Name that mythical tale that the bible stole!

[WITHTEETH]

I've been pondering this quite a bit, and i dont know where to start. Can anybody give stories fromthe bible that are stolen from other cultures such as around the medateranean ect...

One ive heard is from a book called Ishmael about Adam and Eve

In another version of this same story created by the people who witnessed the aggricultural revolution, the semites.(before the bible was created. THey beleived in more then one god. there was Adam and Eve. The tree of knowledge helped the gods, it gave the gods knowledge to balance the earth, what animals will die this to live on to the next, the circle of life. well Adam(christians) ate the apple and wanted the knowledge also. Adam ate it and thought it worked. but it did not, Adam(christians, any body who lives off of agricultural food) just has a big head now. and from then on we have been growing our own food.

In Genesis, God liked Abel more because he didn't till the land. Abel (hunters and gatherers) lived with an equalibrium. Cain (us, Adam, even christians) unbalanced everything thinking he knew what was right and wrong because he ate from the tree of knowledge that only works for gods..

Basically the semites who wrote the story about eve and adam, were writing a story on how people were losing their way. people were not hunting and gathering anymore but starting the agricultural period. the people who witnessed us were called the semites, they were hunters and gatherers. the semites saw us as disobeying god, and that eating the apple was symblozing how we were sinning when we started to farm and till the land, the agricultural age.

i dont see the agricultural age as bad :) It helped humans prepare for bad seasons, to store up food. if the agricultral age never hamppened the earth would be in better shape because of the human population would be considerabley lower.

Im not sure they stole this one. But PLEASE name some, maybe about Jesus' resurrection or the flood, genesis and revelations.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

The flood story is fairly common from that region. Check out the "Epic of Gilgamesh". I don't think the Bible stole it, though, so much as both accounts stem from the same legend.

[Philboid Studge]

There were a number of Near Eastern "nature religions" (read: pagans) that used a snake symbol for their Goddess; others had a form of "communion" that involved eating the fruit of a tree that grew near the goddess altars. So, in a feminist take on the Xian creation myth, the Semitic tribes took elements of other tribal groups to form their mythology, and ultimately used it to establish a patriarchal order.

When God Was a Woman by Merlin Stone is an interesting read (NB: plenty of scholars were unconvinced by the archaeological evidence she presented.), or you can get the gist of it here. (http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2000/stone2.html)

[Lurker]

Withteeth,
This old stale argument is an atheist classic. Waste your time collecting stories or go here (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html) and here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html) to learn why it's a waste of time. The excerpts below deal with the often-cited Mithra.

1) Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
This claim, which I have seen repeated in part by the Secular Web's James Still, is a mix of truth and obfuscations. Let's begin with the December 25th part by noting Glenn Miller's reply, which is more than sufficient: "...the Dec 25 issue is of no relevance to us--nowhere does the NT associate this date with Jesus' birth at all." This is something the later church did, wherever they got the idea from -- not the apostolic church, and if there was any borrowing at all, everyone did it, for Dec. 25th was "universally distinguished by sacred festivities" [Cum.MM, 196] being that it was (at the time) the winter solstice.

Next, the cave part. First of all, Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind -- and I suppose technically the rock he was born out of could have been classified as a virgin! Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up, but you won't hear the copycatters mention this! (The rock-birth scene itself was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern; Ulan.OMM, 36.)

2) He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
3) His resurrection was celebrated every year.
I have to classify these two as "ringers" -- I see no references anywhere in the Mithraic studies literature to Mithra being buried, or even dying, for that matter [Gordon says directly, that there is "no death of Mithras" -- Gor.IV, 96] and so of course no rising again and no "resurrection" (in a Jewish sense?!) to celebrate. Freke and Gandy [Frek.JM, 56] claim that the Mithraic initiates "enacted a similar resurrection scene", but their only reference is to a comment by Tertullian, significantly after New Testament times!

[WITHTEETH]

Hey lurker, thanks for the introducktion to Mithra! No thanks for the biased christians website hyper links. :)

[WITHTEETH]

The flood story is fairly common from that region. Check out the "Epic of Gilgamesh". I don't think the Bible stole it, though, so much as both accounts stem from the same legend.
I wonder if they use the flood story because it was apart of there live. I mean the constant flooding of the tigris and euphrates river. any possiblities?

[Lurker]

Hey lurker, thanks for the introducktion to Mithra! No thanks for the biased christians website hyper links. :)
I guess it's better to stick with the biased atheist websites, huh? Nevermind the non-christian references that are cited in my links. At least admit that you don't seek the truth, just your own version of it. Well, I guess you pretty much did.

[WITHTEETH]

I went to both websites, and read them. thats why i called them biased. relax friend ;)

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

The flood story is fairly common from that region. Check out the "Epic of Gilgamesh". I don't think the Bible stole it, though, so much as both accounts stem from the same legend.
I wonder if they use the flood story because it was apart of there live. I mean the constant flooding of the tigris and euphrates river. any possiblities?
That's the common interpretation. I don't know of any other Middle Eastern flood stories besides those two, though. Not that I've looked for them.

[Lurker]

I went to both websites, and read them. thats why i called them biased. relax friend ;)
I never doubted that you visited the websites. After all you knew they were christian sites. It took you 50 minutes (maximum!) to conclude everything on those sites was biased and not worth considering - not even the references. That's what I'm talking about.

[ghoulslime]

#1

Mithraism was a secretive religion of Roman times, passed from initiate to initiate, and hence with very little documentary evidence before the 1st century A.D. Man-made caves named 'mithraeum' were the location of the religious meetings, and are scattered over much of the Mediterranean area. (Not a story – we can visit them today) The beliefs of the followers of Mithraism apparently included that their god died, was buried in a rock tomb, and was resurrected. The Mithraic god is depicted as a man.

Mithraism is sufficiently documented by reputable historians beyond any reasonable person’s doubt as to what the religion entailed. Roman Legionnaires of the late first century left sufficient evidence of the tenets of their religion. There is no reason to banter over these beliefs other than to rationalize the suspiciously similar beliefs of Christianity.

The worship of Mythra climaxed in the 1st century A.D. Hmmm…nothing suspicious here, right, Christians? :/


#2

A Greek mythological hero, Adonis was one of the most complex figures in classical times. He had multiple roles and there has been much scholarship over the centuries of his meaning and purpose in the Greek religious beliefs. His Semitic counterpart is Tammuz. His Etruscan counterpart was Atunis. He is a life-death-rebirth deity.
Adonis was almost certainly based in large part on Tammuz. His name is Semitic, a variation on the word meaning "lord" and also used to refer to Yahweh in the Old Testament.

Adonis' birth is shrouded in confusion. Multiple versions exist.

1. The most commonly accepted version is that Aphrodite urged Myrrha or Smyrna to commit incest with her father, Theias, the King of Assyria. Myrrha's nurse helped with the scheme. When Theias discovered this, he flew into a rage, chasing his daughter with a knife. The gods turned her into a myrrh tree and Adonis eventually sprung from this tree.

2. It was also said that Myrrha fled from her father and Aphrodite turned her into a tree. Adonis was then born when Theias shot an arrow into the tree or when a boar used its tusks to tear the tree's bark off.

3. Apollodorus considered Adonis to be the son of Cinyras and Metharme.

4. Hesiod believes he is the son of Phoenix and Aephesiboea

Once Adonis was born, Aphrodite took him under her wing, seducing him with the help of Helene, her friend, and was entranced by his unearthly beauty. She gave him to Persephone to watch over, but Persephone was also amazed at his beauty and refused to give him back. The argument between the two goddesses was settled either by Zeus or Calliope, with Adonis spending four months with Aphrodite, four months with Persephone and four months of the years with whomever he chose. He always chose Aphrodite because Persephone was the cold, unfeeling goddess of the underworld.

He died at the tusks of a wild boar, sent by either Artemis or Artemis' lover, Ares, who was jealous of Adonis' beauty. Each drop of Adonis' blood turned into a rose.

Adonis was often worshipped in mystery religions. His name is frequently used as an allusion in reference to an extremely attractive, youthful male, often with a connotation of immature vanity.

Nothing suspicious here, right, Christians?:/

#3

Osiris is one of the most important of the Ancient Egyptian deities. He is a life-death-rebirth deity. He was eventually buried in the city of Abydos, of which he was the patron deity.

Osiris was the Egyptian god of the underworld, as well as a fertility and agricultural deity. With his wife, Isis, he was the father of Horus. Beb was described as his first-born son. Later, he was combined with Seker and Ptah to create Ptah-Seker-Osiris and was also identified with Heryshaf.

Osiris was murdered by his brother, Seth, who then chopped the body into smaller pieces. Isis and Nepthys, her sister, found the pieces (except his penis) and gave wax models of them to the priests to worship. Re sent Anubis and Thoth to mummify Osiris and Isis brought life back into his body. Afterwards, Osiris had to stay in the underworld and judge the souls of the dead and was called Neb-er-tcher ("lord of the outermost limit").

In Duat, the underworld, Osiris weighed the dead souls against the Feather of Truth. Souls weighted down by sin were devoured by Ammit and those who were light enough were sent to Aaru.

The Egyptian Ministry of Tourism website says that Orisis "once possessed human form and lived upon earth, and that by means of some unusual power or powers he was able to bestow upon himself after the death a new life which he lived in a region over which he ruled as king, and into which he was believed to be willing to admit all such as had lived a good and correct life upon earth".

The hieroglypic rendering of this God's name is still uncertain. Current thinking is that it is pronounced "aser" where the "a" is a glottal stop much as you still hear in modern the Arabic and Hebrew languages.

Christians? Still with me? :/


#4

Tammuz (which is a Hebrew word) is the tenth month of the ecclesiastical year and the fourth month of the civil year on the Hebrew calendar. It is a summer month of 29 days. Of Babylonian origin, the month was established in honor of the eponymous god Tammuz, which is a corrupt form of the Akkadian farming-god Dumuzi, the consort of Ishtar and the parallel of Adonis in the Greek pantheon. Beginning with the summer solstice, it was a time of mourning in ancient times: the Babylonians marked the decline in daylight hours with a six-day "funeral" for the god (see Ezekiel 8:14).

The ancient Israelites adopted this mourning ritual as well, linking it with the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Today, Tammuz 17 is a Jewish fast day, marking the start of a three week period of mourning that culminates in Ab 9, the traditional date of the Temple's destruction in 586 BC and again in 70.

Tammuz was sentenced to the underworld by Ishtar as a punishment for his inattention when she was condemned there. Ishtar was restored to life by Enki but a "conservation of souls" law required her to find a replacement for herself in Kur. She went among many of the other gods, but could not bring herself to put them in her place until she found Tammuz on her throne, apparently oblivious to the fact that she was gone. Demons carried him off to the underworld. She took pity on him and through arrangement with Geshtinanna (Tammuz' sister), Tammuz and Geshtinanna each spend 6 months of the year in Kur. Tammuz being the god of crop fertility, this corresponds to the changing of the seasons as the abundance of the earth diminishes in his absence. He is a life-death-rebirth deity.

Oh, no! Christians, could it be that your religion has parallels to other mythology? NO!!! Nothing similar here! :mad:



Could it be that there were other stories about resurrected deities? Well let’s make a little list of a few:
:D

Life-death-rebirth Deities

1. Aboriginal mythology
- Julunggul
- Wawalag

2. Akkadian mythology
- Tammuz

3. Aztec mythology
- Xipe Totec

4. Celtic mythology
- Cernunnos

5. Christianity
- Jesus Christ

6. Egyptian mythology
- Isis
- Osiris

7. Etruscan mythology
- Atunis

8. Greek mythology
- Adonis
- Cybele
- Dionysus
- Orpheus
- Persephone

9. Hindu mythology
- Vishnu

10. Khoikhoi mythology
- Heitsi

11. Norse mythology
- Gullveig

12. Persian mythology
- Mithras

13. Phrygian mythology
- Attis

14. Roman mythology
- Aeneas
- Bacchus
- Proserpina

15. Sumerian mythology
- Damuzi
- Inanna

Christians, why is your ressurection story better than any of the others? :P

Yeah, Ghoulslime has spoken the word of truth, yeah! Uh!....can you feel it in your ass? Can you feel it? :lol:

[Lurker]

Nice cut & paste job. I never said that there were no similarities. I guess you're saying christianity isn't true if it isn't unique. Fallacious to say the least. Let's use Lord Raglan's Scale to see if Winston Churhill was a mythical person.

1) The hero's mother is a royal virgin
Churchill's mother was Jennie Jerome, a prominent member of American high society: a quasi-princess. Her father was Leonard Walton Jerome, a wealthy financier.

2) His father is a king and
3) often a near relative of the mother, but
Churchill's father was Lord Randolph Churchill, an extremely prominent aristocrat and politician. He was descended from the Dukes of Marlborough and hence a member of one of the best-known most illustrious noble dynasties in Britain. He could not have been made the son of a king, since at the time of his birth Britain was ruled by a female monarch, the great Queen Victoria.

4) the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5) he is also reputed to be the son of a god
Churchill's mother was allegedly a serial adulterer, and her admirers are known to have included such illustrious figures as the future King Edward VII. Though historians have avoided suggesting that Winston was a bastard, doubts have certainly been expressed concerning the paternity of his younger brother Jack. An earlier version of the story may have been less circumspect.

6) at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7) He is spirited away, and
8) Reared by foster-parents in a far country
Churchill's relationship with his father was cold, and he was treated with unusual violence by his teachers (father-substitute). He was sent away from home to several private boarding schools and colleges; even before that, he is believed to have been much closer to the nurse to whom he was entrusted than to either of his natural parents. We may also note that as a youth he worked abroad for some time as a journalist and soldier in South Africa, Sudan, Cuba and elsewhere.

9) We are told nothing of his childhood, but
It is a notorious fact that the only period of Churchill's life which ever receives any attention is his late adulthood, from the 1930s to the 1950s, though a few stories exist concerning his conduct in the First World War and his activities as a war reporter in the Boer War.

10) On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
After the Boer War, Churchill's series of exiles ended and he settled down in Britain for good.

11) After a victory over the king and/or giant, dragon, or wild beast
12) He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13) becomes king
Churchill's return to Britain was followed closely by his entry into politics. His 'victory' may plausibly be identified with his exploits in South Africa, which first thrust him into the limelight (he received a hero's welcome after his escape from an Afrikaner concentration camp). His marriage in 1908 to Clementine Ogilvy Hozier, an aristocratic princess-figure, coincided precisely with the first peak of his political career: from 1906 onwards, he began to receive a series of high-profile government jobs, notably that of Home Secretary in 1910-11.

Churchill's second phase of political success came from 1940 onwards, when he served as Britain's wartime Prime Minister. During the 1930s, he had struggled at length with the metaphorical beasts of Nazism and Communism.

14) For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15) Prescribes laws but
Churchill did just this, serving with distinction as a government minister for several years from 1906 to 1915. Later, his first term of office as Premier (1940-1945) was distinguished both by Britain's victory over Nazi Germany and by the passage of a series of important legislative measures such as the 1944 Education Act, which laid the foundations of Britain's modern school system.

16) later loses favor with the gods and or his people and
17) Is driven from from the throne and the city after which
18) He meets with a mysterious death
19) often at the top of a hill.
After a series of military failures, notably the disastrous Dardannelles expedition in 1915, for which he was held responsible, Churchill was sacked as First Lord of the Sea in 1915 and resigned from the government altogether shortly afterwards. This series of events is suspiciously paralleled by his subsequent ill-starred involvement in the Russian Civil War and the Anglo-Irish War, which was followed in 1922 by his departure from Parliament.

Later in his life, Churchill's second term as Prime Minister (1951-1955) is generally regarded as a failure both because of his irresolute economic policy and his abortive attempt to end the Cold War through a peace conference. Though he was not actually killed nor defeated at the polls, he did suffer a stroke at around this time, and his departure from the political stage was earnestly sought for and welcomed when it came.

20) his children, if any, do not succeed him.
Churchill's son and heir Randolph was not half the man that his father was. He attempted to follow a political and literary career like that of his father and failed miserably.

21) his body is not buried, but
22) nevertheless he has one or more holy sepulchres.
Churchill's grave at Woodstock is still an object of veneration.

The duplication of several motifs leads one to suspect that more that one version of the Churchill myth circulated, and that the several were combined by a relatively late redactor. The necessity of fitting so many events into a single lifetime has meant that Churchill has been given an implausibly eventful career and a suspiciously long life, especially given his liking for cigars and brandy (he was allegedly born in 1874 and died in 1965). Incidentally, any politician who really had won a world war for Britain would without doubt have been offered a peerage, perhaps even a dukedom. That Churchill is said to have died 'Sir Winston' is deeply suspicious.

[whoneedscience]

Lurker,
I assume by "atheist classic" you meant something like this, taken from your first propaganda site:

An argument frequently advanced against Christianity runs roughly like this: there are many features of Christianity that resemble features of other religious, particularly ancient pagan religious; therefore, Christianity has copied those features; therefore, Christianity is not true
I can see how this could be argued successfully, especially when so many of the cultures you mention were researched by biased christian historians (who were often more interrested in wiping out pagan cultures than studying them). What you left out of your argument, and what I see as far more significant, is that all cultures have myths that are at least similar in thier vague, magical telling of stories intended to give significance to their own moral message. As I have explained before, myths of this type are very effective at conveying information in an uneducated, illiterate society, and further aid these primitive societies by giving a competitive behavioral advantage. The simple fact that other societies that developed completely isolated from the Hebrews also have myths that teach the same kind of things in the same kind of language speaks volumes against the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired. There is simply no need to argue that Christianity copied others, even though they certainly did, as did everyone else.

[ghoulslime]

Nice cut & paste job. I never said that there were no similarities. I guess you're saying christianity isn't true if it isn't unique. Fallacious to say the least. Let's use Lord Raglan's Scale to see if Winston Churhill was a mythical person.
I am saying Christianity is founded on mythology, just like all the other tales so similar to it, from the same region, from similar cultures. The evidence for my assertion is plentiful – many fictional God Characters with similar alleged attributes and life circumstances. The burden is on YOU not ME to prove that your mythology is more credible that any other.

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

How did we jump from Jesus to Winston Churchill? We don’t have to prove the reality of Mr. Churchill. We have credible historical documents attesting to Winston Churchill’s life. We have photographs, and recordings of his voice. We don't have to play sophomoric logic exercises. Where are the photos of Jesus? Where is any documentation of his existence, besides the writings of his superstitious followers? There is just as much evidence for Mythra’s legitimacy.

Christianity arose from a culture where there was a tradition of stories dealing with deities who died and came alive again. Why would any objective judge assert that Jesus’ story is true and the others false?

What is your proof that Jesus died and came alive again? A happy feeling in your tummy? Fallacious to say the least!

[Lurker]

Then I guess all the non-christian references cited (once again) here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html) and here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html) are lying or know nothing about the subject (at least compared to you). Believe what you must. :P

[God, my arse]

I know the idea of the halo is derived from the Sun disc of the Ancient Egyptian Religion

[ghoulslime]

Then I guess all the non-christian references cited (once again) here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html) and here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html) are lying or know nothing about the subject (at least compared to you). Believe what you must. :P
Trying to poke holes in other mythology doesn’t raise the credibility of yours.
Your “references” at www.christian-thinktank.com are far from objective “non-Christians” - nothing more than apologetics trying to blow a smoke screen to prevent having to answer the very clear question:

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

The burden is on YOU not ME to prove that your mythology is more credible that any other.

Come on! I'm waiting. I don't need to read 7 chapters of the history of Mythology. The answers are not there. The question is VERY VERY clear.

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

Where is any evidence of Jesus' resurrection?

The answer is: there is no evidence. That's why you can't answer the question.


CONVERSATION IN LURKER"S HOUSE

Lurker's Mom (Sister Lurker): Where is the strawberry jam, Lurker?
Lurker: Black ants are very small.
Lurker's Mom: Did you put it in the refrigerator?
Lurker: Earth is the third planet from the Sun. I can prove it! I read it in a book!
Lurker's Mom: Did you leave it on the table?
Lurker: Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek.”
Lurker's Mom: Oh, here it is on the coffee table. I told you to put it in the refrigerator.
Lurker: Believe what you must! :P


CONVERSATION WITH GHOULSLIME

Ghoulslime: What proof do you have that Jesus died and came back to life?
Lurker: ?

[Lurker]

Trying to poke holes in other mythology doesn’t raise the credibility of yours.
I agree that poking holes in other myths doesn't raise the credibility of the biblical account. By the same measure, poking holes in other myths doesn't discredit the biblical account either - so stop trying.

Where is any evidence of Jesus' resurrection?

The answer is: there is no evidence. That's why you can't answer the question.
Asked and answered - by you. You got the answers you were looking for, no surprise there. Would any evidence convince you? The answer is: no. (by your own admission).

[ghoulslime]

Trying to poke holes in other mythology doesn’t raise the credibility of yours.
I agree that poking holes in other myths doesn't raise the credibility of the biblical account. By the same measure, poking holes in other myths doesn't discredit the biblical account either - so stop trying.
Ah, oh! Looks like Ghoulslime has the Lurker on the ropes! :lol:

Poking holes in other myths doesn't discredit the biblical account either?!!! Of course it doesn’t! Dude, are you smoking pot? I wasn’t poking holes in other myths. I presented myths with uncanny similarities to Christian tenets. I have no reason to discredit Mithraism. It is the product of superstitious minds from the ancient past, as is Christianity. The only difference between the two is that there are still credulous minds which accept Christianity as truth.

Do you concede that there are similarities between bible stories and other mythology from the same region and era? YES or NO…it’s a simple concept.


Where is any evidence of Jesus' resurrection?

The answer is: there is no evidence. That's why you can't answer the question.
Asked and answered - by you. You got the answers you were looking for, no surprise there. Would any evidence convince you? The answer is: no. (by your own admission).
Would any evidence convince me that Jesus was resurrected? Well, sure. But it would have to be better than a happy feeling in my tummy.

I’m convinced that Julius Caesar was murdered in the Senate and didn’t come alive again. I’m convinced that Hitler probably ate a cyanide capsule and then shot himself - then his body was burned outside his bunker. I could be convinced that these guys were resurrected, too. (If there was evidence.) If Caesar ran for governor of California, then I would believe he was resurrected. If I saw Hitler taking tickets at Knottsberry Farm, I would believe he was resurrected, too.

What is the evidence that Mythra was resurrected? A fictional story.
What is the evidence that Jesus was resurrected? A fictional story.


AND you are still sidestepping the main question.

“The answer is: there is no evidence.” Is this your answer? There is no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection?

Come on! Answer the VERY VERY VERY clear question:

Where is any evidence of Jesus' resurrection?<<<THIS IS THE QUESTION I AM ASKING

No more strawberry jam dialogs. Just answer the question.

[Philboid Studge]

Then I guess all the non-christian references cited (once again) here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html) and here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html) are lying or know nothing about the subject (at least compared to you). Believe what you must. :P
Lurker, what the hell? Your two citations are from the same site, authored by one "Glenn M. Miller, committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ for the second 25 years of my life (now 30+)..." I won't write off his references out of hand, but it's pretty obvious he's got an axe to grind.

[Rhinoqulous]

Damn, Ghoulslime, I was going to post a lil' somtin somtin on religion/mythology, but you covered almost everything. Hats off. Maybe we should start a Hero Myth about our resident "Disciple of the Rabbit God". :)

And Lurker, from your posts you seem to be really threatened by the similarities between Christianity and other ancient mythologies. Have we hit a nerve?

Rhinoq

[Lurker]

And Lurker, from your posts you seem to be really threatened by the similarities between Christianity and other ancient mythologies. Have we hit a nerve?
Just the nerve that fires off when illogical arguments are made by people who don't know what they are talking about. Similarities are to be expected, but what about the differences? You never speak of the vast differences because it doesn't support the agenda. As my Winston Churchill example shows, similarities aren't enough to discredit anything - and that's the whole point. Keep entertaining yourselves if you want, I'll just watch from the sidelines.

[Rhinoqulous]

Just the nerve that fires off when illogical arguments are made by people who don't know what they are talking about. Similarities are to be expected, but what about the differences? You never speak of the vast differences because it doesn't support the agenda. As my Winston Churchill example shows, similarities aren't enough to discredit anything - and that's the whole point. Keep entertaining yourselves if you want, I'll just watch from the sidelines.
What illogical arguments? Christianity has similarities to many other religions and mythologies. That's it. No argument. And because the Christian Mythos is different from other mythoi, does that validate it? Does Hinduism being different from Christianity "prove" Hinduism?

And you still haven't responded to Ghoulslime's question of why the Christian mythos is "better" or more believable than another mythos.

Rhinoq

[Lurker]

And you still haven't responded to Ghoulslime's question of why the Christian mythos is "better" or more believable than another mythos.
There are bookshelves lined with books on the subject. Add one or two of them to your 'Top Ten Books' and you'll have your answer.

[Little Earth Stamper]

And you still haven't responded to Ghoulslime's question of why the Christian mythos is "better" or more believable than another mythos.
There are bookshelves lined with books on the subject. Add one or two of them to your 'Top Ten Books' and you'll have your answer.
I've already tried two and they both sucked. Want to recoomend one in particular?

Conversations with thomas about the validity of Christianity vs. Aztec religion indicated that he essentially believes the Christ myth because there is no disproving evidence. But how the hell could there be?

[Rhinoqulous]

And you still haven't responded to Ghoulslime's question of why the Christian mythos is "better" or more believable than another mythos.
There are bookshelves lined with books on the subject. Add one or two of them to your 'Top Ten Books' and you'll have your answer.
Weak. Hella weak. Instead of backing up your claims you go the "oh, you don't know enough, go study". Fine. Recommend a book.

And back at you as well. Go read up on moral/ethical theory, so you can finally grasp the concept that something that is context based is not an absolute by definition.

Rhinoq

[Philboid Studge]

...so you can finally grasp the concept that something that is context based is not an absolute by definition.
My GOd, the thread from Hell is spreading onto other threads like a flesh-eating virus with a tapeworm.

[Lurker]

... so you can finally grasp the concept that something that is context based is not an absolute by definition.
So I guess the 2nd Law is not absolute because it says entropy increases in a closed system. The context being 'a closed system' and not every system.

[schemanista]

There are bookshelves lined with books on the subject. Add one or two of them to your 'Top Ten Books' and you'll have your answer.
I haven't read any as good as "The Jesus Puzzle" or "The Formation of the New Testament Canon" and neither of those helps your argument. Care to recommend a couple?

And if you mention Strobel, I'll find a way to hurt you. ;)

[thomas]

#1

Mithraism was a secretive religion of Roman times, passed from initiate to initiate, and hence with very little documentary evidence before the 1st century A.D. Man-made caves named 'mithraeum' were the location of the religious meetings, and are scattered over much of the Mediterranean area. (Not a story – we can visit them today) The beliefs of the followers of Mithraism apparently included that their god died, was buried in a rock tomb, and was resurrected. The Mithraic god is depicted as a man.

Mithraism is sufficiently documented by reputable historians beyond any reasonable person’s doubt as to what the religion entailed. Roman Legionnaires of the late first century left sufficient evidence of the tenets of their religion. There is no reason to banter over these beliefs other than to rationalize the suspiciously similar beliefs of Christianity.

The worship of Mythra climaxed in the 1st century A.D. Hmmm…nothing suspicious here, right, Christians? :/
OK, lets start with Mithras. Please point me to the evidence that Roman Mithraism included the belief that their god died, was buried in a tomb and was resurrected, prior to the Christian belief becoming established.

Your assertions about the good documentation concerning Mithraism neglect to mention that there are no written accounts of what they believed or practiced. All information comes from interpreting archeological finds.

[Rhinoqulous]

... so you can finally grasp the concept that something that is context based is not an absolute by definition.
So I guess the 2nd Law is not absolute because it says entropy increases in a closed system. The context being 'a closed system' and not every system.
AAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!

(throws 3/4 deck through wall, boss looks at me funny)

Are you really this dense? Have you become incapable of answering direct questions (ghoulslime's "why xtianity better than other myths" and my "what books")? Damn, son, pull you head out yo arse.

Rhinoq

[Rhinoqulous]

OK, lets start with Mithras. Please point me to the evidence that Roman Mithraism included the belief that their god died, was buried in a tomb and was resurrected, prior to the Christian belief becoming established.

Your assertions about the good documentation concerning Mithraism neglect to mention that there are no written accounts of what they believed or practiced. All information comes from interpreting archeological finds.
Well, good documentation for "pagan" religions doesn't exist because Christians actively destroyed them when they took control of the Roman Empire. Ever heard of the burning of the Library of Alexandria?

The point is there exists records of myths that are similar to the xtian myth. Ghoulslime’s unanswered Q is "Why is the xtian myth better than others"? If it's because the records don't exist, well that's your people's fault, not ours. (and no, I'm not seriously blaming Thomas and Lurker for the destruction of early records by Christians. Well, maybe Lurker, he's really starting to tick me off :mad: )

Rhinoq

[ghoulslime]

#1

Mithraism was a secretive religion of Roman times, passed from initiate to initiate, and hence with very little documentary evidence before the 1st century A.D. Man-made caves named 'mithraeum' were the location of the religious meetings, and are scattered over much of the Mediterranean area. (Not a story – we can visit them today) The beliefs of the followers of Mithraism apparently included that their god died, was buried in a rock tomb, and was resurrected. The Mithraic god is depicted as a man.

Mithraism is sufficiently documented by reputable historians beyond any reasonable person’s doubt as to what the religion entailed. Roman Legionnaires of the late first century left sufficient evidence of the tenets of their religion. There is no reason to banter over these beliefs other than to rationalize the suspiciously similar beliefs of Christianity.

The worship of Mythra climaxed in the 1st century A.D. Hmmm…nothing suspicious here, right, Christians? :/
OK, lets start with Mithras. Please point me to the evidence that Roman Mithraism included the belief that their god died, was buried in a tomb and was resurrected, prior to the Christian belief becoming established.

Your assertions about the good documentation concerning Mithraism neglect to mention that there are no written accounts of what they believed or practiced. All information comes from interpreting archeological finds.
Please point me to the evidence that your god died, was buried in a tomb and was resurrected.

Finding weakness in one loony religion doesn’t strengthen your loony religion.

Alright, smart guy; let’s see if you can answer the question that Lurker can’t.

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

[ghoulslime]

Try this one on for size:

The followers of Mithraism believed that by eating the bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again just as life itself had once been created anew from the bull's blood.

Hmmm...I wonder why Christians have been so resolute in trying to destroy this religion.

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/mithras.jpg

[ghoulslime]

These are some aspects of the Jesus myth that appeared earlier in pagan mythologies:

* The savior is god made flesh, as the son of god.
* His father is god and his mother is a mortal virgin.
* He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three shepherds.
* He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism.
* He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony.
* He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honor him.
* He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
* After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory.
* His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.
* His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood.

[ghoulslime]

According to legend, the birth of Horus was announced by Three Wise Men, symbolized by three stars in Orion’s Belt pointing to Osiris’ star in the east. Angelic voices hailed his arrival. His birth was often depicted in a manger, with Isis as the Madonna standing over him, and was said to have occurred on the winter solstice. Horus stayed with his mother, Isis, until he was 12 years old. No mention is made of him again until age 30, when he was baptized and received into godhead.

Belief in Osiris, Isis, and Horus later spread to the Roman Empire, until believers began to be persecuted under Christianity.


"Oh. little town of Bethlehem, how clear we smell your shit..."

[thomas]

Please point me to the evidence that your god died, was buried in a tomb and was resurrected.

Finding weakness in one loony religion doesn’t strengthen your loony religion.

Alright, smart guy; let’s see if you can answer the question that Lurker can’t.

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?
There is another thread running ( Atheist v Theist : The Bible's evidence ) where we're discussing standards of evidence relating to the resurrection. Why don't you join that thread if you've got something to contribute.

[thomas]

Try this one on for size:

The followers of Mithraism believed that by eating the bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again just as life itself had once been created anew from the bull's blood.

Hmmm...I wonder why Christians have been so resolute in trying to destroy this religion.

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/mithras.jpg
Your image is a tauroctony, the central theme in Mithraic temples. Please point me to the evidence that they believed that "by eating the bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again just as life itself had once been created anew from the bull's blood".

If you don't mind GS let's stick to one of your claims at a time, starting with Mithraism, and see if they stand up to examination.

[thomas]

Well, good documentation for "pagan" religions doesn't exist because Christians actively destroyed them when they took control of the Roman Empire. Ever heard of the burning of the Library of Alexandria?
Regardless of why it doesn't exist, it still doesn't exist. Don't you think it's going to be tough to back up a claim that Mithraism is similar to Christianity when you have no evidence ?

The point is there exists records of myths that are similar to the xtian myth. Ghoulslime’s unanswered Q is "Why is the xtian myth better than others"? If it's because the records don't exist, well that's your people's fault, not ours. (and no, I'm not seriously blaming Thomas and Lurker for the destruction of early records by Christians. Well, maybe Lurker, he's really starting to tick me off :mad: )
Again, how can you make a comparison between Christianity and another religion for which you have zero or little evidence. Anyway, I'm happy to take each of ghoul's claims about similarities one at a time and examine them against the evidence. Isn't that a more reasonable approach than just making up spurious claims based on pre-supposition alone ?

[Philboid Studge]

Why don't you join that thread if you've got something to contribute.
If? IF? Ghoulslime, you rock!

(Oh, and your many contributions on this thread better be right.)

[Lurker]

AAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!
You're the one that posed the theory that "context based is not an absolute" so you only have yourself to blame. If context based absolutes are good enough for science they're good enough for morality don't you think?

[schemanista]

Your image is a tauroctony, the central theme in Mithraic temples. Please point me to the evidence that they believed that "by eating the bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again just as life itself had once been created anew from the bull's blood".
Thomas, I don't want to leap to conclusions, but are you going to attempt to refute GS's argument by stating that since a one-to-one correspondence doesn't exist then Mithraism couldn't have influenced early Christianity?

Assuming this isn't the case, since it's not really your style of debate, take a step back for a second. Mithraics did have a sacred feast as part of their rites in which the flesh of the bull was consumed and this feast had the spiritual significance of being a "last meal" before Mithras ascended to heaven. In fact it's the most-often depicted scene amongst the murals at Dura-Europos, a center of Mithraic activity. In the three variants of this scene, the first depicts only Mithras and Sol, the second has the two gods attended by believers and in the third, the believers themselves are guests at the table.

So Mithras is a spiritual being who descends to earth by the will of Sol, incarnates in the flesh of a bull, is sacrificed and returns to feast on that flesh after three days. Combine this with the similarities to the Osiris, Adonis/Tammuz and other Dying God mythos which proliferated in the centuries before and after Christianity arose and the case for Christianity as a syncretism seems probable to me.

Do we really need to go point-by-point through each myth to point out the similarities? I'm willing to do this but only if you're not going to use the "but that's not an exact correspondence" cop-out.

[thomas]

Why don't you join that thread if you've got something to contribute.
If? IF? Ghoulslime, you rock!

(Oh, and your many contributions on this thread better be right.)
Sorry Philboid, I don't get your point here ?

[thomas]

Thomas, I don't want to leap to conclusions, but are you going to attempt to refute GS's argument by stating that since a one-to-one correspondence doesn't exist then Mithraism couldn't have influenced early Christianity?
No, I'm just saying show me the evidence that Mithraism believed the things that he claims, prior to the formation of early Christianity.

Assuming this isn't the case, since it's not really your style of debate, take a step back for a second. Mithraics did have a sacred feast as part of their rites in which the flesh of the bull was consumed and this feast had the spiritual significance of being a "last meal" before Mithras ascended to heaven. In fact it's the most-often depicted scene amongst the murals at Dura-Europos, a center of Mithraic activity. In the three variants of this scene, the first depicts only Mithras and Sol, the second has the two gods attended by believers and in the third, the believers themselves are guests at the table.

So Mithras is a spiritual being who descends to earth by the will of Sol, incarnates in the flesh of a bull, is sacrificed and returns to feast on that flesh after three days. Combine this with the similarities to the Osiris, Adonis/Tammuz and other Dying God mythos which proliferated in the centuries before and after Christianity arose and the case for Christianity as a syncretism seems probable to me.

Do we really need to go point-by-point through each myth to point out the similarities? I'm willing to do this but only if you're not going to use the "but that's not an exact correspondence" cop-out.
I'm not an expert on early religions, I'll be happy to learn about them. Please point me to the historical evidence. Once we have the evidence in front of us then we can discuss what conclusions we should arrive at.

[ghoulslime]

Why don't you join that thread if you've got something to contribute.
If? IF? Ghoulslime, you rock!

(Oh, and your many contributions on this thread better be right.)
Sorry Philboid, I don't get your point here ?
It seems you don't get a lot of points. I'm still waiting for your answer.

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

Come on, Thomas! Give me a direct answer to a direct question - no more theist side-shuffle tap dancing!

[Lurker]

Supporting evidence for the resurrection: The Detailed and Easily Refuted Account Was Not Falsified

Suppose I claimed tomorrow or 50 years from now that my Aunt Betty was wanted by Governor Schwarzenegger for questioning, was put on trial before Clarence Thomas and sentenced to death, was buried in the intended tomb of Tom Cruise and was later resurrected. How easy would it be for any part of this situation to be proven false by dozens/hundreds of people?

[Philboid Studge]

Why don't you join that thread if you've got something to contribute.
If? IF? Ghoulslime, you rock!

(Oh, and your many contributions on this thread better be right.)
Sorry Philboid, I don't get your point here ?
It's not much of one. Ghoulslime has contributed a wealth of information to this thread -- at least I think so, as I hadn't heard of much of it -- and I took umbrage at your qualifying it as 'if you've got something.' There's no 'if' about it. (Unless none of it checks out, of course ...)

[thomas]

OK, I get it. Yes, it did sound dismissive. Probably not the best way to get him to contribute.....

[thomas]

If? IF? Ghoulslime, you rock!

(Oh, and your many contributions on this thread better be right.)
Sorry Philboid, I don't get your point here ?
It seems you don't get a lot of points. I'm still waiting for your answer.

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

Come on, Thomas! Give me a direct answer to a direct question - no more theist side-shuffle tap dancing!
First, you are very confused. Sometimes you talk about Mythra, other times about Mithras as though the are the same character.

Second, I'm suspecting that your inability to produce any historical evidence about the beliefs of the Mithraics suggest that there is no such evidence. In fact in my searching I've found several articles that confirm there is no reliable historical evidence to be found.

Thirdly, there are multiple historical documents that report the resurrection of Jesus written between 20 and 50 years after the event. That's why it has more validity than what I know about Mithras right now. Show me the evidence.

[Philboid Studge]

there are multiple historical documents that report the resurrection of Jesus written between 20 and 50 years after the event.
Thomas, are these documents that old as well or were they written later?

[ghoulslime]

Supporting evidence for the resurrection: The Detailed and Easily Refuted Account Was Not Falsified

Suppose I claimed tomorrow or 50 years from now that my Aunt Betty was wanted by Governor Schwarzenegger for questioning, was put on trial before Clarence Thomas and sentenced to death, was buried in the intended tomb of Tom Cruise and was later resurrected. How easy would it be for any part of this situation to be proven false by dozens/hundreds of people?
It would be just as easy to refute as Jesus’ incredible tale - because it is a fantasy.

If your Aunt Betty was resurrected, people would certainly take notice of it. There would be ample evidence besides your personal diary.

If the Romans killed Jesus, and he came strolling up to Pilate a few days later and said, “Yo, Pilate! What up?” One can be certain there would have been a considerably degree of curiosity on the part of the leadership in Rome as to just what had happened. You don’t suppose Pilate would have sent a letter or postcard to Caesar?

“Dear Caesar, the weather here is great. I went to the beach with Marge and the kids on Saturday. We all miss you. By the way, remember that Jesus dude we killed? You won’t believe it but the guy came alive again! Man, you just can’t keep some people down! Anyway, take care. Love, Pilate.”

Maybe this logic stuff is simply over your head. Let me explain something to you.

There are things that are true such as: I have a rabbit, my grandmother died, and Volkswagen makes cars.

Then there are things that aren’t true like: there are unicorns, aliens took my Raisin Bran, my uncle Joe was resurrected.

I don’t know, maybe you skipped Kindergarten. Just because you believe something to be true, it doesn’t make it true.

[thomas]

there are multiple historical documents that report the resurrection of Jesus written between 20 and 50 years after the event.
Thomas, are these documents that old as well or were they written later?
They were written later. I don't know of any serious opposition to the idea that the text from the earliest manuscripts is different from what was originally written. The main reason for this is the large number of manuscripts and fragments that exist with almost no variation in text.

The date of the original documents is worked out from a variety of internal and external evidence and is the focus of some debate. But it's clear that the essential Christian doctrine and beliefs were worked out, documented and accepted by 50-60AD.

[ghoulslime]

Sorry Philboid, I don't get your point here ?
It seems you don't get a lot of points. I'm still waiting for your answer.

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

Where is the evidence that Jesus’ resurrection story has any more validity than that of Mythra?

Come on, Thomas! Give me a direct answer to a direct question - no more theist side-shuffle tap dancing!
First, you are very confused. Sometimes you talk about Mythra, other times about Mithras as though the are the same character.

Second, I'm suspecting that your inability to produce any historical evidence about the beliefs of the Mithraics suggest that there is no such evidence. In fact in my searching I've found several articles that confirm there is no reliable historical evidence to be found.

Thirdly, there are multiple historical documents that report the resurrection of Jesus written between 20 and 50 years after the event. That's why it has more validity than what I know about Mithras right now. Show me the evidence.
I’m confused? I’m not the one who purports to believe the dogmatic tenets of a religion - magical being who came to Earth, died, then came alive again.

Nice try. You can’t respond to the question, so you attack the credibility of the asker.

I don’t defend the tenets of ANY religion. I pointed out the similarities between your religion and other religions.

Do you deny that these similiarities exist? Not with ONE ancient religion but with MANY!

“Thirdly, there are multiple historical documents that report the resurrection of Jesus written between 20 and 50 years after the event.”
Excellent, I was hoping one of you Christians would be stupid enough to stick your neck out on this!

Show me one single document that wasn’t written by a Christian. Just ONE! Come on…bring it on. MY eyes are waiting to read your convincing proof. The Romans allegedly executed this guy, and you are saying that nobody made a note that an executed criminal came back to life?

[Lurker]

If your Aunt Betty was resurrected, people would certainly take notice of it. There would be ample evidence besides your personal diary.
How about a story in my personal diary plus a huge, fast growing movement that believed Aunt Betty resurrected because they either saw it (her) personally or a friend whom they trusted told them about it, plus all the people who did not believe the story were scratching their heads because Aunt Betty's body was no longer in Tom Cruise's future tomb, nor anywere else, plus the people who claimed to see Aunt Betty after her resurrection chose to die a gruesome death rather than change their story. Sounds like they took notice of it.

You don’t suppose Pilate would have sent a letter or postcard to Caesar?
Argument from ignorance (http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html).

[Philboid Studge]

They were written later. I don't know of any serious opposition to the idea that the text from the earliest manuscripts is different from what was originally written. The main reason for this is the large number of manuscripts and fragments that exist with almost no variation in text.
Thanks. Is there a good Web resource to read up on this stuff? I'm curious about the whole Xian enchilada -- OT-NT. You mentioned a site on another thread -- earlychristianwritings.com -- will that be useful? (Anyway, I'll see for myself; but if you've got another one up your sleeve, lemme know. I'm interested in seeing how old the oldest documents are, how close they are in time to reported events, the chain of translations, that sort of thing.)

[thomas]

earlychristianwritngs.com is an excellent start. It's obviously NT focussed but a great overview of the subject with lots of links. And it covers the bases on all the different views on the topic, from sceptics to Christians.

You'll find a lot of lively debate on the date of the first versions of the documents. Typically the difference between the earliest and the latest dates comes down to your pre-suppositions on the reality of prophecy. If you don't think it can exist then typically you would date the document after the prophesied event. If you do think it is a reality then the lack of those constraints enables earlier dating.

[ghoulslime]

Damn, Ghoulslime, I was going to post a lil' somtin somtin on religion/mythology, but you covered almost everything. Hats off. Maybe we should start a Hero Myth about our resident "Disciple of the Rabbit God". :)

And Lurker, from your posts you seem to be really threatened by the similarities between Christianity and other ancient mythologies. Have we hit a nerve?

Rhinoq
Your praise of the high god rabbit shall not go unnoticed!

I really get a kick out of steering Christians down the paths of logic and watching them twist and turn trying to slip out of it. In written exchanges it is interesting to observe how their rationalization unfolds. In oral debates they can simple talk quickly and smooth over the bumpy parts, but when you get it in writing there is a real limitation to the liberty of their slippery side-shuffle red herring routine.

What is truly fascinating is that they don’t realize it when they have been bested in a debate – or maybe their defense mechanisms insulate them from the damage.

I discovered in high school, a long time ago, that it is easier to debate if you happen to be on the correct side of the argument.

Actually, I feel sorry for these poor fools trying to defend their dogmas against so much evidence against the fallacy of their position.

Poor damn fools!

Anyway, Ghoulslime has had enough of this silliness for now. These jokers are all yours.

[thomas]

First, you are very confused. Sometimes you talk about Mythra, other times about Mithras as though the are the same character.

Second, I'm suspecting that your inability to produce any historical evidence about the beliefs of the Mithraics suggest that there is no such evidence. In fact in my searching I've found several articles that confirm there is no reliable historical evidence to be found.

Thirdly, there are multiple historical documents that report the resurrection of Jesus written between 20 and 50 years after the event. That's why it has more validity than what I know about Mithras right now. Show me the evidence.
I’m confused? I’m not the one who purports to believe the dogmatic tenets of a religion - magical being who came to Earth, died, then came alive again.

Nice try. You can’t respond to the question, so you attack the credibility of the asker.
Very specifically you are confused about which religion you are trying to compare to Christianity. First you were talking about Mithras then about Mythra, as though you didn't appreciate there was a difference between the two. Do you deny this ? I attacked your credibility on this point because your point was in fact confused.

I don’t defend the tenets of ANY religion. I pointed out the similarities between your religion and other religions.

Do you deny that these similiarities exist? Not with ONE ancient religion but with MANY!
Ghoul, mate, your bluster is impressive but I don't think it is really fooling anybody, maybe with the exception of yourself. You made the claim that there were similarities between Christianity and Mithraism. You have failed to back up those claims by providing evidence of them.

You keep on asking me to deny similarities but haven't been able to tell me what I'm supposed to be comparing with Christianity, other than a pile of unsubstantiated atheist rhetoric.

“Thirdly, there are multiple historical documents that report the resurrection of Jesus written between 20 and 50 years after the event.”
Excellent, I was hoping one of you Christians would be stupid enough to stick your neck out on this!

Show me one single document that wasn’t written by a Christian. Just ONE! Come on…bring it on. MY eyes are waiting to read your convincing proof. The Romans allegedly executed this guy, and you are saying that nobody made a note that an executed criminal came back to life?
Look, stop shifting the point. You asked me to show in what way Chrisitanity was more historically valid than Mithraism. I've given you an answer. You are incapable of showing me any historical evidence that backs up your claims.

Put up or shut up.

[thomas]

Your praise of the high god rabbit shall not go unnoticed!
Pathetic !

I really get a kick out of steering Christians down the paths of logic and watching them twist and turn trying to slip out of it. In written exchanges it is interesting to observe how their rationalization unfolds. In oral debates they can simple talk quickly and smooth over the bumpy parts, but when you get it in writing there is a real limitation to the liberty of their slippery side-shuffle red herring routine.
It's almost as though you didn't realise you were saying this out loud. You're such an unmitigated fucking disaster it's untrue. There is only one person being evasive on this thread and it is you.

What is truly fascinating is that they don’t realize it when they have been bested in a debate – or maybe their defense mechanisms insulate them from the damage.
Yawn

I discovered in high school, a long time ago, that it is easier to debate if you happen to be on the correct side of the argument.

Actually, I feel sorry for these poor fools trying to defend their dogmas against so much evidence against the fallacy of their position.

Poor damn fools!

Anyway, Ghoulslime has had enough of this silliness for now. These jokers are all yours.
You arrogant twat. Stand and fight like a man don't run away.

Where is your evidence

[Lurker]

You arrogant twat. Stand and fight like a man don't run away.

Where is your evidence
Nice job. Ghouly is what you might call a hit-and-run atheist apologist.

[schemanista]

plus the people who claimed to see Aunt Betty after her resurrection chose to die a gruesome death rather than change their story.
I've seen this bandied about before. Which of the martyrs were actually given the chance to recant? It's an honest question, not a trap. Two that come to my mind were Peter and Stephen. Both seem to have been victims of political machinations and weren't given the opportunity to repudiate their faith and though being professed Christians may have contributed, it seems as if they were going to be killed anyway. Unless I'm remembering things incorrectly.

But additionally, I've never been impressed with this line of apologetic reasoning. The denizens of the Fertile Crescent, circa 100 CE believed all kinds of things. Some of them were so strange that we'd call those people batshit crazy were they doing them today. As a single example, consider the cult of Cybele whose male followers castrated themselves or sometimes crushed their testicles with these weird-ass bronze implements specifically designed for the purpose.

In the Aztec world, there were ritual sacrifants who were raised from childhood to this honour: knowing that their fate was to have their chests carved open with an obsidian knife and their still-beating hearts held over their bodies by the high priest as an offering to the gods.

There was a cult in India where the ritual sacrifant would slice pices of himself off and throw them into the crowd. When he fainted from the pain, his "assistants" cut his throat.

And recall the whole range of societies who executed their kings at the first sign of old age.

This is why I'm not impressed by the apologetic claim that early Christians believed enough to put their lives on the line and this is evidence of some profound truth behind their faith.

[hotcake]

You arrogant twat. Stand and fight like a man don't run away.

Where is your evidence
Nice job. Ghouly is what you might call a hit-and-run atheist apologist.
Look at you two idiots celebrating each other’s stupidity! Thank you for great entertainment!

You really got your ass beaten by ghoul. Look at you falling apart like two old wash women.

Why do you think he has no other things to but to stay on this board to argue with follish Christian? Being stubborn like you doesn’t equal same as being right.

You had to resort to telling him he is a twat. He showed you many religions with same belief as Christian. You lose the game.

Now you are crying like babies becsue you lost.

Go cry to your imagination god. Maybe he can hear you from his throne room.

[hotcake]

I read this thread maybe ten times already. It is so funny. I never wrote on here before but only reading. I have to write tody. Its' to funny for me. This is so funny to see Christians so angry like a wet cat. This should be worldwide sport of making Christians angry then throwing them for the lions.

[Lurker]

I've seen this bandied about before. Which of the martyrs were actually given the chance to recant? It's an honest question, not a trap. Two that come to my mind were Peter and Stephen. Both seem to have been victims of political machinations and weren't given the opportunity to repudiate their faith and though being professed Christians may have contributed, it seems as if they were going to be killed anyway. Unless I'm remembering things incorrectly.
Eusebius of Caesarea (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/eusebius_de_02_intro.htm) (and here (http://www.myfortress.org/Eusebius.html)) wrote about the history of the early martyrs in approximately 325 AD. He claimed to be an eyewitness to some of the executions. I think all but two apostles died for their belief. I could be wrong on the number.

Other early martyrs include Ignatious (http://www.myfortress.org/ignatius.html) and Polycarp (http://www.myfortress.org/polycarp.html). Aurelius Augustine wrote that the number of Christian martyrs ‘couldn’t be numbered’.

It’s one thing for some poor sap to die for their belief (like the others you mentioned). They did not see the things the apostles did so their belief was true only because that’s all they had. The apostles on the other hand were eyewitnesses to the life/death/resurrection events of jesus.

You may say this adds up to nothing because all of these writers were likely 1) lying or 2) deceived or 3) creating legends or 4) part of a huge conspiracy, but you’re gonna have to give me evidence to support that claim.

[thomas]

Welcome to the forum hotcake (=ghoulslime the coward ?)

Do you really think I got my ass beat by Ghoul ? I think he just failed to back up his points with evidence. Maybe he will win the argument if he can actually get to the point where he makes one.

I'm not stubborn, just waiting for a decent response to reasonable points.

As for the impoliteness on my part, I think ghoul deserved what he got for his invective.

I'm not crying and I didn't lose (yet), just waiting for an argument to actually turn up from ghoul.

And don't fool yourself, I'm not angry, just pissing my pants laughing at ghoul thrashing around and inventing new names to avoid the embarassment.

[thomas]

Eusebius of Caesarea (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/eusebius_de_02_intro.htm) (and here (http://www.myfortress.org/Eusebius.html)) wrote about the history of the early martyrs in approximately 325 AD. He claimed to be an eyewitness to the executions. I think all but two apostles died for their belief. I could be wrong on the number.
The Eusebius comment doesn't sound right. How could he have witnessed the executions of apostles if he wrote in 325AD ?

[thomas]

plus the people who claimed to see Aunt Betty after her resurrection chose to die a gruesome death rather than change their story.
I've seen this bandied about before. Which of the martyrs were actually given the chance to recant? It's an honest question, not a trap. Two that come to my mind were Peter and Stephen. Both seem to have been victims of political machinations and weren't given the opportunity to repudiate their faith and though being professed Christians may have contributed, it seems as if they were going to be killed anyway. Unless I'm remembering things incorrectly.

But additionally, I've never been impressed with this line of apologetic reasoning. The denizens of the Fertile Crescent, circa 100 CE believed all kinds of things. Some of them were so strange that we'd call those people batshit crazy were they doing them today. As a single example, consider the cult of Cybele whose male followers castrated themselves or sometimes crushed their testicles with these weird-ass bronze implements specifically designed for the purpose.

<snip>

This is why I'm not impressed by the apologetic claim that early Christians believed enough to put their lives on the line and this is evidence of some profound truth behind their faith.
The trouble is if you don't accept the straight forward explanation for the Christian faith, which is that the gospels are accounts of real events, remembered by oral tradition and faithfully recorded shortly afterwards by those involved or those close to them, then you really should be able to come up with another explanation that takes into account all of the evidence and is consistent with it.

Who do you think perpetrated the fraud/delusion that you claim Christianity is ? How do you think it got started ? Who was it, where and when and how did it spread ?

[Lurker]

Eusebius of Caesarea (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/eusebius_de_02_intro.htm) (and here (http://www.myfortress.org/Eusebius.html)) wrote about the history of the early martyrs in approximately 325 AD. He claimed to be an eyewitness to the executions. I think all but two apostles died for their belief. I could be wrong on the number.
The Eusebius comment doesn't sound right. How could he have witnessed the executions of apostles if he wrote in 325AD ?
I corrected my statement to "some of the executions" (not apostles necessarily, but others). I did this in a hurry so I may be wrong on that even. Check it out if you can because I don't want to be making false claims. Thanks. :)

[thomas]

No problem, just trying to keep you damn lying theists straight......

[ghoulslime]

Welcome to the forum hotcake (=ghoulslime the coward ?)

Do you really think I got my ass beat by Ghoul ? I think he just failed to back up his points with evidence. Maybe he will win the argument if he can actually get to the point where he makes one.

I'm not stubborn, just waiting for a decent response to reasonable points.

As for the impoliteness on my part, I think ghoul deserved what he got for his invective.

I'm not crying and I didn't lose (yet), just waiting for an argument to actually turn up from ghoul.

And don't fool yourself, I'm not angry, just pissing my pants laughing at ghoul thrashing around and inventing new names to avoid the embarassment.
It's comforting to see that you admit to pissing your pants. I'd wager you piss your bed too.

Look at this! When the cat’s away the mice will play! Thomas and Lurker have been very naughty boys while Ghoulslime has been busy with real life. There are definitely too many Christians and not enough lions!

So, now Ghoulslime is a coward? That’s an ironic statement coming from someone who hides behind dogma because he is too afraid to face the reality of his mortal existence. You’re a brave man to display such bravado while insulated by a computer screen from Ghoulslime’s pulverizing fist. I’m impressed! You fucking little yappy dog hiding behind mommy’s leg!

The truth is, Thomas, I find it tedious bickering with fools like you. Your pseudo- science and pseudo- intellectualism is pretty transparent to all but those who are blinded by the same desire to believe dogma at any cost. You should understand that your frothing fanaticism is a poor substitute for reason. You only impress yourself.

From time to time, I peruse your postings on this site with reserved amusement. You are a consistent hair splitter and smoke blower. If you want to argue about the color of angels’ wings then have at it with your fellow nutcases. Don’t expect me to engage you at every turn. You simply don’t warrant spending much energy on.

I come to this forum for one purpose; amusement. I find you and all of your fellow religionists an abomination. You are a cancer on the progress of human knowledge. Here, I can laugh at you. The angrier you get, the more enjoyment I derive. Let’s not mince words. I hate you and everything you stand for. But I love to laugh at the fallacies of your belief system.

You believe in an invisible man who gives you commandments, based on an ancient text which parallels the beliefs of many other religions of old. It is not my purpose to dissuade you from your delusions. My desire is for the human race to progress. The superstition of credulous minds prevents this progress.

Why are you here, Thomas? Are you playing big bad Daniel in the lions den? Do you really believe you will win atheist hearts and minds by standing up to scary monsters like Ghoulslime? Do you realize that simply by virtue of the fact that you adhere to tenets of the supernatural, we already think you are an idiot?

All of us here, presumably, have access to the Internet. All of us can read. Many of us have read the histories of other religions. There are so many parallels to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, that it is utterly futile to shake your head in disagreement. I venture to say that few participants here need Thomas to catalog everything and put his notarized seal of approval on every point.

You propose a theory of a Supreme Being who is in control of everything. I say your only evidence of this Supreme Being is that which has been invented by his inventors. You have nothing but witchdoctor smoke and mirrors to defend this ludicrous assertion that there is an invisible man in the sky who wants you to go to church on Sunday and eat bread and water. You are a deluded moron – a complete raving wacko!

I say your belief system evolved from more ancient religions which have many similar tenets and foundation mythologies. I have provided several examples taken from the Internet. If you would like to nitpick through them hoping to find something misspelled or punctuated the wrong way then have at it with masturbatory pleasure! The evidence remains for all to see none the less. Let everyone consider the idiosyncrasies of other ancient religions and draw their own conclusions.

In the mean time, I will reserve my energy for making fun of theist stupidity – particularly Christian stupidity.

P.S. You, Lurker, and both of your mothers are cordially invited to suck my throbbing cock. :lol:

[thomas]

That's a really long-winded way of saying that you don't have any evidence to back your claim.

[Lurker]

Wow. All that energy just to say "I got nothing".

[ghoulslime]

Well look at the two straw men chime it together! (Or same straw man with two personas) I think I’ve laid it out pretty clearly for all but the religious crusaders. Shall we put it to a vote who presented more evidence on this thread for their case?

Why don’t you pray to your invisible friend for a moment and see what he thinks?

[ghoulslime]

Wow. All that energy just to say "I got nothing".
You're talking about the Bible here, right?

[thomas]

The followers of Mithraism believed that by eating the bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again just as life itself had once been created anew from the bull's blood.
Please point me to the evidence that they believed that "by eating the bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again just as life itself had once been created anew from the bull's blood".
This is a damn simple request. I'm not even saying your claim is wrong. Just tell me the source.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

The followers of Mithraism believed that by eating the bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again just as life itself had once been created anew from the bull's blood.
Please point me to the evidence that they believed that "by eating the bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again just as life itself had once been created anew from the bull's blood".
This is a damn simple request. I'm not even saying your claim is wrong. Just tell me the source.
Here's a Wikipedia article that mentions it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras

The first reference ("The Cosmic Mysteries of Mithras") goes even more in-depth. Actually, it doesn't go too much into the cult's rites itself, but it's still an interesting read.

As far as the Mithras cult goes, there's some ambiguity over whether Mithras influenced Christianity, or vice versa. The Mithras cult was popular from 1st century BC to 5th century AD, so there's some overlap with the rise of Christianity. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like too many Mithraic writings exist throughout that time period, so it's difficult to say how the Mithras cult changed over time (if it did at all).

[Lurker]

Are we talking about Mithra or Mithras?

"The name Mithras is the Greek masculine form of Mithra, the Persian god who was the mediator between Ahura Mazda and the earth"

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Are we talking about Mithra or Mithras?

"The name Mithras is the Greek masculine form of Mithra, the Persian god who was the mediator between Ahura Mazda and the earth"
Mithras. Sorry for the ambiguity.

[WITHTEETH]

I INTRODUCTION
Zoroastrianism, religion that arose from the teachings of the devotional poet Zoroaster, known as Zarathushtra to ancient Iranians, who is regarded as the faith’s founding prophet. Scholars believe that Zoroaster lived sometime between 1750 and 1500 bc or 1400 and 1200 bc. The Zoroastrian scripture, called the Avesta, includes poems attributed to Zoroaster. The religion continues to be practiced today by Zoroastrian communities in India, Iran, the United States, Canada, and other countries.

II BELIEFS

According to Zoroastrian doctrine, Ahura Mazda is a perfect, rational, and omniscient (all-knowing) entity. Thus, Zoroastrians believe that Angra Mainyu created sin, disease, death, and similar evils. Ahura Mazda is said to have created six Amesha Spentas (“Holy Immortals”), who represent aspects of material creation, in addition to other minor spiritual beings who assist in protecting the world and all creatures. Angra Mainyu is said to have produced numerous Daevas (demonic spirits), who represent aspects of pain, suffering, and death, to attack Ahura Mazda’s creations. Many of the spirits worshiped or renounced by Zoroastrians also appear in early Hindu texts because the ancient Iranians and Indians shared a religious and linguistic heritage.

Zoroastrians believe that Ahura Mazda created humans as allies in the cosmic struggle against evil and that humanity will be resurrected and granted immortality once evil has been defeated. They further view the material world as a trap into which evil has been lured and in which evil will undergo defeat by divinities and humans working together. Zoroastrianism preaches that when someone dies his or her soul undergoes individual judgment based on actions while alive. If the soul’s good deeds are greater than its evil deeds, it enters paradise. If the soul’s evil deeds outweigh the good done while alive, it is cast into hell to await the day of universal judgment. In cases where a soul’s good deeds equal its evil deeds, it is consigned to limbo.

Close to the end of time a savior will resurrect the dead, Zoroastrianism claims. Ahura Mazda will descend to earth with the other good spirits. Each sinner, having already suffered in hell or limbo after death, will be purified. Thereafter, immortality will be granted to all humans. Ahura Mazda, the holy immortals, and other divine beings will annihilate the demons and force Angra Mainyu to scuttle back into hell, which will then be sealed.

The Zoroastrian doctrine of heaven, hell, and limbo influenced other faiths. Islam absorbed not only the ideas of heaven, hell, and limbo, but also the scheme of individual judgment at a celestial bridge and the notion of final, universal judgment. Christianity further assimilated the Zoroastrian belief of the soul’s afterlife and the appearance of a savior, resurrection, and eternal life at the end of the world.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Tenspace]

I read this thread maybe ten times already. It is so funny. I never wrote on here before but only reading. I have to write tody. Its' to funny for me. This is so funny to see Christians so angry like a wet cat. This should be worldwide sport of making Christians angry then throwing them for the lions.
Welcome! Love the wet cat visual. :)

Tenspace

[schemanista]

you don't accept the straight forward explanation for the Christian faith, which is that the gospels are accounts of real events, remembered by oral tradition and faithfully recorded shortly afterwards by those involved or those close to them, then you really should be able to come up with another explanation that takes into account all of the evidence and is consistent with it.
Earl Doherty beat me to it. But before you read The Jesus Puzzle, read Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. I'm not basing my atheism entirely on two books, but both of them confirmed what I had long been thinking.

For the sake of discussion, I can summarize Doherty but his is a fairly sophisticated argument, despite the fact that it's aimed at a non-specialist audience.

To wit, he claims that the Jesus of the Gospels was never based on a real person. The Christianity found therin is at odds with the earliest form of that religion--what was a Judaic flavor of the many mystery cults prevalent at the time.

Okay, maybe you're on the floor laughing at that. Remember that I cannot do Doherty's argument justice without plagiarizing long sections of his book. There's an online synopsis (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/preamble.htm) at Doherty's website. In addition, you may find Richard Carrier's review (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml) another good introduction.

Who do you think perpetrated the fraud/delusion that you claim Christianity is ? How do you think it got started ? Who was it, where and when and how did it spread ?
I don't think Christianity was a fraud or delusion. I think it was a syncretic religious movement which arose out of several converging memes in the ancient world. We have some scant information about who might have been there, although our knowledge of the second generation of Christians is better. How it spread is a matter of historical record.

To be insultingly brief, I think it was Mithras/Osiris/Tammuz/Adonis/Dying God with a Judaic slant and really good marketing.

I'll be happy to elaborate on this if you haven't written me off, but my bed is calling me.

As an aside: was the word "fraud" a dig at me or are you reflecting back the general tenor of TRA? I don't think I've been deliberately rude to you, thomas, but maybe you see something in my posting that I don't.


Edit: Corrected the title of Metzger's book and fixed a spelling mistake in Doherty's name.

[schemanista]

Eusebius of Caesarea (and here (http://www.myfortress.org/Eusebius.html)) wrote about the history of the early martyrs in approximately 325 AD. He claimed to be an eyewitness to some of the executions. I think all but two apostles died for their belief. I could be wrong on the number.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

You may say this adds up to nothing because all of these writers were likely 1) lying or 2) deceived or 3) creating legends or 4) part of a huge conspiracy, but you’re gonna have to give me evidence to support that claim.
#3 is the most probable, in my estimation, but not in the sense that you mean it.

As I mentioned to thomas, above, Doherty's mythicist approach is the one that I consider most probable. He's done a lot of the heavy lifting and I don't really want to plagiarize him. Do you want a synopsis?

Where would you like to go from here?

[Metman07]

The trouble is if you don't accept the straight forward explanation for the Christian faith, which is that the gospels are accounts of real events, remembered by oral tradition and faithfully recorded shortly afterwards by those involved or those close to them, then you really should be able to come up with another explanation that takes into account all of the evidence and is consistent with it.

Who do you think perpetrated the fraud/delusion that you claim Christianity is ? How do you think it got started ? Who was it, where and when and how did it spread ?
The trouble is if you don't accept the straight forward explanation for the Hindu faith, which is that the Gita, Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata etc. are accounts of real events, remembered by oral tradition and faithfully recorded shortly afterwards by those involved or those close to them, then you really should be able to come up with another explanation that takes into account all of the evidence and is consistent with it.

Who do you think perpetrated the fraud/delusion that you claim Hinduism is ? How do you think it got started ? Who was it, where and when and how did it spread ?

[Rhinoqulous]

AAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!
You're the one that posed the theory that "context based is not an absolute" so you only have yourself to blame. If context based absolutes are good enough for science they're good enough for morality don't you think?
OK, so you are that dense. The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with probabilities of a system. So, no the 2nd Law is not an absolute (it is a probabilistic tendency), and that is just fine for science. Dumbass.

So pull your head out yo arse, son, and join reality. You still have a couple of questions you're dodging; GS's "Why is xtianity better than other similar myths", and my "what books"?

Rhinoq

[Lurker]

OK, so you are that dense. The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with probabilities of a system. So, no the 2nd Law is not an absolute (it is a probabilistic tendency), and that is just fine for science. Dumbass.
If the probabilistic tendency is not an absolute law then the probabilistic tendency of entropy could decrease? Is that what this law says? I have some respect for you (unlike GS) so there is no need for the dumbass comment. I may be (am?) dense, but I'm not trying to be a dumbass.

You still have a couple of questions you're dodging; GS's "Why is xtianity better than other similar myths", and my "what books"?
I gave one piece of evidence in post #46 and followed up with post #54 & 64. Is that a good start? Gary Habermas is a good source for the historical jesus. Try reading this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0899007325/103-7874744-0872607?v=glance). Another expert source is William Lane Craig. You can read much of his stuff online here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html). I particularly like reading Craig's debates (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html) with others because it gives you both sides of the argument in one place.

[Rhinoqulous]

If the probabilistic tendency is not an absolute law then the probabilistic tendency of entropy could decrease? Is that what this law says? I have some respect for you (unlike GS) so there is no need for the dumbass comment. I may be (am?) dense, but I'm not trying to be a dumbass.
Sorry for the dumbass commit, just got a little peeved. I've had too many Christian's throw entropy around without knowing what they're talking about, though usually in discussions about evolution.

And yes, in a closed system, the overall entropy could decrease for a time, but the system will have the overall tendency towards higher entropy. And the key is that entropy applies to a "closed system", of which we only have one, the universe itself (though who knows, the universe may not be a closed system either).

And any physics nuts can feel free to point out if I'm making an ass of myself, because as I've stated before, I'm not a physicist, but I play one on internet forums. :)

Rhinoq

ps. Oh, and thanks for the links.

[schemanista]

Gary Habermas is a good source for the historical jesus. Try reading this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0899007325/103-7874744-0872607?v=glance). Another expert source is William Lane Craig. You can read much of his stuff online here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html). I particularly like reading Craig's debates (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html) with others because it gives you both sides of the argument in one place.
Sadly, my excellent public library doesn't have Habermas' The Historical Jesus. I'm considering ordering it, just on your recommendation (take that as a compliment if you'd like).

Craig's debates look interesting, though. I'd like to see him and Carrier go at it, but that probably won't happen until Carrier finishes his PhD.

[thomas]

As far as the Mithras cult goes, there's some ambiguity over whether Mithras influenced Christianity, or vice versa. The Mithras cult was popular from 1st century BC to 5th century AD, so there's some overlap with the rise of Christianity. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like too many Mithraic writings exist throughout that time period, so it's difficult to say how the Mithras cult changed over time (if it did at all).
Yes, that is what my reading turned up as well. The main references that seem to mirror some Christian beliefs are from 300AD, well after the formation of the Christian beliefs, and at the point where any religion in the Roman empire may have needed to reform itself to stop being overwhelmed by the increasing popular Christianity. I don't see any evidence that those beliefs pre-date Christianity.

[thomas]

As an aside: was the word "fraud" a dig at me or are you reflecting back the general tenor of TRA? I don't think I've been deliberately rude to you, thomas, but maybe you see something in my posting that I don't.
I think we've picked this up in the other thread ? Let me know if I've overlooked some point you want to come back to ?

I wasn't trying to have a dig at anybody with the use of the word fraud, just trying to get reactions on alternative proposals for how Christianity was formed. Although I must admit a good dose of jet-lag made me a little more colorful yesterday, than usual.

[thomas]

The trouble is if you don't accept the straight forward explanation for the Hindu faith, which is that the Gita, Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata etc. are accounts of real events, remembered by oral tradition and faithfully recorded shortly afterwards by those involved or those close to them, then you really should be able to come up with another explanation that takes into account all of the evidence and is consistent with it.

Who do you think perpetrated the fraud/delusion that you claim Hinduism is ? How do you think it got started ? Who was it, where and when and how did it spread ?
This doesn't really work for me as a reversal. I haven't looked at the details of Hinduism so I don't know if they have good evidence for their beliefs or not. Just like an atheist will look at religion and use a short-cut technique that says "God doesn't exist therefore this religion must be wrong" without looking at the evidence for each in detail, so I look at other religions and say "Christianity is true and claims it is unique, therefore other religions may be wrong", without looking at the evidence in detail. I know this leads to the possibility that I'm overlooking something but seems like the only practical solution.

[Lurker]

Another piece of evidence that can’t be overlooked is the book of Daniel. The dead sea scrolls include this book which makes some pretty specific predictions (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/q70weeks.html) about when jerusalem would be rebuilt and when ‘the anointed one’ or messiah would come. Careful analysis (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3a.html) shows that Daniel was not written after the events took place as some skeptics claim. Rabbinic writings and those from Josephus support this as well. Multiple references are cited in the links I provided so don't just dismiss the information because it comes from a christian source.

The evidence is compelling when you consider the fact that jerusalem was rebuilt at the time it was predicted, that jesus arrived on the scene as predicted, that first century jewish leaders were looking/expecting a messiah at the time of jesus because they read Daniel too. You can write off jesus as a made-up hero/legend but the evidence against that seems pretty strong.

[Rhinoqulous]

What do you (Lurker) and Thomas think of the whole "All this will come to pass in your lifetime" stuff? Wasn't G-Zus supposed to return within the apostle’s lifetimes? What's going on here (besides possibly selective interpretation)?

Rhinoq

[Lurker]

What do you (Lurker) and Thomas think of the whole "All this will come to pass in your lifetime" stuff? Wasn't G-Zus supposed to return within the apostle’s lifetimes? What's going on here (besides possibly selective interpretation)?
That's a good question. I have some idea how to answer, but I'm sure you'll want references/details so I'll have to work on it.

Maybe thomas has something to offer?

[Philboid Studge]

Another piece of evidence that can’t be overlooked is the book of Daniel. The dead sea scrolls include this book which makes some pretty specific predictions about when jerusalem would be rebuilt and when ‘the anointed one’ or messiah would come. Careful analysis shows
In case anyone missed it the first time lurker linked to this nut, let me point out again that he calls himself a "committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ for the second 25 years of my life."

Now, as I said before, that's no reason to write off his *ahem* analyses out of hand, but if you really want to laugh at rather than with this twit, check out his own personal revelation, which includes such riveting if purply prose as the following (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/oxymore.html):

With this wasteland experience in my hand, we went to take our dates back to the dorm. At the door, the crowning blow was delivered...she handed me a religious pamphlet..."Jesus and the Intellectual"...I could not believe it...I stumbled back to the car, dropped my friend off, and wallowed around in the darkness of the soul for hours and hours.

Somehow...3 days later...I stumbled out of this cognitive fog and fell into the arms of Jesus Christ...

I ask you, out of the cognitive fog?

[Lurker]

In case anyone missed it the first time lurker linked to this nut, let me point out again that he calls himself a "committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ for the second 25 years of my life."
So he's writes poetically. Ghoulslime does the same so is he a nut too? As you said, it's no reason to write off his analysis (though you seem to be trying real hard). He cites many ancient christian and non-christian references so you've got to deal with those before you can claim victory.

[Philboid Studge]

In case anyone missed it the first time lurker linked to this nut, let me point out again that he calls himself a "committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ for the second 25 years of my life."
So he's writes poetically. Ghoulslime does the same so is he a nut too? As you said, it's no reason to write off his analysis (though you seem to be trying real hard). He cites many ancient christian and non-christian references so you've got to deal with those before you can claim victory.
It's not that he writes 'poetically' lurker, it's that he's got an agenda. That's what Evangelicals do, isn't it?

(And Ghoulslime, on his worst day, writes better than this goof. As for whether he's a nut as well, I dunno.)

[Lurker]

It's not that he writes 'poetically' lurker, it's that he's got an agenda. That's what Evangelicals do, isn't it?
What part of ancient christian and non-christian references don't you understand? If you don't like Glenn Miller then deal with the references.

[thomas]

What do you (Lurker) and Thomas think of the whole "All this will come to pass in your lifetime" stuff? Wasn't G-Zus supposed to return within the apostle’s lifetimes? What's going on here (besides possibly selective interpretation)?
We had a thread on this before, I'll see if I can find it. Basically, some of the "you'll see me coming in glory in your lifetime" stuff is immediately prior to His transfiguration, where a few of the disciples did see Him in his glory. Some of the prophecy seems to refer to the falling of Jerusalem in AD70 and the rest refers to His return. Do you want to go into more detail than this ?

[Rhinoqulous]

What do you (Lurker) and Thomas think of the whole "All this will come to pass in your lifetime" stuff? Wasn't G-Zus supposed to return within the apostle’s lifetimes? What's going on here (besides possibly selective interpretation)?
We had a thread on this before, I'll see if I can find it. Basically, some of the "you'll see me coming in glory in your lifetime" stuff is immediately prior to His transfiguration, where a few of the disciples did see Him in his glory. Some of the prophecy seems to refer to the falling of Jerusalem in AD70 and the rest refers to His return. Do you want to go into more detail than this ?
I was reading something on this online the other day, but I forgot to bookmark it. I'll see if I can find it again, and then we can discuss it.

Rhinoq

[Philboid Studge]

It's not that he writes 'poetically' lurker, it's that he's got an agenda. That's what Evangelicals do, isn't it?
What part of ancient christian and non-christian references don't you understand? If you don't like Glenn Miller then deal with the references.
Dude, most of the 'analysis' in the link you labeled 'careful analysis' comes from Miller himself, as is the case with his other pages. The analyses do not come from his references -- or if they do, he's not crediting them. What part of 'reading' are you having trouble with?

[Lurker]

Dude, most of the 'analysis' in the link you labeled 'careful analysis' comes from Miller himself, as is the case with his other pages. The analyses do not come from his references -- or if they do, he's not crediting them. What part of 'reading' are you having trouble with?
I think referencing/quoting ancient texts (Josephus, Rabbinics, DS Scrolls, etc) either directly or indirectly through others counts as a reference. If you think his analysis is wrong then provide a good counter argument - with references of course. I have no problem with a different interpretation of the same text, but then again you're going to have to explain why - just as Glenn Miller did.

[Metman07]

The trouble is if you don't accept the straight forward explanation for the Hindu faith, which is that the Gita, Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata etc. are accounts of real events, remembered by oral tradition and faithfully recorded shortly afterwards by those involved or those close to them, then you really should be able to come up with another explanation that takes into account all of the evidence and is consistent with it.

Who do you think perpetrated the fraud/delusion that you claim Hinduism is ? How do you think it got started ? Who was it, where and when and how did it spread ?
This doesn't really work for me as a reversal. I haven't looked at the details of Hinduism so I don't know if they have good evidence for their beliefs or not. Just like an atheist will look at religion and use a short-cut technique that says "God doesn't exist therefore this religion must be wrong" without looking at the evidence for each in detail, so I look at other religions and say "Christianity is true and claims it is unique, therefore other religions may be wrong", without looking at the evidence in detail. I know this leads to the possibility that I'm overlooking something but seems like the only practical solution.
Let me take a guess about you. You were probably born into a society where Christianity is the predominant religion, or into a family of Christian heritage, right? I'm not saying that you were necessarily raised a Christian, but you were nevertheless born into a family than could probably trace its ancestry back to Christian forefathers at some point in time. I could be wrong, but I say this because it is my belief that well over 90% of practicing Christians were born into Christian families/heritages. I don't have figures or statistics to back up this claim, but I'm sure you'd agree that the majority of Christians in the world were probably born into Christian households just as the overwhelming majority of Muslims, Hindus, Zorastrians etc. were all born into households of those respective faiths.

You probably know where I am going with this. I have personally moved around quite a bit and I have lived in many countries and have encountered people of lots of different faiths. I have noticed that they are all equally convinced about their faiths. I have gotten into debates with people of many other faiths that make claims that are remarkably similar to yours, except for the fact that they are arguing the validity of another religion. This is in fact one of the main things that led me to the path of atheism. You will find that there are lots of apologists for pretty much every faith that will cite archeological evidence and historical documents wich supposedly proove that their respective faiths are true. They also cite prophecies that supposedly came true and they argue that their religions described several scientific laws and theories centuries before scientists did.

I take it all back if what I guessed about you is wrong, as it well could be. I have known some people who were raised in Christian families who converted to Buddhism, Hinduism and various other religions. I've known people born of families of other faiths who converted to Christianity. But if I am right about you, have you ever considered that you may be culturally biased? Have you examined why you think you should be a Christian and not Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or a practioner of another faith? By your own admission you have not studied the other religions in much detail.

Like most atheists/agnostics, I was once a theist, quite a fervent one at that. But because I encountered these different religious climates, my own religious beliefs came under fire. I was defending my own faith (Christianity) against Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews. Initially, I refused to believe that these faiths could be equally as valid as my own or that maybe one of them was true and my own wasn't. Eventually, I tried taking an objective, dispassionate look at other faiths. It wasn't easy. My Christian bias was extremely strong and I looked for ways to dismiss these other faiths. But with time, I managed to separate my emotions, or at least minimize them. There was no sudden realization or epiphany, but over time I began to realize that (in my opinion of course) all religions are in fact equal and that I could find no compelling evidence as to why one religion is more "valid" than another.

And so, I moved to the Ghandian school of thought: that most religions have some right and some wrong, but that there was a God, who would be completely just etc. in judging people and that he wouldn't judge people on their faith alone. Eventually, this turned to atheism as I realized that I did not believe that there is enough evidence supporting the existence of a god.

Unlike many atheists on this forum, I don't have scorn for theists most of the time. I do get annoyed with Bible thumping Christians at times, but I feel that I can relate to many theists because I was once a theist myself.

Sorry for the really long life story, but I think you'll get my point.

[thomas]

You probably know where I am going with this. I have personally moved around quite a bit and I have lived in many countries and have encountered people of lots of different faiths. I have noticed that they are all equally convinced about their faiths. I have gotten into debates with people of many other faiths that make claims that are remarkably similar to yours, except for the fact that they are arguing the validity of another religion. This is in fact one of the main things that led me to the path of atheism. You will find that there are lots of apologists for pretty much every faith that will cite archeological evidence and historical documents wich supposedly proove that their respective faiths are true. They also cite prophecies that supposedly came true and they argue that their religions described several scientific laws and theories centuries before scientists did.
The existence of many different, strongly held opinions on a topic does not mean that one of those opinions is not correct. After all, if that was true then evolution would be false because many people sincerely believe that it is. It's not sincere belief that matters it's truth based on evidence that matters.

[Lurker]

Metman,
Below is something I wrote on this forum many months ago. It's a thumbnail sketch of my thought process and how I came to where I am today. Maybe it's worthing something - maybe not.
------------------------------------------------

I have 2 choices with respect to god and I need to make up my mind.
1) There is no god (defined as creator of universe and all life).
2) There is a god.

If #1…then there is no creator, no purpose for my life other than what I want to do with it, no life after death just the end of me when I die. Sound like it’s not such a bad life. I can do as I please and when I die it’s game over.

However it’s a life that I will gladly exchange for one where all the above things are real (a life with god). Why is that? I guess because life is better when you’re