The Pagan Christ

by poopsiecakes 127 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tec

  I think there seems to be very little reason to continue debating this with you.

  You do not answer many of my questions, and I have addressed all of yours.

  You do not hold yourself to the same standard as you are holding me. Examples:

  -When you said I had to prove a claim that I make (that the facts given by Christ-mythers are false claims), then I gave my reasons and provided you the sources that I used. But when you made the claim that Mithra was born of a virgin and I asked you to back up your claim and provide your source, you said that you were not my research monkey.

  -When you claimed that Christianity speaks lies to one another, I asked you what those lies were? Instead of answering my question about your claim, you responded, 'Interesting that when the standards are applied to your assertions, they aren't lies either.'

  I don't know how that's an answer. To me, that sounds like avoidance.

  -When I told the story of Isis/Osiris/Horace to show that the claims made by Christ-mythers were false, and listed the sources I used, you made no response at all, except to switch to the story of Mithra.

  -When I showed that there is nothing to back up the claim that Mithra was born of a virgin, and that the evidence states that Mithra was born of a rock, then you said... okay, so?... and then said that I am ignoring all of the other similarities.

  I have not ignored anything. I have searched each one, and I have listed a handful of other comparison claims on the thread titled, 'who do you think this is talking about.' I stated this in my very first post on this thread:

  - Look up zietgeist in youtube if you want. But every Christ-myth'er that I have ever heard of uses false claims to back up the claim that Jesus was a rip off from other ancient religions. You just have to check sources mentioned to discover that their claim is -padded- with false information... which is either lazy research or outright lies. Neither of which makes for a credible argument. I only have so many posts, but please check out the thread, 'who do you think this is talking about.' I list all my reasons for my disbelief in these claims and cite some of my sources. -

  This is the only assertion that I made.

  I did not attempt to assert that Jesus was or was not a myth. You are the one who turned this into an issue of making me try and prove that Jesus was or was not a myth, instead of leaving the focus on those claims that I had made. I attacked only the authenticity and credibility of the claims that are made by Christ-mythers, and as such, that is all I am obligated to try and prove... as per your instructions.

  Nor are the sources that I used to verify the authenticity of these myths from Christian apologetics, as you said they were. Here are two of the sources that I used, both of which are not written by Christian apologetics... so the people relaying these myths in these sources had no agenda to push.

  www.pantheon.org/areas/ -- which is the Encyclopedia Mythica

  www.greekmythology.com
• 

  awildflower

  So what if people believe he existed or not? To me, wouldn't it be more important that a person displayed the qualities that Jesus and OTHERS lived by? Does someone HAVE to BELIEVE in Jesus to be kind and loving and enlightened? According to Christians YES! And so many times in these discussions we are missing the main point: The Church and Jesus are Separate!! Christians have a hard time separating the two. If you do believe in Jesus why on earth would you want to associate him with the Church! And for those of you who say "Christ-mythes" have to lie and "pad" their arguments with lies, CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN DOING THAT SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH! The whole thing is based on lies and control and "picking and choosing"! I think if it's that important for you people to call yourselves "Christians" and you want people to take you seriously and if you want people to "turn to Christ" and live the type of person he was, then you better separate yourself from the Church because you do nothing to bring out the type of person Jesus was when you associate him with the Church, a thing he wouldn't want either!! The truth is, you don't have to call yourself ANYTHING to live a life and concept that Jesus lived whether you believe he existed or not. And the truth is is there were others like him before him and after that lived the same type of life.

  And I've seen a lot of disproving information on why he isn't just a pagan character, but where's the solid proof outside of the Bible of who he really was then? Why is a man who performed miracles, raised the dead for goodness sake, cured the sick, healed the blind and deaf, not written about more extensively? There are smaller subjects in history that are very detailed, why not this man?
• 

  tec

  Does someone HAVE to BELIEVE in Jesus to be kind and loving and enlightened? According to Christians YES!

  According to some Christians, yes. I don't believe so, I am not associated with any Church, and I am not the only follower of Christ who thinks as I do. And I agree with you, Awildflower. If any person displays the qualities that Jesus lived by without necessarily believing in the man, himself, then that person would be living according to Jesus teachings by natural means... and not because of doctrine and rules.

  At the same time, not every Christian belonging to a church places the church and its doctrines above Christ. Perhaps these people simply feel strengthened in their faith by associating with other believers.

  I have also stated that I hold Christians and non-christians to the exact same standard.

  If christians have lied since the early church, then they bear responsibility for all the people who have turned away from Christ because of their deceit.

  In the same standard, if Christ myther's are lying in their claims, then they bear the responsibility for all the people who have turned away from Christ because of their deceit.

  I, and others, are simply speaking out as vehemently against these false claims as christians and non-christians have spoken against false teachings in the church.

  As for proof of who Jesus really was, I think it is a mistake that we discredit the NT books just because they are in the bible. These were the books that recorded the history Jesus' life and teachings - by the only people who walked with him, who believed that he performed these miracles, raised the dead, etc... The letters written by men named Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and Luke (Acts) were just that -- letters on matters concerning Christ to those people living as Christians.

  But to each his own conclusions. I simply caution against drawing conclusions based on false information.

  Tec
• 

  notverylikely

  I think there seems to be very little reason to continue debating this with you.

  You have yet to start debating. You pretty much have an agenda, any research and evidence that agrees with you is "true and unbiased", anything that doesn't you call "LIES!". That's not a debate at all.

  But when you made the claim that Mithra was born of a virgin and I asked you to back up your claim and provide your source, you said that you were not my research monkey.

  And then I provided the source.

  When you claimed that Christianity speaks lies to one another, I asked you what those lies were?Instead of answering my question about your claim, you responded, 'Interesting that when the standards are applied to your assertions, they aren't lies either.'

  Baptists claim JW's lie, JW's claim Catholics lie, Protestants claim Baptists lie. You actually agreed with that and said Christiaity had a lot to answer for. And again, I am not claiming anything, you keep pushing the line (LIE!) that I am.

  -When I told the story of Isis/Osiris/Horace to show that the claims made by Christ-mythers were false, and listed the sources I used, you made no response at all, except to switch to the story of Mithra.

  First, I never adressed those myths at all,Se so it would be impossible for me to "switch". Secondly, there are numerous sources that disagree with you, but because of your bias, you label them liars and biased sources. You seem to be incapable of engaging in an honest debate regading research and instead get all inflammatory pushing your agenda.

  I attacked only the authenticity and credibility of the claims that are made by Christ-mythers, and as such, that is all I am obligated to try and prove... as per your instructions.

  So a guy on the internet with an agenda picking only the sources that agrees with him and calling anyone that doesn't liars gets to question the credibility of researchers comparing old myths who see similarities between the old stories? I am thinking you don't know what "authenticity" and "credibility" means.

  Nor are the sources that I used to verify the authenticity of these myths from Christian apologetics, as you said they were.

  I never said they were. I said they agreed with you. You are the apologetic cherry picking sources. Why would you lie like that?

  www.pantheon.org/areas/

  That's an awesome site. Less than five minutes of browsing led me to the entry for Baal, the son of El who later morphed in Yahweh and who's death and resurrection were celebrated yearly. Definite similarities with Jesus. While it is true that there are differences, there are definitely similarites that show all of these myths are interrelated.

  Thanks for providing an unbiased source that you THOUGHT supported you.
• 

  notverylikely

  So what if people believe he existed or not?

  Awesome post.
• 

  poopsiecakes

  

  This is quite the spirited debate! I'll re-iterate that I hope it's all in the spirit of good fun - since neither side can really prove one way or the other what the actual historical facts are. I agree with wildflower that if there was an historical Jesus, and if what the gospels say are true about his philosophy, that so called Christians have moved far far away from the intent of his words.
• 

  tec

  Poopsiecakes, I totally love your popcorn eating smiley!

  Notverylikely - there are a lot of baals in the encyclopedia mythica. I am reading them as we speak. But this is the first one I found.

  On Mount Carmel it was the prophet Elijah who discredited King Ahab's belief in the power of Baal, when at his request "the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice," and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. Afterwards Elijah had the people slay "the prophets of Baal," thereby assuring the survival of the worship of Yahweh in Israel.

  The worship of Baal extended from the Canaanites to the Phoenicians who also were partially an agricultural people. Both Baal and his cohort Ashtoreth, or Astarte, who is equivalent to the Greek goddess Aphrodite, were both Phoenician fertility symbols. Baal, the sun god, was fervently prayed to for the protection of livestock and crops. Priests instructed the people that Baal was responsible for droughts, plagues, and other calamities. People were often worked up into great frenzies at the prospects of displeasing Baal. In times of great turbulence human sacrifices, particularly children, were made to the great god Moloch.

  Since the Phoenicians also were superb ship builders the religion and cults of Baal spread throughout the Mediterranean world. The worship of Baal was found among the Moabites and their allies Midinites during Moses' time. It was also introduced to the Israelites.

  The religion of the god Baal was widely accepted among the ancient Jews, and although it was put down at times, it was never permanently stamped out. Kings and other royalty of the ten Biblical tribes worshiped the god. The ordinary people ardently worshipped this sun god too because their prosperity depended on the productivity of their crops and livestock. The god's images were erected on many buildings. Within the religion there appeared to be numerous priests and various classes of devotees. During the ceremonies they wore appropriate robes. The ceremonies included burning incense, and offering burnt sacrifices, occasionally consisting of human victims. The officiating priests danced around the altars, chanting frantically and cutting themselves with knives to inspire the attention and compassion of the god.

  In the Bible Baal is also called Beelzebub, or Baalzebub, one of the fallen angels of Satan.

  Baal was associated with Satan, not Jesus or Yahweh. The prophets of Baal were slain, thereby assuring the worship of Yahweh. The bible actually warns against cutting the body, and condemns sacrificing children, etc.

  However, I am thankful that you pointed this outside source to me. This was extremely interesting, since I have often wondered what exactly the worship of the baals and human sacrifice entailed, and where it came from.

  Tec
• 

  tec

  Okay, finished reading the others. So cool. To find out the different ways that all the different nations mentioned in the bible worshiped the baals, many offering human sacrifice and animal sacrifice etc. Could have used this stuff over on my, 'For those who use the Ot to try and prove that God is a tyrant', thread!

  However, Yahweh is depicted as being in opposition to the baals, which confers with the Bible rendering.
• 

  notverylikely

  Baal was associated with Satan, not Jesus or Yahweh.

  Another case if seeing the facts you want to see and no digging deep enough.

  From the very same site (some of this from the same page, even!)

  Baal is still principally thought of as a Canaanite fertility deity. The Great Baal was of Canaan. He was the son of El, the high god of Canaan. The cult of Baal celebrated annually his death and resurrection as a part of the Canaanite fertility rituals. These ceremonies often included human sacrifice and temple prostitution.

  After defeating the sea god Yam, and building a house on Mount Saphon, and taking possession of numerous cities, Baal announced that he would no longer acknowledge the authority of Mot, "death."

  Leader of the gods. The first Canaanite god, El dwelt on Mount Saphon, and it was under his aegis that Baal married Anat, defeated the sea god Yam and the death lord Mot, and was installed as the divine bestower of life-giving rain. Represented as an aged man, El wore bull's horns, the symbol of strength, and was usually depicted as seated. It is thought that he corresponded to the Hebrew god, Yahweh. He is also known as El 'Elyon, "God Most High."

  In Christian belief, Jesus Christ is the Son of God

  So, using your sources (unbised according to you) El = Jehovah, Baal is the son of El, Jesus is ALSO the son of El. Baal's death and resurrection were celebrated long before Jesus was mentioned. Baal rejected the authority of death. Later, Baal's little brother did the same thing.

  Jesus = Baal little brother 1400 years after Baal worship started. Jesus, like many little brothers, emulated some of the things his big brother did (death and resurrection, rejected death, etc), but was also different in many way.
• 

  notverylikely

  As for proof of who Jesus really was, I think it is a mistake that we discredit the NT books just because they are in the bible. These were the books that recorded the history Jesus' life and teachings - by the only people who walked with him, who believed that he performed these miracles, raised the dead, etc... The letters written by men named Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and Luke (Acts) were just that -- letters on matters concerning Christ to those people living as Christians.

  Other than the NT, there is not much proof that Matthew or Mark existed. Their accounts differ and were both written when both would have been old men. Nothing written during the life time of Baal's little brother exists to corroborate anything.

  And as for the books of the bible, which Bible? The holy books that we have or just the books considered canon after the Synod of Hippo (which contains many of the books in the bible we used today) that had other books also considered part of the bible (and considered the author of the gospel of and 1st John to be different than the author of 2nd, 3rd John and Revelation) or the bible decided upon at the council of trent or the orthodox bible?

  Paul never met Jesus, Peter never wrote about anything he witnesses during Jesus life and his writings are all about after Jesus died. And the NT is contradictory in it's message, i.e., faith is all that is needed to be save and later, faith without works is dead.

  I have no issue with using the books of the NT as reference, but you have to tell me which version, who's interpretation, etc. I mean, Christians can't even agree on which bible, which translation, interpretation and even when they do, the exact meaning.