Christianity did NOT borrow from pagan "Dying-Rising" God motifs

by yaddayadda 93 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Inquisitor

  Christianity is mostly based on faith, not certainty, and it certainly can't be proven on purely a rational basis. It also cannot be UN-proven on purely a rational basis.

  Everything is relative?? Surely one can prove whether or not there was or was not a man called Christ who walked the earth 2000 years ago. And failing that, surely with the supporting evidence for or against his existence, one can estimate the given probability that his existence was genuine or fake. And with that estimated probabilities, one can then decide for oneself if he or she believes that there was a man called Jesus Christ (in whatever language it was that they used in his 'hood then).

  THAT is how we resolve facts for ourselves. I don't believe in nebulous knowledge, where we don't know what we know or don't know and we never will.

  INQ feeling very un-agnostic this evening...
• 

  done4good

  Everything is relative?? Surely one can prove whether or not there was or was not a man called Christ who walked the earth 2000 years ago.

  I never said everything is relative, you've managed to read into what I said too much. Secondly, there is much debate as to whether Jesus actually existed or not. Do some research.

  j
• 

  TopHat

  If I had a choice in a savior over the Greek gods of myth or Jesus the son of God...Guess which one I would choose? The one that lasted the longest and the best well known today. No brainer!
• 

  Inquisitor

  If I had a choice in a savior over the Greek gods of myth or Jesus the son of God...Guess which one I would choose?

  Err.. Zeus? Eros? ... Pete Sampras? Billy Zane?

  INQ
• 

  lovelylil

  Hi alligators, I am back for our wrestling match.

  I was writing an article about Jesus' resurrection (that mythical guy in the NT) which refutes the WT's view of Jesus being re-created by Jehovah and not raised up in his body, when I remembered an interesting article I read recently on the web. This is a good article for believers and non-believers in Jesus to read and can be found here;

  http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

  The author makes some good points which is that extra biblical writings can be found about a historical Jesus living during his time in pagan, Jewish and Christian writings outside the New Testament. He also quotes a New Testament Scholar who asserts the following:

  "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death".

  In this article he brings out how evidence is wieghed by critical scholars regarding Jesus and why the way they establish the burden of proof is wrong to begin with. Basically he says the assumption is that the gospel accounts are unreliable until proven otherwise. (guilty until proven innocent) He brings out 5 reasons why we can trust the NT writings including;

  1. There was insufficient time for the lengendary influence to expunge historical facts

  2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary urban legends (they contain real historic fact)

  3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable

  4. There are significant restrictions to the embellishment of traditions about Jesus including eyewitness accounts and the Apostles

  5. The gospel writers ALREADY have a proven track record of reliability.

  He goes on to explain each premise in detail and then at the end of the article gives details about the times of Jesus life. And other important information. I liked the article because he really explains WHY Christians feel the way WE do regarding the evidence of Jesus and how we wiegh this evidence. And I liked the way he expressed it so very well. So enjoy! Lilly

  Now, snap on!
• 

  TopHat

  Err.. Zeus? Eros? ... Pete Sampras? Billy Zane?

  INQ

  Rarely do I hear of them, especially Billy Zane and no one I know takes them as serious as Jesus Son of Yahweh.
• 

  TopHat

  hey, listen. if the roots are not pagan, and judeo/xianity are the sole inventors of these myths, then all i have to say is: "go ahead! keep them! they're all yours."

  sincerely and good night,

  tetra

  Thank You but I don't need your permission. Just as YOU do NOT need my permission for YOUR belief or non belief.
• 

  Golf

  Yeah right, I would go and borrow from a thief!!!!!
  
  
  Golf
• 

  Balsam

  lovelylil,

  I have put my questions in Red.

  You said:

  In this article he brings out how evidence is weighed by critical scholars regarding Jesus and why the way they establish the burden of proof is wrong to begin with. Basically he says the assumption is that the gospel accounts are unreliable until proved otherwise. (guilty until proved innocent) He brings out 5 reasons why we can trust the NT writings including;

  1. There was insufficient time for the legendary influence to expunge historical facts. (Oral teachings of about Jesus could have become very colorful over the nearly 12 plus years before anything was written down)

  2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary urban legends (they contain real historic fact) (Why doesn't Josephus the Jewish historian of Jesus day never mention him if he was causing such a stir in his day as to warrant Pilot putting him to death? There is no outside historical writings outside the NT writings that give proof of Jesus historical presence.)

  3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. (I agree though scribes did make small corrections to Hebrew scriptures but does not apply to NT writings as scribes did not do the copying)

  4. There are significant restrictions to the embellishment of traditions about Jesus including eyewitness accounts and the Apostles. (I think this is true to some degree but since nothing much was written down until after Apostle Paul's first writings everything was oral tradition)

  5. The gospel writers ALREADY have a proved track record of reliability. (Who of their time felt that Early Christian writers had a track record of reliability? Who decided this?)

  __________________________________________________________

  I chose to follow a more Gnostic view of Jesus and I consider myself a Christian. In saying that, just because I am aware there is little evidence historically outside of the bible for Jesus having existing I like his teachings. I personally don't believe the bible has to be literally true to find some benefit to the teachings of Jesus the Christ of the Christians. I do believe that Christians borrowed heavily from the Dying-Rising god motif of other ancient religions. Personally I'm OK with that because to believe literally is not necessary to have faith in something. Why as Christians do we feel that the biblical account has to be perfectly accurate or literally true to find it useful in living our lives?????? I believe that love is the key to Jesus teachings and loving and being loving can never be wrong can it?

  Terry mentioned Robert Funk perception of the bible and I agree with that. Finding the bible is not literally and accurately true should not destroy our believe that the Divine loves us and provided a teacher to direct us to the high powers of love.

  Ruth
• 

  moggy lover

  Terry: Thanks for your comments. I value them. In my post I felt it only honest to lay my position out in the open so that others would know where I was coming from. In this sense, I agree, my beliefs, for which I see no need to apologize, precludes any strict claim to objectivity. My point is that belief, and especially Christian belief, need not be based on credulity, but on as reasonable an assessment of facts as are available to the observer.

  Arriving at the truth of any given matter concerns various elements of investigative techniques. This is made more complex by the very nature of "truth" itself. Truth is an infinite resource whose meaning and substance will never be plumbed in the entire lifespan of the human species.The quest for truth began with the human being who conceived the first finite thought, and we have sucessfully progressed from there.

  Augustine once said:"To believe is nothing more than to think with assent. Not all who think believe, but all who believe think." Belief therefore becomes an act of will, the voluntary acceptance of a proposition as true.

  Which brings us to Christian belief. The Christian position uses reason to arrive at a certain truth concerning the Mentor of the faith, Jesus Christ. But reason alone cannot produce belief in Christ. Reason accompanies belief, but does not cause it, because belief does not come about simply as a result of investigation. At some point, based on reason, one is led to embrace something more. To make a leap, as it were. A commitment that entrenches belief. Call this entrenchment faith, if you will, but it becomes an essential ingredient of belief. Does this lead to a subjective analysis of all investigation? Probably. But only if one distorts the original proposition.

  The earliest Christians undergirded their belief by what they had seen and what had accompanied their lives, thus their belief was not empty.Down through the centuries suceeding generations of Christian believers have been called on to give testimony to their beliefs. The trumpets summon us again.

  In my opinion, the belief in the Love of Christ ought to make the believer a better person, based on values that transcend mortal conceptualization. If this belief merely leads to dogmatism, intolerance, and zealotry, such as that manifested in the WT movement and other fundamentalisms, it is not the belief that has failed, it has simply been corrupted.

  Cheers