Jesus Resurrection

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.

Click to expand...

Those details are important. There was no "cross" in the story of inanna. Crucifixion was a much later time period, at the roman times. And no virgin birth either. And she was hung on a hook IN THE UNDERWORLD. So, she was already dead before being put on this hook. And the hook was in the underworld, not on earth.

And the story of jesus, three days, referenced the book of jonah, NOT inanna. You cant say the story of Jesus stole from inanna when theres clear cut proof the NT author directly references the book of Jonah.

But, they dont reference it in order to barrow and make up another story myth. No, what there doing is showing the the OT are real stories, but these stories are prophetic TYPOLOGIES to Jesus.

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

Where?

what test?

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.

Click to expand...

These are all assumptions.

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.

Click to expand...

This post has taken me thus far 2 flippin hours to respond too. And you gave me 3 posts. I wont be able to respond to the other two after this.

But, i just want a original source for a god dying FOR sin.

Well you were being disingenuous. You claimed to know that Carrier was bias, dishonest and whatever else.

Click to expand...

HOLD IT! i never said bias is dishonesty! In fact, let me state it very clear now.

Bias does not equal dishonesty. People can be dishonest BECAUSE of there bias, but it dont mean they WILL be dishonest.

Everyone has biases, experiences, beliefs and reasons and defenses for those beliefs. Carier, nor you are immune to that. Your both a part of the human race and your not above it. Nor is carier whom you put on a pedestal.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Do you think all these stories just come out of nowhere? How do you know people did not have spiritual experiences and then interpreted or discribed them a certain way and then others misunderstood them?

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?

Click to expand...

Oh my gosh! This is getting too annoying now. I had to split the response because it would not allow the full size in one post.

Yea, seriously man, we gotta do this in bits and small pieces at a time because im gonna pull my hair out doing this.

2 and a half hours typing on this darn phone!

joelr said:

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.

Click to expand...

Paul was talking about a Jesus who was burried, crusified, had brothers, was born from a woman who descended from David, ate bread, drink wine etc. These are all things that a "celestial being" could have not done.

I mean how do you burry someone who lives in heaven? Was the tomb also part of heaven?

leroy said:

Paul was talking about a Jesus who was burried, crusified, had brothers, was born from a woman who descended from David, ate bread, drink wine etc. These are all things that a "celestial being" could have not done.

I mean how do you burry someone who lives in heaven? Was the tomb also part of heaven?

Click to expand...

Lol, was the tomb also part of heaven. Thats a good one. I like that.

lukethethird said:

Wait a minute, that reads like a conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

Ok, i see what your saying.

Well, heres the problem. If they all conspired to make up this story, then ALOT of people are then a part of making up the story.

Theres no leaks, like "the apostles never claimed to be witnesses" and the "apostles wer never persecuted"

SkepticThinker said:

Luke's account is not that of an eyewitness. And we don't have accounts from the supposed eyewitnesses he interviewed.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by accounts from witnesses. If you mean them actually writing accounts, thats one thing, but what about writtings they approve?

Like i said, paul, luke, peter, james, john knew eachother and talked. They got the account from the witnesses and wrote it down.

Sounds like none of these are eyewitness accounts.

Click to expand...

There accounts from those who knew how to write and who investigated these events from its beginings and who knew the witnesses.

Why dont you accept that as good enough? Just curious.

Jollybear said:

Why dont you accept that as good enough? Just curious.

Click to expand...

I would add a few questions .

1 should we reject all ancient documents that where not written by eyewitnesses?

2 was Luke lying? Or Was he misinformed? What is your view?

3 if the resurrection is a mtyh, who invented that myth? Paul, Peter, the Vatican? The church fathers? .....under your view who/when was the myth invented?

4 if we ever find a document written by an eye witness (maybe the Q gospel) would that make a difference?, or would you still find an exuse not to believeithe resurrection?.....what if we find 2,3,8, or 100 aditional documents written by eyewitnesses? Would that make any difference?......is there any amount of historical ecideevi that would convince you?

leroy said:

I would add a few questions .

1 should we reject all ancient documents that where not written by eyewitnesses?

2 was Luke lying? Or Was he misinformed? What is your view?

3 if the resurrection is a mtyh, who invented that myth? Paul, Peter, the Vatican? The church fathers? .....under your view who/when was the myth invented?

4 if we ever find a document written by an eye witness (maybe the Q gospel) would that make a difference?, or would you still find an exuse not to believeithe resurrection?.....what if we find 2,3,8, or 100 aditional documents written by eyewitnesses? Would that make any difference?......is there any amount of historical ecideevi that would convince you?

Click to expand...

So far, heres a summery of this whole thread. This is the naturalists case against the resurrection.

The resurrection is false because the natural avents are made up, with no apparent motive.

The resurrection is false because theres similarities between jesus and other gods. But who cares about the differences. And who cares about that all life has similarities too.

The resurrection is false because the claims of eyewitnesses, well, are not really eye witnesses.

The resurrection is false because paul is a combination of insane and a lier. Who cares that he got persecuted for it though.

Oh ya, the resurrection is false because the apostles wernt really persecuted either, lol.

The resurrection is false because everyone, the apostles, authors, church fathers and extra biblical sources are one massive cooperative conspiracy.

The resurrection is false because all the appearences are halucinations. Funny how they told the truth on there suposid halucinations but not the natural avents. Odd.

The resurrection is false because people cant rise from the dead. Who cares whether God could do it. We just reject him anyway.

The resurrection is false because veridical spiritual experiences are anectdotal.

The resurrection is false because the apostles wanted power. But, to no avail abviously. Or, right, they wernt persecuted, so there was avail, lol.

Hopefully im not missing any sumery parts.

Thats the naturalists case.

Its weak as crap.

Jollybear said:

So far, heres a summery of this whole thread. This is the naturalists case against the resurrection.

The resurrection is false because the natural avents are made up, with no apparent motive.

The resurrection is false because theres similarities between jesus and other gods. But who cares about the differences. And who cares about that all life has similarities too.

The resurrection is false because the claims of eyewitnesses, well, are not really eye witnesses.

The resurrection is false because paul is a combination of insane and a lier. Who cares that he got persecuted for it though.

Oh ya, the resurrection is false because the apostles wernt really persecuted either, lol.

The resurrection is false because everyone, the apostles, authors, church fathers and extra biblical sources are one massive cooperative conspiracy.

The resurrection is false because all the appearences are halucinations. Funny how they told the truth on there suposid halucinations but not the natural avents. Odd.

The resurrection is false because people cant rise from the dead. Who cares whether God could do it. We just reject him anyway.

The resurrection is false because veridical spiritual experiences are anectdotal.

The resurrection is false because the apostles wanted power. But, to no avail abviously. Or, right, they wernt persecuted, so there was avail, lol.

Hopefully im not missing any sumery parts.

Thats the naturalists case.

Its weak as crap.

Click to expand...

OK, but who said the resurrection was false?

Jollybear said:

So far, heres a summery of this whole thread. This is the naturalists case against the resurrection.

The resurrection is false because the natural avents are made up, with no apparent motive.

The resurrection is false because theres similarities between jesus and other gods. But who cares about the differences. And who cares about that all life has similarities too.

The resurrection is false because the claims of eyewitnesses, well, are not really eye witnesses.

The resurrection is false because paul is a combination of insane and a lier. Who cares that he got persecuted for it though.

Oh ya, the resurrection is false because the apostles wernt really persecuted either, lol.

The resurrection is false because everyone, the apostles, authors, church fathers and extra biblical sources are one massive cooperative conspiracy.

The resurrection is false because all the appearences are halucinations. Funny how they told the truth on there suposid halucinations but not the natural avents. Odd.

The resurrection is false because people cant rise from the dead. Who cares whether God could do it. We just reject him anyway.

The resurrection is false because veridical spiritual experiences are anectdotal.

The resurrection is false because the apostles wanted power. But, to no avail abviously. Or, right, they wernt persecuted, so there was avail, lol.

Hopefully im not missing any sumery parts.

Thats the naturalists case.

Its weak as crap.

Click to expand...

Well you obviously are paying more attention than I.

So far I have been unable to understand the position of atheists, I don't even know what position are they defending.do they afirm that the writings are lies? Halucinations?, Legends? The authosr where missinformed? Or too stupid and unable to find proper sources?

It seems that they afirm ecereveryt and nothing at the same time

leroy said:

Well you obviously are paying more attention than I.

So far I have been unable to understand the position of atheists, I don't even know what position are they defending.do they afirm that the writings are lies? Halucinations?, Legends? The authosr where missinformed? Or too around and unable to find proper sources?

It seems that they afirm ecereveryt and nothing at the same time

Click to expand...

I think the atheists are trying to hide something, whatever their position is pretending to be, like they probably are closet believers, they just won't admit that they believe the resurrection is true.

Jollybear said:

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.

Click to expand...

Show me one where they proved Carrier wrong that is recent (not 2003).

Jollybear said:

What article, cariers or the one i gave you?

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

Click to expand...

Ok they said "crucified". I've already dealt with that fact.

Jollybear said:

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.

Click to expand...

Carriers recent works include the article I linked to:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890

The article you linked to was using a Carrier article from 2003.

You made no good points on Innana. Innana was killed and resurrected in 3 days.
this is the most important event in Christianity and we have evidence that it was copied. The fact that Innana was killed then hung makes ZERO difference to a rational person. It's still a mythology that was used and through Syncretism was made into a Jewish cult.

Jollybear said:

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 >

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.

Click to expand...

That's the same lie with different words.
I debate fine and I've used far more sources than you.

There really is no debate, the idea that earlier myths parallel Christianity isn't a debate. Early church fathers and historians already admitted it and the church even told early followers that the devil went back in time to change history.

There is even a Latin term for in "Devil in history" that the church used to label the phenomenon. I already posted a link to it. The church needed to explain why Christianity looked like it was copied. So they said the devil did it.

the end, you have no argument. The church already admitted it. Do I need to go back and re-post this?



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

Jollybear said:

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.

Click to expand...

Inanna was a resurrected in 3 days demigod. Same as Jesus. Jesus was more about sins because he was the Jewish version of the savior god.

Jollybear said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's not about agreement, it's about historical facts.

Jollybear said:

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.

Click to expand...

While one can believe in Christianity saying that there are no obvious parallels to Christianity and Pagan religions is either delusional or a lie.
Again, why would the church and early Christian apologists speak of it?

How is a demigod dying and rising in 3 days being in pagan cults not an obvious copy?

Jollybear said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's no different then when someone knows who the greatest boxer of all time is.
They are a fan, they watch fights, new and old, they read, they study.

When you pay attention to what books are peer reviewed and accepted by the historicity field you read them or read interviews.
With the exception of a few fundamentalist scholars no one in scholarship believes religions are real.

Here are 5 experts and a pastor:

here is the leading biblical archeologist

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible


Elaine Pagels is the expert on the lost gospels:
Elaine Pagels - Wikipedia


Thomas Brodys work has been peer reviewed by the Ph.D community and accepted as historical fact.


Pervo, Crossan and Mcdonald all have peer reviewed books on why Acts is fiction.

All historians believe Jesus was a man but the supernatural tales were added later.

Jollybear said:

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.

Click to expand...

Because he wants to prove the historicity of Jesus (meaning Jesus was a real man). But the evidence IS NOT THERE to prove that. So he lies and uses bad apologetics.
I don't know, he might simply be looking to sell books. Just like people write pro-Roswell books yet know it's all BS.

Jollybear said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's another lie. I know you haven't read Carriers book or even watched one lecture. so you're just making a guess.

carrier argued one of the best Christian scholars and smashed him. I wasn't sure how he would do but he beat both high level scholars.

Jollybear said:

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.

Click to expand...

Then why would you say- "And i dont think the evidence that Jesus never existed is true at all. Not even remotely close." when you haven't looked at 99% of the evidence or even refuted one single thing in that short article?

Jollybear said:

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!

Click to expand...

The NT writers obviously read the OT.
We have no "proof" that the Mormon founder Joe Smith didnt' really get gold plates from an angel. We have no "proof" that Thor didnt' appear to the Germanic people.
We're going on probabilities here
carrier puts the odds at 3 to 1 for mythicism.

Jollybear said:

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

Click to expand...

There are reasons to believe in all sorts of supernatural things. They are not grounded in reality but if they help one psychologically then that is a reason.

Jollybear said:

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

Click to expand...

So has many Hindu and Mormon and crazy ufo suicide people. You don't think the ufo people had some type of emotional experience?? They all KILLED THEMSELVES to be with a spirit ufo???

If I saw Jesus standing in my room and he was covered in light and I felt all blissful...that means nothing? It could easily be a hallucination and since I'm used to seeing that cultural religious image that could manifest. People claim to have deeply mystical and religious experiences in all religions. You don't think Greeks saw their gods appear?
Hindus see gods and spirits in dreams and live ALL THE TIME.

Ramanajans personal deity used to give him answers to math problems.

Jollybear said:

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.

Click to expand...

ok

leroy said:

Well you obviously are paying more attention than I.

So far I have been unable to understand the position of atheists, I don't even know what position are they defending.do they afirm that the writings are lies? Halucinations?, Legends? The authosr where missinformed? Or too around and unable to find proper sources?

It seems that they afirm ecereveryt and nothing at the same time

Click to expand...

Depends what you are talking about.
Paul did claim hallucinations (revelations) along with knowledge of some scripture.

But the idea is that it's all mythology same as any other. How do you think the gospels of Hercules came about? Same thing.

leroy said:

Paul was talking about a Jesus who was burried, crusified, had brothers, was born from a woman who descended from David, ate bread, drink wine etc. These are all things that a "celestial being" could have not done.

I mean how do you burry someone who lives in heaven? Was the tomb also part of heaven?

Click to expand...

I don't completely back the celestial Jesus idea. I do not believe "brother" meant actual brother but like "we are brothers in the lord".

Jollybear said:

Those details are important. There was no "cross" in the story of inanna. Crucifixion was a much later time period, at the roman times. And no virgin birth either. And she was hung on a hook IN THE UNDERWORLD. So, she was already dead before being put on this hook. And the hook was in the underworld, not on earth.

Click to expand...

There you go, you just figured it out. The Jesus myth was written when crucifixion was popular, so the writers had Jesus die that way.
Hence the "no cross" for Inanna. Each myth is a reflection of it's times.

Virgin births are so popular in the ancient world that a word was invented to not **** off Christians - parthenogenisis.
That way historians can talk about all the virgin births without annoying Christians who will think people are trying to show all the pagan parallels.

Jollybear said:

And the story of jesus, three days, referenced the book of jonah, NOT inanna. You cant say the story of Jesus stole from inanna when theres clear cut proof the NT author directly references the book of Jonah.

But, they dont reference it in order to barrow and make up another story myth. No, what there doing is showing the the OT are real stories, but these stories are prophetic TYPOLOGIES to Jesus.

Click to expand...

The savior god mythology is clearly taken from older myths. If some of the Jesus myth was taken from the OT then there is no difference. It was still taken from somewhere.

Jollybear said:

But, i just want a original source for a god dying FOR sin.

Click to expand...

Salvation is the same thing. The Jewish savior god would be directly a "sin forgiver" because he was replacing the temple which was how sins were forgiven.

Explaining the same stuff over and over is so lame. You complain about long posts, so stop asking he same questions over and over???

Jollybear said:

Do you think all these stories just come out of nowhere? How do you know people did not have spiritual experiences and then interpreted or discribed them a certain way and then others misunderstood them?

Click to expand...

Spiritual experiences have nothing to do with Neo from the Matrix of Jesus from the bible.
Again, the savior god myth can be traced back to Persia. Records to go back further are lost but there is probably similar mythology going all the way back to Africa.

In fact Joseph Campbell wrote about finding a version of the garden of Eden in an ancient African mythology, with the tree and snake and all that.

The Hindu religion is a system that deals with the individuals spirituality and our connection to the universe and the transcendant.
More modern myths started putting emphasis on external god-like beings who rule the universe and grant wishes and hear prayers. Savior gods who die for it's followers so they can enter heaven or whatever. This isn't spirituality.
Blood atonement and deity worship is not the same as spirituality.

If you went to ancient Germania and saw people praying and killing animals for Thor would you consider them spiritual?

All that "do good and love people" stuff is originally found in Vedic scripture from 3000 yeras ago. It's not new.

leroy said:

I would add a few questions .

1 should we reject all ancient documents that where not written by eyewitnesses?

2 was Luke lying? Or Was he misinformed? What is your view?

3 if the resurrection is a mtyh, who invented that myth? Paul, Peter, the Vatican? The church fathers? .....under your view who/when was the myth invented?

4 if we ever find a document written by an eye witness (maybe the Q gospel) would that make a difference?, or would you still find an exuse not to believeithe resurrection?.....what if we find 2,3,8, or 100 aditional documents written by eyewitnesses? Would that make any difference?......is there any amount of historical ecideevi that would convince you?

Click to expand...

We reject mostly the same documents as you.
Do you believe the gospel of Hercules? No, ok so it's common sense.
If we find 100 more gospels of Hercules will that matter? You talk about it like it's normal to believe silly tales of miracles and supernatural happenings?

Where did the myth come from?

start here:
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier


or watch:

joelr said:

I don't completely back the celestial Jesus idea. I do not believe "brother" meant actual brother but like "we are brothers in the lord".

Click to expand...

I read your recent posts. Im not gonna respond to them though because it takes too much time. What im gonna do is do what i said, deal with this in bite sizes. Im tempted to respond to stuff you said in your posts, but, im gonna force myself to do this in bites.

Im gonna debate it in small sizes. If you bring it into a argument, i will draw it back into a debate. Thats what im gonna do.

Ok....here goes. Ill repost this point i made, with aditional info.

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."

Genesis 42

"16Send one of your number to get your brother; the rest of you will be kept in prison, so that your words may be tested to see if you are telling the truth. If you are not, then as surely as Pharaoh lives, you are spies!” 17And he put them all in custody for three days."

18On the third day, Joseph said to them, “Do this and you will live, for I fear God: 19If you are honest men, let one of your brothers stay here in prison, while the rest of you go and take grain back for your starving households."

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

Heres the tablet, original source. Inana's descent to the nether world: translation

The relavent sections are

"164-172After she had crouched down and had her clothes removed, they were carried away. Then she made her sister Erec-ki-gala rise from her throne, and instead she sat on her throne. The Anuna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook.

173-175After three days and three nights had passed, her minister Nincubura (2 mss. add 2 lines: , her minister who speaks fair words, her escort who speaks trustworthy words,) carried out the instructions of her mistress (1 ms. has instead 2 lines: did not forget her orders, she did not neglect her instructions)."

And

"273-281They were offered a river with its water -- they did not accept it. They were offered a field with its grain -- they did not accept it. They said to her: "Give us the corpse hanging on the hook." Holy Erec-ki-gala answered the gala-tura and the kur-jara: "The corpse is that of your queen." They said to her: "Whether it is that of our king or that of our queen, give it to us." They were given the corpse hanging on the hook. One of them sprinkled on it the life-giving plant and the other the life-giving water. And thus Inana arose."

Ok, refute this point.

Jollybear said:

The resurrection is false because the natural avents are made up, with no apparent motive.

Click to expand...

Jesus was a re-write of Moses and Elija since the OT needed modernizing.
The savior-god myth was becoming hugely popular and was already part of most other cultures.
Plus the OT speaks about it so why not have a fufilled prophecy to raly members?

Jollybear said:

The resurrection is false because theres similarities between jesus and other gods. But who cares about the differences. And who cares about that all life has similarities too.

Click to expand...

Resurrecting in 3 days is not a "similarity" that happens in life. Ever. You ignore this obvious fact for some bizarre reason. Nor are miracles and flying into space.
Repeatedly you insist that these events happen in life to everyone.

The differences are in ALL different savior god myths. Each culture has slight differences. What matters is dying-rising.

If another culture started a Santa Clause myth he might dress different, travel on a different device, have different sayings, but if on Dec 25 he flew around and dropped presents for children down a chimney we would know it was a stolen myth.
When you read about the similarities of these demigods there isn't even a question about where they came from.

Jollybear said:

The resurrection is false because the claims of eyewitnesses, well, are not really eye witnesses.

Click to expand...

we know this to be true

Jollybear said:

The resurrection is false because paul is a combination of insane and a lier. Who cares that he got persecuted for it though.

Click to expand...

people never got persecuted for beliefs that actually were not true? Happens all the time.

Jollybear said:

Oh ya, the resurrection is false because the apostles wernt really persecuted either, lol.

Click to expand...

the 12 apostles are like al lother stories about "12" things - myths/metaphors for the 12 tribes and the 12 zodiac

Jollybear said:

The resurrection is false because everyone, the apostles, authors, church fathers and extra biblical sources are one massive cooperative conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Apostles are myth. Church fathers choose to have blind faith, same as all religious leaders in all religions across time.
Extra biblical sources are proven forgery or simply mention Christians who follow the gospel. No outside mention of Jesus.
No matter how hard you spin these lies they don't become true.

Jollybear said:

The resurrection is false because all the appearences are halucinations. Funny how they told the truth on there suposid halucinations but not the natural avents. Odd.

Click to expand...

Paul says he had hallucinations. Everything else is a story. On paper.

Jollybear said:

The resurrection is false because people cant rise from the dead. Who cares whether God could do it. We just reject him anyway.

Click to expand...

Myths have nothing to do with god. If there is a god he doesn't raise people from the dead. Only in stories.

Jollybear said:

The resurrection is false because veridical spiritual experiences are anectdotal.

Click to expand...

People who wrote stories about Thor and Hercules and Romulus were claiming truthful experiences also. Suddenly with Christianity supernatural stories are to be believed?

Jollybear said:

The resurrection is false because the apostles wanted power. But, to no avail abviously. Or, right, they wernt persecuted, so there was avail, lol.

.

Click to expand...

Not the apostles. The apostles are characters in a myth. You seem to have no knowledge of the actual history going on back then.
Bishops wanted power.
Bishop Irenaeus wanted a system where only 1 bloodline could teach and interpret the gospels. You talk about this like it isn't a historical fact?


"Irenaeus is also known as one of the first theologians to use the principle of apostolic succession to refute his opponents.[45]

In his writing against the Gnostics, who claimed to possess a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture.[46] In a passage that became a locus classicus of Catholic-Protestant polemics, he cited the Roman church as an example of the unbroken chain of authority which text Western polemics would use to assert the primacy of Rome over Eastern churches by virtue of its preeminent authority."


If you read Elaine Pagels Lost Gospels you can see that Irenaeus was a power hungry opponent of the Gnostics. There are letters from him and from Gnostic leaders explaining the struggle. Some Gnostics were open minded and accepting of all members, including women being teachers. Irenaeus clearly wanted control over the people.

joelr said:

Jesus was a re-write of Moses and Elija since the OT needed modernizing.
The savior-god myth was becoming hugely popular and was already part of most other cultures.
Plus the OT speaks about it so why not have a fufilled prophecy to raly members?




Resurrecting in 3 days is not a "similarity" that happens in life. Ever. You ignore this obvious fact for some bizarre reason. Nor are miracles and flying into space.
Repeatedly you insist that these events happen in life to everyone.

The differences are in ALL different savior god myths. Each culture has slight differences. What matters is dying-rising.

If another culture started a Santa Clause myth he might dress different, travel on a different device, have different sayings, but if on Dec 25 he flew around and dropped presents for children down a chimney we would know it was a stolen myth.
When you read about the similarities of these demigods there isn't even a question about where they came from.



we know this to be true



people never got persecuted for beliefs that actually were not true? Happens all the time.



the 12 apostles are like al lother stories about "12" things - myths/metaphors for the 12 tribes and the 12 zodiac



Apostles are myth. Church fathers choose to have blind faith, same as all religious leaders in all religions across time.
Extra biblical sources are proven forgery or simply mention Christians who follow the gospel. No outside mention of Jesus.
No matter how hard you spin these lies they don't become true.



Paul says he had hallucinations. Everything else is a story. On paper.



Myths have nothing to do with god. If there is a god he doesn't raise people from the dead. Only in stories.



People who wrote stories about Thor and Hercules and Romulus were claiming truthful experiences also. Suddenly with Christianity supernatural stories are to be believed?


Not the apostles. The apostles are characters in a myth. You seem to have no knowledge of the actual history going on back then.
Bishops wanted power.
Bishop Irenaeus wanted a system where only 1 bloodline could teach and interpret the gospels. You talk about this like it isn't a historical fact?


"Irenaeus is also known as one of the first theologians to use the principle of apostolic succession to refute his opponents.[45]

In his writing against the Gnostics, who claimed to possess a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture.[46] In a passage that became a locus classicus of Catholic-Protestant polemics, he cited the Roman church as an example of the unbroken chain of authority which text Western polemics would use to assert the primacy of Rome over Eastern churches by virtue of its preeminent authority."


If you read Elaine Pagels Lost Gospels you can see that Irenaeus was a power hungry opponent of the Gnostics. There are letters from him and from Gnostic leaders explaining the struggle. Some Gnostics were open minded and accepting of all members, including women being teachers. Irenaeus clearly wanted control over the people.

Click to expand...

Refute my other post above. Thats what im gonna deal with for now. Bite sizes. Im gonna do this in small, very specific, line on line, organized way.

Jollybear said:

I read your recent posts. Im not gonna respond to them though because it takes too much time. What im gonna do is do what i said, deal with this in bite sizes. Im tempted to respond to stuff you said in your posts, but, im gonna force myself to do this in bites.

Im gonna debate it in small sizes. If you bring it into a argument, i will draw it back into a debate. Thats what im gonna do.

Ok....here goes. Ill repost this point i made, with aditional info.

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."

Genesis 42

"16Send one of your number to get your brother; the rest of you will be kept in prison, so that your words may be tested to see if you are telling the truth. If you are not, then as surely as Pharaoh lives, you are spies!” 17And he put them all in custody for three days."

18On the third day, Joseph said to them, “Do this and you will live, for I fear God: 19If you are honest men, let one of your brothers stay here in prison, while the rest of you go and take grain back for your starving households."

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

Heres the tablet, original source. Inana's descent to the nether world: translation

The relavent sections are

"164-172After she had crouched down and had her clothes removed, they were carried away. Then she made her sister Erec-ki-gala rise from her throne, and instead she sat on her throne. The Anuna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook.

173-175After three days and three nights had passed, her minister Nincubura (2 mss. add 2 lines: , her minister who speaks fair words, her escort who speaks trustworthy words,) carried out the instructions of her mistress (1 ms. has instead 2 lines: did not forget her orders, she did not neglect her instructions)."

And

"273-281They were offered a river with its water -- they did not accept it. They were offered a field with its grain -- they did not accept it. They said to her: "Give us the corpse hanging on the hook." Holy Erec-ki-gala answered the gala-tura and the kur-jara: "The corpse is that of your queen." They said to her: "Whether it is that of our king or that of our queen, give it to us." They were given the corpse hanging on the hook. One of them sprinkled on it the life-giving plant and the other the life-giving water. And thus Inana arose."

Ok, refute this point.

Click to expand...

Uh, what point?
First who cares about how many days it takes for a resurrection. A writer can make it be any amount of days and it's still the resurrection that's the important piece of mythology?

Anyway, - How do you know the OT didn't take the "3 days" idea from Inana being it's an ancient Sumerian text?
Even if the OT made it up, it's clear evidence that the authors of he gospels wrote Jesus being resurrected in 3 days because the OT said so. That makes it look like a fulfilled prophecy which is what the whole thing is about.

The OT writers are exposed to pagan savior god myths. So they start writing it into the OT. They use 3 days because Inanna was 3 days then later when writing the actual resurrection story they use 3 days to be consistent.
I would think the OT authors would use something besides 3 days but that is the original mythology of the sun worshipers. Even before Inana. The sun goes to it's lowest point on Dec22? and in 3 days it begins to rise up higher each day.
"Son" of god mythology probably dates back to this 3 day resurrection of the sun and the 12 is the zodiac. Dec 25 the sun begins going higher each day.


The myths started with astromythology and sun worship. The death and resurrection of the sun. Then cultures started making up actual gods who did it.



Inanna is the earliest known resurrected god. For her, a clear-cut death-and-resurrection tale exists on clay tablets inscribed in Sumeria over a thousand years before Christianity, plainly describing her humiliation, trial, execution, and crucifixion, and her resurrection three days later. After she is stripped naked and judgment is pronounced against her, Inanna is “turned into a corpse” and “the corpse was hung from a nail” and “after three days and three nights” her assistants ask for her corpse and resurrect her (by feeding her the “water” and “food” of life), and “Inanna arose” according to what had been her plan all along, because she knew her father “would surely bring me back to life,” exactly as transpires in the story (quotations are from the tablets, adapting the translation of Samuel Noah Kramer in History Begins at Sumer).