• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus Resurrection

Jollybear

Jollybear

Hey
Subduction Zone said:
No, you only suffer from cognitive dissonance in this one area. It is quite common. Once again when this strikes otherwise bright and honest people appear to have lost.those qualities.


Look at how often you have to rely on false dichotomies for complex situations? This is a symptom that should tell you that you are not up to your normal reasoning level.
Click to expand...

Are you self brain washed or something? Get real with me man.
 
Jollybear

Jollybear

Hey
Jollybear said:
Are you self brain washed or something? Get real with me man.
Click to expand...

Heres what you just said above

"Once again you start with a false dichotomy. Being wrong does not mean that one lied. Now the birth story was almost certainly made up and we can tell by the facts that he got wrong"
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jollybear said:
Heres what you just said above

"Once again you start with a false dichotomy. Being wrong does not mean that one lied. Now the birth story was almost certainly made up and we can tell by the facts that he got wrong"
Click to expand...
That's right. The birth story is made up. Does that say that the census was made up? His use of the census was a fact that showed he made up the story.

How did you make that error? And please note, you did make an error, just because you were wrong did not mean that you lied.
 
Jollybear

Jollybear

Hey
joelr said:
I don't buy it, you didn't even consider one source or fact presented supporting the argument that Christ was a mythical figure?

Please don't use ridiculous apologist literature. Apologist literature runs around in circles and goes nowhere.
For example, take just the Greek "Kata", I've seen biblical fundamentalist scholars dance around the fact that historians know that this meas "as told by". Non Ph.D will try to bend the truth and make it mean something slightly different.

Historians know for sure there are 6 savior demigods who died and rose for the sins of the cult members. There were probably many more but there are 6 we know for sure.
Fundamentalist get all nit picky and try to say "it's not the same" which of course it's not exactly the same. Each myth uses euhemerization in different ways.

you just said "Quite pathetic" to:
"Oh and the story of jesus is plagurized from pagan myths.
Thats a nutshell summery of 54 pages of debate."

But haven't dealt with scholarship and why they are wrong at all? I just gave you plenty of historical facts to comment on and you called it "bad sources" which to not even explain why is disingenuous.
You are not going to get around he scholarship of this:

"Not in ancient Asia. Or anywhere else. Only the West, from Mesopotamia to North Africa and Europe. There was a very common and popular mytheme that had arisen in the Hellenistic period—from at least the death of Alexander the Great in the 300s B.C. through the Roman period, until at least Constantine in the 300s A.D. Nearly every culture created and popularized one: the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. The Jews were actually late to the party in building one of their own, in the form of Jesus Christ. It just didn’t become popular among the Jews, and thus ended up a Gentile religion. But if any erudite religious scholar in 1 B.C. had been asked “If the Jews invented one of these gods, what would it look like?” they would have described the entire Christian religion to a T. Before it even existed. That can’t be a coincidence.

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

  • They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
  • They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
  • They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
  • They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
  • They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
  • They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
  • They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
  • They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
  • They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
  • They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
  • They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
  • And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).
    You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):
  • They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
  • They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
  • They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
  • That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
  • By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
  • Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
  • They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
  • Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.


  • This is sounding even more like Christianity, isn’t it? Odd that. Just mix in the culturally distinct features of Judaism that it was syncretized with, such as messianism, apocalypticism, scripturalism, and the particularly Jewish ideas about resurrection—as well as Jewish soteriology, cosmology, and rituals, and other things peculiar to Judaism, such as an abhorrence of sexuality and an obsession with blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice—and you literally have Christianity fully spelled out. Before it even existed"

Click to expand...

Dont buy it then.

But ill respond when i can. Im going to copy your post to a file in my phone and reference back and forth until i build it. Will take a few days.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jollybear said:
Heres what you just said above

"Once again you start with a false dichotomy. Being wrong does not mean that one lied. Now the birth story was almost certainly made up and we can tell by the facts that he got wrong"
Click to expand...

You seem to be having a hard time following the conversation again.
 
Jollybear

Jollybear

Hey
Subduction Zone said:
That's right. The birth story is made up. Does that say that the census was made up? His use of the census was a fact that showed he made up the story.

How did you make that error? And please note, you did make an error, just because you were wrong did not mean that you lied.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, the census, is the census made up?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Let me make this a bit clearer. Both accounts appear to be false and were done to.make it look as if Jesus was born in Bethlehem so that they could claim he fulfilled a prophecy. One that neither Mark nor John seemed to think was all that important. Luke tried to give a reason for him being there since he was known as Jesus of Nazareth. His story failed.
 
Jollybear

Jollybear

Hey
Subduction Zone said:
Let me make this a bit clearer. Both accounts appear to be false and were done to.make it look as if Jesus was born in Bethlehem so that they could claim he fulfilled a prophecy. One that neither Mark nor John seemed to think was all that important. Luke tried to give a reason for him being there since he was known as Jesus of Nazareth. His story failed.
Click to expand...

So, luke made up WHERE he was born?

Luke didnt make up the census then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top