite all this "preponderance", you can't produce the references, preferring instead to read into the Gospels stuff that just ain't there (such as your "three kings" crap).
And, as usual, you continue to whimper and whine about my supposeldy misquoting you, despite the FACT that your statements were showns, LINE BY LINE and WORD for WORD.
You were never asked to produce a specific date. You were asked to show where this "indirect" stuff is, within the Gospels. Again, what you gave was woefully inaccurate, because the specifics you mentioned, in your astrological metaphors, ARE NOT THERE in the Gospels:
- No "three kings"
- No "cave"
- No appearance of "three kings" at the "birth" of Jesus, etc.
This way it SEEMS as if he is winning the argument... while he never has to address the patently obvious plagiarism of pagan Mystery Religion blueprint in the Jesus story.
As I just told Deicide, you "blueprint" not only fails to match the account of Jesus Christ, it doesn't even fit many of the other figures, because there are, among those figures:
- gods that don’t die at all
- gods that don’t die via crucifixion
- gods that die but don’t’ rise from the dead
- gods who aren’t virgin-born
- gods who weren’t born Dec. 25
- gods who don’t redeem mankind from anything for any reason?
And, that's just a sample of the discrepancies.
Similarly, McWay won't touch:
-the Kashmiri Issa, who story previsions Jesus' in almost every detail
-the patently astrological nature of some of the gospel stories (Bethlehem being the Hebrew name for the Zodiac constellation Virgo, for instance)
-the non-canonical gospels
-the role of Mary Magdalene as an astrological symbol
Wrong again, boy genius!!!!! Unlike you, I actually produced references, addressing these subjects, something you are apparently too cowardly to do, when called to produce.
We should call him to task on these above issues whenever he resorts to quoting the "Jesus is magic" apologetics of those bible-thumping pseudo-academics HE esteems to be credible sources.
Go ahead!!! Give it your best shot. It can't possibly be any worse than the foolishness you continue to spout. Normally, skeptics fall all over themselves, when a scholar's credentials come from an Ivy League school. But, of course, that always goes by the board, when it don't fit their godless banter.
Or more aggressively, we should forcefully assert the form of this thread: a CHALLENGE for anyone to state a single solitary ORIGINAL detail of the Jesus myth.
This challenge has gone unanswered.
You can attempt to "forecfully assert" whatever you want. The simple fact is that, for all of your hot air, you have cowered and run from every request to actually back your statements with specific facts and references.
Blubbering and crying every time you get asked to back up your own words reeks of nothing but unadulterated COWARDICE. How many more excuses are you going to generate?
-
were logic and reason end.religion begins.
-
Let's see that post McWay... just list ONE original detail from the Jesus story...
You can't really make demands of the person who issued a challenge when you haven't met that challenge.
Just a simple post. Maybe even a list of the original details. Can you produce even one?
The Luke
-
No scientist would ever accept the explanation: god did it as an explanation. Neither would any historian. You have your head up your ass MCWAY.
-
Let's see that post McWay... just list ONE original detail from the Jesus story...
You can't really make demands of the person who issued a challenge when you haven't met that challenge.
Just a simple post. Maybe even a list of the original details. Can you produce even one?
The Luke
Your blindness is exceeded only by your COWARDICE.
I answered your "challenge" since page 1. In case you forgot, I did mention something about the crucifixion, which went something like this:
To use a quip from Mr. T’s “Clubber Lang” character from Rocky III.
"I reject the challenge, because the Luke is no challenge. But, I’ll be more than happy to beat on him some more!!!"
I’ll give you 3:
1) Virgin birth (i.e. Mary had no sexual contact WHATOSEVER, when she conceived Christ. There was no supernatural whoremongering ala Zeus and his shenanigans; no coitus in birdie form with a dead guy with a faux schlong, etc.)
2) Death by crucifixion, not by chopping his balls off or being barbecued in the womb and resown in someone's leg.
3) His betrayal for 30 pieces of silver, by a close associate.
Of course, that leaves YOU with the task of showing what alleged allegories these accounts were lifted and why, which (for all of your blathering) you have yet to do).
That is, name the religion from which the Jesus account was supposedly borrowed and give the specifics as to why it was used.
Since then, you have made excuse, after excuse, after excuse, NOT TO PRODUCE a specific reference, stating that, in fact, Attis, Osiris, or any of these other figures from which Jesus was supposedly crafted died in that manner.
So, for the nth time, PRODUCE THE SPECIFIC references from these so-called "mystery religions" that show Attis, Osiris, or anyone else dying in this manner (in case you need reminding, drowning and self-castration do NOT equal crucifixion).
Your trying to project your pitiful shortcomings on me simply won't make the grade.
And, as stated multiple times, not only are your ridiculous claims about Jesus Christ wrong, you CAN'T EVEN GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT about the other deities. You screwed up on Attis, on Osiris, on Horus, just to name a few.
This was your weak laundry list from earlier:
Haven't you ever read about the solar-deity allegories used in Mystery Religions? You've got some Googling to do (or alternatively read Gandy and Freke's book).
It's always the same stuff:
-born of a virgin on 25th or December
-bright star marks his birthplace
-born in a cave/stable
-three kings attend his birth
-knows everything by age 12
-baptised in a river
-chooses twelve disciples (and a hidden thirteenth secret female disciple associated with a snake)
-performs miracles: heals the sick; the lame; the blind; raises the dead; feeds a multitude
-loses a shoe/foot/leg (Jebus has his feet washed)
-betrayed to the tyrant by his brother/twin/lover/disciple
-crucified (or similar variant)
-placed back in a tomb
-rises from the dead after three days
-ascends into heaven
And this all falls to pieces for the following reasons:
You have YET to show that Jesus, Horus, Osiris, Attis, or anyone else was born Dec. 25. The virgin-birth stuff (at minimum) disqualifies Horus.
The "three kings attend his birth" stuff also falls flat. "Three kings" don't attend Jesus' birth; For the nth time, they're wise men, exact number unknown, that find Jesus when He's about two. Of course, you don't have jack to show that those conditions apply to any of the other deities.
I've already cut your crucifixion claims to bits. Once again, the clock's still ticking for you to show that Attis, Osiris, or any of those other figures died via crucifixion.
As for the "rise from the dead in three days" thing, you're still in the hole, because at least two guys (Osiris, Attis) DO NOT RISE FROM THE DEAD AT ALL!!! One doesn't even die (Mithras).
The question now is, will you continue your cowering, or will you (sometime between now and Christ's return) produce some facts to back up your smack....for once?
-
No scientist would ever accept the explanation: god did it as an explanation. Neither would any historian. You have your head up your ass MCWAY.
What a scientist or historian accepts is dependent on the specific subject matter, Deicide. That, of course, makes your blanket statement an easy one to refute.
In particular, the feeble attempts of atheists like Price to come up with an explanation for Christianity's success in the 1st century (and beyond), WITHOUT the Resuurection, ring supremely hollow.
Every contrived notion by non-believers has pretty much been taken apart by Christian scholars and historians, such as the men I've listed earlier.
To quote author, Josh McDowell, "The shallowness of the critic speaks louder than the voice of the believer."
And, on this forum, you seem to have the inside track on shallowness.
-
What a scientist or historian accepts is dependent on the specific subject matter, Deicide. That, of course, makes your blanket statement an easy one to refute.
In particular, the feeble attempts of atheists like Price to come up with an explanation for Christianity's success in the 1st century (and beyond), WITHOUT the Resuurection, ring supremely hollow.
Every contrived notion by non-believers has pretty much been taken apart by Christian scholars and historians, such as the men I've listed earlier.
To quote author, Josh McDowell, "The shallowness of the critic speaks louder than the voice of the believer."
And, on this forum, you seem to have the inside track on shallowness.
atheism is on the rise, religion correlates inversely with intellect.
-
atheism is on the rise, religion correlates inversely with intellect.
Necrosis, are you going to try to give us your explanation?
The Luke, Deicide, Necrosis,
Please let me see your explanation for Christianity's explosive growth in the 1st century in the mist of so much persecution, unlike all these ancient myths that you claim Christianity is a copy of?
How did Christianity manage to grow so quickly in such a short period of time, then continue to grow in the mist of horrible persecution for almost 300 years before Christianity was finally legalized, before the Roman Catholic Church came into power?
The Bible has the only explanation. Jesus Christ is not only real, but multitudes saw him die, then he rose from the dead and over 500 people saw him alive again.
Unlike you, I do not have enough faith to believe otherwise.
But please, do state your alternative explanation for Christianity's rapid success and growth, while explaining why these many competing myths you talk about did not follow the same fate.
Christianity has been around for over 2,000 years, and today it is here to stay.
-
What a scientist or historian accepts is dependent on the specific subject matter, Deicide. That, of course, makes your blanket statement an easy one to refute.
No, it is not. Saying something was a miracle explains nothing, answers nothing and is unacceptable. Imagine if all PhD candidates merely wrote dissertations saying: it is a miracle. Scientists who claim that something is a miracle are not scientists. Historians use critical thought and analysis to understand the past. They take the social and political circumstances of the time and put them together to form a coherent pciture; they don't just say, it was a miracle.
In particular, the feeble attempts of atheists like Price to come up with an explanation for Christianity's success in the 1st century (and beyond), WITHOUT the Resuurection, ring supremely hollow
.
Feeble attempts? I think he rather nailed it on the head and most rational people do as well.
Every contrived notion by non-believers has pretty much been taken apart by Christian scholars and historians, such as the men I've listed earlier.
The only peopel who believe this are you and the other fundies.
To quote author, Josh McDowell, "The shallowness of the critic speaks louder than the voice of the believer."
And, on this forum, you seem to have the inside track on shallowness.
As do you for propping up false and fallacious arguments on a regular basis that only your fellow nutters buy.
-
No, it is not. Saying something was a miracle explains nothing, answers nothing and is unacceptable. Imagine if all PhD candidates merely wrote dissertations saying: it is a miracle. Scientists who claim that something is a miracle are not scientists. Historians use critical thought and analysis to understand the past. They take the social and political circumstances of the time and put them together to form a coherent pciture; they don't just say, it was a miracle.
Were you referring to Ph.Ds like the late Dr. Bruce Metzger, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Dr. D. A. Carson, et. al? I guess you forgot about those guys.
Or historians like Dr. Paul Meier (Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University) or Dr. Edwin Yamauchi (Professor of Ancient History, University of Miami, Ohio)?
Feeble attempts? I think he rather nailed it on the head and most rational people do as well.
The only peopel who believe this are you and the other fundies.
AHHH YESSS!!!! The tired old "it's just you fundies" argument, when you can't dismiss the Biblical scholars that hold to the resurrection.
Fortunately, atheists like you DO NOT arbitrate who's "rational" and who isn't.
As do you for propping up false and fallacious arguments on a regular basis that only your fellow nutters buy.
Wishful thinking on your part, which is why the frustration for you atheists continues to show, as for all your so-called "rationale", your attempts to explain away the Christian faith and the Resurrection have continued to fall flat.
-
Were you referring to Ph.Ds like the late Dr. Bruce Metzger, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Dr. D. A. Carson, et. al? I guess you forgot about those guys.
Or historians like Dr. Paul Meier (Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University) or Dr. Edwin Yamauchi (Professor of Ancient History, University of Miami, Ohio)?
AHHH YESSS!!!! The tired old "it's just you fundies" argument, when you can't dismiss the Biblical scholars that hold to the resurrection.
Fortunately, atheists like you DO NOT arbitrate who's "rational" and who isn't.
Wishful thinking on your part, which is why the frustration for you atheists continues to show, as for all your so-called "rationale", your attempts to explain away the Christian faith and the Resurrection have continued to fall flat.
Epic Head Banging Against Wall...you are definitely one of the most stubborn fundies I have ever seen.
-
Were you referring to Ph.Ds like the late Dr. Bruce Metzger, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Dr. D. A. Carson, et. al? I guess you forgot about those guys.
Or historians like Dr. Paul Meier (Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University) or Dr. Edwin Yamauchi (Professor of Ancient History, University of Miami, Ohio)?
AHHH YESSS!!!! The tired old "it's just you fundies" argument, when you can't dismiss the Biblical scholars that hold to the resurrection.
Fortunately, atheists like you DO NOT arbitrate who's "rational" and who isn't.
Wishful thinking on your part, which is why the frustration for you atheists continues to show, as for all your so-called "rationale", your attempts to explain away the Christian faith and the Resurrection have continued to fall flat.
do you believe that noahs ark actually happened? or that a man lived in a whale for days? lets focus on the ark i love that story.
-
Epic Head Banging Against Wall...you are definitely one of the most stubborn fundies I have ever seen.
Why? Because I am unphased by skeptic drivel, wrapped up in a blanket of profanity, by atheists obsessed by something they don't believe to exist?
;D
do you believe that noahs ark actually happened? or that a man lived in a whale for days?
Do you believe that two big rocks smashed together, 5 billions years ago (by accident, with no guidance whatsoever), resulting in the goo that turned into this critter (with no sentient guidance) or that critter (with no sentient guidance), somehow ending up with "Unga-Munga", the caveman (your supposed great-great-great-great.........grandpa)? ;D
lets focus on the ark i love that story.
Fine with me.
You can start here:
There are many descriptions of the remarkable event. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets, and still others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient or modern times about which there is better evidence or more numerous records, than this very one which is so beautifully but briefly described in the sacred Scriptures. It is one of the events which seems to be familiar to the most distant nations—in Australia, in India, in China, in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America. It is true that many look upon the story as it is repeated in these distant regions, as either referring to local floods, or as the result of contact with civilized people, who have brought it from historic countries, and yet the similarity of the story is such as to make even this explanation unsatisfactory.” Stephen D. Peet, “The Story of the Deluge,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4,
You can continue with "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"
Here's a brief slide synopsis of the book:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/sld001.htm (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/sld001.htm)
-
Why? Because I am unphased by skeptic drivel, wrapped up in a blanket of profanity, by atheists obsessed by something they don't believe to exist?
;D
Do you believe that two big rocks smashed together, 5 billions years ago (by accident, with no guidance whatsoever), resulting in the goo that turned into this critter (with no sentient guidance) or that critter (with no sentient guidance), somehow ending up with "Unga-Munga", the caveman (your supposed great-great-great-great.........grandpa)? ;D
Fine with me.
You can start here:
There are many descriptions of the remarkable event. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets, and still others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient or modern times about which there is better evidence or more numerous records, than this very one which is so beautifully but briefly described in the sacred Scriptures. It is one of the events which seems to be familiar to the most distant nations—in Australia, in India, in China, in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America. It is true that many look upon the story as it is repeated in these distant regions, as either referring to local floods, or as the result of contact with civilized people, who have brought it from historic countries, and yet the similarity of the story is such as to make even this explanation unsatisfactory.” Stephen D. Peet, “The Story of the Deluge,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4,
You can continue with "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"
Here's a brief slide synopsis of the book:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/sld001.htm (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/sld001.htm)
Epic lack of understanding...as usual... ::)
-
;D
Do you believe that two big rocks smashed together, 5 billions years ago (by accident, with no guidance whatsoever), resulting in the goo that turned into this critter (with no sentient guidance) or that critter (with no sentient guidance), somehow ending up with "Unga-Munga", the caveman (your supposed great-great-great-great.........grandpa)? ;D
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/sld001.htm (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/sld001.htm)
no boat could fit the animals, they would have to be fed for 150 days, would have to have no causualties at all, and predators and prey would somehow have to ignore each other.
did the grizzily bear swim across the atlantic? all the insects to?
No rational person could beleive this happened.
-
no boat could fit the animals, they would have to be fed for 150 days, would have to have no causualties at all, and predators and prey would somehow have to ignore each other.
did the grizzily bear swim across the atlantic? all the insects to?
No rational person could beleive this happened.
Of course that happened. Two of every animal, even the random species in the Amazon that we haven't even discovered yet!!! They all got the memo!
-
no boat could fit the animals, they would have to be fed for 150 days, would have to have no causualties at all, and predators and prey would somehow have to ignore each other.
did the grizzily bear swim across the atlantic? all the insects to?
No rational person could beleive this happened.
agreed...and the idiots that believe this think there opinion should be takin seriously.
-
agreed...and the idiots that believe this think there opinion should be takin seriously.
they should be laughed at and ridiculed for wasting peoples time. Stupidity is ugly, something would should not tolerate. educate yourselves.
-
Of course that happened. Two of every animal, even the random species in the Amazon that we haven't even discovered yet!!! They all got the memo!
Apparently, you didn't bother to check out the slide, or you wouldn't have posted this blurb about "species".
The large number of species of animals in existence today is often used to illustrate the supposed impossibility of the ark. However, it would have been sufficient to bring just representative animals from each GENUS in the taxonomic rank, not every species. All of the species for a given genus have the same amount of genetic complexity (just expressed physically in different ways, such as differing coloration or size), and both creationists and evolutionists agree that the variations identified as species can all be derived from a suitable common ancestor. In addition, it was only necessary to bring aboard those animals that lived on land (land mammals, land birds, land reptiles, amphibians).
-
agreed...and the idiots that believe this think there opinion should be takin seriously.
Hmmmm......being called an idiot by someone who apparently bombed basic grammar (the word is "their", not "there"). Now, that's rich!!!
they should be laughed at and ridiculed for wasting peoples time. Stupidity is ugly, something would should not tolerate. educate yourselves.
In that case, we should all be getting a chuckle out of you and L Dawg, as your basic punctuation and sentence structure mirror that of the average 4th grader.
Maybe, you two should take a refresher in basic grammar, before you start running your mouths about people educating themselves and being "idiots".
-
Apparently, you didn't bother to check out the slide, or you wouldn't have posted this blurb about "species".
The large number of species of animals in existence today is often used to illustrate the supposed impossibility of the ark. However, it would have been sufficient to bring just representative animals from each GENUS in the taxonomic rank, not every species. All of the species for a given genus have the same amount of genetic complexity (just expressed physically in different ways, such as differing coloration or size), and both creationists and evolutionists agree that the variations identified as species can all be derived from a suitable common ancestor. In addition, it was only necessary to bring aboard those animals that lived on land (land mammals, land birds, land reptiles, amphibians).
...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.
-
Hmmmm......being called an idiot by someone who apparently bombed basic grammar (the word is "their", not "there"). Now, that's rich!!!
In that case, we should all be getting a chuckle out of you and L Dawg, as your basic punctuation and sentence structure mirror that of the average 4th grader.
Maybe, you two should take a refresher in basic grammar, before you start running your mouths about people educating themselves and being "idiots".
damn man you so owned me and my typing shills.I won't recover from that one.
-
Hmmmm......being called an idiot by someone who apparently bombed basic grammar (the word is "their", not "there"). Now, that's rich!!!
In that case, we should all be getting a chuckle out of you and L Dawg, as your basic punctuation and sentence structure mirror that of the average 4th grader.
Maybe, you two should take a refresher in basic grammar, before you start running your mouths about people educating themselves and being "idiots".
i am lazy. Yet my iq is still higher then yours, along with more education and awards in academia.
You lack rational inquiry and logic. This is my beef. You think noah knew about gensus and species? why wouldnt the animals eat each other? how did he feed the carnivores? how did he get to all the animals on different continents etc etc etc..
-
damn man you so owned me and my typing shills.I won't recover from 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.
-
Apparently, you didn't bother to check out the slide, or you wouldn't have posted this blurb about "species".
The large number of species of animals in existence today is often used to illustrate the supposed impossibility of the ark. However, it would have been sufficient to bring just representative animals from each GENUS in the taxonomic rank, not every species. All of the species for a given genus have the same amount of genetic complexity (just expressed physically in different ways, such as differing coloration or size), and both creationists and evolutionists agree that the variations identified as species can all be derived from a suitable common ancestor. In addition, it was only necessary to bring aboard those animals that lived on land (land mammals, land birds, land reptiles, amphibians).
Stop nitpicking at one specific word. That's just being daft. The Ark can not have happened. It's impossible. Look at a typical example of a boat from around the time of the Ark. Could that have transported two elephants, rhino's, hippo's, etc? Not a chance.
And I don't believe that you could have taken two animals from each genus, regardless of species. Yes, animals have evolved into different variations of the same creature, but not in the relatively insignificant amount of time since the Ark supposedly set sail. Evolution takes millenia, not a couple of thousand years.
-
Stop nitpicking at one specific word. That's just being daft. The Ark can not have happened. It's impossible. Look at a typical example of a boat from around the time of the Ark. Could that have transported two elephants, rhino's, hippo's, etc? Not a chance.
And I don't believe that you could have taken two animals from each genus, regardless of species. Yes, animals have evolved into different variations of the same creature, but not in the relatively insignificant amount of time since the Ark supposedly set sail. Evolution takes millenia, not a couple of thousand years.
Unfortunately millenia are a few thousand years. :-\ Perhaps you meant millions? :)
-
Unfortunately millenia are a few thousand years. :-\ Perhaps you meant millions? :)
Doh! ;D
Yep, err, what you said. :-[
-
...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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
...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?
-
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.
-
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
-
...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.
-
-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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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! ;D
-
It's "would have seen it by now"...sorry, now I'm doing Deicide's job! ;D
I mentioned that for the purposes of linguistic study...anyway.
-
...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]
-
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.
-
...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."
-
...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!
-
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
-
...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! :)
-
This fucking thread is getting annoying... ::)
-
This fucking thread is getting annoying... ::)
Then why do you keep coming back? Are you a glutton for punishment? :)
-
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.
-
...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.
-
what do you guys think about these religious nut jobs that are juiced to the gills.
-
...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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
what do you guys think about these religious nut jobs that are juiced to the gills.
didn't figure mcway would touch that one.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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
-
...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).
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Facts took out a restraining order against organised religion. Religion can't come within 300 yards of the facts.
The Luke
;D
-
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".
-
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.
-
Bump for The Luke's response on "The Sermon on the Mount" and on "death by crucifixion."
BUMP 4 LIVIN IN MAKE BELIEVELAND
-
...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."
-
Bump for The Luke's response on "The Sermon on the Mount" and on "death by crucifixion."
...if you can quote the post of mine in which I claimed these other precursor gods "died by crucifixion" then I'll answer that. I never made any such claim... I claimed there was a long tradition (predating Jesus) of dying-resurrecting solar deity godmen who were crucified.
McWay then decided to misquote me and add in the "death by" part in order to invalidate my claim.
I certainly can't back up dishonest modifications of the claims that I make, and you shouldn't expect me to.
For example, Attis is indeed crucified, but it is his followers who nail/tie him to the tree AFTER he bleeds to death. McWay wants to focus on the "death by" clause (which he added) misguidedly thinking it invalidates the parallels between Jesus and Attis. It doesn't. There's only three hours between there being two dead guys crucified on a tree.
The reason he does this is pretty obvious, he needs some hair to split in order to dismiss the coincidences... it would be much harder to argue that the Jesus story is original if the only original aspect were that Jesus dies ON the cross whereas Attis dies UNDER the cross.
I have managed to dig up the references to the plagiarism of the Sermon on the Mount though, I'll try to find one that is a little easier to read (something less academic).
The Luke
-
...if you can quote the post of mine in which I claimed these other precursor gods "died by crucifixion" then I'll answer that. I never made any such claim... I claimed there was a long tradition (predating Jesus) of dying-resurrecting solar deity godmen who were crucified.
McWay then decided to misquote me and add in the "death by" part in order to invalidate my claim.
I certainly can't back up dishonest modifications of the claims that I make, and you shouldn't expect me to.
The only one being dishonest here is YOU. Since you can't back your ridiculous claims, you cue the waterworks, crying about how people are misquoting you, etc., etc.
It's simple: You made a "challenge" ::) It's been answered (quite easily); and now, you're scrambling for excuses as to why the facts don't match your claims whatsoever.
To top it all off your alleged long tradition has been repeatedly shown to be faulty. Among that laundry list of figures are those who either don't die or don't get resurrected after their deaths. And, virtually NONE OF THEM die in the manner that Jesus does, which explains why you keep grasping for any "tree" references to claim crucifixion, even though the accounts CLEARLY SPELL OUT how each of these figures die (of the ones that actually do so).
For example, Attis is indeed crucified, but it is his followers who nail/tie him to the tree AFTER he bleeds to death. McWay wants to focus on the "death by" clause (which he added) misguidedly thinking it invalidates the parallels between Jesus and Attis. It doesn't. There's only three hours between there being two dead guys crucified on a tree.
Yes, I do want to focus on the "death by" clause, because, boy genius, that is just one of the details (which you swear I couldn't find) between Jesus and Attis: Method of Execution (HOW THEY DIE), not what is supposedly done with their bodies, after croaking in another fashion.
Jesus dies VIA CRUCIFIXION; Attis does NOT (he cuts his nuts off and bleeds to death). Your feebly trying to equate the two by claiming Attis was "crucified" post-mortem is utterly ridiculous and screams loudly, regarding your desperation to create a similarity that is not there. What Attis' followers did or didn't do with Attis' CORPSE is completely irrelevant.
Cries of dishonesty from someone, foolishly attempting to equate Attis' self-castration or Osiris' being drowned with Jesus' crucifixion, are little more than concise forms of slapstick comedy.
The reason he does this is pretty obvious, he needs some hair to split in order to dismiss the coincidences... it would be much harder to argue that the Jesus story is original if the only original aspect were that Jesus dies ON the cross whereas Attis dies UNDER the cross.
What coincidence?
One dies via crucifixion, accused of blasphemy and being an insurrectionist; the other dies under a TREE from bleeding to death by self-emasculation (lusting after his own mama, no less).
One rises from the dead; the other remains DEAD, except for a patch of growing hair and a wiggling finger (the account even says that Zeus/Jupiter is asked to bring Attis back to life and he says "NO!").
One was conceived of a virgin-birth, with the virgin's full cognizance and approval; the other was conceived, via a god getting his freak on, on an unsuspecting mortal girl.
The two don't match, Luke, pure and simple, no hair-splitting involved.
I have managed to dig up the references to the plagiarism of the Sermon on the Mount though, I'll try to find one that is a little easier to read (something less academic).
The Luke
And, the excuses continue!!!
-
Oh my...
The biblical writers were more than capable of coming up with any number of unique elements in the Jesus story. They could have written anything they wanted of course!
Although I've never thought about what elements of the various Gospels are unique, perhaps I could venture a few possibles?
1) Jesus was the fulfillment of a seed line through ordinary humans - David onwards.
2) Jesus was perfect in the sense that he committed no wrong doing or moral injustice.
3) Jesus freely passed on the ability to perform miracles to his disciples.
4) The idea of being all things to all men.
5) Jesus superceded a previous covenant from God with a new set of rules.
6) Jesus entering the house of his father and kicking off.
I must confess I'm not sure if these are unique. I must also confess I don't think it's important... the bible writers wrote so much tosh, that some must be unique!
-
McWay,
You make a lot of claims about what I have posted and often quote me directly... but you never quote my posts. Is it because you are misquoting me?
...if you can quote the post of mine in which I claimed these other precursor gods "died by crucifixion" then I'll answer that. I never made any such claim... I claimed there was a long tradition (predating Jesus) of dying-resurrecting solar deity godmen who were crucified.
McWay then decided to misquote me and add in the "death by" part in order to invalidate my claim.
I certainly can't back up dishonest modifications of the claims that I make, and you shouldn't expect me to.
...this remains a valid complaint. A valid complaint that hasn't been answered.
Please quote the post of mine where I used this "death by crucifixion" phrase or either:
-desist from falsely attributing it to me just to misquote me
-admit that you added this clause to deliberately misquote me
Put up or shut up, McWay. You have been caught red handed misquoting to suit your argument.
The Luke
-
Challenge to Christians/Evangelicals:
Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory
Bet you can't.
The Luke
PS... short succinct posts please so I can answer them.
Okay. I take the challenge. I cite, not just a single detail, but two. Yes I can, and yes I did!
1. Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion
2. Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount
-
Okay. I take the challenge. I cite, not just a single detail, but two. Yes I can, and yes I did!
1. Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion
2. Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount
I can actually tackle BOTH of these together, as they tie in somewhat.
But it'll take a lot of explaining, so I'll type it up after the holidays (I don't have apologist websites with ready-made dishonest essays to copy and paste from).
MERRY MITHRAS EVERYONE!
The Luke
-
I can actually tackle BOTH of these together, as they tie in somewhat.
But it'll take a lot of explaining, so I'll type it up after the holidays (I don't have apologist websites with ready-made dishonest essays to copy and paste from).
MERRY MITHRAS EVERYONE!
The Luke
Dang, after the holidays? Last time you said "tomorrow" after your "workout", you took weeks. I can't imagine what "after the holidays" means...two years from today?
Nah, in all seriousness Feliz Navidad to you and your family! ;D
-
Okay. I take the challenge. I cite, not just a single detail, but two. Yes I can, and yes I did!
1. Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion
2. Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount
a book as thick as the bible.surely you can come up with hundred's of instances.I mean your lord wasn't a plagiarist.right?
-
a book as thick as the bible.surely you can come up with hundred's of instances.I mean your lord wasn't a plagiarist.right?
big L dawg,
I do not understand your comment. The Luke started the thread with his claim that "every detail" about Jesus was borrowed from ancient myths, and he challenged Christians on the board to cite a single detail about Jesus that is original. I am simply responding to his challenge.
So obviously, I disagree with him and you seem to disagree with him as well.
-
big L dawg,
I do not understand your comment. The Luke started the thread with his claim that "every detail" about Jesus was borrowed from ancient myths, and he challenged Christians on the board to cite a single detail about Jesus that is original. I am simply responding to his challenge.
So obviously, I disagree with him and you seem to disagree with him as well.
yes exactly.the Luke started the thread not me.I'm not sure how you don't understand my post though.It seem's like a pretty straight forward comment.
-
yes exactly.the Luke started the thread not me.I'm not sure how you don't understand my post though.It seem's like a pretty straight forward comment.
I agree with you. The Luke is wrong.
-
I agree with you. The Luke is wrong.
...epic reading comprehension.
The Luke
-
Neither one of you understands sarcasm I suppose.
So according to you both, to say that Jesus Christ died is plagiarism because many people have died too. ::)
I suppose next you'll say that Kennedy never existed and that everything about him was plagiarized from Lincoln. ::)
I mean...come on...look:
Both presidents were elected to the presidency in '60.
Both presidents were elected to the House of Representatives in '46.
Both were runners-up for the party's nomination for vice-president in '56.
Both assassins were born in '39.
Both successors were Southern Democrats named Johnson born in '08.
Both presidents were concerned with the problems of American blacks and made their view strongly known in '63. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, which became law in 1863. In 1963, Kennedy presented his reports to Congress on Civil Rights, and the same year was the famous March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Both presidents were shot in the head.
Both presidents were shot on a Friday.
Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre. Kennedy was shot in a Ford car; a Lincoln limousine.
Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy who told him not to go to the theatre. Kennedy had a secretary
named Evelyn Lincoln (whose husband Harold's nickname was Abe), and she warned him not to go to Dallas.
Both Oswald and Booth were assassinated before they could be put on trial.
Lincoln and Kennedy each have 7 letters.
John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald each have 15 letters.
There are 6 letters in each Johnson's first name.
Booth shot Lincoln in a theater and hid in a warehouse, while Oswald shot Kennedy in a warehouse and hid in a theater.
-
McWay,
You make a lot of claims about what I have posted and often quote me directly... but you never quote my posts. Is it because you are misquoting me?
...this remains a valid complaint. A valid complaint that hasn't been answered.
You must be smoking that stuff, Luke. Or did you forget that you made a claim on the other thread, denied that you did, ONLY FOR ME TO QUOTE YOUR EXACT WORDS (giving the number of that post, the date, the time, etc.)?
Please quote the post of mine where I used this "death by crucifixion" phrase or either:
-desist from falsely attributing it to me just to misquote me
-admit that you added this clause to deliberately misquote me
Put up or shut up, McWay. You have been caught red handed misquoting to suit your argument.
The Luke
Once again, you put on this martyr complex, whenever you can't put your money where your mouth is.
I DID NOT claim that you used the "death by crucifixion" phrase. I've been the one that's used it. And the reason for that is because you keep up this utterly ridiculous tactic of trying to equate Attis' death with that of Jesus Christ.
You made the bone-headed claim that no one could find a single detail about Jesus Christ that wasn't lifted from a pagan religion.
I named several details, among those was the CRUCIFIXION.
The CRUCIFIXION is in reference to (listen very closely, Luke, because this simple concept apparently flies right over your head) HOW JESUS DIED.
You know that Attis DID NOT DIE via crucifixion. We all know how he died: Self-Castration. So, in your desperate and pea-brained attempt to make your wobbly claim stand, you start sniveling about Attis' body supposedly being nailed to a tree AFTER HIS DEATH, claiming this is similar to Jesus' crucifixion, which it clearly is not.
When the term, "crucified" is used, it is with regards to the METHOD OF EXECUTION, as I pointed out several times, by listing the definition of the word, crucifixion. Once again, it is METHOD OF EXECUTION (not what supposedly happened to someone's corpse, after death occurs via some other means).
You can't even get your facts right about Attis (or Osiris, or some of the other figures). So, you're the last person who needs to be running his mouth about "put up or shut up". Loco and I have been asking you for NEARLY A MONTH to produce the specific references to back some of your claims.
All you do is come up with excuse after excuse after excuse, whenever it's time for YOU to "put up". As Loco said, it took you over TWO WEEKS to respond to a question of his, when you were supposed to do so after your "workout". And you haven't even done that completely.
Then, on Stella's thread, you said you'd address the "Sermon on the Mount" thing for Loco. That was at least a week ago.
-
I suppose next you'll say that Kennedy never existed and that everything about him was plagiarized from Lincoln. ::)
..to continue your analogy, but to align the parallels properly, YOU are the one who is insisting JFK was the one and only president ever.
The Luke
-
..to continue your analogy, but to align the parallels properly, YOU are the one who is insisting JFK was the one and only president ever.
The Luke
x2
-
..to continue your analogy, but to align the parallels properly, YOU are the one who is insisting JFK was the one and only president ever.
The Luke
No, I am not. Jesus was not the only 1st century Jew who died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. In fact, there were hundreds of them according to Josephus. The problem with your claims is that none of the ancient myths that you claim the Biblical Gospels borrowed from died by crucifixion.
I'm still waiting, The Luke:
1. Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion
2. Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount
Stop changing the subject and own up to your challenge and to your claims.
-
Stop changing the subject and own up to your challenge and to your claims.
...so many lonely shut-ins on this board.
I'm trying to have a Happy Mithras with my family. Every year we get together, exchange presents, and celebrate the divine virgin birth of our lord and saviour, Mithras, born on the 25th of December 4,407 years ago.
I'll get to it when I have time.
Merry Mithras everbody.
The Luke
-
I'm still waiting, The Luke:
1. Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion
2. Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount
Stop changing the subject and own up to your challenge and to your claims.
Loco,
First off, apologies, been busier than usual... compounded by the holidays.
I think I can best fully explain the origin of these two details (1: Death by crucifixion; and 2: Sermon on the Mount) by first comparing the details of Jesus' life with a generic astrological metaphor godman who predates Jesus by several millennia and whose story DOES NOT involve crucifixion or resurrection, then source these two distinct details you have cited which crept into the generic astrological metaphor godman story later.
Would that convince you?
If I showed that:
-Jesus conforms very closely to the very earliest incarnations of the common astrological metaphor godman (EXCEPT for his 1: Death by crucifixion and 2: Sermon on the Mount)
-that the Sermon on the Mount was plagiarised from a known (extant) far eastern philosophy school
-that this plagiarism was accompanied by other blatant word-for-word plagiarisms
-that Jesus' death by crucifixion might well be lifted from the very same philosophy school
-that other Mystery Religions similarly influenced by eastern philosophy also adopted a metaphorical crucifixion and rebirth for their own particular solar-deity
-that the very same people who counterfeited the Jesus myth had access to the teachings of this far eastern school of philosophy
...if I could show all that, would that convince you that neither the Sermon on the Mount nor Jesus' death by crucifixion are original? Would you then concede such? Openly?
Please answer this BEFORE I go to the trouble of typing up a response... there's no point in me hammering away against a brick wall.
The Luke
-
there's no point in me hammering away against a brick wall.
After 14 pages, I think that ship has well and truly sailed.
-
After 14 pages, I think that ship has well and truly sailed.
...I was hoping they'd relent when every 1-post contributors two-cents-worth came in on my side, but yeah... I'm beginning to despair for American intelligence.
The Luke
-
the religions and beliefs of what happened in there infancy are fables and myth more than anything else.So why even argue over the specifics of any givin religious propaganda?
-
the religions and beliefs of what happened in there infancy are fables and myth more than anything else.So why even argue over the specifics of any givin religious propaganda?
WRONG on both counts. And the historical evidence has been shown, regarding the accounts of Jesus Christ.
Plus, the reason for arguing the specific is because the claim was made that Jesus was crafted from these other figures. That has been demonstratively shown to be FALSE.
-
WRONG on both counts. And the historical evidence has been shown, regarding the accounts of Jesus Christ.
Plus, the reason for arguing the specific is because the claim was made that Jesus was crafted from these other figures. That has been demonstratively shown to be FALSE.
wrong on both counts...
It's historical propaganda that which u believe in...no one knows the facts as know one was there...ever play operator as a kid get 20 people in a line start a story by the time it gets to the 20th person the facts of the story are distorted beyond repair...now factor that in over thousands of years...blah blah it's all bullshit...but whatever helps you sleep at night...
religion shackles the mind.It's all based on control and designed to get u 2 conform and obey.bah bahhh sheep...
-
wrong on both counts...
It's historical propaganda that which u believe in...no one knows the facts as know one was there...ever play operator as a kid get 20 people in a line start a story by the time it gets to the 20th person the facts of the story are distorted beyond repair...now factor that in over thousands of years...blah blah it's all bullshit...but whatever helps you sleep at night...
religion shackles the mind.It's all based on control and designed to get u 2 conform and obey.bah bahhh sheep...
PLEASE!!! Most of what you know about historical figures comes from secondhand sources. But, I guess we should throw out all of ancient history, based on your rather stupid and baseless claims.
-
PLEASE!!! Most of what you know about historical figures comes from secondhand sources. But, I guess we should throw out all of ancient history, based on your rather stupid and baseless claims.
haha ok as opposed to what you know of historical figures?You know first hand right...oh brother....
-
haha ok as opposed to what you know of historical figures?You know first hand right...oh brother....
Ask McWay what he knows about Hesus... H-E-S-U-S
He knows lots about Jesus, doesn't like to discuss Hesus (one of the crucified gods from which Jesus was adapted).
The Luke
-
Loco,
First off, apologies, been busier than usual... compounded by the holidays.
I think I can best fully explain the origin of these two details (1: Death by crucifixion; and 2: Sermon on the Mount) by first comparing the details of Jesus' life with a generic astrological metaphor godman who predates Jesus by several millennia and whose story DOES NOT involve crucifixion or resurrection, then source these two distinct details you have cited which crept into the generic astrological metaphor godman story later.
Would that convince you?
If I showed that:
-Jesus conforms very closely to the very earliest incarnations of the common astrological metaphor godman (EXCEPT for his 1: Death by crucifixion and 2: Sermon on the Mount)
-that the Sermon on the Mount was plagiarised from a known (extant) far eastern philosophy school
-that this plagiarism was accompanied by other blatant word-for-word plagiarisms
-that Jesus' death by crucifixion might well be lifted from the very same philosophy school
-that other Mystery Religions similarly influenced by eastern philosophy also adopted a metaphorical crucifixion and rebirth for their own particular solar-deity
-that the very same people who counterfeited the Jesus myth had access to the teachings of this far eastern school of philosophy
...if I could show all that, would that convince you that neither the Sermon on the Mount nor Jesus' death by crucifixion are original? Would you then concede such? Openly?
Please answer this BEFORE I go to the trouble of typing up a response... there's no point in me hammering away against a brick wall.
The Luke
Bump for The Luke to answer me. It has been almost a year now.
1. Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion
2. Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount
How were these "lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion"?
Challenge to Christians/Evangelicals:
Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory
Bet you can't.
The Luke
PS... short succinct posts please so I can answer them.
I accepted your challenge, and you have failed.
-
Bump for The Luke to answer me. It has been almost a year now.
1. Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion
2. Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount
...you quote my answer to your two questions then post your questions? How has it been a year, you just quoted my answer from December 28th 2008 with both of my answers on display.
You do realise that those reading this thread will read your two questions, my answers to your questions, then a post in which you quote my answers and then aske the questions again...?
Okay, okay... seems we've run into your reading comprehension problem again, so I'll be very explicit in answering your demand:
How were these "lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion"?
Here you go:
1) Hesus, a pagan Gaullic version of the Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godman is probably the primary source of the Jesus myth (and the name): Hesus was crucified between a watching lamb and elephant. Hesus represents the "lamb of God" who was crucified so that he could die for the sins of the world (represented by the elephant). Hesus was (supposedly) crucified in the ninth century BC.
2) The Sermon on the Mount is plagiarised from Buddhism. Buddhism predates Christianity.
Now I've answered you twice.
The Luke
-
Ask McWay what he knows about Hesus... H-E-S-U-S
He knows lots about Jesus, doesn't like to discuss Hesus (one of the crucified gods from which Jesus was adapted).
The Luke
You mean just like Attis was crucified.......OOOPS!!! He cut his nuts off!!
Oh, you mean like Osiris......Uh OH!!! He got drowned!!!
Wait, wait!!! You mean Dionysus.....Ummm NO!!! He gets burned to death!!!!
You really meant Adonis.....Awww shucks!!! He gets gored by a wild bull!!!
And that's just the short list of all the gods you claimed lived, died, and resurrected like Jesus Christ.
And, of course, everytime your claims about one figure get shown to be FALSE, you jump to another.
-
haha ok as opposed to what you know of historical figures?You know first hand right...oh brother....
One of these days, you'll realize how silly you sound, making statements like this. The point, which you apparently can't grasp in that head of yours, is that data from most ancient figures comes from secondhand sources.
Therefore, your sense-bereft claims about the documents, regarding Jesus Christ, fall quite flat on their faces.
-
...you quote my answer to your two questions then post your questions? How has it been a year, you just quoted my answer from December 28th 2008 with both of my answers on display.
You do realise that those reading this thread will read your two questions, my answers to your questions, then a post in which you quote my answers and then aske the questions again...?
Okay, okay... seems we've run into your reading comprehension problem again, so I'll be very explicit in answering your demand:
Luke,
If you really think that those reading this thread will think that you have answered my questions, you must really think that everybody here is stupid.
You seem to be having reading comprehension problems when reading your own posts. Read the bold text below. You said that you were going to show me that Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion and that Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount were copied from earlier myths. Yet you never showed me anything. I'm not getting any younger. Go ahead, show me.
Loco,
First off, apologies, been busier than usual... compounded by the holidays.
I think I can best fully explain the origin of these two details (1: Death by crucifixion; and 2: Sermon on the Mount) by first comparing the details of Jesus' life with a generic astrological metaphor godman who predates Jesus by several millennia and whose story DOES NOT involve crucifixion or resurrection, then source these two distinct details you have cited which crept into the generic astrological metaphor godman story later.
Would that convince you?
If I showed that:
-Jesus conforms very closely to the very earliest incarnations of the common astrological metaphor godman (EXCEPT for his 1: Death by crucifixion and 2: Sermon on the Mount)
-that the Sermon on the Mount was plagiarised from a known (extant) far eastern philosophy school
-that this plagiarism was accompanied by other blatant word-for-word plagiarisms
-that Jesus' death by crucifixion might well be lifted from the very same philosophy school
-that other Mystery Religions similarly influenced by eastern philosophy also adopted a metaphorical crucifixion and rebirth for their own particular solar-deity
-that the very same people who counterfeited the Jesus myth had access to the teachings of this far eastern school of philosophy
...if I could show all that, would that convince you that neither the Sermon on the Mount nor Jesus' death by crucifixion are original? Would you then concede such? Openly?
Please answer this BEFORE I go to the trouble of typing up a response... there's no point in me hammering away against a brick wall.
The Luke
-
1) Hesus, a pagan Gaullic version of the Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godman is probably the primary source of the Jesus myth (and the name): Hesus was crucified between a watching lamb and elephant. Hesus represents the "lamb of God" who was crucified so that he could die for the sins of the world (represented by the elephant). Hesus was (supposedly) crucified in the ninth century BC.
Hesus, or Esus, was not crucified between a watching lamb and elephant. Esus was not crucified at all. Where did you get that from? Please list your source!
And please don't say that your source is "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors - Christianity Before Christ" by Kersey Graves or "Anacalypsis" by Sir Godfrey Higgins. These two books have long been dismissed as unscholarly and unreliable sources by atheist scholars.
By the way, almost all of the Jesus myth hypothesis are based on these two unscholarly and unreliable sources.
2) The Sermon on the Mount is plagiarised from Buddhism. Buddhism predates Christianity.
Now I've answered you twice.
The Luke
No, The Sermon on the Mount isn't plagiarized from Buddhism. You have no sources and no evidence to back that up.
Again, I've taken your challenge and you have failed.
-
...you quote my answer to your two questions then post your questions? How has it been a year, you just quoted my answer from December 28th 2008 with both of my answers on display.
You do realise that those reading this thread will read your two questions, my answers to your questions, then a post in which you quote my answers and then aske the questions again...?
Okay, okay... seems we've run into your reading comprehension problem again, so I'll be very explicit in answering your demand:
Here you go:
1) Hesus, a pagan Gaullic version of the Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godman is probably the primary source of the Jesus myth (and the name): Hesus was crucified between a watching lamb and elephant. Hesus represents the "lamb of God" who was crucified so that he could die for the sins of the world (represented by the elephant). Hesus was (supposedly) crucified in the ninth century BC.
Way off the mark, once again. Not only does Hesus/Esus NOT die via crucifixion, he apparently prefers sacrificing his victims by either impaling them or stabbing them to death. And the animals involved ain't lambs or elephants but birds and bulls.
In fact, how (or even IF) Esus dies appears to be unknown.
Esos
Celtic God of the Willow
Though there is no direct evidence for the worship of Esos - the ‘Good Master’ - in Britain, and little elsewhere, he is mentioned by the Roman poet, Lucan, as a powerful Celtic god encountered by Caesar’s troops in Southern Gaul. Equated with Mars, he was apparently savage, cruel and "Horrid Esus with his wild altars" demanded human sacrifices. Later commentators indicate that the male victims were stabbed, hung in trees and allowed to bleed to death. The implication is that Esos was widely reverred, but archaeological evidence is scant.
He is best attested on a large decorated pillar bearing his name, but dedicated to Jupiter. It was discovered below the Notre Dame in Paris in 1711 and depicts a muscular man chopping away at a willow tree. A juxtaposed scene shows a bull with three cranes or egrets on its back, named Tarvostrigaranus - the 'Bull with Three Cranes'. Similar iconography appears on a stone from Trier.
The symbolism is almost impossible to interpret and may relate to some long lost mythology. The Willow and the Cranes are associated with the water's edge, so perhaps Esos was a marshland god. The tree is presumably that in which his victims were sacrificed, by why he prunes it is uncertain. Possibly it shows the destruction and rebirth of the Tree of Life in Winter and Spring. The birds may represent spirits during the former process. They are natural and matually beneficial companions for the Bull, which enhances the fertility symbolism of the tree. Magical groups of three birds appear in Welsh mythology and, to the Irish, cranes may reprsent women. In this context, the Tarvostrigaranus may just possibly be represnted by a small bronze triple-horned bull figurine found at the Roman Temple within the hillfort of Maiden's Castle (Dorset). It shows three female humoid figures perched on its back
http://www.chronarchy.com/esus/aboutesus.html (http://www.chronarchy.com/esus/aboutesus.html)
-
I don't get this obstructionist argument, you guys use double standards at every turn.
You want primary sources for the (oral) Mystery Religion, even though Christianity doesn't have any.
You want to cite the four canonical gospels as evidentiary, but dismiss the 76 other gospels and the Gnostic gospels despite them all being of equal provenance.
You want to cite the obvious interpolatons in Josephus histories, but neglect to mention that Christian Church Fathers such as Origen had read (and quoted) Josephus yet never noticed these supposed Jesus references... neglecting to use them even when citing every other faked piece of evidence for the historicity of Jesus in their apologist screeds.
You dismiss the similarities between Jesus and MYSTERY RELIGION gods, based solely on the discrepancies between the Jesus story and the FOLKLORE VERSIONS of these gods... different religions guys, one is astrological (Mystery Religion) and one is allegorical (folklore). That's akin to claiming Batman never fought the Penguin 'cos the Penguin hasn't appeared in the Christopher Nolan Batman movies. Danny DeVito would disagree.
You likewise dismiss every similarity between Jesus and Issa, despite their being no discrepancies and Issa loudly claiming to actually be Jesus... that's just plain dishonest.
Let me get this straight...
So, the only sources that count are the ones literalist Christians accept.
The gods similar to Jesus don't count because alternate folklore versions of their stories differ from the Jesus story... and the folklore versions of the Jesus story don't count because you guys don't accept them.
And the Issa guy doesn't count as a match for Jesus because he matches Jesus.
So I should find you guys a god that predates Jesus and matches Jesus in every single way with any difference grounds for disqualification, but doesn't match Jesus in every single way cause that likewise disqualifies him?
I simply can't provide you with references to back my point from Christian apologist websites... and that's all you guys will accept.
The stuff you are posting is terrible.... for example:
The symbolism is almost impossible to interpret and may relate to some long lost mythology. The Willow and the Cranes are associated with the water's edge, so perhaps Esos was a marshland god. The tree is presumably that in which his victims were sacrificed, by why he prunes it is uncertain. Possibly it shows the destruction and rebirth of the Tree of Life in Winter and Spring. The birds may represent spirits during the former process. They are natural and matually beneficial companions for the Bull, which enhances the fertility symbolism of the tree. Magical groups of three birds appear in Welsh mythology and, to the Irish, cranes may reprsent women. In this context, the Tarvostrigaranus may just possibly be represnted by a small bronze triple-horned bull figurine found at the Roman Temple within the hillfort of Maiden's Castle (Dorset). It shows three female humoid figures perched on its back
...where do you guys get this hogwash?
"The symbolism is almost impossible to interpret".... bullshit... Esus is the sun; the Willow Tree is the Southern Cross constellation; the various birds are costellations and stars/planets in the Gaullish zodiac.
Don't you guys comprehend metaphor?
Stop Google-Fu-ing encyclopedia entries and do some proper research.
There is nothing original in the Jesus story, but I can't explain that to you if you stubbornly refuse to concede any single similarity, no matter how obvious.
The Luke
-
Hesus, or Esus, was not crucified between a watching lamb and elephant. Esus was not crucified at all. Where did you get that from? Please list your source!
The Sermon on the Mount isn't plagiarized from Buddhism. You have no sources and no evidence to back that up.
-
Hesus, or Esus, was not crucified between a watching lamb and elephant. Esus was not crucified at all. Where did you get that from? Please list your source!
The Sermon on the Mount isn't plagiarized from Buddhism. You have no sources and no evidence to back that up.
...you are basing this on Google-Fu and scanning a couple of ten line encycopedia entries right?
You haven't studied this in-depth and come to your own conclusion, have you? You read the Bible, accepted it as the literal truth and are now defending our delusions/beliefs, right?
Ask yourself, why did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (then Paul) all name the Jewish Messiah after a Gaullish god when writing the gospels (an other texts)?
Why is Jesus named after Hesus?
The Luke
-
...you are basing this on Google-Fu and scanning a couple of ten line encycopedia entries right?
You haven't studied this in-depth and come to your own conclusion, have you? You read the Bible, accepted it as the literal truth and are now defending our delusions/beliefs, right?
Ask yourself, why did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (then Paul) all name the Jewish Messiah after a Gaullish god when writing the gospels (an other texts)?
Why is Jesus named after Hesus?
The Luke
I see! In other words, no you do not have any sources and you do not have any evidence to back up any of your claims. That's what I thought!
-
I see! In other words, no you do not have any sources and you do not have any evidence to back up any of your claims. That's what I thought!
You won't accept any source other than the Bible, and won't do any research.
Where do YOU think the "Jesus" name came from? Why is a Jewish man wandering around Jerusalem named after a barbarian god? If he had been named Thor would that be an more unusual?
If you won't accept my sources, and won't concede any similarities between Jesus and other Mystery Religion gods... then maybe you can explain where this non-Jewish name came from?
Why is Jesus named after Hesus?
The Luke
-
I don't get this obstructionist argument, you guys use double standards at every turn.
You want primary sources for the (oral) Mystery Religion, even though Christianity doesn't have any.
You want to cite the four canonical gospels as evidentiary, but dismiss the 76 other gospels and the Gnostic gospels despite them all being of equal provenance.
You want to cite the obvious interpolatons in Josephus histories, but neglect to mention that Christian Church Fathers such as Origen had read (and quoted) Josephus yet never noticed these supposed Jesus references... neglecting to use them even when citing every other faked piece of evidence for the historicity of Jesus in their apologist screeds.
Origen did notice those references. That's the reason he stated that Josephus didn't recognize Jesus as the Christ AND why he also criticized Josephus for not properly (in his mind) citing the death of Jesus' brother, James, as the reason for the Temple's destruction.
You dismiss the similarities between Jesus and MYSTERY RELIGION gods, based solely on the discrepancies between the Jesus story and the FOLKLORE VERSIONS of these gods... different religions guys, one is astrological (Mystery Religion) and one is allegorical (folklore). That's akin to claiming Batman never fought the Penguin 'cos the Penguin hasn't appeared in the Christopher Nolan Batman movies. Danny DeVito would disagree.
You haven't produced the "MYSTERY RELIGION gods", which you've been asked to do, for the better part of a YEAR.
And, what you call the "FOLKLORE VERSIONS" are the actual versions of those figures, that have been shown (time and time again) NOT TO MATCH Jesus Christ in the slightest.
You likewise dismiss every similarity between Jesus and Issa, despite their being no discrepancies and Issa loudly claiming to actually be Jesus... that's just plain dishonest.
Let me get this straight...
So, the only sources that count are the ones literalist Christians accept.
The gods similar to Jesus don't count because alternate folklore versions of their stories differ from the Jesus story... and the folklore versions of the Jesus story don't count because you guys don't accept them.
And the Issa guy doesn't count as a match for Jesus because he matches Jesus.
So I should find you guys a god that predates Jesus and matches Jesus in every single way with any difference grounds for disqualification, but doesn't match Jesus in every single way cause that likewise disqualifies him?
You not only can't find one that matches Jesus in every single way, the ones you've put forth hardly match Jesus AT ALL.
I simply can't provide you with references to back my point from Christian apologist websites... and that's all you guys will accept.
You can't provide references, because they either aren't there. Or, as Loco pointed out, they're from silly books that even some of the most ardent atheists have stated reek of poor scholarship.
The stuff you are posting is terrible.... for example:
The symbolism is almost impossible to interpret and may relate to some long lost mythology. The Willow and the Cranes are associated with the water's edge, so perhaps Esos was a marshland god. The tree is presumably that in which his victims were sacrificed, by why he prunes it is uncertain. Possibly it shows the destruction and rebirth of the Tree of Life in Winter and Spring. The birds may represent spirits during the former process. They are natural and matually beneficial companions for the Bull, which enhances the fertility symbolism of the tree. Magical groups of three birds appear in Welsh mythology and, to the Irish, cranes may reprsent women. In this context, the Tarvostrigaranus may just possibly be represnted by a small bronze triple-horned bull figurine found at the Roman Temple within the hillfort of Maiden's Castle (Dorset). It shows three female humoid figures perched on its back
...where do you guys get this hogwash?
"The symbolism is almost impossible to interpret".... bullshit... Esus is the sun; the Willow Tree is the Southern Cross constellation; the various birds are costellations and stars/planets in the Gaullish zodiac.
I cited the source. It's there for you to view. Your foolishly trying to fuse some astrological mess, in an attempt to paint Jesus as a composite of other figures simply doesn't hold water.
And, as usual, you don't even have your facts right about Esus.
Don't you guys comprehend metaphor?
Stop Google-Fu-ing encyclopedia entries and do some proper research.
There is nothing original in the Jesus story, but I can't explain that to you if you stubbornly refuse to concede any single similarity, no matter how obvious.
The Luke
We've done the proper research. But, you don't like the "Google-Fu-ing", because when the facts come up, your claims GO DOWN...in flames.
Luke, you continue to cry, when your pitiful takes get ripped apart. And when asked to back your statements, you flee and cower, as you've done with Loco and with me.
-
You won't accept any source other than the Bible, and won't do any research.
Where do YOU think the "Jesus" name came from? Why is a Jewish man wandering around Jerusalem named after a barbarian god? If he had been named Thor would that be an more unusual?
If you won't accept my sources, and won't concede any similarities between Jesus and other Mystery Religion gods... then maybe you can explain where this non-Jewish name came from?
Why is Jesus named after Hesus?
The Luke
This is just pitiful!!
Jesus' Jewish name is Yeshua, which doesn't have a blessed thing to do with Esus. Once again, you've displayed your blatant lack of facts, making baseless claims that are easily dismissed.
-
You won't accept any source other than the Bible, and won't do any research.
Where do YOU think the "Jesus" name came from? Why is a Jewish man wandering around Jerusalem named after a barbarian god? If he had been named Thor would that be an more unusual?
If you won't accept my sources, and won't concede any similarities between Jesus and other Mystery Religion gods... then maybe you can explain where this non-Jewish name came from?
Why is Jesus named after Hesus?
The Luke
I won't accept your sources? But you do not have any sources!
-
This is just pitiful!!
Jesus' Jewish name is Yeshua, which doesn't have a blessed thing to do with Esus. Once again, you've displayed your blatant lack of facts, making baseless claims that are easily dismissed.
I think Luke thinks that Jesus Christ is Puerto Rican.
-
Jesus' Jewish name is Yeshua, which doesn't have a blessed thing to do with Esus. Once again, you've displayed your blatant lack of facts, making baseless claims that are easily dismissed.
...so where does "Jesus" come from?
Why is that borrowed from Hesus?
The Luke
-
...so where does "Jesus" come from?
Why is that borrowed from Hesus?
The Luke
It's not borrowed from Hesus/Esus. What part of that hasn't sunk into your head yet?
-
It's not borrowed from Hesus/Esus. What part of that hasn't sunk into your head yet?
...so where does it come from?
It's not a translation of Yeshua (intrusive syllables aren't redacted by colloquialism).
The Luke
-
...so where does it come from?
It's not a translation of Yeshua (intrusive syllables aren't redacted by colloquialism).
The Luke
Yeshua is the short form for Yehoshua.
"Jesus" comes from an alternate spelling of the Latin (Iēsus). Iēsus comes from the Greek name Iesous (Ιησους). In the Septuagint Ιησους is used as the Greek version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua (יהושוע, "God delivers" from Yeho — Yahweh [is] shua` — deliverance/rescue)
Matthew 1:21 (NIV)
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
-
One of these days, you'll realize how silly you sound, making statements like this. The point, which you apparently can't grasp in that head of yours, is that data from most ancient figures comes from secondhand sources.
Therefore, your sense-bereft claims about the documents, regarding Jesus Christ, fall quite flat on their faces.
second hand sources?um no.....hearing something second hand would be like hearing about what happened last week/year/decade/and at the most a single life time...anything after that is well beyond second hand knowledge or (Fact)....factor in your jebus myths from thousands of years ago and it's like second hand,third hand,Fourth and fifth hand sixth hand well you get the idea....hence the reference to the game operator which is like a microcosm of what happens to all story's (Yes religious fables to)over time there at the most a mere fraction of the truth....but like I said whatever helps you sleep at night...keep fooling yourself that you know specific details of supposed events that occurred 40 generations ago...
-
Yeshua is the short form for Yehoshua.
"Jesus" comes from an alternate spelling of the Latin (Iēsus). Iēsus comes from the Greek name Iesous (Ιησους). In the Septuagint Ιησους is used as the Greek version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua (יהושוע, "God delivers" from Yeho — Yahweh [is] shua` — deliverance/rescue)
Matthew 1:21 (NIV)
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
The original Greek "Iesous" is a manufactured name.
It's a Gematria-coded pseudonym. It was shortened to "Iesus" in Latin when Constantine conflated Jesus and Hesus into one single Mystery Religion godman who would fall within the purview of the Sol Invictus cult (which he was instituting as the new state religion of Rome). Guess how "Hesus" is written in Latin. That's right: "Iesus".
Would you like to know what "Iesous" means? It's not a translation, it is a manufactured stage name for Mystery Religion gods.
The Luke
-
second hand sources?um no.....hearing something second hand would be like hearing about what happened last week/year/decade/and at the most a single life time...anything after that is well beyond second hand knowledge or (Fact)....factor in your jebus myths from thousands of years ago and it's like second hand,third hand,Fourth and fifth hand sixth hand well you get the idea....hence the reference to the game operator which is like a microcosm of what happens to all story's (Yes religious fables to)over time there at the most a mere fraction of the truth....but like I said whatever helps you sleep at night...keep fooling yourself that you know specific details of supposed events that occurred 40 generations ago...
Secondhand simply means "not direct or immediate". And the simple fact is that the lion's share of information on most ancient figures comes from sources, written centuries after their lifetime.
Again, your utterly pointless and mindless rant is refuted by such examples as Alexander the Great, as most data on him comes from Arrian's "Anabasis of Alexander", written at least TWO CENTURIES after his death.
There is historical information on Jesus Christ, which dates closer to his lifetime than that. But, keeping fooling yourself that you actually have an accurate point to make.
-
The original Greek "Iesous" is a manufactured name.
It's a Gematria-coded pseudonym. It was shortened to "Iesus" in Latin when Constantine conflated Jesus and Hesus into one single Mystery Religion godman who would fall within the purview of the Sol Invictus cult (which he was instituting as the new state religion of Rome). Guess how "Hesus" is written in Latin. That's right: "Iesus".
Would you like to know what "Iesous" means? It's not a translation, it is a manufactured stage name for Mystery Religion gods.
The Luke
Jesus' name has ZIP to do with Esus or any other ancient figure, based on any so-called Mystery Religion god. As usual, we have the information, in black-and-white (or, in this case, RED ;D ) regarding Esus. And, as usual, there's the gigantic gap between your claims and the actual information on the figure.
In other words, like Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Horus, and all the rest, Esus doesn't match the account of Christ in the slightest, not in form or function or purpose.
-
Secondhand simply means "not direct or immediate". And the simple fact is that the lion's share of information on most ancient figures comes from sources, written centuries after their lifetime.
Again, your utterly pointless and mindless rant is refuted by such examples as Alexander the Great, as most data on him comes from Arrian's "Anabasis of Alexander", written at least TWO CENTURIES after his death.
There is historical information on Jesus Christ, which dates closer to his lifetime than that. But, keeping fooling yourself that you actually have an accurate point to make.
theres plenty of specifics about people/events that have happened just within our lifetime that people cant agree on or know accurate specific details about...
yet you think your second hand times 30 info is dead on accurate...Why? because some preacher told you it went down this way?or oh because the bible tells you so ha ha.utterly naive...
fires,floods,earthquakes,wars were everything was destroyed all have takin care of any original text about any of these fables you so enjoy arguing about.Then you have translation or should I say mistranslation issues.people with agendas that over centuries and millennium have purposely altered events.the list is endless...
over time these story's you cling to have changed so much they are no more accurate than your average Greek mythology tale that has been spun to give week minded people answers to there questions.
sleep well with the naive drivel you subscribe to that does little more than shackle the mind from thinking for yourself.
-
theres plenty of specifics about people/events that have happened just within our lifetime that people cant agree on or know accurate specific details about...
yet you think your second hand times 30 info is dead on accurate...Why? because some preacher told you it went down this way?or oh because the bible tells you so ha ha.utterly naive...
More like utterly DUMB on your part, as I never made such a claim. I've done my own study and personal research into specific issues of Scripture, as others have done.
fires,floods,earthquakes,wars were everything was destroyed all have takin care of any original text about any of these fables you so enjoy arguing about.Then you have translation or should I say mistranslation issues.people with agendas that over centuries and millennium have purposely altered events.the list is endless...
over time these story's you cling to have changed so much they are no more accurate than your average Greek mythology tale that has been spun to give week minded people answers to there questions.
sleep well with the naive drivel you subscribe to that does little more than shackle the mind from thinking for yourself.
Thinking for myself, not only allows me to study the Bible for myself, it allows me to utterly laugh hysterically, when you post such ridiculous knee-jerk foolishness, based on your emotional tirades and whatever personal axe you have to grind with religion.
BTW, before you criticize others about not being able to think for themselves, maybe you should try doing so yourself. Perhaps, it'll help you determine the simple difference between the words "there" and "THEIR", as well as "week" and "WEAK".
These are homonyms that the average grade-school kid should be able to use properly with little problem. But for some reason, you can't quite do that, despite all this ability to supposedly think for yourself.
-
BTW, before you criticize others about not being able to think for themselves, maybe you should try doing so yourself. Perhaps, it'll help you determine the simple difference between the words "there" and "THEIR", as well as "week" and "WEAK".
These are homonyms that the average grade-school kid should be able to use properly with little problem. But for some reason, you can't quite do that, despite all this ability to supposedly think for yourself.
just as I expected deflecting the points and attacking/rediculing people that don't agree with you...typical christian really.
-
just as I expected deflecting the points and attacking/rediculing people that don't agree with you...typical christian really.
You can't even get that right.
One, I didn't deflect the points. I addressed them correctly.
You incorrectly claimed that I can't/don't think for myself and my beliefs are what they are simply because a preacher told me such or just because the Bible says so.
I've refuted your claims, and since I've done so, you've resorted to your usual pointless name-calling, referring to people of faith as "sheep" and claiming that they can't think for themselves.
Typical skeptic really!! When someone cuts through your derogatory rhetoric and get to the meat-and-potatoes (or lack thereof) of your takes, you get all sensitive (can't take what you dish out).
That was the case, when I refuted your statements about historical figures and the secondhand sources, from which we get the bulk of data about them.
After doing that came the whole thing about your apparent inability to string a sentence together or use decent grammar. That merely makes the point that you are hardly in a position to criticize people for lack of being able to think.
-
You can't even get that right.
One, I didn't deflect the points. I addressed them correctly.
You incorrectly claimed that I can't/don't think for myself and my beliefs are what they are simply because a preacher told me such or just because the Bible says so.
I've refuted your claims, and since I've done so, you've resorted to your usual pointless name-calling, referring to people of faith as "sheep" and claiming that they can't think for themselves.
Typical skeptic really!! When someone cuts through your derogatory rhetoric and get to the meat-and-potatoes (or lack thereof) of your takes, you get all sensitive (can't take what you dish out).
you literally beleive in a noahs ark, you literally beleive in a talking snake. You also deny direct evidence based on sound science about the age of the earth and evolution for example, you are deluded. You do not think for yourself, you were indoctrinated no doubt.
-
you literally beleive in a noahs ark, you literally beleive in a talking snake. You also deny direct evidence based on sound science about the age of the earth and evolution for example, you are deluded. You do not think for yourself, you were indoctrinated no doubt.
hit the nail on the head...
-
you literally beleive in a noahs ark, you literally beleive in a talking snake. You also deny direct evidence based on sound science about the age of the earth and evolution for example, you are deluded. You do not think for yourself, you were indoctrinated no doubt.
PLEASE!!! I could say the same for you. You believe life was one big accident, that two rocks happenstantially smashed together, creating some primoridal "goo", which randomly (with no guidance) changed into a zillion other critters, prior to becoming man.
And, when asked about the origin of life, you create more excuses than a Leavenworth inmate.
Of course, when it comes to issues of faith, you and the grammatically-challeged L Dawg keep forgetting that Christians come from all walks of life, including many who did not grow in Christian homes or attended Christian schools. They became believers in their adult life, and some of them were once atheists.
And this runs the gamut, from the everyday working man to scholars and scientists, and everything in between that.
So, the tired canard you continue to spout that anyone who believes in God can't and doesn't think for himself (especially, if he believes in Creation) ranks up there as one of the DUMBEST statements you have ever made.
-
hit the nail on the head...
Not even close!!
As I said before, once I refute one of your silly claims with some actual facts (i.e. countering your rant about second-hand source material, regarding Jesus Christ, by comparing it with that of other historical figures), you get all......sensitive ;D .
That's to be expected, when your claims are so hollow.
-
McWay, you are simply fabricating your own reality.
The fact is that NOTHING; absolutely nothing in the Jesus story is original.
You keep focusing on tiny discrepancies... but never acknowlede the similarities, that's just plain dishonest.
Even the name "Jesus" is a fabricated name... a Gematria-coded password.
Don't you think it strange that Jesus would have the exact same name as a much older Gaullish dying-resurrecting godman (Hesus) who was not only crucified himself for man's sins... but demanded human sacrifices to be similarly crucified and flogged to death?
What are the odds of that?
Seems to me they plagiarised most of the Jesus story and only changed the name just enough that it would have a significant meaning in Greek Gematria.
The Luke
-
McWay, you are simply fabricating your own reality.
The fact is that NOTHING; absolutely nothing in the Jesus story is original.
You keep focusing on tiny discrepancies... but never acknowlede the similarities, that's just plain dishonest.
Even the name "Jesus" is a fabricated name... a Gematria-coded password.
Don't you think it strange that Jesus would have the exact same name as a much older Gaullish dying-resurrecting godman (Hesus) who was not only crucified himself for man's sins... but demanded human sacrifices to be similarly crucified and flogged to death?
What are the odds of that?
Seems to me they plagiarised most of the Jesus story and only changed the name just enough that it would have a significant meaning in Greek Gematria.
The Luke
What you foolishly refer to as "tiny" discrepancies are the very things that crush your claims to powder.
Once again, your whole spiel about the dying-resurrecting godman gets torn apart, because (among other reasons) the figures you mention DO NOT RISE FROM THE DEAD.
Yet, in true cowardly fashion, you continue to run and hide from that fact.
Does Attis rise from the dead? NO!!!
Does Osiris rise from the dead? NO!!!
Does Dionysus rise from the dead? NO!!
Does Adonis rise from the dead? NO!!!
As usual, when your claims about one figure get destroyed, you jump to another one. Now the flavor-of-the-month is this Esus guy.
Guess what....HE DOESN'T RISE from the DEAD, either.
And the list goes on and on and on.......
That's just the resurrection part. Thrown in the method and purpose of their deaths and the virgin-birth items (just to name a few), and your spiel is continually exposed for the crock of slapstick comedy that it is.
And don't bother crying about my using the "Folklore" versions. I've asked you to produce the so-called "mystery religion" versions of these guys FOR NEARLY A YEAR. And you've come up with nothing but excuses and retreats.
-
What you foolishly refer to as "tiny" discrepancies are the very things that crush your claims to powder.
Once again, your whole spiel about the dying-resurrecting godman gets torn apart, because (among other reasons) the figures you mention DO NOT RISE FROM THE DEAD.
Yet, in true cowardly fashion, you continue to run and hide from that fact.
Does Attis rise from the dead? NO!!!
Does Osiris rise from the dead? NO!!!
Does Dionysus rise from the dead? NO!!
Does Adonis rise from the dead? NO!!!
As usual, when your claims about one figure get destroyed, you jump to another one. Now the flavor-of-the-month is this Esus guy.
Guess what....HE DOESN'T RISE from the DEAD, either.
And the list goes on and on and on.......
That's just the resurrection part. Thrown in the method and purpose of their deaths and the virgin-birth items (just to name a few), and your spiel is continually exposed for the crock of slapstick comedy that it is.
And don't bother crying about my using the "Folklore" versions. I've asked you to produce the so-called "mystery religion" versions of these guys FOR NEARLY A YEAR. And you've come up with nothing but excuses and retreats.
even if there are five impossible coincidencies, and 100 discrepencies it isn't looking good for jesus.
the fact that someone else had a virgin birth and died for mans sins equates hugely with jesus.
-
McWay, you are simply fabricating your own reality.
The fact is that NOTHING; absolutely nothing in the Jesus story is original.
You keep focusing on tiny discrepancies... but never acknowlede the similarities, that's just plain dishonest.
Even the name "Jesus" is a fabricated name... a Gematria-coded password.
Don't you think it strange that Jesus would have the exact same name as a much older Gaullish dying-resurrecting godman (Hesus) who was not only crucified himself for man's sins... but demanded human sacrifices to be similarly crucified and flogged to death?
What are the odds of that?
Seems to me they plagiarised most of the Jesus story and only changed the name just enough that it would have a significant meaning in Greek Gematria.
The Luke
Bump for The Luke to answer me.
1. Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion
2. Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount
How were these "lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion"?
Esus(Hesus) did not die by crucifixion. You made that up. And the name Jesus has nothing to do with the name Esus. You made that up too.
-
even if there are five impossible coincidencies, and 100 discrepencies it isn't looking good for jesus.
the fact that someone else had a virgin birth and died for mans sins equates hugely with jesus.
Exactly who had this virgin birth, other than Jesus?
The folks that Luke listed, claiming to have been from such, turn out to be anything but that, once the accounts are examimed.
Again, I've been asking Luke to produce this for almost a year; but he hasn't produced JACK. Loco's been asking him to produce the goods as well.
Every time he can't answer the bell on one figure, he jumps to another.
Luke claims that this is part of some dying-resurrecting godman pattern. Well, if the figures in question don't rise from the dead, Luke is basically left legless.
-
even if there are five impossible coincidencies, and 100 discrepencies it isn't looking good for jesus.
the fact that someone else had a virgin birth and died for mans sins equates hugely with jesus.
EVEN IDENTICAL TWINS have multiple similarities, if not EXACT CHARACTERISTICS. Does that mean they are the SAME PERSON? WOW at the tremendous ignorance on this board!. How do you deal with it MCWAY?
-
EVEN IDENTICAL TWINS have multiple similarities, if not EXACT CHARACTERISTICS. Does that mean they are the SAME PERSON? WOW at the tremendous ignorance on this board!. How do you deal with it MCWAY?
but comparing identical twins to the specifics/supposed details of ancient fables isn't ignorant?...oooook then.... ::)
-
EVEN IDENTICAL TWINS have multiple similarities, if not EXACT CHARACTERISTICS. Does that mean they are the SAME PERSON? WOW at the tremendous ignorance on this board!. How do you deal with it MCWAY?
non sequitor, but yes, genetical they are identical ::) ::)
you are perhaps referring to the nuturance which allowed paticular genes to be expressed. The argument is not the same for jesus. We can examine in real time twins etc.. we cannot with these stories.
-
Does Attis rise from the dead? NO!!!
...actually, yes, Attis does rise from the dead. He's a solar metaphor god (like Jesus).
He is born at the winter solstice (birth of the new sun); dies under a tree or is nailed to a tree (metaphor for the Southern Cross Constellation) is buried in a cave or tomb for three days (the sun sets in the dark void in the Milky Way known as The Cave) then is born again when the day becomes longer than the night (this is Easter: the spring equinox).
ALL the dying resurrecting godmen follow this astrological blueprint: 12 disciples for the 12 zodiac signs (although Heracles/Hercules has 12 labours instead); set-piece miracles; knowing everything at twelve; feeding a multitude; then the escalating magic tricks of healing the lame, healing the blind, then raising the dead, all accompanied by a whore and a motherly virgin who might be the same person.
It's all just astrological metaphor.
We don't have a direct source which explicitly states that Attis rose/rises from the dead, but that's due to two contrivances of circumstance:
-Christians waged a 2,000 year propaganda war burning both books and heretics; especially the gospels of pre-Jesus godmen
-the resurrection is considered a sacred "mystery" among Mystery Religion devotees and as such cannot be openly discussed, only passed on orally as a secret for the initiated
What we do know, is that the followers of Attis held a festival every year at Easter time. On the "Day of Woe" they marched in procession to a sacred grove of pine trees (Christmas trees?) here the high priest would cut down a tree; then carry it back to the temple through the streets on his back.
Once at the temple, the tree would be stood up at the altar. A (usually wooden) statue of the dead Attis would then be hoisted into the tree and nailed to it (through holes in his hands).
Attis' followers would then lock the doors of the temple, and stay inside, fasting and grievng, for thee full days... on the third day the temple doors are flung open in celebration and they take to the streets proclaiming the "Day of Joy", wherein the statue of the living Attis is placed back on the altar.
So, they didn't say it explicitly... but it's pretty obvious. Just too many similarities.
Does Osiris rise from the dead? NO!!!
...actually, yes. Osiris does rise fom the dead. Twice in fact, once in the guise of his son/interchangeable-alter-ego Horus, then again as his "risen" self. It's a whole pagan dichotomy thing.
Don't worry, you'd like Horus... he's just like Jesus.
His magical conception1 as the only begotten son2 of Osiris was anounced to his mother3 Isis-Mary4 by an angel5. She gave birth to him on the midwinter solstice6 in a cave7 attended by three8 solar deities and his adoptive earth-father Jo-Seph (or Jo-Seb)9 who was descended from royalty10, and presided over by Sirius the brightest star in th sky11... some shephards witnessed his birth too12. Isis Mary then had to flee with the infant Horus13, when the evil tyrant Herut (Herod?)14 ordered the miracle child murdered15. We know nothing of what became of Horus till he partakes of a special ritual at age twelve16 and gained knowledge of all things17. He disappears again till age 3018, when he is baptised19 in the holy river Eridanus20 by Anup the Baptiser21... sadly, Anup the Baptiser was later decapitated22. Before beginning his wonders, Horus wandered in the desert23 of Amenta where he was sorely tempted by the evil deceiver god Set (Satan?)24, but Horus resisted this temptation25. Horus then (supposedly) took twelve companions (disciples) who witnessed him heal the sick25, heal the blind26, cast out demons27, walk on water28 and quell a storm at sea by sheer force of will29.
For his piece de resistence he then raised his murdered father, Osiris, from the dead30... who then became known as Asar, the raised one (Lazarus)31, and this miracle occurred in the city of Anu, or Beth Anu in Hebrew (Bethany?). He then gave a sermon on a mount32.
Regarding his death we have two traditions... one that he was stung by a scorpion... and the other that he as crucified33 alongside two thieves34 and buried in a cave35. He then descended into Hades (Hell?)36 only to return as the risen cruciform version of Horus three days later37... risen cruciform Horus first appeared to women38.
That's 38 coincidences by my count... and that's neglecting the fact that Horus was also known as "The Good Shepherd", the "Lamb of God", the "Bread of Life", the "Son of Man", the "Word", the "Fisher King"... that his symbols were the fish and the zodiac symbol Pisces... and that his title was KRST (Christ) "The Anointed One"... and that his most common iconography is as a child sat on the lap of Isis-Mary, the Virgin.
In fact, I've actually seen an old Egyptian black basalt statue of Isis-Mary, the Virgin, with Horus, the miracle chid, on her lap set up in a monastery in Spain and revered as a sacred statue of Jesus and Mary... funny.
Does Dionysus rise from the dead? NO!!
Does Adonis rise from the dead? NO!!!
...actually, yes. This really isn't open to debate as Early Church Fathers actually conceded this point as early as the forth century.
It's called the "Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry": the idea that the Jesus story only parallels earlier gods because the Devil made mock versions of the wholly original Jesus story in anticipation of Jesus centuries beforehand merely to discredit the originality of Jesus. Talk about hysterical blindness, this delusional bullshit remains the official Christian counter to these claims of plagiarism to this very day... the Devil made false Jesus' before Jesus, just to discredit Jesus...
"The Devil, whose business is to pervert the truth mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine".
-Tertullian, (Early Church Father)
"Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly amongst men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirit (Satan) put forth many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regards to Christ were merely marvellous tales, like the things that were said by the poets".
-Justin Martyr, (Early Church Father) Second Century
So right from the very start, even the Christian hierarchy admitted the parallels between Jesus and the Mystery Religion gods. In fact, Justin Martyr actually went so far as to concede every single one of the parallels we have been discussing here:
“And when we say also that… [Jesus] was produced without sexual union, and that He… was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we profess nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”
“…And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.”
-Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapters 21-23. (second century)
So what are we arguing here? The very first Christians themselves admitted, openly, to their Pagan detractors (such as Celsus), that there is NOTHING SUBSTANTIVELY ORIGINAL IN THE JESUS STORY.
How could it have become original since then?
Bump for The Luke to answer me.
1. Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion
2. Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount
How were these "lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion"?
Esus(Hesus) did not die by crucifixion. You made that up. And the name Jesus has nothing to do with the name Esus. You made that up too.
For points 1 and 2 you can see my response to McWay's hysterics.
If you share McWay's aversion to proper research of the Mystery Religion, you could always just refer to Buddhism... The Sermon on the Mount has long been attributed to paraphrasing from Buddhism, and there is even a weird subculture tradition of Buddhism in which Buddha himself was crucified, yet rose from the dead.
Regarding Hesus/Esus... well I'm afraid you'll have to do a little more research than scanning a single paragraph encyclopedia entry. I know you guys have a list of approved Christian apologist websites and dismiss every other source... but if you want to know, you'll just have to research for yourself.
There's no point in me referring you to some link or source, which you then dismiss as being somehow "discredited". Do your own research, when you've done enough you'll start to agree.
Hesus is crucified... he dies and resurrects at Easter time for the sins of mankind. Just like ALL the Mystery Religion solar godmen (including Jesus). I've actually personally been inside two of these "caves" where a Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godmen was supposedly born/died/resurrected... one of them 5,500 years old, the other 10,000+ years old.
This shit is old... old... old. Accept it.
The Luke
-
...actually, yes, Attis does rise from the dead. He's a solar metaphor god (like Jesus).
He is born at the winter solstice (birth of the new sun); dies under a tree or is nailed to a tree (metaphor for the Southern Cross Constellation) is buried in a cave or tomb for three days (the sun sets in the dark void in the Milky Way known as The Cave) then is born again when the day becomes longer than the night (this is Easter: the spring equinox).
ALL the dying resurrecting godmen follow this astrological blueprint: 12 disciples for the 12 zodiac signs (although Heracles/Hercules has 12 labours instead); set-piece miracles; knowing everything at twelve; feeding a multitude; then the escalating magic tricks of healing the lame, healing the blind, then raising the dead, all accompanied by a whore and a motherly virgin who might be the same person.
It's all just astrological metaphor.
We don't have a direct source which explicitly states that Attis rose/rises from the dead, but that's due to two contrivances of circumstance:
-Christians waged a 2,000 year propaganda war burning both books and heretics; especially the gospels of pre-Jesus godmen
-the resurrection is considered a sacred "mystery" among Mystery Religion devotees and as such cannot be openly discussed, only passed on orally as a secret for the initiated
What we do know, is that the followers of Attis held a festival every year at Easter time. On the "Day of Woe" they marched in procession to a sacred grove of pine trees (Christmas trees?) here the high priest would cut down a tree; then carry it back to the temple through the streets on his back.
Once at the temple, the tree would be stood up at the altar. A (usually wooden) statue of the dead Attis would then be hoisted into the tree and nailed to it (through holes in his hands).
Attis' followers would then lock the doors of the temple, and stay inside, fasting and grievng, for thee full days... on the third day the temple doors are flung open in celebration and they take to the streets proclaiming the "Day of Joy", wherein the statue of the living Attis is placed back on the altar.
So, they didn't say it explicitly... but it's pretty obvious. Just too many similarities.
...actually, yes. Osiris does rise fom the dead. Twice in fact, once in the guise of his son/interchangeable-alter-ego Horus, then again as his "risen" self. It's a whole pagan dichotomy thing.
Don't worry, you'd like Horus... he's just like Jesus.
His magical conception1 as the only begotten son2 of Osiris was anounced to his mother3 Isis-Mary4 by an angel5. She gave birth to him on the midwinter solstice6 in a cave7 attended by three8 solar deities and his adoptive earth-father Jo-Seph (or Jo-Seb)9 who was descended from royalty10, and presided over by Sirius the brightest star in th sky11... some shephards witnessed his birth too12. Isis Mary then had to flee with the infant Horus13, when the evil tyrant Herut (Herod?)14 ordered the miracle child murdered15. We know nothing of what became of Horus till he partakes of a special ritual at age twelve16 and gained knowledge of all things17. He disappears again till age 3018, when he is baptised19 in the holy river Eridanus20 by Anup the Baptiser21... sadly, Anup the Baptiser was later decapitated22. Before beginning his wonders, Horus wandered in the desert23 of Amenta where he was sorely tempted by the evil deceiver god Set (Satan?)24, but Horus resisted this temptation25. Horus then (supposedly) took twelve companions (disciples) who witnessed him heal the sick25, heal the blind26, cast out demons27, walk on water28 and quell a storm at sea by sheer force of will29.
For his piece de resistence he then raised his murdered father, Osiris, from the dead30... who then became known as Asar, the raised one (Lazarus)31, and this miracle occurred in the city of Anu, or Beth Anu in Hebrew (Bethany?). He then gave a sermon on a mount32.
Regarding his death we have two traditions... one that he was stung by a scorpion... and the other that he as crucified33 alongside two thieves34 and buried in a cave35. He then descended into Hades (Hell?)36 only to return as the risen cruciform version of Horus three days later37... risen cruciform Horus first appeared to women38.
That's 38 coincidences by my count... and that's neglecting the fact that Horus was also known as "The Good Shepherd", the "Lamb of God", the "Bread of Life", the "Son of Man", the "Word", the "Fisher King"... that his symbols were the fish and the zodiac symbol Pisces... and that his title was KRST (Christ) "The Anointed One"... and that his most common iconography is as a child sat on the lap of Isis-Mary, the Virgin.
In fact, I've actually seen an old Egyptian black basalt statue of Isis-Mary, the Virgin, with Horus, the miracle chid, on her lap set up in a monastery in Spain and revered as a sacred statue of Jesus and Mary... funny.
...actually, yes. This really isn't open to debate as Early Church Fathers actually conceded this point as early as the forth century.
It's called the "Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry": the idea that the Jesus story only parallels earlier gods because the Devil made mock versions of the wholly original Jesus story in anticipation of Jesus centuries beforehand merely to discredit the originality of Jesus. Talk about hysterical blindness, this delusional bullshit remains the official Christian counter to these claims of plagiarism to this very day... the Devil made false Jesus' before Jesus, just to discredit Jesus...
"The Devil, whose business is to pervert the truth mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine".
-Tertullian, (Early Church Father)
"Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly amongst men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirit (Satan) put forth many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regards to Christ were merely marvellous tales, like the things that were said by the poets".
-Justin Martyr, (Early Church Father) Second Century
So right from the very start, even the Christian hierarchy admitted the parallels between Jesus and the Mystery Religion gods. In fact, Justin Martyr actually went so far as to concede every single one of the parallels we have been discussing here:
“And when we say also that… [Jesus] was produced without sexual union, and that He… was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we profess nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”
“…And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.”
-Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapters 21-23. (second century)
So what are we arguing here? The very first Christians themselves admitted, openly, to their Pagan detractors (such as Celsus), that there is NOTHING SUBSTANTIVELY ORIGINAL IN THE JESUS STORY.
How could it have become original since then?
For points 1 and 2 you can see my response to McWay's hysterics.
If you share McWay's aversion to proper research of the Mystery Religion, you could always just refer to Buddhism... The Sermon on the Mount has long been attributed to paraphrasing from Buddhism, and there is even a weird subculture tradition of Buddhism in which Buddha himself was crucified, yet rose from the dead.
Regarding Hesus/Esus... well I'm afraid you'll have to do a little more research than scanning a single paragraph encyclopedia entry. I know you guys have a list of approved Christian apologist websites and dismiss every other source... but if you want to know, you'll just have to research for yourself.
There's no point in me referring you to some link or source, which you then dismiss as being somehow "discredited". Do your own research, when you've done enough you'll start to agree.
Hesus is crucified... he dies and resurrects at Easter time for the sins of mankind. Just like ALL the Mystery Religion solar godmen (including Jesus). I've actually personally been inside two of these "caves" where a Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godmen was supposedly born/died/resurrected... one of them 5,500 years old, the other 10,000+ years old.
This shit is old... old... old. Accept it.
The Luke
epic destruction :o :D
-
...actually, yes, Attis does rise from the dead. He's a solar metaphor god (like Jesus).
He is born at the winter solstice (birth of the new sun); dies under a tree or is nailed to a tree (metaphor for the Southern Cross Constellation) is buried in a cave or tomb for three days (the sun sets in the dark void in the Milky Way known as The Cave) then is born again when the day becomes longer than the night (this is Easter: the spring equinox).
Is that right?
Attis escaped to the mountains, maimed himself, and died besides a pine tree, into which his soul transmigrated, while from his blood sprang violets like a wreath round the tree. The goddess implored Zeus to restore her lover BUT IT WAS NOT TO BE. But so much was granted that his body should never decay, that his hair should always grow, and that his little finger should always move. - Alexandar Murray, "Manual of mythology: Greek and Roman, Norse and Old German, Hindu and Egyptian Mythology"
Resurrection? I DON'T THINK SO!!!
ALL the dying resurrecting godmen follow this astrological blueprint: 12 disciples for the 12 zodiac signs (although Heracles/Hercules has 12 labours instead); set-piece miracles; knowing everything at twelve; feeding a multitude; then the escalating magic tricks of healing the lame, healing the blind, then raising the dead, all accompanied by a whore and a motherly virgin who might be the same person.
It's all just astrological metaphor.
Once again, Attis doesn't match whatsoever (not to mention the lack of those other items listed).
We don't have a direct source which explicitly states that Attis rose/rises from the dead, but that's due to two contrivances of circumstance:
-Christians waged a 2,000 year propaganda war burning both books and heretics; especially the gospels of pre-Jesus godmen
-the resurrection is considered a sacred "mystery" among Mystery Religion devotees and as such cannot be openly discussed, only passed on orally as a secret for the initiated
Correction: We don't have a direct source, BECAUSE THERE IS NO direct source. Attis doesn't rise from the dead, period. You've had a year to produce the goods; yet you've come up with zilch.
What we do know, is that the followers of Attis held a festival every year at Easter time. On the "Day of Woe" they marched in procession to a sacred grove of pine trees (Christmas trees?) here the high priest would cut down a tree; then carry it back to the temple through the streets on his back.
Once at the temple, the tree would be stood up at the altar. A (usually wooden) statue of the dead Attis would then be hoisted into the tree and nailed to it (through holes in his hands).
Attis' followers would then lock the doors of the temple, and stay inside, fasting and grievng, for thee full days... on the third day the temple doors are flung open in celebration and they take to the streets proclaiming the "Day of Joy", wherein the statue of the living Attis is placed back on the altar.
So, they didn't say it explicitly... but it's pretty obvious. Just too many similarities.
PLEASE!!! Attis doesn't die via crucifixion. He cuts his nuts off, which is hardly a match with Jesus Christ. Furthermore, that festival didn't start until WELL AFTER Christianity had already taken off in Jerusalem, perhaps as late as 4th century AD.
The complex mythology of Attis is irrelevant to the question of dying and rising deities. In the Phrygian version, Attis is killed by castration; in the Lydian version, he is killed by a boar. In neither case is there any question of his returning to life. Two late, post-Christian theological reflections on the myth hint at rebirth: the allegory in Naassene Sermon and the "euhemerist" account in Firmacus Maternus (third book of De errore profanarum religionum from the fourth century AD), in which a pretended resurrection is mentioned, although it is doubtful this ever played any part in the actual cult.
The attempts in the earlier scholarly literature to identify Attis as a "dying and rising deity" depend not on the mythology but rather on the ritual of the five-day festival of Cybele on March 22-27. Some scholars saw the "Day of Blood" (March 24) and the "Day of Joy" (March 25) as an analogy of the Christian relationship between Good Friday to Easter Sunday, and reasoned that if there was "mourning" on the first day, the object of the "joy" on the following day must be Attis' "resurrection." But there is no evidence this is the case. The Day of Joy is a late addition to what was once a three-day ritual in which the Day of Blood was followed by a purificatory ritual and the return of the statue of the goddess to the temple. The Day of Joy in the cult celebrated Cybele, not Attis.
The sole text that connects the Day of Joy with Attis is a fifth-century AD biography of Isidore the Dialectician by the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius who reports that Isidore once had a dream in which he was Attis and the Day of Joy was celebrated in his honor!
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Attis (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Attis)
...actually, yes. Osiris does rise fom the dead. Twice in fact, once in the guise of his son/interchangeable-alter-ego Horus, then again as his "risen" self. It's a whole pagan dichotomy thing.
Don't worry, you'd like Horus... he's just like Jesus.
His magical conception1 as the only begotten son2 of Osiris was anounced to his mother3 Isis-Mary4 by an angel5. She gave birth to him on the midwinter solstice6 in a cave7 attended by three8 solar deities and his adoptive earth-father Jo-Seph (or Jo-Seb)9 who was descended from royalty10, and presided over by Sirius the brightest star in th sky11... some shephards witnessed his birth too12. Isis Mary then had to flee with the infant Horus13, when the evil tyrant Herut (Herod?)14 ordered the miracle child murdered15. We know nothing of what became of Horus till he partakes of a special ritual at age twelve16 and gained knowledge of all things17. He disappears again till age 3018, when he is baptised19 in the holy river Eridanus20 by Anup the Baptiser21... sadly, Anup the Baptiser was later decapitated22. Before beginning his wonders, Horus wandered in the desert23 of Amenta where he was sorely tempted by the evil deceiver god Set (Satan?)24, but Horus resisted this temptation25. Horus then (supposedly) took twelve companions (disciples) who witnessed him heal the sick25, heal the blind26, cast out demons27, walk on water28 and quell a storm at sea by sheer force of will29.
Now this is comical:
An angel had nothing to do with Horus' birth and, as if that weren't enough, Isis wasn't a virgin. She has SEX with Osiris in the underworld, as has been mentioned NUMEROUS TIMES.
Of the parts of Osiris's body the only one which Isis did not find was the male member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honour of which the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival." (Plutarch, Moralia V, On Isis and Osiris, 18) (courtesy of http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm#SUMMARY (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm#SUMMARY))
For his piece de resistence he then raised his murdered father, Osiris, from the dead30... who then became known as Asar, the raised one (Lazarus)31, and this miracle occurred in the city of Anu, or Beth Anu in Hebrew (Bethany?). He then gave a sermon on a mount32.
Regarding his death we have two traditions... one that he was stung by a scorpion... and the other that he as crucified33 alongside two thieves34 and buried in a cave35. He then descended into Hades (Hell?)36 only to return as the risen cruciform version of Horus three days later37... risen cruciform Horus first appeared to women38.
That's 38 coincidences by my count... and that's neglecting the fact that Horus was also known as "The Good Shepherd", the "Lamb of God", the "Bread of Life", the "Son of Man", the "Word", the "Fisher King"... that his symbols were the fish and the zodiac symbol Pisces... and that his title was KRST (Christ) "The Anointed One"... and that his most common iconography is as a child sat on the lap of Isis-Mary, the Virgin.
In fact, I've actually seen an old Egyptian black basalt statue of Isis-Mary, the Virgin, with Horus, the miracle chid, on her lap set up in a monastery in Spain and revered as a sacred statue of Jesus and Mary... funny.
I already exposed that "Isis-Mary" flap of yours to be utterly false. But to reiterate (from the aforementioned site):
Her name was simply Isis (in Greek). Her true Egyptian name is transliterated simply A-s-e-t or 3st (all woman names in Egyptian end with the "t"). Her name (Aset) means "seat" or "throne" (Oxford Encyclopedia, vol 2, "Isis" p. 188) and "the goddess's name is written in hieroglyphs with a sign that represents a throne, indicating the crucial role that she plays in the transmission of the kingship of Egypt" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 80).
And she definitely was not a virgin when she conceived Horus with the revivified Osiris, if these words mean anything: "[Osiris was] revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife" (Lesko, p. 162); "After having sexual intercourse..." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, p. 39); "revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him" (Richard Wilkinson, p. 146); "revive the sexual powers of Osiris" (Pinch, p. 80).
A virgin birth, or more properly, a virginal conception, is by definition non-sexual.
Here is some commentary on the "conception of Horus" from various Egyptian scholars:
"...drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show her as a kite hovering above Osiris, who is revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife." (Lesko, Great Goddesses of Egypt, p. 162)
"After having sexual intercourse, in the form of a bird, with the dead god she restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, Horus." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt, p. 39)
"Through her magic Isis revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him, eventually giving birth to their child, Horus." (Richard Wilkinson, Complete gods and goddesses of Ancient Egypt, p. 146)
"Isis already knows that she is destined to bear a child who will be king. In order to bring this about, she has to revive the sexual powers of Osiris, just as the Hand Goddess aroused the penis of the creator to create the first life." (Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology, p. 80)
In short, this was NO "virgin birth" as is clear also from repeated references to Osiris' "seed." A "miraculous birth" perhaps because it involves a dead and then revived husband, but not a virginal conception (sometimes wrongly called an "immaculate conception" -- that has to do in Catholic theology with Mary's conception without Original Sin, not Jesus' conception) nor a virgin birth as contained in the Bible (cf. Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38).
As if that weren't enough, Osiris REMAINS in the underworld (that means he is still DEAD).
Osiris' rule plays a great role in Egyptian texts. They almost always speak of him as ruler of the realm of the dead, an office he assumed only as a dead god, and almost never about his earthly kingship, which he exercised over gods and men in the world above as successor of Geb. Osiris' reign came to a violent end as he was slain by his brother, Seth. Later Horus avenges his father Osiris' death and succeeds him without completely destroying Seth. Thus did death come into the world, confronting the gods with a great problem. This is the prehistory of which there is no coherent narrative in the Egyptian texts.
...actually, yes. This really isn't open to debate as Early Church Fathers actually conceded this point as early as the forth century.
It's called the "Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry": the idea that the Jesus story only parallels earlier gods because the Devil made mock versions of the wholly original Jesus story in anticipation of Jesus centuries beforehand merely to discredit the originality of Jesus. Talk about hysterical blindness, this delusional bullshit remains the official Christian counter to these claims of plagiarism to this very day... the Devil made false Jesus' before Jesus, just to discredit Jesus...
"The Devil, whose business is to pervert the truth mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine".
-Tertullian, (Early Church Father)
"Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly amongst men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirit (Satan) put forth many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regards to Christ were merely marvellous tales, like the things that were said by the poets".
-Justin Martyr, (Early Church Father) Second Century
So right from the very start, even the Christian hierarchy admitted the parallels between Jesus and the Mystery Religion gods. In fact, Justin Martyr actually went so far as to concede every single one of the parallels we have been discussing here:
“And when we say also that… [Jesus] was produced without sexual union, and that He… was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we profess nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”
“…And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.”
-Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapters 21-23. (second century)
So what are we arguing here? The very first Christians themselves admitted, openly, to their Pagan detractors (such as Celsus), that there is NOTHING SUBSTANTIVELY ORIGINAL IN THE JESUS STORY.
How could it have become original since then?
Because, boy genius, you (or Freke and Gandy) FORGOT to quote the rest of Justin's words. Otherwise that question of yours would be easily answered.
Why don't you try posting the REST of what Justin says about the matter?
“And when we say also that… [Jesus] was produced without sexual union, and that He… was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we profess nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”
Here's what you left out, Luke:
For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.
In other words, Justin states that, based on the action of Zeus/Jupiter and his numerous bastard sons (often produced via rape), they categorically are NOT like Jesus Christ in the least.
Also notice IN BOLD the manners of death, prescribed to all of those figures. Notice what form of death is conspicuously absent.
“…And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.”
But, check out what it says later.....
"But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.” - Justin Martyr, First Apology 55
HOUSTON!!! We have a problem!! You claim that ALL of those "dying-resurrecting godmen" were crucified, as Christ was. But, if you're trying to claim that Justin is admitting such, you got some 'splaining to do.
For points 1 and 2 you can see my response to McWay's hysterics.
If you share McWay's aversion to proper research of the Mystery Religion, you could always just refer to Buddhism... The Sermon on the Mount has long been attributed to paraphrasing from Buddhism, and there is even a weird subculture tradition of Buddhism in which Buddha himself was crucified, yet rose from the dead.
Regarding Hesus/Esus... well I'm afraid you'll have to do a little more research than scanning a single paragraph encyclopedia entry. I know you guys have a list of approved Christian apologist websites and dismiss every other source... but if you want to know, you'll just have to research for yourself.
There's no point in me referring you to some link or source, which you then dismiss as being somehow "discredited". Do your own research, when you've done enough you'll start to agree.
Hesus is crucified... he dies and resurrects at Easter time for the sins of mankind. Just like ALL the Mystery Religion solar godmen (including Jesus). I've actually personally been inside two of these "caves" where a Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godmen was supposedly born/died/resurrected... one of them 5,500 years old, the other 10,000+ years old.
This shit is old... old... old. Accept it.
The Luke
Wrong again, Luke!!
But don't take my word for it:
"...it is now held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned; there is death but no rebirth or resurrection. What evidence was relied on by previous scholarship for the putative resurrection can be shown, it is claimed, to be based on a misinterpretation of the documents, or on late texts from the Christian era (frequently by Christians) which reveal an interpretatio Christiana of another religion's myths and rituals, or a borrowing of the Christian motif, at a late stage, by the religions themselves....While these negative conclusions have not been without challenge by scholars of Late Antiquity [see especially the more recent The Riddle of Resurrection by T.N.D. Mettinger (2001) ]....[they] represent a genuine reversal in scholarly thought. That which was posited as most 'primitive' -- a myth and ritual pattern of 'dying and rising' deities ultimately based on human sacrifice or ritual murder in relation to the fertility of vegetation -- has turned out to be an exceedingly late third or fourth century [AD] development in the myths and rituals of these deities....[scholars] ignoring their own reiterated insistence, when the myth and ritual complex appeared archaic, that analogies do not yield genealogies, they now eagerly assert what they hitherto denied, that the similarities demonstrate that the Mediterranean cults borrowed from the Christian." - J. Z. Smith, "Drudgery Divine"
"It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction....Unlike the deities of the Mysteries, who were nebulous figures of an imaginary past, the Divine Being whom the Christian worshiped as Lord was known as a real Person on earth only a short time before the earliest documents of the New Testament were written." - Dr. Bruce Metzger in Ronald T. Nash's, "The Gospel and the Greeks"
You claimed that these figures were crucified, but every source that references these entities, including Justin Martyr, holds that they were NOT crucified. And the other accounts also hold that they DO NOT rise from the dead. Add to that, the lack of a virgin birth and there you have it. Once again, your claim are all fluff and no stuff.
-
McWay, are you aware that Scientologists can likewise quote from prepared apologist screeds to defend the divinity of L Ron Hubbard?
The Luke
-
McWay, are you aware that Scientologists can likewise quote from prepared apologist screeds to defend the divinity of L Ron Hubbard?
The Luke
Are you aware that you have YET to address the issues at hand, instead preferring to hide and make excuses?
Your dying-resurrecting godmen flap has been thoroughly dismantled. You claim Attis rose from the dead; HE DOES NOT! You said Osiris rose from the dead; HE DOES NOT! And, the list continues.
You claimed that these figures were crucified. The accounts that mentioned them, INCLUDING THAT of Justin Martyr (whom you used in an attempt to bolster your erroneous claims) say otherwise.
Quit whining about my use of the site and address the substance of the issue. Your claims are old, as are the facts that refute them. So, why re-invent the wheel, when the information that counters your claims is easily accesible?
Unlike you, I actually cite my sources (though one could easily ascertain from where you keep getting this gibberish of yours).
-
The pathetic attempt of trying to make Horus the predecessor for Jesus is LOADED with errors, which exposes the feeble scholarship (or lack thereof) intertwined therein.
His magical conception1 as the only begotten son2 of Osiris was anounced to his mother3 Isis-Mary4 by an angel5. She gave birth to him on the midwinter solstice6 in a cave7 attended by three8 solar deities and his adoptive earth-father Jo-Seph (or Jo-Seb)9 who was descended from royalty10, and presided over by Sirius the brightest star in th sky11... some shephards witnessed his birth too12. Isis Mary then had to flee with the infant Horus13, when the evil tyrant Herut (Herod?)14 ordered the miracle child murdered15. We know nothing of what became of Horus till he partakes of a special ritual at age twelve16 and gained knowledge of all things17. He disappears again till age 3018, when he is baptised19 in the holy river Eridanus20 by Anup the Baptiser21... sadly, Anup the Baptiser was later decapitated22. Before beginning his wonders, Horus wandered in the desert23 of Amenta where he was sorely tempted by the evil deceiver god Set (Satan?)24, but Horus resisted this temptation25. Horus then (supposedly) took twelve companions (disciples) who witnessed him heal the sick25, heal the blind26, cast out demons27, walk on water28 and quell a storm at sea by sheer force of will29.
1) There is no "Mary" or "Meri" on Isis' name.
2) Once again, we see the foolish attempt to make a big deal out of the December 25th date. Nowhere in Scripture is Jesus said to be born on such a date.
3) Still stuck on that wise men thing (Oh, wait!! They're "solar deities", now ::) ) How many times do we go over this? One, with regards to Jesus Christ: They are wise men, exact number UNKNOWN, who do NOT find Jesus at birth but around 2 years later.
4) "We know nothing of what became of Horus till he partakes of a special ritual at age twelve16 and gained knowledge of all things" Fortunately, we DO know what became of Jesus Christ. He and His family went to Jerusalem every year (see Luke 2). Plus, Jesus didn't disappear. He grew up in Nazareth and became a carpenter (see Mark).
5) Anup was hardly a Baptiser. He was an embalmer and and guided souls through the underworld, a FAR CRY from John the Baptist.
6) Horus' alleged disciples were actually followers of his mother, Isis. And there's hardly an affixation of exactly 12 of them.
This is just a small sample of the legions of foul-ups, bleeps, and blunders that your posts contain.
-
I've yet to see you concede a single similarity.
I don't see why you can't, the Early Christians did.
I wonder what the non-Christians reading this thread think?
The Luke
-
I've yet to see you concede a single similarity.
I don't see why you can't, the Early Christians did.
I wonder what the non-Christians reading this thread think?
The Luke
I Think he has a legitimate mental disorder.
-
Is that right?
Attis escaped to the mountains, maimed himself, and died besides a pine tree, into which his soul transmigrated, while from his blood sprang violets like a wreath round the tree. The goddess implored Zeus to restore her lover BUT IT WAS NOT TO BE. But so much was granted that his body should never decay, that his hair should always grow, and that his little finger should always move. - Alexandar Murray, "Manual of mythology: Greek and Roman, Norse and Old German, Hindu and Egyptian Mythology"
Resurrection? I DON'T THINK SO!!!
Once again, Attis doesn't match whatsoever (not to mention the lack of those other items listed).
Correction: We don't have a direct source, BECAUSE THERE IS NO direct source. Attis doesn't rise from the dead, period. You've had a year to produce the goods; yet you've come up with zilch.
PLEASE!!! Attis doesn't die via crucifixion. He cuts his nuts off, which is hardly a match with Jesus Christ. Furthermore, that festival didn't start until WELL AFTER Christianity had already taken off in Jerusalem, perhaps as late as 4th century AD.
The complex mythology of Attis is irrelevant to the question of dying and rising deities. In the Phrygian version, Attis is killed by castration; in the Lydian version, he is killed by a boar. In neither case is there any question of his returning to life. Two late, post-Christian theological reflections on the myth hint at rebirth: the allegory in Naassene Sermon and the "euhemerist" account in Firmacus Maternus (third book of De errore profanarum religionum from the fourth century AD), in which a pretended resurrection is mentioned, although it is doubtful this ever played any part in the actual cult.
The attempts in the earlier scholarly literature to identify Attis as a "dying and rising deity" depend not on the mythology but rather on the ritual of the five-day festival of Cybele on March 22-27. Some scholars saw the "Day of Blood" (March 24) and the "Day of Joy" (March 25) as an analogy of the Christian relationship between Good Friday to Easter Sunday, and reasoned that if there was "mourning" on the first day, the object of the "joy" on the following day must be Attis' "resurrection." But there is no evidence this is the case. The Day of Joy is a late addition to what was once a three-day ritual in which the Day of Blood was followed by a purificatory ritual and the return of the statue of the goddess to the temple. The Day of Joy in the cult celebrated Cybele, not Attis.
The sole text that connects the Day of Joy with Attis is a fifth-century AD biography of Isidore the Dialectician by the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius who reports that Isidore once had a dream in which he was Attis and the Day of Joy was celebrated in his honor!
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Attis (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Attis)
Now this is comical:
An angel had nothing to do with Horus' birth and, as if that weren't enough, Isis wasn't a virgin. She has SEX with Osiris in the underworld, as has been mentioned NUMEROUS TIMES.
Of the parts of Osiris's body the only one which Isis did not find was the male member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honour of which the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival." (Plutarch, Moralia V, On Isis and Osiris, 18) (courtesy of http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm#SUMMARY (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm#SUMMARY))
I already exposed that "Isis-Mary" flap of yours to be utterly false. But to reiterate (from the aforementioned site):
Her name was simply Isis (in Greek). Her true Egyptian name is transliterated simply A-s-e-t or 3st (all woman names in Egyptian end with the "t"). Her name (Aset) means "seat" or "throne" (Oxford Encyclopedia, vol 2, "Isis" p. 188) and "the goddess's name is written in hieroglyphs with a sign that represents a throne, indicating the crucial role that she plays in the transmission of the kingship of Egypt" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 80).
And she definitely was not a virgin when she conceived Horus with the revivified Osiris, if these words mean anything: "[Osiris was] revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife" (Lesko, p. 162); "After having sexual intercourse..." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, p. 39); "revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him" (Richard Wilkinson, p. 146); "revive the sexual powers of Osiris" (Pinch, p. 80).
A virgin birth, or more properly, a virginal conception, is by definition non-sexual.
Here is some commentary on the "conception of Horus" from various Egyptian scholars:
"...drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show her as a kite hovering above Osiris, who is revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife." (Lesko, Great Goddesses of Egypt, p. 162)
"After having sexual intercourse, in the form of a bird, with the dead god she restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, Horus." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt, p. 39)
"Through her magic Isis revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him, eventually giving birth to their child, Horus." (Richard Wilkinson, Complete gods and goddesses of Ancient Egypt, p. 146)
"Isis already knows that she is destined to bear a child who will be king. In order to bring this about, she has to revive the sexual powers of Osiris, just as the Hand Goddess aroused the penis of the creator to create the first life." (Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology, p. 80)
In short, this was NO "virgin birth" as is clear also from repeated references to Osiris' "seed." A "miraculous birth" perhaps because it involves a dead and then revived husband, but not a virginal conception (sometimes wrongly called an "immaculate conception" -- that has to do in Catholic theology with Mary's conception without Original Sin, not Jesus' conception) nor a virgin birth as contained in the Bible (cf. Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38).
As if that weren't enough, Osiris REMAINS in the underworld (that means he is still DEAD).
Osiris' rule plays a great role in Egyptian texts. They almost always speak of him as ruler of the realm of the dead, an office he assumed only as a dead god, and almost never about his earthly kingship, which he exercised over gods and men in the world above as successor of Geb. Osiris' reign came to a violent end as he was slain by his brother, Seth. Later Horus avenges his father Osiris' death and succeeds him without completely destroying Seth. Thus did death come into the world, confronting the gods with a great problem. This is the prehistory of which there is no coherent narrative in the Egyptian texts.
Because, boy genius, you (or Freke and Gandy) FORGOT to quote the rest of Justin's words. Otherwise that question of yours would be easily answered.
Why don't you try posting the REST of what Justin says about the matter?
“And when we say also that… [Jesus] was produced without sexual union, and that He… was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we profess nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”
Here's what you left out, Luke:
For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.
In other words, Justin states that, based on the action of Zeus/Jupiter and his numerous bastard sons (often produced via rape, they categorically are NOT like Jesus Christ in the least.
Also notice IN BOLD the manners of death, prescribed to all of those figures. Notice what form of death is conspicuously absent.
“…And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.”
[/b]
But, check out what it says later.....
"But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.” - Justin Martyr, First Apology 55
HOUSTON!!! We have a problem!! You claim that ALL of those "dying-resurrecting godmen" were crucified, as Christ was. But, if you're trying to claim that Justin is admitting such, you got some 'splaining to do.
Wrong again, Luke!!
But don't take my word for it:
"...it is now held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned; there is death but no rebirth or resurrection. What evidence was relied on by previous scholarship for the putative resurrection can be shown, it is claimed, to be based on a misinterpretation of the documents, or on late texts from the Christian era (frequently by Christians) which reveal an interpretatio Christiana of another religion's myths and rituals, or a borrowing of the Christian motif, at a late stage, by the religions themselves....While these negative conclusions have not been without challenge by scholars of Late Antiquity [see especially the more recent The Riddle of Resurrection by T.N.D. Mettinger (2001) ]....[they] represent a genuine reversal in scholarly thought. That which was posited as most 'primitive' -- a myth and ritual pattern of 'dying and rising' deities ultimately based on human sacrifice or ritual murder in relation to the fertility of vegetation -- has turned out to be an exceedingly late third or fourth century [AD] development in the myths and rituals of these deities....[scholars] ignoring their own reiterated insistence, when the myth and ritual complex appeared archaic, that analogies do not yield genealogies, they now eagerly assert what they hitherto denied, that the similarities demonstrate that the Mediterranean cults borrowed from the Christian." - J. Z. Smith, "Drudgery Divine"
"It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction....Unlike the deities of the Mysteries, who were nebulous figures of an imaginary past, the Divine Being whom the Christian worshiped as Lord was known as a real Person on earth only a short time before the earliest documents of the New Testament were written." - Dr. Bruce Metzger in Ronald T. Nash's, "The Gospel and the Greeks"
You claimed that these figures were crucified, but every source that references these entities, including Justin Martyr, holds that they were NOT crucified. And the other accounts also hold that they DO NOT rise from the dead. Add to that, the lack of a virgin birth and there you have it. Once again, your claim are all fluff and no stuff.
epic destruction :o :D
-
:P
-
epic destruction :o :D
...epic evasion.
The Luke
-
...epic evasion.
The Luke
That would be on YOUR part, Luke.
Notice that you completely LEFT OUT the fact that Justin mentioned that none of the so-called figures from which Jesus was allegedly copied died via crucifixion, something YOU CLAIMED they did, from the very onset of your pitiful excuse of a challenge.
And when we say also that… [Jesus] was produced without sexual union, and that He… was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we profess nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.” - Justin Martyr
Jesus was produced without sexual union (virgin birth). But, how do those sons of Jupiter come to fruition again?
But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions..
Jesus Christ was crucified. But how did those sons of Jupiter die again?
For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.
Add to that Attis' self-castration, Dionysus' mauling by wild animals, Osiris' drowning, and the death of the others by evey manner EXECPT crucifixion and your spiel basically goes kaput.
Oh, remember all that astrological mess you claimed about the number 72, the pieces that Osiris' was divided after his dismemberment? It turns out that he was only cut into 14 pieces, a factor you haven't addressed TO THIS DAY.
Also notice that not a single one of them rose from the dead, something you also claimed.
Not to mention, you claims about Osiris and Isis were DEAD WRONG!! I've got the data to back my statements. Where's yours?
Lastly, your errors regarsing Horus were completely exposed. Recap:
1) There is no "Mary" or "Meri" on Isis' name.
2) Once again, we see the foolish attempt to make a big deal out of the December 25th date. Nowhere in Scripture is Jesus said to be born on such a date.
3) Still stuck on that wise men thing (Oh, wait!! They're "solar deities", now ) How many times do we go over this? One, with regards to Jesus Christ: They are wise men, exact number UNKNOWN, who do NOT find Jesus at birth but around 2 years later.
4) "We know nothing of what became of Horus till he partakes of a special ritual at age twelve16 and gained knowledge of all things" Fortunately, we DO know what became of Jesus Christ. He and His family went to Jerusalem every year (see Luke 2). Plus, Jesus didn't disappear. He grew up in Nazareth and became a carpenter (see Mark).
5) Anup was hardly a Baptiser. He was an embalmer and and guided souls through the underworld, a FAR CRY from John the Baptist.
6) Horus' alleged disciples were actually followers of his mother, Isis. And there's hardly an affixation of exactly 12 of them.
The epic evasion comes from you, as Loco and I have been asking you to support your ridiculous claims FOR NEARLY ONE YEAR. All you've produced is excuses.
-
McWay,
You are so dishonest I don't know how you can maintain your delusional point of view... I keep posting more and more claims, you keep Google-Fu-ing the answers searching for some dishonest Christian apologist ready-made-argument to refute my claims.
But this means you must be exposing yourself to more and more of these obvious similarities between the Jesus story and the pagan dying/resurrecting godmen.
How long can you continue reading about these similarities and forcing yourself to dismiss them?
If Jesus' crucifixion was so original, what was he doing in Cyprus circa 3,000 BC... ?
(http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/cypriotcruciform.gif)
The Luke
-
McWay,
You are so dishonest I don't know how you can maintain your delusional point of view... I keep posting more and more claims, you keep Google-Fu-ing the answers searching for some dishonest Christian apologist ready-made-argument to refute my claims.
What's so "dishonest" about them? Name one fact that I posted that wasn't accurate?
Your claims are hardly anything new. Atheists and skeptics have been making those bone-headed assertions for over 100 years. And ALL of them have been soundly refuted, when the figures and the facts are actually studied.
Again, why re-invent the wheel, when the data about these figures is readily available? That's why I "Google-Fu" them, just as you "Google-Fu" your wild claims.
But this means you must be exposing yourself to more and more of these obvious similarities between the Jesus story and the pagan dying/resurrecting godmen.
How long can you continue reading about these similarities and forcing yourself to dismiss them?
WHAT SIMILARITIES, boy genius?
You claim that they were crucified and foolishly posted Justin Martyr's words to make the point, WITHOUT posting the rest of the statement.
Again, you dodge the facts presented to you, because they make your posts look even sillier than they already are.
Justin clearly points out that none of those sons of Jupiter died via crucifixion (something YOU claimed happened to those figures).
For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.
And notice also that NONE of them (Osiris, Attis, Dionysus, etc) rise from the dead, yet another nail in the coffin for your silly takes.
If Jesus' crucifixion was so original, what was he doing in Cyprus circa 3,000 BC... ?
(http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/cypriotcruciform.gif)
The Luke
Still trying to cite Horus as being crucified, which the accounts regarding him clearly DO NOT state. BTW, the source of that pic falsely claims that Osiris was crucified. He clearly was not. He was drowned by Set, as I've posted multiple times and can do so, yet again.
In fact, here's yet more off-the-mark musing from that site from which you got that pic:
In my book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, I delve deeply into various parallels between the Jewish godman Jesus Christ and the Egyptian gods Horus and Osiris. Along with the claim that Horus was born on "December 25th" or the winter solstice of a virgin called Mery comes the contention that he was "crucified between two thieves," as Jesus is depicted to have been in the New Testament. Although I included this motif in my book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, this assertion does not originate with me but can be found in older sources, as highlighted in Christ in Egypt ("CIE"), which contains a 40-page chapter on the subject entitled "Was Horus 'Crucified?,'" with 120 footnotes citing primary sources as well as the works of respected Egyptologists and other scholars in relevant fields. This chapter in CIE also provides 18 images to illustrate the various points, such as the abundance of Pagan gods and goddesses in cruciform or cross shapes.
Once again, Horus' mother was named Isis, with no "Meri/Mery" attached to her name. And, I don't know how many times this has to be said, but the date of December 25th has ZIP to do with Jesus Christ's birth. That's the date that was assigned to commemorate the birth of Christ by the Roman Empire LONG after Christianity had been established. Nothing in Scripture claims that Jesus was born on that date.
BTW, another claim you ducked and dodged, when called to task, was that the Bible points to Jesus' being born Dec. 25. You said you could show that. But, when asked to do so (to the shock of absolutely NO ONE), you did nothing of the sort.
-
So what is this...?
(http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/cypriotcruciform.gif)
...it predates Jesus by a thousand years.
The Luke
-
So what is this...?
(http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/cypriotcruciform.gif)
...it predates Jesus by a thousand years.
The Luke
BIG DEAL!!! Horus wasn't crucified on it (or any other item).
And that, along with the lack of crucifixion for Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, et al., continues to put the torpedoes to your claims.
Recap:
And when we say also that… [Jesus] was produced without sexual union, and that He… was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we profess nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.” - Justin Martyr
Jesus was produced without sexual union (virgin birth). But, how do those sons of Jupiter come to fruition again?
But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions..
Jesus Christ was crucified. But how did those sons of Jupiter die again?
For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.
Didn't you say that these dying-resurrecting godmen got crucified? Sorry!! Being struck by lightning, dismembered, or setting yourself on fire, DOES NOT EQUAL crucifixion.
-
So what is this...?
(http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/cypriotcruciform.gif)
...it predates Jesus by a thousand years.
The Luke
-
So what is this...?
(http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/cypriotcruciform.gif)
...it predates Jesus by a thousand years.
The Luke
Whatever it is makes no difference (incidentally, it's a fertility symbol). The question is whether or not Horus was crucified. The answer to that is simply.....NO!!
-
Whatever it is makes no difference. The question is whether or not Horus was crucified. The answer to that is simply.....NO!!
...so this is the crux of the problem.
I can't really, in good conscious, concede the points you think your article skimming has proven. Because I know that if you researched further you would find out that you are wrong.
And you are afraid to concede a single similarity. Not one. No matter how glaring... no matter how obvious.
Simple, easily verifiable fact, the object below predates Jesus by at least a thousand years:
(http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/cypriotcruciform.gif)
The Luke
-
another sunday spent by Mcgay on a bodybuilding forum...Oh the irony..
-
another sunday spent by Mcgay on a bodybuilding forum...Oh the irony..
...with all the research he's doing, how long before he has to question why so much of the older pagan stuff seems so much like the Christian crap?
You can tell exactly what stuff he's forcing himself to ignore because that's the stuff he quotes, yet never addresses... it's always either a blanket dismissal or he posts some non-sequitur reference and hopes no one notices.
I'd put money on him ignoring the pre-Christian cruciform/crucifix statues and symbols.
You can't Google a jpeg.
The Luke
-
...so this is the crux of the problem.
I can't really, in good conscious, concede the points you think your article skimming has proven. Because I know that if you researched further you would find out that you are wrong.
And you are afraid to concede a single similarity. Not one. No matter how glaring... no matter how obvious.
Simple, easily verifiable fact, the object below predates Jesus by at least a thousand years:
(http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/cypriotcruciform.gif)
The Luke
The object below is a fertility symbol and has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus Christ.
There are no "glaring" similarities, Luke. I've posted the Horus account, right here in black-and-white, for all to see. Nothing in the slightest resembles the birth, death, or resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I've asked you, for the better part of a year, to produce the goods. And, you come up with this foolishness. Just as you did with Attis, you are grasping at straws, looking for anything remotely resembling a cross to claim that such proves that Jesus was copied from Horus.
Of course, in your desperation to prop up this feeble flap, you forget that crucifixion was how the Romans executed people, particularly criminals.
Never mind the fact that the most "glaring" differences between the two bulldoze your argument to tha ground, namely:
Jesus was conceived of a virgin; Horus was not (he's the result of Isis getting her necrophilia-bestality freak on, with a DEAD Osiris in the underworld).
Jesus died via crucifixion; Horus did not (the one account of Horus' death has him being dismembered, with his mama asking a crocodile god to put him back together).
Your claims about Anup being a "baptizer", supposedly the forerunner to John the Baptist: DEAD WRONG!!!
Again, that's just the short list.
...with all the research he's doing, how long before he has to question why so much of the older pagan stuff seems so much like the Christian crap?
You can tell exactly what stuff he's forcing himself to ignore because that's the stuff he quotes, yet never addresses... it's always either a blanket dismissal or he posts some non-sequitur reference and hopes no one notices.
I'd put money on him ignoring the pre-Christian cruciform/crucifix statues and symbols.
You can't Google a jpeg.
The Luke
Oh really!!! How do you think I found the site from which you got that fertility symbol?
Any time someone quotes your post with that symbol on it, it gives the web address from which you got it. And, SURPRISE, SURPRISE ::) , it's from the same folks who came up with that stupid Zeitgeist video, the one that's been ripped apart by both Biblical scholars and skeptics alike (recall that last month's issue of "Skeptic" magazine shredded that video, pointing out its glaring errors and overall pitiful scholarship).
And, speaking of blanket dismissal, why are you ducking and hiding from the fact that you have YET to address your futile takes, regarding Justin Martyr's statements.
You claimed that all of the "dying resurrecting godmen" croaked via crucifixion. Justin (whose quotes you foolishly posted, WAAAAAAAAY out of context) states exactly how they die.
Maybe you should address that issue, instead of cowering as usual, especially behind the pointless statements of L Dawg.
-
I almost forgot. There's yet another glaring goof on your part:
His magical conception1 as the only begotten son2 of Osiris was anounced to his mother3 Isis-Mary4 by an angel5. She gave birth to him on the midwinter solstice6 in a cave7 attended by three8 solar deities and his adoptive earth-father Jo-Seph (or Jo-Seb).....
OOPS!! Seb is the father of OSIRIS, not Horus.
-
For points 1 and 2 you can see my response to McWay's hysterics.
If you share McWay's aversion to proper research of the Mystery Religion, you could always just refer to Buddhism... The Sermon on the Mount has long been attributed to paraphrasing from Buddhism, and there is even a weird subculture tradition of Buddhism in which Buddha himself was crucified, yet rose from the dead.
Regarding Hesus/Esus... well I'm afraid you'll have to do a little more research than scanning a single paragraph encyclopedia entry. I know you guys have a list of approved Christian apologist websites and dismiss every other source... but if you want to know, you'll just have to research for yourself.
There's no point in me referring you to some link or source, which you then dismiss as being somehow "discredited". Do your own research, when you've done enough you'll start to agree.
Hesus is crucified... he dies and resurrects at Easter time for the sins of mankind. Just like ALL the Mystery Religion solar godmen (including Jesus). I've actually personally been inside two of these "caves" where a Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godmen was supposedly born/died/resurrected... one of them 5,500 years old, the other 10,000+ years old.
This shit is old... old... old. Accept it.
The Luke
Luke, you started this thread. You are the one who challenged us.
Challenge to Christians/Evangelicals:
Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory
Bet you can't.
The Luke
PS... short succinct posts please so I can answer them.
I took your challenge and cited, not one, but two things about Jesus. So I'm still waiting.
1. Show me that Esus(Hesus) died by crucifixion.
2. Show me that Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount was plagiarized from Buddhism.
You can't show us because you just made these up.
-
Luke, you started this thread. You are the one who challenged us.
I took your challenge and cited, not one, but two things about Jesus. So I'm still waiting.
1. Show me that Esus(Hesus) died by crucifixion.
2. Show me that Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount was plagiarized from Buddhism.
You can't show us because you just made these up.
It appears that this Zeitgeist video, among the primary sources from which Luke gets his claims, has been circulating around the web, quite a bit. Many people, like Luke, are blustering out these same "challenges" on other forums (i.e. Yahoo). Fortunately, many people (most of them Christians) who've responded to these "challenges" have done the research and shown these claims to be the supreme foolishness that they are.
We've been asking Luke to back his smack for almost a year now; yet, he's come up with SQUAT.
The heart of his claim is the easiest to dissect, namely this "dying-resurrecting godman blueprint" stuff.
Luke's claim that Justin Martyr admits to Jesus being plagiarized from these other figures is utterly ridiculous, especially with Justin's own words, saying the EXACT OPPOSITE.
Justin states Jesus was born, without sexual union; the sons of Jupiter (from which Jesus was supposedly crafted) were born by Jupiter, being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions.
Jesus died via crucifixion. These figures don't die in the same manner that Christ does. So far, we have as forms of death:
Osiris - Drowning
Attis - Self-castration
Dionysus - Mauled by wild boar
Hercules - Burned to death (self-inflicted)
Aesculapius - Struck by lightning
Bacchus - Dismemberment
Horus - Dismemberment
As Justin said (and this is the part that Luke "conveniently" left out), But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.
2) More, importantly, they don't rise from the dead.
So, if Justin is making any accusations of mimicry, he maintains that such was poorly done, on the part of these evil forces. The imitations don't even come close.
-
I hate to be a party pooper here...
But pretty much everything you guys are posting here is digging a hole with regard to the Kashmiri Issa.
The idea that you can discount every similarity between Horus/Dionysus/Bacchus/Orpheus based solely on a few discrepancies between the FOLKLORE versions of these gods and Jesus.... only highlights the fact that you aren't open to proper discussion. Compare like with like... Mystery Religion with Mystery Religion.
You discount these similar gods based on discrepancies...
But then you likewise dismiss Issa of Kashmir, who MATCHES JESUS IN EVERY SINGLE REGARD.
So which is it?
Why bother arguing discrepancies when you dismiss Jesus' exact duplicate based on what? Too many similarities?... that's just dishonest.
The Luke
PS- that's not a fertility symbol by the way; epic evasion.
-
I hate to be a party pooper here...
But pretty much everything you guys are posting here is digging a hole with regard to the Kashmiri Issa.
The idea that you can discount every similarity between Horus/Dionysus/Bacchus/Orpheus based solely on a few discrepancies between the FOLKLORE versions of these gods and Jesus.... only highlights the fact that you aren't open to proper discussion. Compare like with like... Mystery Religion with Mystery Religion.
You discount these similar gods based on discrepancies...
But then you likewise dismiss Issa of Kashmir, who MATCHES JESUS IN EVERY SINGLE REGARD.
So which is it?
Why bother arguing discrepancies when you dismiss Jesus' exact duplicate based on what? Too many similarities?... that's just dishonest.
The Luke
PS- that's not a fertility symbol by the way; epic evasion.
Epic evasion, Luke!
I took your challenge and cited, not just one, but two things about Jesus. So I'm still waiting.
1. Show me that Esus(Hesus) died by crucifixion.
2. Show me that Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount was plagiarized from Buddhism.
You can't show us because you just made these up.
-
I hate to be a party pooper here...
But pretty much everything you guys are posting here is digging a hole with regard to the Kashmiri Issa.
The idea that you can discount every similarity between Horus/Dionysus/Bacchus/Orpheus based solely on a few discrepancies between the FOLKLORE versions of these gods and Jesus.... only highlights the fact that you aren't open to proper discussion. Compare like with like... Mystery Religion with Mystery Religion.
I see you're bouncing from figure to figure, yet again. As for the rest of those figures, what are these alleged similarities, Luke?
The one you claimed were similarities turned out to be everything BUT that, as shown by the accounts on those figures and the words of Justin Martyr, himself.
So now, it's back to your patented excuse-making.
You have NOT, I repeat, NOT shown the so-called mystery religion versions of these figures or that such is virtually identical with that of Jesus Christ. Recall that Loco and I have been asking you to do that FOR NEARLY A YEAR.
Instead, you keep squealing about "that the 'folklore' version", when the facts show that your claims are categorically false.
You discount these similar gods based on discrepancies...
That's right, boy genius, because your pitiful excuse for a "challenge" was to show the differences between Jesus Christ and those figures.
When Loco and I did so, with ease, you went into cluck-and-duck mode, trying to contort the accounts (particularly regarding the deaths of Attis and Osiris) into crucifixion, to support your rickety claims.
But then you likewise dismiss Issa of Kashmir, who MATCHES JESUS IN EVERY SINGLE REGARD.
No, it doesn't. One (as has been shown numerous times) you don't even have your facts straight about this one.
So which is it?
Why bother arguing discrepancies when you dismiss Jesus' exact duplicate based on what? Too many similarities?... that's just dishonest.
The Luke
PS- that's not a fertility symbol by the way; epic evasion.
Again, you claimed in your "challenge" that we could find NO discrepancies. Loco and I lost count of how many were actually there. That's why you keep foolishly trying to use vague tree references to twist Attis' self-castration into a crucifixion, AND why you keep mumbling about the "Day of Joy" being the equivalent of Easter, even though:
- The "Day of Joy" was a late edition to the Attis/Cybele cult and was established long after Christianity has taken root.
- The "Day of Joy" pays homage to CYBELE, not Attis.
And speaking of evasions, you HAVE YET to address the little matter of your claims about those figures dying via crucifixion (using Justin's words), while Justin clearly described the method in which they died, later stating, But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically
P.S. Yes, that pic IS a fertility symbol, called the Idol of Pomos. Plus, the early Christians of the first century DID NOT glorify the use or the symbol of a cross. Once again, that came courtesy of the Roman empire AFTER Christianity became accepted.
(http://www.mlahanas.de/Cyprus/LX/EidoloPomou.jpg)
The Idol of Pomos, is a prehistoric sculpture from the Cypriot village of Pomos. It dates back to the Chalcolithic period, circa the 30th century BC.
Nowadays it is on display in the Cyprus Archeological Museum in Nicosia.
Symbolism
The sculpture represents a woman with her arms spread. It was probably used as a fertility symbol. Large numbers of this kind of sculptures were found in Cyprus. Smaller versions were worn as amulets around the neck.
http://www.mlahanas.de/Cyprus/LX/IdolOfPomos.html (http://www.mlahanas.de/Cyprus/LX/IdolOfPomos.html)
That's a fertiliy symbol, NOT a cross that has anything to do with Jesus Christ. Got any more foolishness to spout?
-
The sculpture represents a woman with her arms spread. It was probably used as a fertility symbol. Large numbers of this kind of sculptures were found in Cyprus. Smaller versions were worn as amulets around the neck.
http://www.mlahanas.de/Cyprus/LX/IdolOfPomos.html (http://www.mlahanas.de/Cyprus/LX/IdolOfPomos.html)
That's a fertiliy symbol, NOT a cross that has anything to do with Jesus Christ. Got any more foolishness to spout?
...a female fertility symbol with no breasts; no hips; not pregnant and for some reason, herself (?) wearing a cross?
You'll just believe anything you read, won't you.
It's pretty obvious that is a representation of the Southern Cross Constellation.
The Luke
-
...a female fertility symbol with no breasts; no hips; not pregnant and for some reason, herself (?) wearing a cross?
You'll just believe anything you read, won't you.
It's pretty obvious that is a representation of the Southern Cross Constellation.
The Luke
Look who's talking!!!
Yet again, you made a silly claim, using that pic of a fertility symbol, which the folks at Stellar Productions tried to pass off, as "proof" that Horus was crucified (and thus, was a precursor to Jesus Christ).
Now, after nearly two weeks of hiding, you come up with yet another excuse.
Your desperation (and that of Stellar Productions) to use anything remotely resembling a cross to spout foolishness about Jesus being copied from Hours continues to be slapstick comedy.
But, lest you think this is a mere abberation:
(http://i.ucoin.net/coin/3/34/3479_2p/cyprus_2_euro_2008.jpg)
http://www.ucoin.net/users/tag/idol_of_pomos/?uid=3 (http://www.ucoin.net/users/tag/idol_of_pomos/?uid=3)
Here's more:
The cruciform statue which is represented on the 1 and 2- euro coins dates back to the Chalcolithicperiod (3000 BC). It is known as the “Idol of Pomos”, the village where it has been found.
The size of similar statues or idols could vary enormously: from a few centimeters to statues of 1.5 m. Small examples were sometimes worn as charms. The outstretched form of the arms of the “Idol of Pomos” probably refers to its function as a fertility symbol. This characteristic example of the island’s prehistoric art reflects Cyprus’s place at the heart of civilisation and Antiquity.
(http://www.nbbmuseum.be/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/muntstuk6.gif)
http://www.nbbmuseum.be/2008/02/cyprus-and-malta.htm (http://www.nbbmuseum.be/2008/02/cyprus-and-malta.htm)
-
...a female fertility symbol with no breasts; no hips; not pregnant and for some reason, herself (?) wearing a cross?
The Luke
And yet more:
2- Figurines: The human form appeared in the art of the earliest inhabitants of Cyprus and remained as dominant theme throughout the antiquity. With a few exceptions the figures of the Chalcolithic Period like the Neolithic ones were quite small, no more than 19 centimeters in height. As we already said the Neolithic figures are rather elementary representations of the human form: these are figures with the arms and legs reduced to mere stumps. The latest example of this type including one from Lemba which is 36 cm. tall, are contemporary with another variety called cruciform figures typical of the Chalcolithic Era (4000/3900-2500 BC.). Shaped like a cross, almost invariably made of soft stone (bluish green picrolite or serpentine), this type has now been shown to have developed within Cyprus from the stump-like form. The cruciform category includes some figures of terra-cotta. An interesting repertoire in that material shows the ingenuity of the Chalcolithic artist. These figures are either sexless or with small breasts in relief. The arms are the most characteristic feature of this category of figures. They are stretched out sideways stiffly and are full-length. They are always represented in a sitting position on a high seat with their knees bended. There is nothing like them in prehistoric culture. Their symbolic significance, however, is totally different, and not immediately apparent. Once again it is also connected with the theme of survival and their mission is to act as fertility cults. Many of them were pierced which reminds us that they were worn as pendants. Some were found as miniatures on necklaces. They were probably worn exclusively to encourage, by sympathetic magic, a new birth.
http://emuonline.emu.edu.tr/demo/ARCH329/lecture4/calcolithic.htm (http://emuonline.emu.edu.tr/demo/ARCH329/lecture4/calcolithic.htm)
So much for the "no breast" excuse!!!
(http://emuonline.emu.edu.tr/demo/ARCH329/lecture4/picture/chalco5_small.jpg)
(http://emuonline.emu.edu.tr/demo/ARCH329/lecture4/picture/chalco8_small.jpg)
PS - If you click on the arrows on the pics in the middle under the "Figurines" paragraph", guess what you find: THE VERY SAME PIC you posted weeks ago.
-
2- Figurines: The human form appeared in the art of the earliest inhabitants of Cyprus and remained as dominant theme throughout the antiquity. With a few exceptions the figures of the Chalcolithic Period like the Neolithic ones were quite small, no more than 19 centimeters in height. As we already said the Neolithic figures are rather elementary representations of the human form: these are figures with the arms and legs reduced to mere stumps. The latest example of this type including one from Lemba which is 36 cm. tall, are contemporary with another variety called cruciform figures typical of the Chalcolithic Era (4000/3900-2500 BC.). Shaped like a cross, almost invariably made of soft stone (bluish green picrolite or serpentine), this type has now been shown to have developed within Cyprus from the stump-like form. The cruciform category includes some figures of terra-cotta. An interesting repertoire in that material shows the ingenuity of the Chalcolithic artist. These figures are either sexless or with small breasts in relief. The arms are the most characteristic feature of this category of figures. They are stretched out sideways stiffly and are full-length. They are always represented in a sitting position on a high seat with their knees bended. There is nothing like them in prehistoric culture. Their symbolic significance, however, is totally different, and not immediately apparent. Once again it is also connected with the theme of survival and their mission is to act as fertility cults. Many of them were pierced which reminds us that they were worn as pendants. Some were found as miniatures on necklaces. They were probably worn exclusively to encourage, by sympathetic magic, a new birth.
...why not highlight this bit?
Selective much?
The Luke
-
...why not highlight this bit?
Selective much?
The Luke
Highlighting that part doesn't help your silly quip one bit.
They're called crucifrom figures, because they're shaped like crosses. Whether they're sexless or with small breasts, they are STILL USED as FERTILITY SYMBOLS.
The point, which you (of course) missed by a country mile, is that this figure don't have a blessed thing to do with Jesus Christ whatsoever. Nor do they have anything to do with Horus, allegedly being crucified (which no account of Horus states as the cause of his death).
-
Luke,
How's Bigfoot?
-
McWay,
Would you be willing to partake in a little experiment that might better illuminate why your Google-fu has mislead you?
The Luke
-
all hail our saviour
Horus Jesus
-
all hail our saviour Horus Jesus
Exactly, Horus ain't Jesus and Jesus ain't Horus. :)
-
Exactly, Horus ain't Jesus and Jesus ain't Horus. :)
You're right - they're too entirely different myths concocted with the same parts ;)
-
You're right - they're too entirely different myths concocted with the same parts ;)
gcb,
Exactly which parts are the same? Will you please show us?
-
McWay,
Would you be willing to partake in a little experiment that might better illuminate why your Google-fu has mislead you?
The Luke
I see you're still looking for excuses to cover the fact that Stellar Productions basically threw you a curveball, by using a fertility symbol, in its foolish attempt to claim that Jesus Christ was crafted from Horus.
Lost in all of this is the simple fact that Horus was neither conceived, nor did he live or die in the manner in which Jesus Christ did. And, as far as resurrection goes, he joins a long list of figures who just don't fit the bill.
-
McWay,
Would you be willing to partake in a little experiment that might better illuminate why your Google-fu has mislead you?
The Luke
...repeat.
-
gcb,
Exactly which parts are the same? Will you please show us?
read it if you dare:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm)
-
read it if you dare:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm)
I read that two years ago. What about it?
Exactly which parts are the same? Can you back up the thoughts expressed on that website, since you don't have any thoughts of your own?
-
I read that two years ago. What about it?
Exactly which parts are the same? Can you back up the thoughts expressed on that website, since you don't have any thoughts of your own?
...which parts aren't?
There is so little differece between Horus and Jesus that the plagiarism is obvious... you guys are the ones pointing to Jesus' yamika shouting: "Look! Look! Our guy has a funny hat! That makes him different!"
All these silly selective-encyclopedia-sampling protestations are just dishonest.
Jesus is about as original as a scene-for-scene Hollywood remake.
The Luke
-
...which parts aren't?
There is so little differece between Horus and Jesus that the plagiarism is obvious... you guys are the ones pointing to Jesus' yamika shouting: "Look! Look! Our guy has a funny hat! That makes him different!"
All these silly selective-encyclopedia-sampling protestations are just dishonest.
Jesus is about as original as a scene-for-scene Hollywood remake.
The Luke
Epic evasion, Luke!
I took your challenge and cited, not just one, but two things about Jesus. So I'm still waiting.
1. Show me that Esus(Hesus) died by crucifixion.
2. Show me that Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount was plagiarized from Buddhism.
You can't show us because you just made these up.
-
Epic evasion, Luke!
I took your challenge and cited, not just one, but two things about Jesus. So I'm still waiting.
1. Show me that Esus(Hesus) died by crucifixion.
2. Show me that Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount was plagiarized from Buddhism.
You can't show us because you just made these up.
1. Ask yourself, what did the followers of Esus/Hesus do every Easter? Then ask yourself, why did the Emperor Constantine fold the fledgling cult of Hesus into the Christian cult?
2. Google: "sermon on the mount Buddhism" it's not that difficult.
The Luke
-
I read that two years ago. What about it?
Exactly which parts are the same? Can you back up the thoughts expressed on that website, since you don't have any thoughts of your own?
You don't know me or what I think. If you can't read and compare that is not my fault. If you can't deal with reality that isn't my fault either. No one is going to take your Jesus away from you - but when you get in an argument with the big boys expect a history lesson that doesn't always quite match up with your expectations/beliefs. And don't accuse me of not having my own thoughts - at least my thoughts come from more than one source.
-
You don't know me or what I think. If you can't read and compare that is not my fault. If you can't deal with reality that isn't my fault either. No one is going to take your Jesus away from you - but when you get in an argument with the big boys expect a history lesson that doesn't always quite match up with your expectations/beliefs. And don't accuse me of not having my own thoughts - at least my thoughts come from more than one source.
The big boys? LOL
Okay big boy, Jesus was born on December 25th? Says who? Not the Bible and not Christians. That's just a Roman Catholic tradition.
That whole list is such a mess I don't know where to start. Horus did not die by crucifixion. Horus did not have 12 disciples. Horus was not born of a virgin.
Jesus did not have just 12 disciples. Jesus had many disciples while he was here in this world. He hand picked 12 Apostles for a reason, one for each of the 12 tribes of Israel. The 12 tribes of Israel go way back, thousands of year before Jesus Christ.
Who am I debating here, you or the website you posted? Got anything original? Got any thoughts and opinions of your own?
-
1. Ask yourself, what did the followers of Esus/Hesus do every Easter? Then ask yourself, why did the Emperor Constantine fold the fledgling cult of Hesus into the Christian cult?
2. Google: "sermon on the mount Buddhism" it's not that difficult.
The Luke
You are the one who challenged me. You are the one who claimed you would show me. So show me already and stop with the evation. I'm still waiting.
Esus/Hesus did not die by crucifixion.
Jesus Christ's sermon on the mount did not come from Buddhism.
-
You are the one who challenged me. You are the one who claimed you would show me. So show me already and stop with the evation. I'm still waiting.
Esus/Hesus did not die by crucifixion.
Jesus Christ's sermon on the mount did not come from Buddhism.
This thread is running in circles...
It's really very simple, there is not a single original aspect or detail of the Jesus story that cannot be found in a previous religion.
If the detail is NOT obvious in another Mystery Religion solar deity (ie: plagiarised word for word); then a direct parallel will be found in the Horus story; if the analagous detail in the Horus story differs too much for your liking... then an exact copy of every single detail of the Jesus story can be found in the story of the Kashmiri wise-man/messiah Issa (except for the bodily ascension into heaven; but that's a common pagan motif).
You guys keep harping on about the Sermon on the Mount and execution via Roman-style crucifixion (as if the other manners of crucifixion are so vastly different as to make Jesus wholly original). But what about Issa?
Issa gave the same "Sermon on the Mount" that Jesus gave, at the same time, in the same place.
Issa was crucified by the Romans under Pilate, in Jerusalem circa 33 AD.
Issa died and resurrected.
The only difference between Issa and Jesus is what happens after the resurrection... Jesus ascends bodily into heaven, Issa retires to Kashmir where he dies at a ripe old age.
Issa even claimed TO BE the person known to the Christians as Jesus, and he made this claim during his lifetime... long before the Christian gospels were written/plagiarised/fabricated.
One of the twelve disciples (think it was Thomas) even met Issa at a wedding in Kashmir circa 50 AD and recognised him as Jesus... even recording it in his gospel.
So there you go... copied from a Mystery Religion; based on Horus; or actually Issa.
Not one single original detail.
The Luke
-
The big boys? LOL
Okay big boy, Jesus was born on December 25th? Says who? Not the Bible and not Christians. That's just a Roman Catholic tradition.
That whole list is such a mess I don't know where to start. Horus did not die by crucifixion. Horus did not have 12 disciples. Horus was not born of a virgin.
Jesus did not have just 12 disciples. Jesus had many disciples while he was here in this world. He hand picked 12 Apostles for a reason, one for each of the 12 tribes of Israel. The 12 tribes of Israel go way back, thousands of year before Jesus Christ.
Who am I debating here, you or the website you posted? Got anything original? Got any thoughts and opinions of your own?
So you are saying that half the stuff that we consider as "common" knowledge about Jesus is, um fabricated/stolen. So maybe none of it is true.
Is that original enough for you?
-
The big boys? LOL
Okay big boy, Jesus was born on December 25th? Says who? Not the Bible and not Christians. That's just a Roman Catholic tradition.
That whole list is such a mess I don't know where to start. Horus did not die by crucifixion. Horus did not have 12 disciples. Horus was not born of a virgin.
Jesus did not have just 12 disciples. Jesus had many disciples while he was here in this world. He hand picked 12 Apostles for a reason, one for each of the 12 tribes of Israel. The 12 tribes of Israel go way back, thousands of year before Jesus Christ.
Who am I debating here, you or the website you posted? Got anything original? Got any thoughts and opinions of your own?
another guy who thinks he knows specific details of fables that might or might not have happened thousands and thousands of years ago.
yea gcb may have found certain info he's posting from a website.Is that really any different from getting your info from a book?
Do you celebrate Christmas?
-
yea gcb may have found certain info he's posting from a website.Is that really any different from getting your info from a book?
...this is a very important point.
Christian apologists are quick to dismiss the huge amount of Christian TRADITION obviously lifted from paganism as not being based on the canonical Christian LITERATURE.
But they fail to realise that such traditions demonstrate the precedent of Christianity being influenced by paganism... if they borrowed the traditions, why would the literature be wholly uninfluenced and original?
Besides... there is some pretty fucked up shit in non-canonical (Gnostic) gospels; Jesus killing children and marrying Mary Magdalene; Saint Peter killing his own followers, Pontius Pilate surviving his own decapitation, Judas dying on the cross instead of Jesus... for example.
The four canonical gospels have been rewritten and redacted, sanitising them of the more obvious pagan motifs.
The Luke
-
This thread is running in circles...
It's really very simple, there is not a single original aspect or detail of the Jesus story that cannot be found in a previous religion.
If the detail is NOT obvious in another Mystery Religion solar deity (ie: plagiarised word for word); then a direct parallel will be found in the Horus story; if the analagous detail in the Horus story differs too much for your liking... then an exact copy of every single detail of the Jesus story can be found in the story of the Kashmiri wise-man/messiah Issa (except for the bodily ascension into heaven; but that's a common pagan motif).
You guys keep harping on about the Sermon on the Mount and execution via Roman-style crucifixion (as if the other manners of crucifixion are so vastly different as to make Jesus wholly original). But what about Issa?
Issa gave the same "Sermon on the Mount" that Jesus gave, at the same time, in the same place.
Issa was crucified by the Romans under Pilate, in Jerusalem circa 33 AD.
Issa died and resurrected.
The only difference between Issa and Jesus is what happens after the resurrection... Jesus ascends bodily into heaven, Issa retires to Kashmir where he dies at a ripe old age.
Issa even claimed TO BE the person known to the Christians as Jesus, and he made this claim during his lifetime... long before the Christian gospels were written/plagiarised/fabricated.
One of the twelve disciples (think it was Thomas) even met Issa at a wedding in Kashmir circa 50 AD and recognised him as Jesus... even recording it in his gospel.
So there you go... copied from a Mystery Religion; based on Horus; or actually Issa.
Not one single original detail.
The Luke
You are the one going in circles. McWay and I have already shown you that none of these are true.
You don't provide your sources because you don't have any. You just copy and paste from other websites and make stuff up as you go.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where Esus died by crucifixion and where the Sermon on the Mount was copied from Hinduism.
-
So you are saying that half the stuff that we consider as "common" knowledge about Jesus is, um fabricated/stolen. So maybe none of it is true.
Is that original enough for you?
No. I'm saying that half the stuff on that website you posted is fabricated about Jesus and yes, about Horus too. They modify the stories to make them look more similar when in reality they are far from it.
And if anybody stole anything from anybody, it was other religions from Christianity in the first century. They could not compete with Christianity's rapid growth even in the mist of persecution. So they tried to mimic Christianity to keep/attract followers.
-
another guy who thinks he knows specific details of fables that might or might not have happened thousands and thousands of years ago.
yea gcb may have found certain info he's posting from a website.Is that really any different from getting your info from a book?
Do you celebrate Christmas?
The Bible does not say that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th. Scholars, both Christian and secular agree that it's very unlikely that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th. Whether or not a person celebrates Christmas on December 25th, it does not follow that such person believes that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th.
-
No. I'm saying that half the stuff on that website you posted is fabricated about Jesus and yes, about Horus too. They modify the stories to make them look more similar when in reality they are far from it.
And if anybody stole anything from anybody, it was other religions from Christianity in the first century. They could not compete with Christianity's rapid growth even in the mist of persecution. So they tried to mimic Christianity to keep/attract followers.
A prime example of that is the "Day of Joy" ceremony (started around 4th century AD) by the Cybele-Attis cult.
Another example (albeit not lifted from Chrstianity) involved followers of Attis, borrowing from the Mithras religion and castrating bulls, INSTEAD OF THEMSELVES, to mimic their beloved deity.
-
You are the one going in circles. McWay and I have already shown you that none of these are true.
...McWay's only response to the whole issue of Issa is simply to dismiss him off-hand. An exact duplicate of Jesus in every single regard, but the refutation is simply putting your fingers in your ears? How convenient.
That doesn't constitute a proper argument. Instead it demonstrates that McWay couldn't find a pre-typed disingenuous apologist argument supposedly refuting Issa to sample from.
I won't be posting any links because you guys aren't allowed to read anything that doesn't come from Jeebus-freak websites... so what's the point?
Do your own research.
The Bible does not say that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th. Scholars, both Christian and secular agree that it's very unlikely that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th. Whether or not a person celebrates Christmas on December 25th, it does not follow that such person believes that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th.
...the fact Christians celebrate Christmas on the first day a solar measurement shows a lengthening of the day after the mid-winter solstice clearly demonstrates cross-fertilisation between Christianity and paganism.
The Luke
-
...McWay's only response to the whole issue of Issa is simply to dismiss him off-hand. An exact duplicate of Jesus in every single regard, but the refutation is simply putting your fingers in your ears? How convenient.
That doesn't constitute a proper argument. Instead it demonstrates that McWay couldn't find a pre-typed disingenuous apologist argument supposedly refuting Issa to sample from.
I won't be posting any links because you guys aren't allowed to read anything that doesn't come from Jeebus-freak websites... so what's the point?
Do your own research.
You challenged me to give you one thing, just one thing about Jesus Christ that you couldn't show me was copied from ancient myths. I gave you not just one, but two, Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion and Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount.
Now you claim that you can't show me because I'm not allowed to read secular websites and because I need to do my own research? ::)
Epic cop out!
...the fact Christians celebrate Christmas on the first day a solar measurement shows a lengthening of the day after the mid-winter solstice clearly demonstrates cross-fertilisation between Christianity and paganism.
The Luke
So what? Christians also use the Gregorian Calendar, a reform of the Julian calendar just like anybody else. It does not follow that Christians share ancient Rome's pagan beliefs, or that Christian beliefs are copied from ancient Rome's pagan beliefs.
-
You challenged me to give you one thing, just one thing about Jesus Christ that you couldn't show me was copied from ancient myths. I gave you not just one, but two, Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion and Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount.
Now you claim that you can't show me because I'm not allowed to read secular websites and because I need to do my own research? ::)
Epic cop out!
Try Googling: "Orpheus Bacchus":
(http://www.lost-history.com/images/orpheus2.jpg)
Then try Googling: "Sermon on the Mount Buddhism" ...like I told you; many, many papers, articles and even books have been written by serious academics highlighting the links between Buddhism and the Sermon on the Mount.
Would you like me to read them to you, too?
Besides, Saint Issa of Kashmir claims he was the one who gave the Sermon on the Mount because he was the original character later known as Jesus, and he was in Jerusalem to spread the teachings of Buddha.
The Luke
-
Try Googling: "Orpheus Bacchus":
(http://www.lost-history.com/images/orpheus2.jpg)
Then try Googling: "Sermon on the Mount Buddhism" ...like I told you; many, many papers, articles and even books have been written by serious academics highlighting the links between Buddhism and the Sermon on the Mount.
Would you like me to read them to you, too?
Besides, Saint Issa of Kashmir claims he was the one who gave the Sermon on the Mount because he was the original character later known as Jesus, and he was in Jerusalem to spread the teachings of Buddha.
The Luke
Which books? Written by who?
-
...McWay's only response to the whole issue of Issa is simply to dismiss him off-hand. An exact duplicate of Jesus in every single regard, but the refutation is simply putting your fingers in your ears? How convenient.
That doesn't constitute a proper argument. Instead it demonstrates that McWay couldn't find a pre-typed disingenuous apologist argument supposedly refuting Issa to sample from.
I won't be posting any links because you guys aren't allowed to read anything that doesn't come from Jeebus-freak websites... so what's the point?
Do your own research.
Are you smoking crack? I've cited SEVERAL references that crush your silly claims to powder, many of which were direct and not from apologetic cites.
Plus, you're hardly one to talk. You don't post links, because you're afraid that, once we read them, we can point out the plethora of foul-ups, bleeps, and blunders that are present there.
...the fact Christians celebrate Christmas on the first day a solar measurement shows a lengthening of the day after the mid-winter solstice clearly demonstrates cross-fertilisation between Christianity and paganism.
The Luke
The "cross-fertilization" came, courtesy of Constantine. But, that does NOT hold that Christ was formed from a pagan deity.
-
Which books? Written by who?
Google is your friend.
The Luke
-
Google is your friend.
The Luke
Epic evasions and epic cop outs are yours!
-
LOL no worries luke is a economist, historian, and military expert dont you know?
again luke where did you go to school and what was your area of study?
let me take a guess luke...
youre a high school junior or senior consider yourself an intellect and more knowledgeable than the majority of other ppl?
your narcissistic tendencies and psuedo intellectual drivel only get you so far bro...go back to your philosophy, economic and history teachers and tell them you need more material... ;)
-
LOL no worries luke is a economist, historian, and military expert dont you know?
...eh, no. I'm just well read. Try it.
again luke where did you go to school and what was your area of study?
...why do you keep hounding me on this topic? Why not address the arguments I make?
I have a degree in experimental physics. This is all well known on here, my full name and qualifications have even been reported (and verified) by American newspapers (who interviewed me about my Bigfooting).
The Luke
-
...eh, no. I'm just well read. Try it.
...why do you keep hounding me on this topic? Why not address the arguments I make?
I have a degree in experimental physics. This is all well known on here, my full name and qualifications have even been reported (and verified) by American newspapers (who interviewed me about my Bigfooting).
The Luke
b/c the arguements you make are idiotic
ex.
the US has never won a war...
b/c sparta had gay soldiers(which you never gave proof for, I see a pattern forming here) the US should allow gays to openly serve
24 has a monopoly in the US
LOL bro the list goes on and on
the reason i keep hounding you is b/c is painfully apparent that you havent been educated, simply reading books google and wikipedia doesnt equate to education luke as you get older you will realize this...
-
tonymctones,
I can only make a cogent argument... I can't make you comprehend it.
The Luke
-
tonymctones,
I can only make a cogent argument... I can't make you comprehend it.
The Luke
LOL this is what you resort to when pushed into a corner on ya and also trying to put caveats on your idiotic statements
ya youre right though its everyone else that doesnt make sense, not you ;)
your narcissism and delusions of grandeur are impressive you every see a therapist?
-
LOL this is what you resort to when pushed into a corner on ya and also trying to put caveats on your idiotic statements
ya youre right though its everyone else that doesnt make sense, not you ;)
your narcissism and delusions of grandeur are impressive you every see a therapist?
rather than attacking him why not come up with valid points that represent your stance on a given topic...
It is you who appear to have a patent on idiotic statements.As it is you who show your intelligence or lack there of with elementary school style attacks.Your not alone though theres a few others on this thread that can't make a post without inserting childish name calling before during and after they post there indoctrinated dogma.
-
rather than attacking him why not come up with valid points that represent your stance on a given topic...
It is you who appear to have a patent on idiotic statements.As it is you who show your intelligence or lack there of with elementary school style attacks.Your not alone though theres a few others on this thread that can't make a post without inserting childish name calling before during and after they post there indoctrinated dogma.
I can appreciate your sentiment L dawg but...b/c the arguements you make are idiotic
ex.
the US has never won a war...
b/c sparta had gay soldiers(which you never gave proof for, I see a pattern forming here) the US should allow gays to openly serve
24 has a monopoly in the US
these are all real arguments argued by luke...this is just another one
seems to me that as stated earlier this thread is just going in circles
luke hasnt provided any links or citations simply said google it, he will learn if he goes to college that this doesnt fly and he will have to provide citations for sources ;)
-
luke hasnt provided any links or citations simply said google it, he will learn if he goes to college that this doesnt fly and he will have to provide citations for sources ;)
...I left college (physics) nearly seven years ago. Haven't you even been reading the answers I've posted to YOUR questions?
I have explained why I don't post direct links... because then the source is attacked (unfairly) by those who themselves only post faulty apologist arguments from pro-Christian sites.
I've explained that this is a specific argument tactic... and it works.
I claimed that Attis was crucified.
McWay Googles an article about Attis and points out that Attis dies by castrating himself... but the same article he posted and selectively quoted (but obviously didn't read) also details how Attis' followers found his lifeless body and nailed it to a tree. So McWay learns a little something and makes my point for me.
I claimed that Issa was a direct copy of Jesus.
McWay Googles an article about Issa and counters that Issa is merely the Muslim name for Issa... but then I point out that a little more research will show Issa is buried in Kashmir. Again, McWay learns a little something and makes my point for me.
It works... let your detractors counter the claim, then use the source THEY cited to illustrate why they are wrong.
Just like this instance... you join this thread solely for the purpose of attacking me, then those reading the thread interject asking YOU to make proper arguments and stop the ad hominem attacks.
Have YOU learned anything by making my point for me?
The Luke
-
...I left college (physics) nearly seven years ago. Haven't you even been reading the answers I've posted to YOUR questions?
I have explained why I don't post direct links... because then the source is attacked (unfairly) by those who themselves only post faulty apologist arguments from pro-Christian sites.
I've explained that this is a specific argument tactic... and it works.
I claimed that Attis was crucified.
McWay Googles an article about Attis and points out that Attis dies by castrating himself... but the same article he posted and selectively quoted (but obviously didn't read) also details how Attis' followers found his lifeless body and nailed it to a tree. So McWay learns a little something and makes my point for me.
I claimed that Issa was a direct copy of Jesus.
McWay Googles an article about Issa and counters that Issa is merely the Muslim name for Issa... but then I point out that a little more research will show Issa is buried in Kashmir. Again, McWay learns a little something and makes my point for me.
It works... let your detractors counter the claim, then use the source THEY cited to illustrate why they are wrong.
Just like this instance... you join this thread solely for the purpose of attacking me, then those reading the thread interject asking YOU to make proper arguments and stop the ad hominem attacks.
Have YOU learned anything by making my point for me?
The Luke
you never answered my until this thread as to what your field of study was, never have said when you graduated till this thread either.
as a religion basher im sure youre aware of russel's tea pot well it isnt up to MCWAY to validate your assertions its yours...
You know what I find extremely funny is a man who spends thousands of dollars and countless man hours searching for big foot condemning others for their beliefs...only on getbig i guess.
Has the employment market picked up ireland luke?
-
Has the employment market picked up ireland luke?
...nope. Great Depression Two.
IMF austerity conditions here we come.
The Luke
-
...nope. Great Depression Two.
IMF austerity conditions here we come.
The Luke
All bs aside I hope you find employment I graduated with a psych degree and couldnt find employment Im back in school for Finance which will hopefully lead to something but I know what its like to not be able to find a good job or be "overqualified" for a job.
Its no fun and can be very depressing at times
-
Its no fun and can be very depressing at times
...I'm considering turning to crime, all this minimum wage bullshit and dead-end menial jobs are a waste of life.
The Luke
-
...I'm considering turning to crime, all this minimum wage bullshit and dead-end menial jobs are a waste of life.
The Luke
hahhaha ever consider going back to school? I know its not the most pleasing thought but you gotta do what you gotta do.
why not go back to school for your masters or phd while not having the job you want. Thats what I decided to do I mean its either sit on your hands doing ish you dont want to do or get off your ace and do something about it.
-
hahhaha ever consider going back to school? I know its not the most pleasing thought but you gotta do what you gotta do.
A masters in physics takes 2-3 years, a PhD takes 5-6 years... either way, that's 50 hours a week for next to no money.
The Luke
-
A masters in physics takes 2-3 years, a PhD takes 5-6 years... either way, that's 50 hours a week for next to no money.
The Luke
no doubt but what else are you doing with that time?
Im back in school for another undergrad dont know if ill finish i might apply for grad school after this semester but see the thing is you can sit there and work a minimum wage job and wait for something to come along or you can get up and be proactive about the situation and try and put yourself in a better position to get a better job.
Just my line of thinking I guess Im not really doing much right now so Id rather be working toward something than sitting on my ace not saying you are.
I think about it like this Im going to be 3 years older in 3 years no matter what why not have an mba? Im not doing anything else at the moment that would prevent me from doing it and it will only help me so...