• 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

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Dying for ones belief is different then dying for what you know.

The plain flyers may have died for what they believed was true, but in actuality it was false.
How do you know that what they died for was false? That's just something you believe.


Thats different then the eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus because they wer in the position to KNOW if the resurrection was true or not.

Its like me typing to you now. I dont believe i am, i know i am because im in that position to know.

So, why would the witnesses die for what they knew was a supposid lie?

You see?
Which eyewitnesses are you referring to?
 
You just accused me of a blanket accusation then made a blanket accusation.

So its not an accusation for you to say christian apologists dont answer there cretics? How is it not an accusation? And how are you not brushing them off without refutation?

I don't need blanket statement, so far all of the apologetics you linked to were wrong. One was so under-researched it's wouldn't be wrong to call it an actual lie.

This seams to be a pattern, just brush them off, say there wrong and act like that equals refutation.

It appears to me you just want to argue and not debate.

If thats all you wanna do, im not interested.

Ehrman is a biblical scholar and he believes what most scholars believe, that Jesus was a man and the supernatural stories were added later. That's what educated people currently believe.

No, the supernatural parts wer not added later and thats not what "most" scholars believe. But hey, you got proof of that?

With the exception of a few fundamentalist scholars who can't let go of their superstitious beliefs.

A few huh? Just a few? Proof?

Carriers work is more recent and has exposed many of the assumptions scholars held about Jesus to be assumptions based on false premises. But Carriers work hasn't become the standard view in the field yet. It probably will.

You seam to be so sure of that.

Ehrman USES crappy apologetics in his writing and Carrier exposes many of his lies:

"Bart Ehrman is one of those secular historians who, all too often, can’t be bothered to check his facts, but just repeatedly apes Christian apologetics, again and again, on both the dying-and-rising mytheme"

Why would bart, a non christian, scholar at that, use christian apologetics? That makes zero sense. And i dont agree.

Because you can't debate that line.
Carrier says many times that someone once preached some Jesus to him and decided to read the bible for himself. Then he became interested in the historical aspect. He allowed the work to inform his ideas on the religion, not personal beliefs.

I can debate that line, but i wont because its too absurd. Its like debating whether trees grow out of the ground, its just absurd.

Carier, like everyone has biases, beliefs and defense.

See one minute you are saying "I could not disagree more. I disagree with that so strongly" implying that you are very familiar with Carrier but obviously you're not?
So you're just talking out of your a$$.

Ive never claimed, nor implied, nor came across as a know it all. You said carier said mithras wasnt a savoir deity. Ive read stuff on it, but not everything and lots of it i dont even remember. But, i took your word for it, so now your saying it wasnt true. So what was it, some kind of test to see if i would be honest or something? I certainly didnt fail thats for sure because i never claimed to be a know it all. I even said i need to deal with this in bits too.

Whats so hard debating your oponent giving them the benefit of the doubt that there honest? Is that so hard to do?

What angers me even more is that im willing tp give carier the benefit of the doubt, but you cant give me, nor the sources i give you the same respect.

Its annoying, distracting and just plain gets old. Be stronger then this.

Carrier not only debunked the mis-information about Mithras but also many other crank theories about the NT such as the "Q" gospel and the theory that Jesus was one of the Ceasars from Rome.
He's also very critical of some other amateur mythicists like D.M. Murdock who has made some historical errors.

Ok, umm, ill leave that alone, because bits and pieces, remember?

As far as I can tell there was some historical information Carrier had not yet learned when he wrote those older articles.

Such as?

The sources were not wrong, the apologetics wasn't using the same sources.

The article i gave you did use the same sources. I know for a fact it did for innana because ive been working hard on that piece.

Carrier makes mistakes, if you read through his blog he has lots of corrections and he also answers every single critic of his work on his blog.

Oh im sure he does. But gauss what, so do christian scholars answer there cretics.

Every error someone points out he writes about explaining how he wasnt' really wrong or if he was he admits it.

Ok, well ill take your word for it......or should i? Its not another TEST is it? Lol

He is a historian not a religious person. His truth can change with new knowledge.

You know what? This is a severe distortion of what religion is all about in this statement. Atleast MY religion anyway. True religion dont twist facts to suit itself, nor does it make up its own facts. True religion is HONEST.

And again, it appears your alluding to carier having no biases again. That he has no beliefs and no defense, its all facts for him. Oh boy......

Yes other demigods died for salvation.
Your using a common apologetics point and it's one of the worst arguments ever.

Got an original source for a god dying for sin?

First, so many other elements match up that who cares?

I do, and since your debating someone other then yourself, you should care too.

Like i said, i never took this dying rising god, christianity stole ideas, seriously. But you do, so, therefor i am too then. I realize im not debating myself here. Im not gonna be selfish and im not gonna just agree with your view either. Your gonna have to work this. It may take a year of us debating. For real, i did that once with another guy on here pertaining to a different subject. Interestingly that debate was pleasent. Not one time did he accuse me of dishonesty, yet we disagreed. Amazing huh? It can be done!

But the real problem is that the whole "sin" thing is mainly a Jewish thing. So of course the Jewish version would die for personal sins. Jesus replaced Yom Kippur which was about forgiving sins.
Judaism is the religion that teaches people are born into sin. Christians now are so brainwashed they don't even question the concept, it seems perfectly natural.
Like - hey everyone is a sinner from birth but luckily our religion fixes everything!

Whatever.

Jesus’s death and resurrection is a singular apocalyptic event rather than part of an eternal cycle…because that’s the Jewish contribution fused to the dying-and-rising motif. It’s exactly how a dying-and-rising god would be Judaized. Likewise the role of sacrificial-atonement blood-magic in framing his death, which is exactly a replication of Jewish temple atonement magic (Jesus thus becomes the Yom Kippur: e.g. OHJ, Element 18, pp. 143-45; pp. 402-07; etc.), foundational to Jewish soteriology. So we can already expect that in the creation of any Jewish savior cult, as well. Meanwhile the Hellenistic contributions include the role of Jesus as incarnated divine being (and thus demigod and not fully human), in this respect most closely modeling Romulus (who was also a pre-existent celestial who assumed a mortal body; and in myth, even born to a human woman), but as we’ve seen, many other resurrected mortals and demigods abounded to inspire the same concept. Likewise, the abandonment of the communal agricultural context and its replacement with an interpretation of future individual salvation, is exactly what happened to many other resurrected gods (such as Osiris and Adonis) precisely in consequence of the influence of the Hellenistic mystery religions."

But individual salvation is exactly the same thing as getting rid of "sins".

Original source for dying god for sin?

I think we are past this. You already know this.

No mythology credits older mythology, ever. Buddhism clearly rose out of Hinduism as people traded cultures between India and China. Buddhist text don't SAY THAT?!?

Egyptiaqns don't say they stole myths from the Sumerians.

So, perhaps that means they did not steel anything. Or, if they did, perhaps it means theres truths in each culture. Like pieces of a puzzle that come together. In fact thats how i see all religion, they hold pieces of truth and when joined, it shows a bigger picture.

Still with this? Yes there would be similarities like, eating, driving, going to work, and dance marathons.

Sorry, not the dance marathons, ive never done that one, lol.

NOT virgin births and being killed and coming back to life and getting everyone into heaven and having super powers. Never. That never happens.


Did you die and come back to life in 3 days? Yes? Oh me too!? Wait, you're the son of god too, wow, our days are so similar!

I was born of a woman, you wer too? Oh so i barrowed that from you huh? I drive a car, oh you do too? Oh so i barrowed that from you too huh? So that means your saying i dont drive a car, huh? I eat food, oh you do to? Oh so i got that from you too huh? Dang, is there anything of my life story that i dont get from yours? Oh, i sleep in a bed, oh crap, you do too? Oh so i stole that from you too then? So i dont sleep in a bed.

I think you get the drift.

Please stop pretending to think that religions ever give credit to the myths they steal from. They never do.

Thats not true, the NT gives credit to the OT. I gave you an example of that already with jonah and you ignored it. Theres lots more.

But hey, just for the sake of argument, even IF they all never gave credit, that would not prove they barrowed, it could equally prove or show a common real experience.

If I made up a thing where a fat guy with a white beard rides a sleigh from the south pole and gives presents to children every July there would be no direct proof of where I got this idea.

You got that from your parrents because i got the same story from my parrents. And technically that story has history to it. Pieces of history joined together.

Yes OUR lives are similar. Demi-gods with super powers who come back from the dead and cause earthquakes and a zombie apocalypse to happen, that isn't us.

Of course thats not us. Stop missing the point im making.

That never happened in anyone's day. That happened in fiction.
And any written stories about it are fiction.

How can you go on comparing average people to the lives of demigods?????
That is so bizarre?

Its a illustration to prove a point and i think you keep delebarately missing it.

And Thor is real and he flies around with the help of his magic hammer. Probably Hercules too.

Some things are myth, some things are real, but misunderstood and some things are real.
 
Last edited:

So when my action clearly and proven demonstrates honesty by admitting i was wrong about innana, you cant give me credit for it, you just say uh huh? That speaks volumes about your aprouch and additude toward those who dont agree with you.

Ha, that apologist argument is hilarious. Already debunked:

"Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction."

Thats a debunk? What kind of debunk, a proven one or one based on there perspective?

Our lives die, so, my death barrows from yours then.

You know this. If we were discussing any other mythology that you realized was actually mythology any reasonably intelligent person would immediately admit they were all influencing each other.

Actually NO! Thats emphatically wrong on all accounts.

Again, independent common experiences, common thoughts. And many puzzle pieces that form the bigger picture.

But apologists can't do that so they have to nit pick little things like "oh he didn't die ON the cross he died before he was on the cross"

Innana was not on a cross, period. It was a hook.

meanwhile gigantic and way more important details like the person CAME BACK TO LIFE and in the SAME AMOUNT OF DAYS? Hello?

Ehem....you ignored my post about jonah. The NT got the 3 days from jonah and the other passage. The NT directly references jonah. Not innana. Also three days is mentioned for Joseph too (OT again). Hello? Anybody home? Can ya handle the heat! Ya squirmin? Lol

Each myth has differences, the early Jews couldn't just take the exact mythology with the same name and make every detail the same??? That's ridiculous?

Why would the OT and NT barrow/steel from pagain cultures when they were CRETICS of pagan cultures and gods? Ahhhh duuuuuuuh, hitting my hand on my chest now like a retard, duuuuuuuh, duuuuuh, lol. I mean the OT and NT just over and over criticises pagans and heresies, but yea, they adopt there views, riiiiiight.....that makes alot of sense now, NOT!

"Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth."

Yea, every god is different and has similarities, just like our own lives do, all irelavent. Independent common experiences. And different puzzle pieces of truth to make a bigger picture. Also if theres a false, theres a true. If theres counterfiet gods, theres a true God.
 
How do you know that what they died for was false? That's just something you believe.

I was merely making a illustrated point. Dying for a belief is different then dying for what you know.

Which eyewitnesses are you referring to?

Well, how about this one as an example.

Acts 5

"17Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20“Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people all about this new life.”

21At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.

When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23“We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were at a loss, wondering what this might lead to.

25Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.

27The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! 30The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

33When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death.34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

40His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go."

So notice, they are persecuted, dont recant and claim to be witnesses.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Acts 5

"17Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20“Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people all about this new life.”
Those angels of the Lord sure come in handy.
 

j1i

Smiling is charity without giving money
The death and resurrection of Jesus in roughly 28 or 29 CE assertedby the Bible (many times) and by almost every living Christian. Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred, but there is essentially no way to prove that somebody that died and came back to life over 2000 hrs ago.


Do you know when Jesus will?

Human conscience is dead.

The cruelty every day will increase
And injustice show justice, and justice show unjust

When we reach the edge of the abyss and a war between the light of science and the darkness of ignorance

God will revive Jesus son of Mary and send him with the angels

I am a Muslim, I believe that he is a living being and not a god but the pure message of God to the earth for justice after Injustice and oppression

The reason Jesus is sent again is to fight Jesus the liar (antichrist) who will say I am God
 
Those angels of the Lord sure come in handy.

Yes.....but, if youl notice, the purpose of the angel wasnt just to save peter and the apostles from all there problems, because if that wer the case, hed have stopped the arrest, the flogging, ect. The purpose was to get them back in positions to spread this message.

The apostles wer to the world as the internet is today. Information getting reached to the people.

The angels would not spread the message and heres why, hebrews answers this in hebrews 2:16

"We also know that the Son did not come to help angels; he came to help the descendants of Abraham."

So, it was the job of man to spread this. And they wer also destined to suffer for it too. That gave it credability. 1 corinthians 4:9

"For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings."

And philipians 1:29

"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him,"
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I was merely making a illustrated point. Dying for a belief is different then dying for what you know.
If you say so.

People often convince themselves that their beliefs are knowledge.

Well, how about this one as an example.

Acts 5

"17Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20“Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people all about this new life.”

21At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.

When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23“We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were at a loss, wondering what this might lead to.

25Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.

27The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! 30The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

33When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death.34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

40His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go."

So notice, they are persecuted, dont recant and claim to be witnesses.
That's a nice story, I guess. How do we know this happened and where can I read eyewitness accounts to verify that anyone actually saw a man resurrected from the dead?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Jesus Resurrection

I believe that the resurrection of Jesus or resurrection of Christ is
the Christian religious belief that, after being put to on the Cross, Jesus rose again from the dead as the Nicene Creed expresses it, "On the third day he rose again" is wrong. There are very strong clues against it even in the Gospels. Jesus could not and did not die on the Cross for obvious reasons.He was put on the Cross though, but delivered from it in near-dead position yet he survived against all odds.
"Jesus' rising from the dead" is a myth created by Paul and the Church.

Regards
____________
Resurrection of Jesus - Wikipedia



 
If you say so.

People often convince themselves that their beliefs are knowledge.


That's a nice story, I guess. How do we know this happened and where can I read eyewitness accounts to verify that anyone actually saw a man resurrected from the dead?

Luke may not have been an eyewitness but he investigated it from its beginings. He would gave known the eye witneses. And paul knew luke and paul met peter and got his account.

And they wer all being persecuted for it.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
So its not an accusation for you to say christian apologists dont answer there cretics? How is it not an accusation?

I know of no apologist who has continued to answer critiques of an article, you would have to show me.
Carrier writes articles answering any criiticism a review puts to him.
The article you linked to was using Carriers older work which was still in the process of learning information.
Inanna did die and was resurrected and the article said there were no resurrected savior gods before Jesus.
At that time Carrier hadn't written about any of them except Innanna. The apologist sources were not appearing to use the clay tablets?



It appears to me you just want to argue and not debate.

That's a lie and shows poor form. I'm the one posting sources and you come back with non-sourced articles by a pastor.
The 2nd article only deals with Inanna and the nitpicking they do I've already dealt with. You just ignore vast amounts of information about cultural synchretism and how what matters is the idea of a savior god dying and rising.
I can't even tell what you're going on and on about?

The issue is resolved, there are many obvious parallels to Christianity and Pagan religions. More than enough to show where the Jesus story came from. This debate is far over.
It's been admitted by Justin Myrter and several other historians from the era and shown clearly in Carriers article.


No, the supernatural parts wer not added later and thats not what "most" scholars believe. ?

Of course, in a lecture Carrier talks about the field and explains besides a few fundamentalist scholars no one believes in the supernatural aspects of Christianity. Most believe they were added later.

Here are 4 leading scholars who are highly respected in the field, their beliefs are neatly summed up.
Losing faith: how secular scholarship affects scholars - creation.com

Just going to church and reading Christian propaganda will not teach you what's actually happening in the world. In the Ph.D community of historians the bible is not real, it's a historical book of mythology.



A few huh? Just a few? Proof?

Carrier stated in several lectures that there are a few Ph.D biblical historians who believe in some form of Christianity but in scholarship and in secular universities people simply don't believe ancient mythology is real.





Why would bart, a non christian, scholar at that, use christian apologetics? That makes zero sense. And i dont agree.

You don't agree with what? That Ehrman uses christian apologetics?
That would be weird because Carrier points out all of hhis uses in an article and explains why they are crap.



I can debate that line, but i wont because its too absurd. Its like debating whether trees grow out of the ground, its just absurd.

Carier, like everyone has biases, beliefs and defense.

He set out to prove what the field currently believes - that Jesus was just a man teaching reformed Judaism. But he realized that it's much more likely that there was no Jesus at all.
He follows evidence.



But, i took your word for it, so now your saying it wasnt true. So what was it, some kind of test to see if i would be honest or something? I certainly didnt fail thats for sure because i never claimed to be a know it all. I even said i need to deal with this in bits too.

Whats so hard debating your oponent giving them the benefit of the doubt that there honest? Is that so hard to do?

doubt, but you cant give me, nor the sources i give you the same respect.
.

I don't know what your talking about with tests and benefit of the doubt?

The article was debating a Carrier paper from 2003 and said "there are no pre-Jesus savior gods" But in 2014 Carrier presented material that showed there were 6.
Then the article nit-picked little differences like the fact that he wasn't killed on the cross but right before, as if these facts mean anything? The important facts are a virgin born demigod died and rose in 3 days for the benefit of it's followers.
this and other stories influenced the gospel writers to create a similar version for Judaism.
The apologist was all like "well Inanna died just before they hung him.."
What? Who cares? He rose again in 3 days! That is the single most important part of Christianity right there. The resurrection. Now we know it's mythology taken from Pagan sources and developed into a Jewish version.





6 dying/rising demigods before Jesus, and Carriers entire NT study was done after that article.





Oh im sure he does. But gauss what, so do christian scholars answer there cretics.

Where?

Ok, well ill take your word for it......or should i? Its not another TEST is it? Lol

what test?

You know what? This is a severe distortion of what religion is all about in this statement. Atleast MY religion anyway. True religion dont twist facts to suit itself, nor does it make up its own facts. True religion is HONEST.

And again, it appears your alluding to carier having no biases again. That he has no beliefs and no defense, its all facts for him. Oh boy......
They are all fictional stories that teach real lessons. They are not written to be taken literal.
The synoptic gospels were not honest or not-honest.
Someone took Mark and wrote Matthew, adding elements that the writer thought would make the story more interesting.
Each new gospel increased the supernatural tales. One even adding a zombie apocolypse after Jesus died/or rose. And Earthquakes and the sun went out.
The writer of the gospels of Hercules wasn't a liar, he was a writer trying to pass myth and wisdom and good stories to other generations.
Hercules and Jesus are both myths.


Got an original source for a god dying for sin?

Yes some died for salvation. But sin was a preoccupation of the Jews which they had to go to temple every day to have forgiven.
So that was a big thing in THEIR culture. Other cultures were not as uptight about "oh my god we were born into all this sin, we need forgiveness, we need a god to sacrifice himself or we are screwed!" So the Jewish version was heavily attached to sin.

I do, and since your debating someone other then yourself, you should care too.

Like i said, i never took this dying rising god, christianity stole ideas, seriously. But you do, so, therefor i am too then. I realize im not debating myself here. Im not gonna be selfish and im not gonna just agree with your view either. Your gonna have to work this. It may take a year of us debating. For real, i did that once with another guy on here pertaining to a different subject. Interestingly that debate was pleasent. Not one time did he accuse me of dishonesty, yet we disagreed. Amazing huh? It can be done![/QUOTE]

Well you were being disingenuous. You claimed to know that Carrier was bias, dishonest and whatever else. But were unfamiliar with all of the mythicist work by others he's pointed out as wrong. And the Q gospel, he believes isn't real and several other mythicist theories he calls crank. You are not listening to his talks or interviews and probably have no real idea of what his work and ethics are like.

So being quick to judge him seemed sketchy.
He clearly isn't looking to just debunk Christianity, he has been following where the facts lead him.




So, perhaps that means they did not steel anything. Or, if they did, perhaps it means theres truths in each culture.

An alternative view is that all these religions had real dying/rising messiahs, then maybe Thor and Hercules could be real too. And why not Roswell?

Personally I'm not going to believe anything supernatural until it's proven.
Like Thor shows up, flies, creates a storm, is strong like Superman and lifts a battleship. Then religious people who think he's the antichrist blow him up with C4 and he survives.




Ir, huh? I eat food, oh you do to? Oh so i got that from you too huh? Dang, is there anything of my life story that i dont get from yours? Oh, i sleep in a bed, oh crap, you do too? Oh so i stole that from you too then? So i dont sleep in a bed.

I think you get the drift.

Yes this works for US. Driving, eating, sleeping.
Not magic, super powers, being slain, dead and coming back to life, flying into space, healing sick people with magic and getting fisherman to drop their business which feeds their families and follow you around everywhere.

These things NEVER HAPPEN IN ANYONES LIFE.
But we actually know they happened in pagan MYTHOLOGY.
So when a new story comes out with all those strange things in them we can be pretty certain that it was COPIED FROM THAT MYTHOLOGY!?!


Seriously, what about this can't you get?




Thats not true, the NT gives credit to the OT. I gave you an example of that already with jonah and you ignored it. Theres lots more.

Yes the NT can source the OT at times. But the OT isn't going to say -"oh by the way this story about Moses, we ripped that off from an old Sumerian myth about a guy who taks to god.." They don't say that. If you bother to read the RC article he explains how it works.

even IF they all never gave credit, that would not prove they barrowed, it could equally prove or show a common real experience.

Then one has to find evidence for this common experience, when, which god?
Most religions only have scarce evidence left. There are 1000s of myths from early man, and no reason to believe archaic supernatural tales.

The modern tales have all turned out to be con-men and woman. Psychics and cold readers and ghost hunters and big foot people and all that stuff has turned out to be fraud.
Today millions believe Sia Babba is performing real magic in India. He is considered a god.
There is eyewitness evidence.

Yet Indian magic is known now to be trickery. Yet people still have this need to believe. There is no evidence ever for any supernatural events.
As much as I want Thor to be real he isn't. Bummer.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
So when my action clearly and proven demonstrates honesty by admitting i was wrong about innana, you cant give me credit for it, you just say uh huh? That speaks volumes about your aprouch and additude toward those who dont agree with you.

uh huh


Thats a debunk? What kind of debunk, a proven one or one based on there perspective?

Our lives die, so, my death barrows from yours then.

No but if someone writes a story after we die and the story says we came back to life in 3 days then flew up to heaven. That story would be copied from the bible.



Actually NO! Thats emphatically wrong on all accounts.
It's how Syncretism works. Like it or not.


Again, independent common experiences, common thoughts. And many puzzle pieces that form the bigger picture.

Yes common mythology, stolen elements from different sources and Jewish writers adding their own twist. Fan-fiction.

Innana was not on a cross, period. It was a hook.

Like Carrier mentions, dying on the cross or off the cross isnt' whats important. It's the fact that a messiah god died and rose in 3 days for his followers to gain something.
Other myths had different details. Same thing however. Are you going to nit pick the same point every post even though it's been fully explained?

Ehem....you ignored my post about jonah. The NT got the 3 days from jonah and the other passage. The NT directly references jonah. Not innana. Also three days is mentioned for Joseph too (OT again). Hello? Anybody home? Can ya handle the heat! Ya squirmin? Lol

Sure, so maybe Mark got the 3 days idea from the OT. Super. I don't care where it was stolen from but it's stolen mythology. The end.

Why would the OT and NT barrow/steel from pagain cultures when they were CRETICS of pagan cultures and gods? Ahhhh duuuuuuuh, hitting my hand on my chest now like a retard, duuuuuuuh, duuuuuh, lol. I mean the OT and NT just over and over criticises pagans and heresies, but yea, they adopt there views, riiiiiight.....that makes alot of sense now, NOT!

Justin Myrter actually said Christians should stop criticising pagans because the cultures were so similar.
No one denied that pagan cultures were similar, the church was simply saying Jesus was the BEST one to fool it's members.
Also once you write a religious text of course you're going to put down all other gods. Paul claimed revelations of the true god and once they assembled their Christian books they made sure to put all other gods down.

Of course they did that ? What are they supposed to say "Jesus is great but Osirus is a good god too, maybe you should follow him?" The bishops wanted power not a hippie commune?? What are you thinking??

Yea, every god is different and has similarities, just like our own lives do, all irelavent. Independent common experiences. And different puzzle pieces of truth to make a bigger picture. Also if theres a false, theres a true. If theres counterfiet gods, theres a true God.

Uh, no. The Roman gods were fake AND the Greek gods were fake and every other mythology is fake. Your logic here is of that of a child?

Your basically saying if people lie for long enough one of those lies must be true.

Yeah, no. People are still coming out with religions and they are still not real. Mormonism, Scientology, Seventh advent UFO Freaks,
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Now let me elaborate on evidence that the New Testament referenced the Old Testament and did not get there content from pagan sources. Ill use the "third day" as an example, since thats refered to for inanna.

Jonah 1:17 which is OT, says "Now the Lord provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."

Mathew 12:40, NT says "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

You see that? The NT did not get the three days from barrowing from inanna, they got it from jonah. Theres another too.

Hosea 6:2, OT says "After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence."

And Luke 24:45, NT says "45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things."

So, the NT Referenced the OT scriptures for the "third day", they did not reference the inanna tablet.


Yes and the OT began writing these predictions AFTER the Persian invasion where the Jews were exposed to the Persian religious ideas of God vs Satan, good vs evil, heaven/hell, and personal savior sons of gods who will die for the baptized members.

That is where it all came from. All of those concepts started showing up in the OT post invasion.
They didn't just
"steal" the myths, they do it subtle. Like one Rabbi has a revelation one night about a savior who will be the Christos and resurrect in 3 days.
And no one goes "hey that's a bit like that Persian guy...." they just go "yay, a prophecy, we get a savior god too"


Remember over half of the Jews at the time of Jesus were like "this is all BS" .
So yes, to an earlier question, there were MANY people who knew the Jesus story was false. 1000s of Jews were like uh uh...no
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Luke may not have been an eyewitness but he investigated it from its beginings. He would gave known the eye witneses. And paul knew luke and paul met peter and got his account.

And they wer all being persecuted for it.
Luke's account is not that of an eyewitness. And we don't have accounts from the supposed eyewitnesses he interviewed.


Sounds like none of these are eyewitness accounts.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Jesus Resurrection

I believe that the resurrection of Jesus or resurrection of Christ is
the Christian religious belief that, after being put to on the Cross, Jesus rose again from the dead as the Nicene Creed expresses it, "On the third day he rose again" is wrong. There are very strong clues against it even in the Gospels. Jesus could not and did not die on the Cross for obvious reasons.He was put on the Cross though, but delivered from it in near-dead position yet he survived against all odds.
"Jesus' rising from the dead" is a myth created by Paul and the Church.

Regards
____________
Resurrection of Jesus - Wikipedia


Do Paul's writings predate the gospels?
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Luke may not have been an eyewitness but he investigated it from its beginings. He would gave known the eye witneses. And paul knew luke and paul met peter and got his account.

And they wer all being persecuted for it.
Wait a minute, that reads like a conspiracy theory.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Do Paul's writings predate the gospels?


Paul mentioned 2 sources of knowledge of Christ. Revelations (hallucinations) and scripture. I'm not including the Pauline letters that are considered forgery by the church and is accepted in the field as forgery.
The original letters mention scripture but we don't know what scripture.
Paul didn't know anything about the life of Jesus at all besides the resurrection so whatever scripture he was reading was some early version before people started mythicising the story and adding Earthly elements to it.

Paul's early letters were vast so to not mention anything else about the popular Jesus story is very sketchy. Had those events actually happened Paul would have known and written about them.

Paul also didn't place Jesus on Earth. Many of the previous savior myths had a public story of an earthly resurrection but the private cult members were told that the secret truth was that it happened in the "celestial realm" or the "lower heavens".

Back then it was the common cosmology to assume there was a "lower firmament" or a low heaven just above Earth where angels hung out and many cosmic dramas played out.

I think the original Adam and Eve story took place in the firmament.

Anyway, Paul could have been talking about a celestial Jesus? We don't know. He isn't specific.
 
I know of no apologist who has continued to answer critiques of an article, you would have to show me.

I dont know why i have to take the time to show you something that is common sense. Christian apologists do this, thats what they do. They devote alot of there time to defending there views and answering there cretics. They even debate there cretics. Carier debated some of them. I seen one posted in this thread. It was back and forth. Yes, they answer there cretics. They have thousands of articles on there sites answering probably every darn thing you can imagine. Im not gonna show you any of that. Im just gonna state the common sense of it because im not interested in debating about this because its too rediculious to me.

Carrier writes articles answering any criiticism a review puts to him.
The article you linked to was using Carriers older work which was still in the process of learning information.
Inanna did die and was resurrected and the article said there were no resurrected savior gods before Jesus.

What article, cariers or the one i gave you?

In anycase, niether article said there wer no gods being dying or rising.

At that time Carrier hadn't written about any of them except Innanna.

Ok you completely lost me now....the article you gave me from carier did not only write about innana, he wrote about numerious other gods too. The article i gave you was refuting some of cariers article.

You see why we need to do this in bits and pieces now? Because its just too much information for either of us to deal with all at once. Its like shoving a whole pizza down our throat in one bite. Cant do it. Thats why i was trying to focus on one god at a time. So i made some good solid points on innana first.

The apologist sources were not appearing to use the clay tablets?

No, the apologist source WAS using the clay tablets. Again, this is why we need to deal with this in bits and pieces.

By dealing with it in pieces, we treat the subject with greater respect. It takes more time, but hey, time is patience, patience is respect.

That's a lie and shows poor form.

Is that your best shot? Come on, get out the bazookas and shoot away. Saying that is just dinging off the armor, lol.

But, hey, if its a liying that you just wanna argue and not debate, then why contradict that by saying this >

> "The issue is resolved, there are many obvious parallels to Christianity and Pagan religions. More than enough to show where the Jesus story came from. This debate is far over.
It's been admitted by Justin Myrter and several other historians from the era and shown clearly in Carriers article."

So, that shows im NOT LYING. It shows you dont want to debate. Now i wont assume to know why you dont want to. Ill leave that to you. But, its clear you just want to argue, not debate.

I'm the one posting sources and you come back with non-sourced articles by a pastor.

The article i gave you criticizing cariers article was sourced. That other article i gave you is done with.

The 2nd article only deals with Inanna and the nitpicking they do I've already dealt with.

No, it doesent only deal with inanna. I WAS ONLY DEALING WITH INANNA because i can only deal with all this info in bits and pieces.

You just ignore vast amounts of information about cultural synchretism and how what matters is the idea of a savior god dying and rising.
I can't even tell what you're going on and on about?

Im not ignoring anything. Im debating the issues with you. But, in bits and pieces. Lets just get real here, we cant deal with 30, 50, 80 gods in one post, or whatever the number is. Before we move forward, we got to respect the subject, and eachother too. Sorry, but i should not have to EARN your respect via agreeing with your position.

The issue is resolved, there are many obvious parallels to Christianity and Pagan religions. More than enough to show where the Jesus story came from. This debate is far over.
It's been admitted by Justin Myrter and several other historians from the era and shown clearly in Carriers article.

Its not obvious too me. Its not resolved to me. Nor is it for alot of others either. It may be for you, but, this is a debate, right? Or, no, its just an argument. A useless argument where no one benefits.

Of course, in a lecture Carrier talks about the field and explains besides a few fundamentalist scholars no one believes in the supernatural aspects of Christianity. Most believe they were added later.

Here are 4 leading scholars who are highly respected in the field, their beliefs are neatly summed up.
Losing faith: how secular scholarship affects scholars - creation.com

Just going to church and reading Christian propaganda will not teach you what's actually happening in the world. In the Ph.D community of historians the bible is not real, it's a historical book of mythology.

Carrier stated in several lectures that there are a few Ph.D biblical historians who believe in some form of Christianity but in scholarship and in secular universities people simply don't believe ancient mythology is real.

Id like a survey or something. Showing the % of scholars and what they believe. Or id like to know how carier knows most agree the bibles supernatural aspects wer added later.

You don't agree with what? That Ehrman uses christian apologetics?
That would be weird because Carrier points out all of hhis uses in an article and explains why they are crap.

I havent looked at that article, and i dont know what article your refering too.

But, im speaking with common sense. A non christian (bart) why would he use christian apologetics? Plus hes a scholar, so, he dont need to use other peoples work (aspeasaly christian apologists work) because he can do his own scholar work.

He set out to prove what the field currently believes - that Jesus was just a man teaching reformed Judaism. But he realized that it's much more likely that there was no Jesus at all.
He follows evidence.

Well, i am aware that MOST scholars dont agree Jesus never existed. So, carier is a small number in that camp. And i dont think the evidence that Jesus never existed is true at all. Not even remotely close.

I don't know what your talking about with tests and benefit of the doubt?

I mean, trust my intentions are honest, even if you dont agree with my views. Simple. If i can do that for you, give me the same respect back. An exchange if ya will.

[

Still missing the point.

Yes the NT can source the OT at times. But the OT isn't going to say -"oh by the way this story about Moses, we ripped that off from an old Sumerian myth about a guy who taks to god.." They don't say that. If you bother to read the RC article he explains how it works.

Then you got no proof. True, steeling, plagurizing, adopting happens, but, sometimes it DONT happen. Big revelation there for ya huh? Ya.....sometimes it really dont happen. So, if the bible dont reference it, you got no PROOF then.

But, i showed you where the bible referenced jonah!

Then one has to find evidence for this common experience, when, which god?
Most religions only have scarce evidence left. There are 1000s of myths from early man, and no reason to believe archaic supernatural tales.

No reason? Of course theres reasons to believe. Lots of good reasons.

The modern tales have all turned out to be con-men and woman. Psychics and cold readers and ghost hunters and big foot people and all that stuff has turned out to be fraud.
Today millions believe Sia Babba is performing real magic in India. He is considered a god.
There is eyewitness evidence.

Yet Indian magic is known now to be trickery. Yet people still have this need to believe. There is no evidence ever for any supernatural events.
As much as I want Thor to be real he isn't. Bummer.

Some of these experiences are real.

Ive had my own spiritual VERIDICAL experiences myself. Which, i know im not lying. And so, i know my experiences are real.

And, its been over 2 hours. Im sorry, i cant get to your other posts. Its too much time.

Lets fpr real do this in smaller bites because this isnt practical, nor helpful to me. Im sure its not for you either. I mean, i dont know how long it takes you to do up your posts, but it takes me this long. It be faster if i did it on a computer, but, im on the rd, i use my phone.
 
Top