1. 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!

Featured Jesus Resurrection

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Prometheus85, Sep 13, 2018.

  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    28,727
    Ratings:
    +16,067
    Religion:
    Atheist
    @joelr posted that in this earlier post.


    Learn some science. You will quickly learn that the Noah's Ark story is a myth. Yet CARM tries to treat that as an actual event. And you are of course wrong. An admission of an error has to come after publication. If a person is only using older flawed articles when the newer ones are even better well known, which is the case with Carrier then they are lying by omission. Once again you are not making refutations you are making excuses.


    But I have demonstrated that time and time again. The delusions of those that are wrong is not an excuse or a refutation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,685
    Ratings:
    +567
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    Where did carier admit his errors? Where and when?

    I dont admit wrong unless i know for sure i am and if im not truly shown, ill know that.

    Again, where did carier admit his errors?

    Look, im starting to get angry again. I told you im done with you and your stubbornly persisting with your preaching.
     
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    28,727
    Ratings:
    +16,067
    Religion:
    Atheist
    If you want details you need to ask @joelr


    That is not correct.

    It appears that his later articles corrected his earlier ones. That is typical with actual scholars. But again ask joelr.

    There is a cure for that. Correcting your errors is not "preaching".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,685
    Ratings:
    +567
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    Wait a second, YOU SAID carier admitted his errors. So be responsible and tell me where?

    It is correct, wer not going to agree. Im honest. And if you start this again, ill report you again. I got no tolerance for this.

    Well, jo gave me his error article, that was not my fault.

    Your not correcting my errors, no your not.
     
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    28,727
    Ratings:
    +16,067
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Once again read joelr's post.

    And yes, I have corrected your errors quite often here. Don't get mad, change your behavior. Don't rely on apologetics sources. I am not the only one that pointed out that they are unreliable and why. That would be a good start.
     
  6. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,685
    Ratings:
    +567
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    I did. His post dont mention careir admitting his errors.

    Are we just gonna keep arguing about this? Tell me, what do you think your accomplishing by arguing this with me? Do you really think your convincing me or something?

    Dont rely on carier and his apologetics.

    Your just dismissive. You dont refute things like you like people to think you do. Is this about power for you? By continuing to argue with me, what do you honestly think your accomplishing?
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    28,727
    Ratings:
    +16,067
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Alright I had to go back to the post to see what was said and what was implied. Here is a link to it:

    Jesus Resurrection

    Here is where he complains about the source you used lying by omission:

    "Ha, apologetics.

    They are so slick. According to "our sources". They pick and choose to build a narrative.
    They quoted just enough Carrier to make their point but not enough to contradict it."

    I will admit that my memory was a bit off, but you should have understood this.

    Here is where he implies that later articles corrected earlier ones:

    There is quite a bit of good information for you in that post besides that that explains the errors of the apologists. I suggest that you study it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. joelr

    joelr Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    800
    Ratings:
    +304
    Apologetics should always be look at skeptically if one is looking for historical accuracy and truth. Apologetics notoriously will use information supporting their thesis and disregard anything that goes against it. They have no need for truth, just any facts that could support their message.
    Bart Ehrman wrote an entire book on Jesus and he is considered a Jesus scholar. The apologetics books was so full of lies Carrier wrote an essay exposing many of them.

    He wasnt' looking for truth rather just making up facts so religious people would buy his book and use his false information to promote the religion.
    Apologetics writeres are no better than t.v. evangalists, healing sick people on a stage.

    Carrier isnt' writing apologetics, he's looking at all available facts and reporting them as he finds them. A popular belief was that Mithras was a resurrected savior god. Carrier wrote that Mithras isn't a savior deity at all and it was all a big mistake. He's just looking to write historical facts.

    Zalmoxis and the clay tablets that tell of the resurrection are mentioned in Carriers article on his blog. The one I lnked to several times.

    Misuse of history means he wrote made up things to suite his needs. Not a reliable source.

    Yeah in 2003, before his Jesus study.

    I don't know? Write to Carrier on facebook. I see these clay tablets mention all over the place in historical articles. With mentions to Zalmoxis being resurrected.

    Yes becuuse they show how Syncretism works.


    Do you not realize that all sacrifices are substitutionary? A demigod is sacrificed so his followers can gain something and make the sky-god happy.


    After Persia left Judea there were mentions of savior gods emerging in the OT. But the main thrust of the Jesus story was taken from pagan sources not the OT.


    Number 12:
    Starting out life as an immensely useful number for counting and dividing things, the number 12 became a number revered by mathematicians and early astronomers. So the skies were divided into 12 portions as were the months of year, reflecting the annual movement of heavenly bodies. Superstitions and religious beliefs were piled on top of respect for the number 12 and was adopted by multiple early civilisations. The sky, divided into 12, has each portion ruled by a personification, a god, a divine being, a teacher, a prophet or a son of the sun. Odin of Norse mythology sat on a chair that overlooked all of creation, and had 12 sons1. The Babylonians had the longest lasting influence upon our calendars, timekeeping, mathematics and religions; all of which emphasize the number 122,3. The Babylonians' most ancient myths defined zodiacs where each portion was ruled by a different god (some good, some evil)4. Pseudoscientific enterprises such as astrology have the number 12 at its core. The Jains of ancient India divided time into 12 segments, each with 24 teachers, the latest of which had 12 disciples and whom attained enlightenment aged 725,6,7. The ancient Zoroastrians had twelve commanders on the side of light (light being a symbol for the sun)8, and in Judaism and the Hebrew Scripture there are many references to the 12 tribes of Israel, and later on the Greeks imagined 12 Gods on mount Olympus. Mithraists, and then Christians believed that their saviour had 12 disciples. Shi'a Muslims list 12 ruling Imams following Muhammad. Such holy persons are depicted with a bright solar light around their heads such as occurs when any object approaches from the sun and now stands infront of it. Although many ancient religions such as the Gnostics understood things like the twelve disciples of Mithras to be symbolic of the stages of the waning and waxing sun throughout the year, later religions took it literally and believed in an actual 12 disciples - and some still do.

    Now we understand what stars, planets and stellar objects are, it makes no sense to retain the mystical, nonsensical connotations of the 'holy', 'perfect', 'divine' or 'special' number 12. If the number is employed in a practical sense to divide time, measurements, or angles, then the chances are it makes awesome mathematical sense to utilize such a factorable number as the number twelve. But if you see it used in a superstitious, religious, magical, paranormal, holy or weird way, then watch out, because you have entered the world of flat-earth delusion. It is, after all, only a number, and whenever you see myths, stories and theologies divide things up into 12s, you know you've entered human-invented fiction rather than the realm of truth.
    http://www.humanreligions.info/twelve.html



    "whenever you see myths, stories and theologies divide things up into 12s, you know you've entered human-invented fiction rather than the realm of truth."

    Yes if things in your and my day included : baptism, being a savior demigod, healing sick people, talking to Satan, performing miracles, having 12 apostles, being crucified, returning from the dead 3 days later, floating into space, and many other mythological supernatural happenings.

    But our days do not consist of that. Neither does any other persons day. Only mythological fiction people have days with that in it.If we see more than one than we can know that there was some copying going around. The end.

    Please stop comparing your day to a demigod son of a skyfather. That stuff happened never. If you see a story about it it's fiction. If you see another story with a different character it was taken from the first story.






    Well if you admit that then you admit the similarities are obvious. To you it was Satan who did it, but to a non-Christian that's confirmation that Christianity copied pagan myths. There you go.

    Again, this makes ZERO sense unless your saying that there were actually several actual real life savior demigods running around at the same time. All being killed and resurrected.

    The Christian story is myth taken from older myths. How you choose to deal with this or ignore this or use denial on this is your choice.
     
  9. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,685
    Ratings:
    +567
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    I dont agree. Plus thats a blanket accusation. They do answer there critics.

    Bart ehrman is not a christian apologist. He dont believe in the resurrection or virgin birth or miracles. Hes not a christian. So, he has no agenda in saying the story of Jesus was not barrowed from pagan sources. I could understand you calling a christian apologist biased in saying the story was not taken from pagans, but bart saying it? No, thats not biased. But, even with bias, people make points that need counters.

    So carrier has no beliefs or biases, he purely goes only by all facts huh? I could not disagree more. I disagree with that so strongly that i wont even debate that line.

    If he says mithras wasnt a savior deity, thats good. Hopefully he did so not because of his cretics but because of accuracy.

    Origen, Against Celsus 2.55) < this source does NOT mention zalmoxis. You realize that yes, no?

    So if he makes errors write him off, but if carrier makes errors its a pass. Got it. Ill try to figure that one out.

    Heres the difference between something being outdated and just plain wrong.

    Carriers work cited some sources, those sources never get UPDATED because there ancient, they never change. So if the said source dont have in it what he says, that means wrong, not outdated.

    You mean inanna on the tablets, yes? The actual tablets are available online. Ive read pieces of them when researching another subject in the past.

    I would like to know what tablet it is that says inanna was "crucified" and "rose" on the "third day". Because i am very skeptical of that. The article i gave you also said this was false. But, prove the article wrong and give me the tablet. I PROMISE YOU if its there, i will put my foot in my mouth.

    Any original source where a god dies for its peoples sins?

    Why did the NT give credit to the OT alot then? It never says "and the egyptian book of the dead says thus and thus!".

    We can go back to this later because asking you that i bit off more then i can chew right now. Remember? Ocean of information. Time constraints.

    No, its not the end. Your still missing my point. I could tell you my day, or life, in detail and you could tell me yours and there would be quite ALOT thats similar. But it would mean nothing.

    You dont know that it was taken from the other. And theres no direct proof of that. The NT never gives direct credit to egyptian sources for instance. Of course it talks about egypt, yea, but thats all it does.


    Similarities dont even prove satan copied God/prophesies, So, niether would they prove christianity copied pagan cultures. Again, our lives are similar. Theres similarities in everything around us, not just our lives.

    I dont follow?

    The christian story is true and a part of the former jewish story taken from the OT. How you choose to deal with this or ignore this or use denial on this is your choice.
     
  10. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,685
    Ratings:
    +567
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    Update....i found the tablet of inanna dying and rising on the third day. Ill put my foot in my mouth now, lol.

    You see that? That shows HONESTY and humility. Learn from my example.

    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.

    Now the article i gave you, it did also mention this same tablet and quoted it. I missed that. But, heres a section from the article. The article again was

    Evidence for Jesus: Was Inanna (Ishtar) "Crucified" (Crucifixion)? Was Zalmoxis "Resurrected" (Resurrection)?

    The section that explains the tablet is here

    "Carrier repeatedly says Inanna was "crucified" and the Sumerian religion "we now know included the worship of a crucified Inanna...." and "the idea of worshipping a crucified deity did predate Christianity...." and "we have here a clear example of many people worshipping a crucified god...."

    Sorry, we don't know that and we don't have that."

    And

    "Note that Inanna is already dead, and her dead body or corpse (in the "underworld") is simply hung on a hook. I'm sorry but this is NOT a "crucifixion of Inanna."

    And

    "all this takes place in the "underworld" (not on earth) where Inanna "descends";

    she is killed in this underworld by "the eye(s) of death" and/or by being "struck";

    her corpse is then "hung on a hook" (or "nail" or "stake" -- this is NOT a "death by crucifixion" since she is already "dead")

    after "three days" she "arises" or is revived (the supposed "resurrection" and/or "ascension" of Inanna discussed next)."

    And

    "Commentary: There are many variations of this myth, but its importance lies in the love affair between Dumuzi-Tammuz, who comes to represent the annual dying and regenerated vegetative cycle, and Inanna-Ishtar, the embodiment of the generative force in nature. In their intercourse she fecundates the growth cycle of spring, and this came to be ritualized in an annual ceremony in which the king (representing Dumuzi-Tammuz) entered into a hieros gamos or "sacred marriage" with a temple prostitute, representing Inanna-Ishtar, and thus sympathetically brought regeneration to the land. The popularity and geographical spread of this myth and its ritualization are attested in Ezekiel 8:14 where the prophet condemns the practice followed by some Jerusalem women lamenting the "death of Tammuz" (from Encyclopedia of Religion, "Inanna", volume 7, page 146)."
     
  11. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,685
    Ratings:
    +567
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,685
    Ratings:
    +567
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    So, why do you think they destroyed them? To control peoples minds, or to destroy heresies?

    And were they witnesses?

    So many assumptions. Where to begin. Ok, lets go back to inanna. Thats myth youl assume. But, theres nothing in the tablet that says it was myth. And the story of Jesus dont give credit to the story of inanna. It gives credit to the OT. Also common themes in all these ancient cultures dont prove barrowing, it proves that these common things, such as a God, a underworld, demons, spirits, ect, are real.

    I dont think its unrealistic at all. And we do have counter writtings and the counters are not very convincing.

    Cook the nutcases goose. :p

    Gotta put a stop to all those lies, right?
     
  13. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    15,717
    Ratings:
    +965
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe the Bible is evidence and the Holy Spirit testifies through Paul and to any Christian who has the Holy Spirit.
     
  14. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    15,717
    Ratings:
    +965
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe things that are true and the resurrection is one of them. I believe pragmatic people are stuck with a meager amount of truth instead of having the whole truth.
     
  15. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    15,717
    Ratings:
    +965
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe that is not the case. Evidence continues through the Holy Spirit.
     
  16. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    9,211
    Ratings:
    +3,937
    Why do people fly planes into buildings if it's true that Mohammad didn't actually fly to heaven on a winged horse?

    Beliefs aren't synonymous with truths.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. lukethethird

    lukethethird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,036
    Ratings:
    +412
    Religion:
    Xian
    I have the Holy Spirit in me and I don't believe a word of it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,685
    Ratings:
    +567
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    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.

    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?
     
  19. joelr

    joelr Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    800
    Ratings:
    +304
    You just accused me of a blanket accusation then made a blanket accusation.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.


    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"


    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.

    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$$.

    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.




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

    The sources were not wrong, the apologetics wasn't using the same sources.
    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.
    Every error someone points out he writes about explaining how he wasnt' really wrong or if he was he admits it.
    He is a historian not a religious person. His truth can change with new knowledge.



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

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


    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.






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

    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!


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



    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.

    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?




    And Thor is real and he flies around with the help of his magic hammer. Probably Hercules too.
     
    #1199 joelr, Oct 23, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
  20. joelr

    joelr Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    800
    Ratings:
    +304
    uh huh.

    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."

    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.

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

    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?

    "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."
     
Loading...