Didn't I give a huge list of twenty-odd precursor gods from whom Jesus is plagiarised, just a little earlier in this thread...?
You did, but you never responded to my question in regards to it.
-the god Chrishna/Krishna of India, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Sakia (Hindu), crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Thammuz/Tammuz of Syria, crucified circa 1160 B.C.
-the god Wittoba of the Telinogonesic, crucified circa 552 B.C.
-the god Iao of Nepal (sometimes conflated with Buddha), crucified circa 622 B.C.
-the god Hesus (not to be confused with his namesake Jesus) of the Celtic Druids, crucified circa 834 B.C.
-the god Quexalcote/Quetzylcoatl of Mexico, crucified circa 587 B.C.
-the god Quirinus of Rome (possibly Etruscan in origin), crucified circa 506 B.C.
-the god/titan (Aeschylus) Promotheus, crucified circa 547 B.C.
-the god Thulis of Egypt, crucified circa 1700 B.C.
-the god Indra of Tibet/Bhutan, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Alcestos of Euripides, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Crite/Krite of the Chaldeans, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Bali of Orissa, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Mithra/Mithras of Persia, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god/demigod Ixion, crucified circa 400 B.C.
As McWay brought out, there are similarties, yet hardly leading to proof of plagiarism. It would need to be the same in all regards in my opinion. Also, there are allot of similarities being drawn out that don't exist between the "Jesus" account and these aforementioned "gods". I'm not sure where you are getting that your "Jesus" story from based on this?
But be careful not to use Christian apologist websites for your info (as McWay does) as many of these gods have different versions: a folklore version; an adapted version; a metaphorical/astrological solar deity version; a fascist version etc etc... the Christian apologists are happy to quote the discrepancies between the Jesus story and (say) the folklore version of whichever god... seldom do they acknowledge the blatant and obvious parallels between Jesus (a Mystery Religion solar deity) and the Mystery Religion solar deity version of some other god.
ALL Mystery Religion solar deities have the same basic blueprint, including Jesus.
Again, from what I can tell, most of those similarities are not consistent with the Jesus story.
For example, I could assert that Jesus never rose from the dead IF I disingenuously referenced the Gnostic/Buddhist version of the Jesus story as practiced and preached by Cathar Christians from 200 AD till the Middle Ages.
The Cathars rejected the resurrection; and Jesus' divinity; and Judas as betrayer; and the Holy Trinity; and heaven and hell; and Saint Peter etc etc
The (common consensus) Biblical version of Jesus is only the last surviving version of this Jesus myth, the Catholic Church wiped out almost all others.
I only stick to the Bible's rendition. Let's see if it (Bible) agrees with this notion.
The Biblical version of Jesus as we have it today is a metaphorical solar deity in the tradition of the Mystery Religion... except the revelatory oral tradition which enlightens the symbolism involved has been lost.
This definitely doesn't agree with the Bible.
The Mystery Religion itself is older than Atlantis or Eden... so 10,500 BC to 12,000 BC at least....but if you want one that predates even Genesis (the founding document of Judaism) you might want to try "Horus, the miracle child" (Egyptian).
I have a problem with saying that written recorded human history is past 6000 years or so. Why? Do the results of scientific dating affect our understanding of the Bible? That depends on our viewpoint. If we have held to the fundamentalist interpretation that the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars - not just mankind - were all created in just six 24-hour days, we have to admit that the scientific evidence is unsettling.
On the other hand, if we understand that the days of Genesis were long periods of thousands of years, with billions of years prior thereto for planet Earth’s formation, there is no problem.
A conflict does arise, however, when a few radiocarbon dates indicate that there were men burning campfires, making tools, or building houses more than 6,000 years ago. Such dates contradict Bible chronology. Which should we believe?
From the time Adam was created, the Bible gives a year-by-year count of time that links up with reliable secular history about 25 centuries ago. The years were marked by the annual march of the sun from the summer to the winter solstice and back again, a sign God put in the sky for that purpose. Intelligent men noted and logged the successive years from one historic event to another. The records were incorporated in the early books of the Bible and preserved thereafter as part of the sacred treasury of the Jewish people as long as their national existence continued. This history of unmatched accuracy and authority tells us that mankind has been on the earth only about 6,000 years.
In contrast with this definite and positive authority, look at the radiocarbon theory. It is based on assumptions that have all been questioned, revised, and qualified, and many of which are still clouded in serious doubts. How can it seriously challenge the historical chronology of the Bible?
What, then, may we conclude? We have seen that geologists find generally good support in radiometric dating for their theories on the history of the earth, although most of the dates are far from certain.
Paleontologists, most of whom are prejudiced by their training and by their associates in favor of the theory of evolution, keep looking for support from radiometric dating for their claims that supposed fossils of ape-men are millions of years old. But their pursuit is a frustrating one.
On the one hand, the geological clocks, uranium and potassium, run so slowly that they are not suitable. On the other hand, the radiocarbon clock, which works fairly well for just a few thousand years back, gets hopelessly entangled in difficulties beyond that. Even so, the overwhelming majority of radiocarbon measurements fall within the Biblical 6,000-year range. The few older dates, to which evolutionists cling desperately, are all suspect.
Other scientific dating methods, of which amino-acid racemization was foremost in the attack on the Bible's history of man’s creation, have failed evolutionists miserably.
We can confidently stand on this fact: The chronology in the Bible stands unimpeached by any scientific dating.
Also, some quotes from trusted sources.
A report in
New Scientist of March 18, 1982, reads - “‘I am staggered to believe that as little as a year ago I made the statements that I made.’ so said Richard Leakey, before the elegant audience of a Royal Institution evening discourse last Friday. He had come to reveal that the conventional wisdom, which he had so recently espoused in his BBC television series The Making of Mankind, was ‘probably wrong in a number of crucial areas.’ In particular, he now sees man’s oldest ancestor as being considerably younger than the 15-20 million years he plumped for on television.” - P. 695.
The New Encyclopedia Britannica (1976, Macropaedia, Vol. 5, p. 509) says - “Hope rather than accomplishment mainly characterizes the status of thermoluminescence dating at the present time.” Also, Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.
Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” The article points out that his findings would lead to the conclusion that “man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”
I could go on and on, but I think you see what I'm getting at. Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
