Oh, and I totally forgot Luke, who even opens up saying everything he wrote was hearsay, and who's account differs yet again from both Mark and Matthew. And he wrote Acts. Supposedly.
notverylikely
JoinedPosts by notverylikely
-
127
The Pagan Christ
by poopsiecakes inhas anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
-
-
-
127
The Pagan Christ
by poopsiecakes inhas anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
-
-
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.
-
127
The Pagan Christ
by poopsiecakes inhas anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
-
-
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.
-
127
The Pagan Christ
by poopsiecakes inhas anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
-
-
notverylikely
So what if people believe he existed or not?
Awesome post.
-
127
The Pagan Christ
by poopsiecakes inhas anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
-
-
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?
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.
-
127
The Pagan Christ
by poopsiecakes inhas anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
-
-
notverylikely
Nonsense. How does someone's tone negate the truthfulness or otherwise of what they're saying?
It doesn't. It just means you're acting like a jerk and no one will listen beyond that.
It simply suits you to say that so you don't have to deal with the academic research I canvassed in that thread. Read the research I posted and respond to it
Why? When someone finds research or a theory that disagrees with your agenda, you turn into a jerk. That's not debate.
don't dismiss the whole thread just because you have some problem with my attitude.
I didn't, just you for being jerky.
Otherwise you're obviously just using an excuse.
Riiiight. Pot, kettle, rafter, eye, etc.
-
127
The Pagan Christ
by poopsiecakes inhas anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
-
-
notverylikely
I do not believe Jesus was a myth. Nor did I start a thread saying Jesus was real or that I have the facts to prove it. Obviously there are arguments either way, and we each choose which of those arguments have merit. I only accused Christ-myth'er of using lies to pad their case, and wondered at the motives in that.
The problem is that you are starting with an inherent bias towards a subject. Your OBVIOUS bias can be seen by calling conclusions you don't like lies, using inflammatory words, etc., rather than saying something like "the research doesn't support that conclusion based on this evidence".
I see nothing half and half here either by the way. I see that the 'theory has not endured.'
OK, and? You are focusing on the virgin birth portion and saying "see, there is no connection" when you are ignoring other myths like god impregnating women, etc. Dismissing that as not similiar because it doesn't support your bias is foolish at best and intelectually dishonest at worst. You have an agenda to push, why would I NOT presume you are cherry picking your fights?
If someone claims that something is true, and then the evidence proves that claim false, then it is false. You cannot prove that Jesus did not exist. You can only speculate, based on which argument you believe has merit.
I am not trying to prove he didn't. You keep wanting to argue this with me. Until you prove that Jesus did, we are arguing which old story came from which other old story. Also, you don't seem to be getting that studies of myths in antiquity is not as simple as 2+2=4. There are stories, other stories, competing stories, figuring out from incomplete records what wrote, beleived and re-told what and when. Evidence is rarely conclusive and you are treating it like you have eyewitness accounts in a court of law. Your approach is wrong and your imflammatory words don't lend you any credence.
Yes, I am pushing the lies line pretty hard. Because their claims are contradicted in the unbiased writings of mythology.
People writing those myths (including the ones inclkuding Jesus, until you prove they are true) were ALL pushing their agenda, just like you. You are as biased as the source you are using. That's why clear evidence is so hard to come by.
Are you trying to tell me how I felt? Or are you assuming I was backed into a corner and either didn't recognize it or am lying about it?
I don't know why you put that false dichotomy out there, I never aid you were lying about it, but since you asked, it's clear that you don't understand research or debate well enough to realize it. You are blinded by trying to push your agenda.
I am not a source. I am a person who has used unbiased sources to present her case and I have also looked up the sources you supplied. I have not told anyone to take me at my word. I have said to check them yourself if you want to know if they are unbiased, false or true.
You have an admitted bias. Any source that does not agree with your agenda you label as biased. Therefore, any source you use already agrees with you. Even if the SOURCE isn't biased, you are using it in a biased way.
I believe they were lying, and have given my reasons for this. Padding your case, seems to me, to be deceitful at least. But perhaps I should simply have said that their claims were false, and then went on to explain why I thought so from there.
That would have been a better start, yes. But to assume malice (lying) when in fact all they do is draw different conclusions based on evidence makes me think you might be incapable of that.
-
127
The Pagan Christ
by poopsiecakes inhas anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
-
-
notverylikely
Here's a thread on the subject:
Man, you turned angry in that thread quickly.
So, a comment in the "ulterior motives" portions of that thread (and partially this one). There are generally two competing ideas, one that generally falls into wanting the research and facts to prove the bible and the other following the research and facts to where they may lead. They BOTH have an ulterior motive, one is to prove their viewpoint correct, the other is to figure out what is correct.
You don't use science to prove you are right, you use science to become more right. (shamelessly stolen from XKCD).
So, when someone says "I see an ulterior motive" and they are referring to people using evidence to prop up the bible. A return answer like this...
Oh come on! Spare us the self-righteous 'ulterior motive' crap. The exact same thing could be said of those who attack the reliablity of the New Testament. They can just as easily be charged with being motivated by a disbelief of God.
(But if you want to indulge in ad hominem attacks, hows this) And even more so, since disbelief in God, hence disbelief in the Bible, means no accountability to anything higher than yourself and the police. Eat, drink, fornicate, and generally be merry with impunity, for tomorrow you are to die. Complete moral freedom. Lovely notion aye. So very tempting. I'd fight tooth and nail to defend my right to complete moral freedom.
Its not hard to see who has more reason for 'ulterior motives'.See, if the evidence doesn't support the NT or the OT or anything else, saying so isn't "attacking". Throwing out comments like that pretty much negates ANY credibility you had. Up to the point where I read that I was thinking "some interesting points worth considering here".
-
127
The Pagan Christ
by poopsiecakes inhas anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
-
-
notverylikely
The only assertion I made was that the Christ myth-ers are lying. I provided proof for that on this and other threads. And if a Christ-myther makes the claim that Christ is a myth, then THAT burden of proof does fall on them.
Sigh...you've provided debating views. Not evidence of lies. So, I am asking you, do you beleive that Jesus was a myth? Parts, all, none?
About.com has a persian mithra story... Mithra born from a rock. David Ulansey who wrote the Origins of Mirthra Mysteries and includes Persian/roman models, also claims that mithra was born from a rock. Encyclopedia Mithra... same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
Interestingly, everything I found was pretty much split half and half on that. Clearly there is DEBATE on the subject, not necesarily lies. What is interesting is that that the only sites that claim the other side is lying and Christianity came up with all of this anew are the aplogetics.
What lies? Not being able to provide unquestionable evidence does not make something a lie.
Interesting that when that standard is applied to your assertions they aren't lies either.
It just makes it unproven. But saying that you have proof of something, and then not having that proof... that is a lie.
So the existance of Jesus is unproven? Cool!
Again, I never started throwing proofs and history around to say that Jesus existed.
No, you didn't, you were engaging in an attempt to push an agenda. You have some different conclusions based on the evidence and are clearly pushing the "lies!" lines pretty hard. I was showing how that words equally well in the opposite direction.
I did not feel backed into a corner
You were.
I don't have a clue what classic debate attempts might be.
I can tell.
All I did was rebut the lies that Christ-myth'ers use.
You are accusing people debating a subject and holding a particular view of having an agenda and lying. Again, you clearly have an agenda as well and since you said that you can only use unbiased sources that don't have an agenda, you unwittingly ruled yourself out as reliable.
-
127
The Pagan Christ
by poopsiecakes inhas anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
-
-
notverylikely
If you make a claim that Christ is a myth, then THAT burden of proof lies on you.
I didn't make that claim. I am asking some some proof posotive for his existance since you are asserting Christ existed.
Can you give me your source for this, please? (Unbiased source)
I'm not your research monkey.
Because so far the only evidence I have heard about from the Mithras thing is from writings that post-date Christianity.
It literally took me less than five minutes to find. I have faith in you.
But even if I am, what about all the other obvious falsehoods? Why do Christ-mythers use them to pad their case?
Toss them in the bucket with all the lies that the polar opposite Christ-myther use to attempt to prove his existance. Goose, gander, etc.
I consider the books written, the mention of Jesus outside the bible, as well as the terrible persecution of Christians in the first and second centuries to be slightly better than sketchy.
The only contemporary one that wasn't christian (tacitus) just mentions that there were christians, followers of christ. The joseph flavius mentions are ALL later additions. lots of people were persecuted long before the christians rolled around, that in no way makes them unique (in fact, they were, depending upon the time in history, the terrible perpetrators of persecution, does that prove Christanity false?).
But are you saying that we should accept lies simply because Christians and non-christians alike have lied?
Sigh....again. I never said anyone should accept lies. That's a classic attempt in a debate when backed into a corner, turn something around and assert the OTHER person said it and ask them to explain it. Since I never said anything of the sort, I have to reject the attempt at misdirection.
So, if you want to say "I have faith in Jesus and beleive in him", that's awesome. But, when you start throwing facts and history around and talking about proof and bias, then i like to keep the playing field level and make sure we are all playing by the same rules.