This is the response to Skateyasha's thread "Proof Jesus isn't the son of God (http://www.skaterscafe.com/showthread.php?t=69984)." This response will address more on the issue of 'Jesus not existing', as belief in him as the son of God is a matter of faith.

Now first off, looking at the spread of christianity through the first couple hundred years or so, I don't see anything pop up in Asia ShredTheGnar. If John trekked through Asia, he did very little.

Paul wrote an epistle to the church in Galatia, which lies in central Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey.[5]. This indicates that there were Christians on the border, and in all probability, in, Asia. Early Christian history in Ukraine says that Andrew the Apostle preached in Ukraine.[4] I myself have never heard of John's journeys through Asia, but we can guess that Jesus' teachings had gotten that far.

The first significant event in the spread of Christianity in Asia Minor dates back to Pentecost, 33 AD, when a multilingual crowd that included Diaspora Jews (Jews who lived outside Palestine) and Jewish proselytes assembled in Jerusalem. Jesus' apostles preached the good news to these visitors. The historical record says that various ones came from Cappadocia, Pontus, the district of Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia—areas that made up a large part of Asia Minor. About 3,000 listeners accepted the Christian message and were baptized. On their return home, they took their new faith with them. [16]

On top of that, it was hardly popular, especially around the time of Christ. Heck, I don't think (though I'd have to check my sources) Christianity was a religion while Christ was alive. He was Jewish. In his 33 years of life, he's supposed to have made christianity popular?

Of course not. Jesus couldn't make it all the rage throughout much of the world during his lifetime of about 30 years. As a matter of fact, he never intended that it would be popular in this time. [14]

In order to spread the word however, Christians will tell you that he chose Paul to continue his work in writing the epistles. We do know the apostles did a vast amount of journeying after Jesus died to spread the gospel also.

One thing I note about these answers, they're no where near as specific as the ones I got for the story of Jesus, and there are more contradictions between each other in these ones.

This, of course, is expected. No one can point out definitively how Christianity became so widespread, and why.

Now, the Gospel of Mark is believed to be the first gospel written, among christians and scholars alike, and it is clear the other gospels are derived from Mark, though it is the second gospel of the bible.

In reality, it is not clear. Your use of (or a version of) the "2 Source Hypothesis" has flaws in itself. This issue needs a whole discussion alone, but I will leave you with an article about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

Now here's what struck me, the gospel mentions the destruction of the second Jewish Temple in the year 70 AD. So that means that the Gospel can't have been completed until after that. Mark was writing the Gospel with St. Peter, who died in the year 64 AD by crucifixion.

The gospel does not give the specific date of the destruction. Mark 13:1-2 says:

"And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said unto them, 'You see all of these things, do you not? Truly I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down'"

You shouldn't read the Bible and come across a verse of prophecy, and automatically conclude that the prophecy was written AFTER the fact. To study the Bible, you must read it with an open mind, not bringing in preconceived beliefs, like the idea that prophecy is impossible.

Even so, we see from my argument below regarding age of the apostles, that the gospel being written down before then, lets say the latest was 69 AD, that the oldest the apostles could have been was 49. An acceptable age. Despite this age possibility, we both agreed the gospels were spoken before written down, so they were being told before 69 AD.

So that means that someone other than Mark or Peter must have finished the gospel. But furthermore, this means the first gospel written must have occured a minimum of 37 years after the supposed death of Jesus Christ. This is older times, 37 years is a couple generations. The first written counts of Jesus' life were written what was probably over 40 years after his death, and it was probably much later, seeing as someone else must have finished the first gospel besides Mark and Peter. Point is there is a minimum 37 year gap between Christ dying, and the first Gospel being written.

37 years was not a couple of generations. People commonly lived older than that. Paul himself lived to be in his 60s. [1] The Bible records people living much older than 37. (please skip to the paragraph with the * and read statement and verse before continuing in this section).

-James, or "James the Just", died in 62 AD [10], meaning he lived to be at least 43.[2]

-The Annuario Pontificio records Peter's death as being in A.D. 64 or A.D. 67. Assuming Peter was the same age as Jesus at the time of Jesus' death (about 30 or so), then he would have been anywhere from 61 to 66. [3]

-One can conclude that the same John who wrote the gospel in his name is the same John who wrote the book of Revelation. The author of Revelation indicates that he was in exile on the greek island of Patmos (punished for preaching the gospel). Historical records say that this John was in exile in 96 AD [17] and that "he wrote both a gospel and of an apocalypse" [18]. This would mean that John, during his travels with Jesus, was anywhere between the age of a teenager and a late teen, or about 13-19 years. Being exiled in 96 AD, would mean that his age would be anywhere from 77-83 when he wrote Revelation.

Although the gospels were in all probability spoken by the apostles before they (or someone) decided to write them down, claiming that it was many years afterward is a leap of logic. But given the ages, we see that it was entirely possible (and probable) the original apostles wrote the gospels, and were later copied.

We know the gospels were written some time after Jesus' death. But they say that the Holy Spirit would work to help the writers remember the events that have happened. [15]

*Also, we know that given the age expectancy back then, that the gospel writers probably lived long after Jesus. We can conclude that at the time of Jesus' ministry, all of the apostles except Peter were less than 20 years. We know this because of what Jesus says in Matthew 17:24-27. The verses are as follows:

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"

"Yes, he does," he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?"

"From others," Peter answered.

"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. 27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

The coin Jesus describes was enough to pay the taxes for Jesus and Peter only, even though the other disciples were present. Men under 20 were not required to pay the roman taxes, which means that the apostles must have been under that age.

Now here's the most important note of all, if Jesus Christ was someone who had recently lived, and done all these great things, nobody told Paul. Paul didn't even have a clue about the idea of his god Jesus Christ (Christ meaning "Messiah" in greek) having lived a life on earth. What we would know of the story of Jesus, which everyone here seemed to have a good idea of, Paul never mentions once, except for the last three events I listed above, the Crucifixion, ressurection, and ascension.

Before Paul was saved, he was one of the biggest persecuters of Christians [13]. Paul not knowing about Jesus even though he persecuted his followers is extremely unlikely. Paul reports meeting Peter and James in Jerusalem in the book of Acts. He also reports Peter allowing him to stay at his house. Mark even accompanied him on his first missionary journey [6].

Unfortunately, just like the other Pagan gods of the time, the god Paul called Christ Jesus, performed these last three acts in a mythical realm, not on Earth like we would say.
If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest.

Your citation of the verse is incorrect.

The Greek word ('en') that you got "had been" from is in the Imperfect No Voice Stated Indicative tense, using the word. This tense has no specific tense as we know (past, present, future). However, one can assume that whenever this tense is used, it is used in the present and active voice. This tense is not the past perfect tense (which uses "had"). Every time it is used in the Bible, it is better translated as 'was' or 'were'. The better sentence would be "if he were on Earth." The * denotes the same usage:

Matthew 1:18: Now the birth of Jesus Christ *was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Hebrews 12:21: And so terrible *was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake.

Notice the second is from the same Epistle! And truthfully, the greek used here is elementary.

Also, you cut out half the verse. The last part says: "seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.." Now, reading Hebrews chapter 7 (specifically verse 28), it says: "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."

We can see why, if someone belived Jesus to be Christ, they would say he would not be a priest on Earth. He would in fact be above the priests, he would be to the right hand of God. The priests were limited but he would be unlimited, and he would do a better job then they could ever do. He owes no one gifts. He deserves to be given to, like God. The idea of the verse saying that Jesus never physically existed is a blatent mistranslation and claim out of context.

These were always intended to be works of fiction, perhaps to help teach youth morals and values. Now, who here can think of something where it started out as a work of fiction, and gained a life of it's own and became a "this really happened" story.

These works never claim to be works of fiction. They claim that the events described actually happened. Why would Paul describe himself as seeing Jesus, getting teachings from him, and was susequently martyred, when everything was 'just fiction to teach morals'? It is much easier to argue that Paul was crazy than to argue that he was lying.

Heck I think that happened to me in a debate on this forum, where I was saying man had one less rib than woman, because god took a rib from Adam to make Eve. Now, I didn't believe that, but I thought it was Religions way of explaining why man had one less rib than woman, and I never checked a bio textbook to examine our skeletal structure and found out that it was equal. So I spent my life believing that, it started out fiction, was told as fiction (well maybe they meant it to be fact but I wasn't buying it) and an element of it I believed as fact.

These religious people you talked to were wrong anyway. You know of course now that all people have the same number of ribs, but I think an educated Christian would instead answer that God would take a rib because he knew ribs are the only bones that grow back.

The periosteum is a membrane that covers every bone. It contains cells that can manufacture new bone, especially in young people. Rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone. Thoracic surgeons routinely remove ribs, and these often grow back, in whole or in part. A lot depends on the care with which the rib is removed; it needs to be 'peeled' out of its periosteum to leave this membrane as intact as possible. A major reason why the rib is the ideal situation for such regeneration is that the attached intercostal muscles provide it with a good blood supply.

What Mark wrote was a gospel, the good news, and he used parallels to other pagan religions to help spread the word, and he used Jesus Christ as the name of his parallel pagan god.

What you are saying is that Mark made up a pagan God named Jesus Christ and made him parallel to other Gods in order to make this belief spread faster?

How do you know this? What exactly do we know that Mark gained from making up such a thing? In Mark's gospel even, we see that he included Jesus saying: "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" [20]

Paul, who I said was accompanied by Mark on a mission journey, even became angry at people who decided to teach false things and were aware of doing so. [21]

This theory appears to be a long leap of logic and a load of conjecture.

It's possible they didn't even believe in Jesus Christ anymore, and were simply going off and writing their allegorical literature with parallel symbolism to pagan religions, like the religion Paul's caravan was spreading. Now, whoever finished it, was clearly a christian themselves, so it's quite possible that they edited it to become the life and times of Jesus Christ. This is only speculation, but it's important to note.

Same as above. Your idea seems like an exotic theory, but there is absolutely no factual basis. The gospels even report Jesus saying that if one chose not to believe anymore, "he never knew me." Matthew 7:21-27 is as follows:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."
Let me dwell on Paul for a moment. Paul claims to have received the gospel from Jesus himself. We cannot assume he is lying, because any sane person would not be martyred for a lie they knew was false. It is much easier to assume he was insane. Now, in my above statements, I said Mark and Peter met Paul. They apparently did not disagree about the gospel. The only conclusion is that all three had the same story. "Paul's caravan" was not spreading a different religion.

On top of that, looking back, there were other ancient jews and jewish christians who believe Jesus to have been killed in 100 BC under King Alexander Genias, or in the gospel of Peter, it says Harrid had Jesus killed. How could something like this, a recent event, something people had been around and lived through, have gone under such scrutiny as to when it even occured to the length of decades?

I performed searches for this "Alexander Genias" and was not able to come up with anything, on google or on wikipedia (seriously try searching it). Please give me the specific source you received this information from.

On your statistics, I put a number score next to the clause. Jesus is as follows:

1. His mother is a royal virgin - 0.5 (Mary was not 'royal')
2. His father is a king - 0 (Oedipus was not a child of God, Jesus' father was not a 'king' in your context of Oedipus)
3. Often a relative of his mother - 0 (see 2 above)
4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual - 1
5. He's also reputed as the son of a god - 1
6. At birth an attempt is made by his father to kill him - 0 (Herod was not Jesus' father)
7. He's spirited away - 1
8. Reared by foster parents in a foreign country - 0 (Mary and Joseph fled with Jesus)
9. Told nothing of his childhood - 0 (we cannot conclude this statement, he most likely knew)
10. As a man he returns and goes to his future kingdom - 0.5 (Jesus did not become a 'king' and thus did not have a 'kingdom')
11. Claims victory over a king, giant, or dragon - 0
12. Marries a princess - 0
13. Becomes king - 0 (did not become a king)
14. Reigns uneventfully - 0 (see 13 above)
15. Prescribes laws - 1
16. Later he loses favour with his subjects - 1 or 0 (depending on the context of 'losing favour', and what subjects?)
17. Is driven from the throne of the city - 0 (see 13 above)
18. Meets with a mysterious death - 0 (crucifixion was extremely common in Rome)
19. Often at the top of a hill - 1
20. His children (if any) do not succeed him - 0 (Jesus had no children)
21. His body is not buried - 1
22. Nevertheless he has one or more following groups - 1

Using my points system (based off of yours after the chart), I myself rank him to be no more than a 9. Let us not forget other details of Oedipus' life like the fact that he has children by his mother, kills men at a crossroads (one being his father), and his mother kills herself. I recommend reading Oedipus Rex. [7]

I think it is important to not look at the stories as having similarities, but to look at them as having many differences.

Now, there were plenty of other saviour figures at the same general time in history, Mithras, Dionysus, Adonis, Osiris, Tammuz etc... and nobody today thinks these characters are anything more than mythical and yet their stories are so very similar to Jesus. Heck, most of them involve a ressurection after 3 days, sometimes coupled with a celebration, that it really seems ridiculous to try and say "Oh well in this one case, it really happened."

Please do not just list figures. Give the exact similarities to a few and I will try to take the time to address them.

Essentially they're saying Satan knew Jesus would arrive, so he made false profits in advance in order to try and sway potential believers. They don't try to refute that these pagan gods followed the same pattern, they don't try to say Jesus is different from them in the signs that he is a saviour, they are all saviour figures, they just say "This one is right, the others are wrong, satan did it." It get's a bit ridiculous.

And in case you're wondering, this is the explanation offered to this day. It hasn't changed, luckily, church fathers don't have to offer it very often, because really it seems quite preposterous.

I agree this type of explanation is ridiculous and a major cop out. I think the work of satan comes in when we don't take the time to contemplate it in our minds.

Now, something I know you have been wanting for awhile: historical records of Jesus' existance. Reconstructing the life of Jesus using historic methods and extra-biblical sources started with Hermann Samuel Reimarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Samuel_Reimarus) [19]. He, like you, denied the existance of such miracles by the messiah. Examples are:

Josephus: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." [8]

"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned." [9]

Cornelius Tacitus (Roman historian): "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular...

Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. [11]

These are just a few, and I tried to keep my records under the 100 AD mark (there are many over as well).

You see that the Jesus of Nazareth we know today existed at the time the gospels tell us. I must also tell you that theories which fly in the face of historical and linguistic facts are not, and never will be 'proof' of anything.

SOURCES:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_tarsus
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_peter
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Andrew
[5] http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/turkey.html / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Mark
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_rex
[8] Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64
[9]Antiquities, Book 20, 200
[10] http://www.request.org.uk/main/history/jesus/Jesus04.htm
[11] http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html
[12] Anatomy class and direct question to teacher.
[13] Galatians 1:13-15
[14] Luke 6:22-23 / 2 Timothy 3:12
[15] John 14:26
[16] Acts 2:5-11,*41
[17] The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I pages 559-60 and The Lives of the Caesars (Domitian, XIII, 2)
[18] The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, page 240 and The Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, VI, xxv, 9, 10
[19] McKnight, Scot (1996). "Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Jesus Studies", in Michael J Wilkins, J P Moreland: Jesus Under Fire. Zondervan, 53.
[20] Mark 8:36
[21] Galatians 1:6-9.

Can you refute this section, Tyler?


Next, I present a list of attributes of previous saviour figures in a similar time frame or sometimes stretching a bit further back.

* Born of a virgin on December 25th
* Stars appeared at their birth
* Visited by Magi from the east
* Turned water into wine
* Healed the sick
* Cast out demons
* Performed miracles
* Transfigured before followers
* Rode donkeys into the city
* Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver
* Celebrated communal meal with bread and win
* Which represented the saviour's flesh and blood
* Descended into hell
* Resurrected on the third day
* Ascended into heaven
* To forever sit beside father god and become divine judge

* Zoroaster, Thor, Hercules, Tammuz, Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, Hermes, Dionysus, Devatat, Beddru, Balder, Bacchus, Baal, Adonis, Attis and of course, everybody's favourite, Jesus.


Here's what I think. There was this really bright cat named Jesus Christ who was gregarious and who espoused some very forward-thinking philosophy for his time, endangering himself because people were listening and it threatened the establishment. Jesus was unjustly put to death by the establishment for speaking his mind, and as a result the philosophy he had been preaching gained power through his becoming a martyr. He was a human, the same as you or I, born of normal circumstances, tied to a natural lifespan and to the rules of physics, who died not "for our sins" but for the will of the establishment to dominate. The supernatural details of rising from the dead and walking on water and healing the sick were all the embellishment of those who sought not to spread the word of Jesus, but to create their own money-making church and reap the benefits. They were entrepreneurs who used the dead Jesus Christ as a marketing tool, incorporating mythical attributes formerly used by other religious establishments into their revised schpiel, operating under the guise of "saving" people when in fact they were recruiting people into the pews in order to get money into the coffers. Whatever philosophy the man Jesus originally espoused was long since lost in the shuffle.

Noj, I specifically asked Skateyasha to pick a few of them and I will research them. I don't have the patience to take the task of looking at all of them.

I think that if I address the ones that sound most like Jesus, that came before the time Jesus is said to have lived, then people would see that the whole copycat theory falls apart.

Tyler,

First off, about the whole temple thing, I mean, if you're going to say that it was a prophecy, and didn't need to have actually happened for them to write about it, then that's just swinging to the supernatural, and to try and refute it using natural means is as pointless as trying to say that the people who claim to see the souls of dead people, aren't actually seeing the souls of dead people. I can't defend that, but in the end, it's really nothing concrete and more preposterous than anything else. Unless Mark and St. Peter were prophets, able to prophecize, and you can find anything about them that claims that they were able to see into the future, then the whole statement you made is null and void. And by the way, I never said that Mark etc... didn't join Paul's caravan, I said that he got in a dispute with Paul, and left the caravan, and then went on to write his gospel. Which is where I point out that it's very likely, as Jesus really just sounded like another pagan god at the time, that his gospel was really nothing more than telling the accounts of another pagan god, and on top of that, aside from the whole prophecy thing, assuming that prophecizing the destruction of the temple is well, unlikely, then it means someone else had to write that. And I remind and point out that it's easily very likely that Mark wasn't even christian after he left Paul's caravan, as the dispute with Paul was about the teachings of Jesus. That is why I say "Mark was probably writing nothing more than fiction, a gospel, the telling of good news."

Reading through most of this, I see a lot of points being made saying maybe what I said was taken out of context, or things like that, but in the end i don't see an actual disproof. For instance, the whole thing about Paul not even having the idea that Jesus Christ lived on earth, you never refute that, you simply go on about the word en, and continue the verse and continue the verse, but in the end it still says that Paul never thought his god Christ Jesus lived on this earth. And about Paul getting teachings etc... from Jesus about his life, Like I just said, the gospels were written after Christ's life, at least, and most likely well after, decades after, so Paul had no teachings from these gospels, he wasn't reading a bunch of books, he was just spreading the word of his pagan god he saw in a vision, who I remind you, does not match the description of the Jesus we know to have lived on earth, aside from being crucified, being ressurected, and ascending to heaven, which is one of THE MOST common charecteristics of all pagan gods at the time.

The thing about Mark and the gospel being potentially the second one written and not the first, It's true I used wikipedia for that as my source, because otherwise in videos and stuff I'd seen it, I mean I can't remember what they are but I certainly haven't heard many people refute the claim. I suppose though, since the only proof I provide is wikipedia, and you use the same source against me, it's a draw on that regard, though I really haven't heard much about people not believing the gospel of mark to have been written first.

What you are saying is that Mark made up a pagan God named Jesus Christ and made him parallel to other Gods in order to make this belief spread faster?

No, I said previously, Mark most likely wasn't trying to spread a belief of anything, he was writing allegorical literature which told of stories to help teach children morals and values. Just like all other allegorical literature of the time. And if you're going to refute my logic as a "leap" with no factual basis, then the same back at you with practically everything you've said, seeing as it all comes from the gospels, which is what we're questioning in the first place. Except for the fact that why we're questioning the gospels DOES have evidence supporting it, while using the gospels does not.

About King Alexander Genias, that was one I was recalling from memory, I believe I read about it in a book by Robert M. Price called "The Incredible Shrinking Son Of Man." If you'd like to check on that.



On your statistics, I put a number score next to the clause. Jesus is as follows:

1. His mother is a royal virgin - 0.5 (Mary was not 'royal')
2. His father is a king - 0 (Oedipus was not a child of God, Jesus' father was not a 'king' in your context of Oedipus)
3. Often a relative of his mother - 0 (see 2 above)
4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual - 1
5. He's also reputed as the son of a god - 1
6. At birth an attempt is made by his father to kill him - 0 (Herod was not Jesus' father)
7. He's spirited away - 1
8. Reared by foster parents in a foreign country - 0 (Mary and Joseph fled with Jesus)
9. Told nothing of his childhood - 0 (we cannot conclude this statement, he most likely knew)
10. As a man he returns and goes to his future kingdom - 0.5 (Jesus did not become a 'king' and thus did not have a 'kingdom')
11. Claims victory over a king, giant, or dragon - 0
12. Marries a princess - 0
13. Becomes king - 0 (did not become a king)
14. Reigns uneventfully - 0 (see 13 above)
15. Prescribes laws - 1
16. Later he loses favour with his subjects - 1 or 0 (depending on the context of 'losing favour', and what subjects?)
17. Is driven from the throne of the city - 0 (see 13 above)
18. Meets with a mysterious death - 0 (crucifixion was extremely common in Rome)
19. Often at the top of a hill - 1
20. His children (if any) do not succeed him - 0 (Jesus had no children)
21. His body is not buried - 1
22. Nevertheless he has one or more following groups - 1

Alright, let's go through this.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Heaven Mary was the queen of heaven, Mary was made queen by the jewish people who were converted to christians as she fulfilled the prophecy and ascended to ethereal royalty.
2. Husband of a queen
3. I'm having trouble finding where it was I found Mary as being related to Joseph, I recall in their genealogy that somewhere not too far down the line they shared a common house, however, as I can't provide you with absolute proof of this, feel free to dock this point. However, it was in the gospels of Matthew and Luke that listed Jesus' genealogy if you'd like to read up on it, I don't really have time to go back to hunting through the bible, I can only do the stuff with internet proofs/links.
6. Harrids massacre of the innocents wasn't what I was referring to, but I don't quite recall where exactly I got this one, and as such, I suppose feel free to dock a point.
9. Does it say Jesus was told accounts of his childhood? I'm really lazy right now, it's 12 am, I just want to respond to this as soon as possible, but I'm not going to go hunting around for loads of statistics, but as this is a split, I definitely get 0.5
10. Jesus was proclaimed as the king of the jews. Furthermore Zechariah 9:9 "Behold your king is coming to you." Jesus was king, and Jerusalem, the land of his people, his subjects, was his and to rule.
13. Jesus was king.
14. Jesus was king.
16. Jesus was king.
17. Jesus was king.
18. I don't recall it ever saying Jesus was brought back to life, simply that he ressurected, and returned to earth, then ascended to heaven. To ascend to heaven while you're alive, is well, impossible even by christian standards. He therefore was never alive throughout his time after the crucifixion, so yes, Jesus' death was definitely mysterious.
20. I didn't add in the (if any), it's part of the list. Jesus didn't have children, so therefore none succeeded him. Point blank, this is my point.

So overall, upon review, seeing as I'm a bit too lazy to try and rifle back through my sources for difficult to find specifics, I lose 2.5 off of 19.

Giving Jesus a grand total of 16.5/22 Which is still pretty high.
Please do not just list figures. Give the exact similarities to a few and I will try to take the time to address them.

Well, the whole section Noj posted is specifics you could try to adress. I'd really rather not go through and list which figures shared which events, I simply put those in if 4 or more had that part of a story in common, I don't have a table or something with a bunch of checkmarks beside each figures name.








One more thing I'd like to note, all you've done here is try and refute what I've claimed, can you provide any sources that are not from the gospels, which claim Jesus existed?

Tyler,

First off, about the whole temple thing, I mean, if you're going to say that it was a prophecy, and didn't need to have actually happened for them to write about it, then that's just swinging to the supernatural, and to try and refute it using natural means is as pointless as trying to say that the people who claim to see the souls of dead people, aren't actually seeing the souls of dead people. I can't defend that, but in the end, it's really nothing concrete and more preposterous than anything else. Unless Mark and St. Peter were prophets, able to prophecize, and you can find anything about them that claims that they were able to see into the future, then the whole statement you made is null and void. And by the way, I never said that Mark etc... didn't join Paul's caravan, I said that he got in a dispute with Paul, and left the caravan, and then went on to write his gospel. Which is where I point out that it's very likely, as Jesus really just sounded like another pagan god at the time, that his gospel was really nothing more than telling the accounts of another pagan god, and on top of that, aside from the whole prophecy thing, assuming that prophecizing the destruction of the temple is well, unlikely, then it means someone else had to write that. And I remind and point out that it's easily very likely that Mark wasn't even christian after he left Paul's caravan, as the dispute with Paul was about the teachings of Jesus. That is why I say "Mark was probably writing nothing more than fiction, a gospel, the telling of good news."

Reading through most of this, I see a lot of points being made saying maybe what I said was taken out of context, or things like that, but in the end i don't see an actual disproof. For instance, the whole thing about Paul not even having the idea that Jesus Christ lived on earth, you never refute that, you simply go on about the word en, and continue the verse and continue the verse, but in the end it still says that Paul never thought his god Christ Jesus lived on this earth. And about Paul getting teachings etc... from Jesus about his life, Like I just said, the gospels were written after Christ's life, at least, and most likely well after, decades after, so Paul had no teachings from these gospels, he wasn't reading a bunch of books, he was just spreading the word of his pagan god he saw in a vision, who I remind you, does not match the description of the Jesus we know to have lived on earth, aside from being crucified, being ressurected, and ascending to heaven, which is one of THE MOST common charecteristics of all pagan gods at the time.

The thing about Mark and the gospel being potentially the second one written and not the first, It's true I used wikipedia for that as my source, because otherwise in videos and stuff I'd seen it, I mean I can't remember what they are but I certainly haven't heard many people refute the claim. I suppose though, since the only proof I provide is wikipedia, and you use the same source against me, it's a draw on that regard, though I really haven't heard much about people not believing the gospel of mark to have been written first.



No, I said previously, Mark most likely wasn't trying to spread a belief of anything, he was writing allegorical literature which told of stories to help teach children morals and values. Just like all other allegorical literature of the time. And if you're going to refute my logic as a "leap" with no factual basis, then the same back at you with practically everything you've said, seeing as it all comes from the gospels, which is what we're questioning in the first place. Except for the fact that why we're questioning the gospels DOES have evidence supporting it, while using the gospels does not.

About King Alexander Genias, that was one I was recalling from memory, I believe I read about it in a book by Robert M. Price called "The Incredible Shrinking Son Of Man." If you'd like to check on that.




Alright, let's go through this.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Heaven Mary was the queen of heaven, Mary was made queen by the jewish people who were converted to christians as she fulfilled the prophecy and ascended to ethereal royalty.
2. Husband of a queen
3. I'm having trouble finding where it was I found Mary as being related to Joseph, I recall in their genealogy that somewhere not too far down the line they shared a common house, however, as I can't provide you with absolute proof of this, feel free to dock this point. However, it was in the gospels of Matthew and Luke that listed Jesus' genealogy if you'd like to read up on it, I don't really have time to go back to hunting through the bible, I can only do the stuff with internet proofs/links.
6. Harrids massacre of the innocents wasn't what I was referring to, but I don't quite recall where exactly I got this one, and as such, I suppose feel free to dock a point.
9. Does it say Jesus was told accounts of his childhood? I'm really lazy right now, it's 12 am, I just want to respond to this as soon as possible, but I'm not going to go hunting around for loads of statistics, but as this is a split, I definitely get 0.5
10. Jesus was proclaimed as the king of the jews. Furthermore Zechariah 9:9 "Behold your king is coming to you." Jesus was king, and Jerusalem, the land of his people, his subjects, was his and to rule.
13. Jesus was king.
14. Jesus was king.
16. Jesus was king.
17. Jesus was king.
18. I don't recall it ever saying Jesus was brought back to life, simply that he ressurected, and returned to earth, then ascended to heaven. To ascend to heaven while you're alive, is well, impossible even by christian standards. He therefore was never alive throughout his time after the crucifixion, so yes, Jesus' death was definitely mysterious.
20. I didn't add in the (if any), it's part of the list. Jesus didn't have children, so therefore none succeeded him. Point blank, this is my point.

So overall, upon review, seeing as I'm a bit too lazy to try and rifle back through my sources for difficult to find specifics, I lose 2.5 off of 19.

Giving Jesus a grand total of 16.5/22 Which is still pretty high.


Well, the whole section Noj posted is specifics you could try to adress. I'd really rather not go through and list which figures shared which events, I simply put those in if 4 or more had that part of a story in common, I don't have a table or something with a bunch of checkmarks beside each figures name.








One more thing I'd like to note, all you've done here is try and refute what I've claimed, can you provide any sources that are not from the gospels, which claim Jesus existed?
For one, it is never mentioned why John Mark left Paul's caravan, but to say it was over doctrinal issues seems unlikely, as Paul's companion Barnabas, who must've had very similar views as Paul or he would've left himself, got in an argument with Paul over taking John Mark with them the second time, and ended up leaving because Paul was still mad that he left the first time around. As as far as the ressurection thing you gave, you forget though it IS impossible, Jesus DID the impossible MANY times! He was definitely alive walking Earth after he rose from the dead. 'Twas said over 500 people saw him alive after he was dead, meaning he couldn't have been just in heaven or whatever. I'm sure there would be records had Nero (I THINK it was Nero) not destroyed Jerusalem and exiled the Jews in 70 AD, the one place where Jesus DID walk. And also, that Mary is the queen of heaven is not Biblical. Simply Catholic herasy.

Isn't life miraculous enough as it is without having to be dazzled into required belief by miraculous superhuman events from the very distant past, chronicled in a book but never repeated at any time close to the present? It just seems to me that if this incredibly complex universe is the creation of a God, then that God would not operate in such a divisive and befuddling manner. That God would not speak to a specific group of people in a specific portion of the globe, that God would be all-inclusive. Christianity doesn't jibe with the environment as being of the same complex creator. If there is a God who was able to account for so much in terms of complexity and planning and foresight as to lay out the universe and spin the galaxies just right and place the earth the correct distance from the sun and create from the the things too small to be seen to the stars in the sky, then the Bible could not possibly be the product of the same God. The Bible is too simple, too contradictory, too arguable, and too HUMAN to be superhuman. I think that if there is a God, God speaks to us not through books or prophets, but through experience.

Tyler,

First off, about the whole temple thing, I mean, if you're going to say that it was a prophecy, and didn't need to have actually happened for them to write about it, then that's just swinging to the supernatural, and to try and refute it using natural means is as pointless as trying to say that the people who claim to see the souls of dead people, aren't actually seeing the souls of dead people. I can't defend that, but in the end, it's really nothing concrete and more preposterous than anything else. Unless Mark and St. Peter were prophets, able to prophecize, and you can find anything about them that claims that they were able to see into the future, then the whole statement you made is null and void.

You're forgetting that Mark and Peter never claimed to be prophets. They never make one prophecy.

And again, I am not refuting the fact that Jesus didn't make a prophecy, this comes from faith in him as Christ. I am refuting the logic of reading the Bible and bringing in preconceived beliefs that skew one from properly understanding the Bible.

And by the way, I never said that Mark etc... didn't join Paul's caravan, I said that he got in a dispute with Paul, and left the caravan, and then went on to write his gospel. Which is where I point out that it's very likely, as Jesus really just sounded like another pagan god at the time, that his gospel was really nothing more than telling the accounts of another pagan god, and on top of that, aside from the whole prophecy thing, assuming that prophecizing the destruction of the temple is well, unlikely, then it means someone else had to write that. And I remind and point out that it's easily very likely that Mark wasn't even christian after he left Paul's caravan, as the dispute with Paul was about the teachings of Jesus. That is why I say "Mark was probably writing nothing more than fiction, a gospel, the telling of good news."

A dispute? You make it sound like as if they fought.

Let me explain. The Jews before Jesus thought that God had only chosen them, and that his grace was exclusive. However, Jesus opened the door for gentiles to recieve God's grace. Well, Jews weren't happy with that. They (in this case, led by the pharisees) wanted gentiles to submit to Jewish law before being able to receieve God. As you can see, the most likely reason this was a dispute was because the Pharisees were power hungry.

In Acts, the 'dispute' is pondering over whether or not Christians should be circumsized like Jews are. The church in Antioch decides to settle matter by seeking out the original apostles, as they received Jesus' message firsthand. The church there refused to recognize Paul as an apostle, (this was common for him, as he had to defend his apostleship in his Epistle to Galatia).

There was no internal dispute among the apostles. It was a dispute between the Apostles and Pharisees. Read Acts 15.

Reading through most of this, I see a lot of points being made saying maybe what I said was taken out of context, or things like that, but in the end i don't see an actual disproof. For instance, the whole thing about Paul not even having the idea that Jesus Christ lived on earth, you never refute that, you simply go on about the word en, and continue the verse and continue the verse, but in the end it still says that Paul never thought his god Christ Jesus lived on this earth.

And again, I tell you, Paul was a chief persecutor of Christians before he became one. To say "Paul persecuted Christians because they worshipped Jesus, but he didn't know about Jesus walking the Earth" is like saying that a politician persecutes Muslims but has no idea about Mohammad. It's illogical.

You seem to think you prove Paul never thought Jesus was real by citing a verse (that comes from a book of anonymous authorship) that you incorrectly cite as speaking in a tense not used in the original greek. Do you understand this? What you wrote and the wording is not the correct translation. I posted the correct translation. And when viewed in the correct translation (and reading what is on both sides of the sentence), you see that the verse does NOT say what you thought it said.

If you want to argue over translation with someone who knows ancient greek, then please know greek yourself.

And about Paul getting teachings etc... from Jesus about his life, Like I just said, the gospels were written after Christ's life, at least, and most likely well after, decades after, so Paul had no teachings from these gospels, he wasn't reading a bunch of books, he was just spreading the word of his pagan god he saw in a vision, who I remind you, does not match the description of the Jesus we know to have lived on earth, aside from being crucified, being ressurected, and ascending to heaven, which is one of THE MOST common charecteristics of all pagan gods at the time.

I would like for you to post some of these 'descriptions' that do not match the Jesus we see in the gospels.

I'm glad you brought this up. The bolded portion is true, though again stretching it.

Why is it that Paul "made" up this God (I believe he saw Jesus, as you know), and it has nothing different from the teachings of the God the original apostles knew? When Paul meets Peter (Mark wasn't an apostle, but they didn't dispute either), they don't argue about it. Read Acts 15.

The thing about Mark and the gospel being potentially the second one written and not the first, It's true I used wikipedia for that as my source, because otherwise in videos and stuff I'd seen it, I mean I can't remember what they are but I certainly haven't heard many people refute the claim. I suppose though, since the only proof I provide is wikipedia, and you use the same source against me, it's a draw on that regard, though I really haven't heard much about people not believing the gospel of mark to have been written first.

It's not that people believe it to be the first (it very well could have been), it's your use of the 2SH that piles conjecture on another hypthesis.



No, I said previously, Mark most likely wasn't trying to spread a belief of anything, he was writing allegorical literature which told of stories to help teach children morals and values. Just like all other allegorical literature of the time. And if you're going to refute my logic as a "leap" with no factual basis, then the same back at you with practically everything you've said, seeing as it all comes from the gospels, which is what we're questioning in the first place. Except for the fact that why we're questioning the gospels DOES have evidence supporting it, while using the gospels does not.

And again, Mark met Paul (who believed he saw a real vision) and Mark never once says "but Jesus isn't real..." A disagreement like this would have challenged one of their apostleships.

You can use the gospels to refute what you said if the gospels internally contradict what you are telling me. A similar example is what I said above this paragraph.

Alright, let's go through this.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Heaven Mary was the queen of heaven, Mary was made queen by the jewish people who were converted to christians as she fulfilled the prophecy and ascended to ethereal royalty.

Mary was not a queen. She was so poor she had to stay at cheap hotels run by other Jews. This is a figurative title she was given. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible she 'ascended to ethereal royalty'.

9. Does it say Jesus was told accounts of his childhood? I'm really lazy right now, it's 12 am, I just want to respond to this as soon as possible, but I'm not going to go hunting around for loads of statistics, but as this is a split, I definitely get 0.5

Jesus was said to have been fasting in the desert for 40 days and there he was tempted by the devil. It is evident that we see he knows he is the son of God at this point. If this is true, then we know he will have known he fulfilled the prophecy earlier in the Bible which states that a massacre will occur.

You should also note that King Herod was not Jesus' father.

10. Jesus was proclaimed as the king of the jews. Furthermore Zechariah 9:9 "Behold your king is coming to you." Jesus was king, and Jerusalem, the land of his people, his subjects, was his and to rule.

But did he rule? Of course not. This "king of the Jews" title is not of royalship like Oedipus. They are two completely different things. You're taking a word (king) and using it in both contexts and then marvelling at the similarites you've created. You fail to see the major differences.

18. I don't recall it ever saying Jesus was brought back to life, simply that he ressurected, and returned to earth, then ascended to heaven. To ascend to heaven while you're alive, is well, impossible even by christian standards. He therefore was never alive throughout his time after the crucifixion, so yes, Jesus' death was definitely mysterious.

It is not impossible at all. Christians even believe Elijah and Enoch were brought to heaven while they were still alive.

One reason Jesus' ressurection is important to Christian thought is because Jesus is said to have defeated death. This is a core Christian teaching.

20. I didn't add in the (if any), it's part of the list. Jesus didn't have children, so therefore none succeeded him. Point blank, this is my point.

Read Oedipus Rex. Please.

You also didn't address the differences I listed in Jesus and Oedipus. Oedipus had children by his own mother. His mother killed herself. He killed his father at a crossroads. He stabs his own eyes out. Etc Etc Etc.

Well, the whole section Noj posted is specifics you could try to adress. I'd really rather not go through and list which figures shared which events, I simply put those in if 4 or more had that part of a story in common, I don't have a table or something with a bunch of checkmarks beside each figures name.

I'm not really sure what you're asking me. It appears you're asking me to go through that list in context of every single mythological figure you posted? I don't have that kind of time or more importantly patience.

I don't wish for you to make a table at all. I want you to pick the 2 figureheads on there that you think fit Jesus the most (that predate Christianity to have any sort of impact on it) and post them. I will address them then.

can you provide any sources that are not from the gospels, which claim Jesus existed?

I did. They can be found at the bottom of my original post in this thread.

Is the outburst at Acts 15:36-40? That was between Paul and Barnabas, even though Mark was there.

why does everyone post so many words in this section?

I think Tyler has got it here. Skateyasha appearantly didn't give much attention to what he even posted if he completely missed the section that had historical evidence of Jesus death. And Tyler's evidence from the bible can be used in this case seeing as how Skateyasha mentions things being wrong in the Bible when in fact he's wrong about them being wrong. You should at least learn a little about your subject matter before you go and try to rip it apart. And by learn I don't mean hear a thing or two here and there, or ask a bunch of people on a forum that don't even know themselves. I mean actually go and read it yourself then do some in depth study, as Tyler has obviously done. That's like me trying to argue with a professor of physics about magnetism or something. And for the record I am agnostic, I'm not a big christian defender or anything.

You're forgetting that Mark and Peter never claimed to be prophets. They never make one prophecy. And again, I am not refuting the fact that Jesus didn't make a prophecy, this comes from faith in him as Christ. I am refuting the logic of reading the Bible and bringing in preconceived beliefs that skew one from properly understanding the Bible.
Then you just debunked your whole prophecy defence you used earlier. Therefore, from what you yourself just admitted, Mark and St. Peter could not have finished the gospel of Mark themselves, someone else must have done it, a minimum of approximately 40 years later. This is now fact, even according to you, and stands as such.

A dispute? You make it sound like as if they fought.

Let me explain. The Jews before Jesus thought that God had only chosen them, and that his grace was exclusive. However, Jesus opened the door for gentiles to recieve God's grace. Well, Jews weren't happy with that. They (in this case, led by the pharisees) wanted gentiles to submit to Jewish law before being able to receieve God. As you can see, the most likely reason this was a dispute was because the Pharisees were power hungry.

Let me re-phrase that,

The Jews before Jesus were jewish, and being members of synagogue required you to be able to pay the proper fees that would go towards maintaining the synagogue as well as into activities and funding those who worked and volunteered their time there. If you couldn't, you were poor, and could not be part of a religion in the idea that you could not be a member of the synagogue. Suddenly, people start praising the word of this pagan god Jesus Christ and how he fulfilled a bunch of prophecies (not all mind you) and that it was free to join this religion. So what do the people do? Hop on the bandwagon, finally, they have a shot at redemption and back in those times when people were confused about even how volcanoes erupted, and mysticism was ever prevalent, you amassed hundreds of thousands of people who would all believe in this god, because they were allowed to. It's more politics than god.

In Acts, the 'dispute' is pondering over whether or not Christians should be circumsized like Jews are. The church in Antioch decides to settle matter by seeking out the original apostles, as they received Jesus' message firsthand. The church there refused to recognize Paul as an apostle, (this was common for him, as he had to defend his apostleship in his Epistle to Galatia).

There was no internal dispute among the apostles. It was a dispute between the Apostles and Pharisees. Read Acts 15.

No, you just found a random dispute, I'm talking about when Paul lost mark's favour, and Mark and St. Peter left the caravan. You seem to keep deterring me off to random scripts from the bible that share words with what I'm referring to.

And again, I tell you, Paul was a chief persecutor of Christians before he became one. To say "Paul persecuted Christians because they worshipped Jesus, but he didn't know about Jesus walking the Earth" is like saying that a politician persecutes Muslims but has no idea about Mohammad. It's illogical.

The god Paul describes in the book of Hebrews never once mentions any events of what we would recall as the life of Jesus. Furthermore, Paul was a persecutor of christians? How? Think about your sources here, Paul was the one spreading christianity shortly after Jesus "died," You're telling me that Paul even had christians to persecute? Christianity wasn't even a side-religion until Paul's caravan was travelling around. Ignore what it says in the scripts that we're debating as even historically accurate to use examples from, and think for a moment. There weren't that many christians around until Paul spread the word. It's not like Jesus died and the world became christian, it took Paul to spread the word of his pagan god Christ Jesus. Think for yourself once and realize why it is that I say these things are improbable, instead of resorting back to your book for every answer, which so far I've proved isn't credible as a source of information to begin with.

You seem to think you prove Paul never thought Jesus was real by citing a verse (that comes from a book of anonymous authorship) that you incorrectly cite as speaking in a tense not used in the original greek. Do you understand this? What you wrote and the wording is not the correct translation. I posted the correct translation. And when viewed in the correct translation (and reading what is on both sides of the sentence), you see that the verse does NOT say what you thought it said.

If you want to argue over translation with someone who knows ancient greek, then please know greek yourself.

You never refuted anything I said anyways, you just continued the passage, it still says Paul said his god never was on earth, and if he was, he wouldn't have even been a saint. You just blabbered on about the translation, and in the end it didn't change anything. Sure, you translated greek better than me, congrats, but my point still stands, even more solidly than before.

I would like for you to post some of these 'descriptions' that do not match the Jesus we see in the gospels.

If you're looking for it, look in the book of Hebrews, I'm not going hunting around in the bible for specific descriptions of Jesus, when I've already proven the bible is an illegitimate source to begin with.

I'm glad you brought this up. The bolded portion is true, though again stretching it.

Why is it that Paul "made" up this God (I believe he saw Jesus, as you know), and it has nothing different from the teachings of the God the original apostles knew? When Paul meets Peter (Mark wasn't an apostle, but they didn't dispute either), they don't argue about it. Read Acts 15.

K, first off, you just said it's true. Secondly, I wasn't referring to the stupid dispute of circumcision, reading the bible gives me a headache, I try not to do it on too regular a basis, but once again look in the section where it talks about Mark leaving Paul's caravan, and the events preceeding it, I remember that it said Paul lost Mark's favour in a dispute, and Mark left the caravan with St. Peter, and they later were supposedly working on the gospel of Mark, and then both died before it's completion, meaning someone else finished it and was free to edit everything in it, therefore the gospel of mark is of an anonymous author, and is just as illegitimate a source as any you claim mine to be, and all the other gospels which followed mark (commonly believed to be, well, all of them) are illegitimate as well.

The other stuff, I think I've answered well enough in the paragraphs above.

Mary was not a queen. She was so poor she had to stay at cheap hotels run by other Jews. This is a figurative title she was given. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible she 'ascended to ethereal royalty'.

You're getting way too caught up on the word royalty as meaning of kingly lineage, royalty is "character or quality proper to or befitting a sovereign; nobility." Mary fulfilled the prophecy and was elevated to nobility because of it. The prophecy says that she who performs the virgin birth of the future king shall ascend to become the queen of heaven. She fulfilled the qualifications to become labeled as Royalty by the Jewish people of the time. That is royalty, not having loads of money and slaves.

Jesus was said to have been fasting in the desert for 40 days and there he was tempted by the devil. It is evident that we see he knows he is the son of God at this point. If this is true, then we know he will have known he fulfilled the prophecy earlier in the Bible which states that a massacre will occur.

Ok, so being tempted by satan doesn't exactly count as telling him of his childhood. If an ethereal figure relates his past to him, that's not fitting the context required, that someone must relay unto him the events of his childhood, for instance, the massacre of the innocents. If he didn't know of things like that until he became a man, then yes, this is a valid point.

You should also note that King Herod was not Jesus' father.

If you really wanna go into specifics, Jesus has no father, aside from God, seeing as he was spawned of virgin birth. God made Herod, who tried to kill Jesus, so God attempted to kill his own son, no way to argue with that logic is there?

But did he rule? Of course not. This "king of the Jews" title is not of royalship like Oedipus. They are two completely different things. You're taking a word (king) and using it in both contexts and then marvelling at the similarites you've created. You fail to see the major differences.

It isn't like oedipus, but it doesn't need to be, I already explained that.

It is not impossible at all. Christians even believe Elijah and Enoch were brought to heaven while they were still alive.

One reason Jesus' ressurection is important to Christian thought is because Jesus is said to have defeated death. This is a core Christian teaching.

Alright, if christians believe living people can ascend to heaven, then sure, whatever, but the fact that he ressurects from the dead still makes it a mighty suspicious death.

You also didn't address the differences I listed in Jesus and Oedipus. Oedipus had children by his own mother. His mother killed herself. He killed his father at a crossroads. He stabs his own eyes out. Etc Etc Etc.

Oedipus isn't Jesus, of course there are differences, it's the similarities I'm pointing out. I'm not trying to say Jesus and Oedipus lived the same life, cause that's ridiculous, but their lives share many common points in them, that many other saviour figures share at the time. Which makes the story of Jesus being a pagan god all the more likely. Also, with the whole god being jesus' father thing, feel free to bump the score back up to 17.5/22



I'm not really sure what you're asking me. It appears you're asking me to go through that list in context of every single mythological figure you posted? I don't have that kind of time or more importantly patience.

I don't wish for you to make a table at all. I want you to pick the 2 figureheads on there that you think fit Jesus the most (that predate Christianity to have any sort of impact on it) and post them. I will address them then.

Dionysus would be a good one. And how about Mithras. Also, it's not like I have that kind of time or patience either, but at least what I'm asking you to do, isn't read through a source I proved illegitimate to try and find things that contradict themselves, which plenty of people have done in the past.

I did. They can be found at the bottom of my original post in this thread.

All your sources use the bible as their source of information, and I already explained the bible isn't a credible source of information NUMEROUS TIMES. So no, none of your defence is valid at all, and in fact, I could have just said this and not written anything out above, but I chose to anyways.

And Neo, how does Tyler have it at all?

All he's done is use an illegitimate source, agree with me on key points, and tell me I'm wrong after doing so.

Upon further reflection, I see the topic about John Mark that Skateyasha has been getting to. I apologize for not remembering this, as the verse that says it is really stand alone. Nothing goes into detail. Anyway:

Acts 13:13 - From Paphos, Paul and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, where John left them to return to Jerusalem.

And like I said, it is completely stand alone. The Bible does not go into any detail. Theories to why he left are:

1. John objected to Paul's itinerary. Obviously Cypress was Barnabas' home territory. Because John was related to Barnabas, we might assume that he too had roots in this island or at least friendly family connections. When the trip went beyond this familiar territory John might have balked.

2. John got homesick. He did follow Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch and now returns to Jerusalem. This may be a clue that he longed for home.

3. John was frightened. The area they were headed was known to be riddled with bandits. John may have been frightened by the prospect of getting beat up. Moreover, given Paul's track record, even in Paphos, conflict with political entities was inevitable.

4. Paul may have contracted malaria. Some have suggested that the reason Paul and Barnabas bypassed Ephesus for Psidian Antioch was for the higher altitude and a more agreeable climate for recovering from malaria. Indeed Paul says in Gal. 4:13 that he came to them the first time because of a bodily illness. Perhaps John was trying to avoid this devastating disease.

5. John may have objected to Paul's leadership. Up to the conversion of Sergius Paulus, Barnabas was clearly the leader. He introduced Paul to the Apostles in Jerusalem. He verified the work in Antioch. He recruited Paul to help with the work. He gets top billing both on their mission of mercy in Jerusalem (chp 11) and their evangelistic tour on Cyprus (chp 13). Suddenly (and from here on out), Paul not only changes his name but takes the lead over Barnabas. John Mark may have been jealous for his kinsman when he took a back seat to Paul.

6. John may have objected to Paul's preaching. As Paul's message of grace turns toward Gentile audiences, it becomes clear that he will not require them to be circumcised. This has profound implications that will fester into a serious confrontation in chapter 15. John may object to Paul's "libertine" views just as other conservatives from Jerusalem did.

I personally like #4 because the rest excluding #2 is something that would have been explained. Not to mention #4 is connected with another verse. #2 seems like more conjecture. #6 and #5 couldn't be it either, because in 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul says that Mark is a great help to him. Mark certainly would not be a great help if #6 and #5 were true.

Based off of all of this, Mark couldn't have left because he didn't believe anymore (as Skateyasha hypothesised in his original thread) because this would have been a significant event, and would have been written down. He obviously couldn't have had an internal conflict with Paul and Barnabas because Paul says he is a great help. The only conclusion is that it was something minor.

Then you just debunked your whole prophecy defence you used earlier. Therefore, from what you yourself just admitted, Mark and St. Peter could not have finished the gospel of Mark themselves, someone else must have done it, a minimum of approximately 40 years later. This is now fact, even according to you, and stands as such.

What are you talking about? I said they don't claim to make prophecies because Jesus made them all.

Let me re-phrase that,

The Jews before Jesus were jewish, and being members of synagogue required you to be able to pay the proper fees that would go towards maintaining the synagogue as well as into activities and funding those who worked and volunteered their time there. If you couldn't, you were poor, and could not be part of a religion in the idea that you could not be a member of the synagogue. Suddenly, people start praising the word of this pagan god Jesus Christ and how he fulfilled a bunch of prophecies (not all mind you) and that it was free to join this religion. So what do the people do? Hop on the bandwagon, finally, they have a shot at redemption and back in those times when people were confused about even how volcanoes erupted, and mysticism was ever prevalent, you amassed hundreds of thousands of people who would all believe in this god, because they were allowed to. It's more politics than god.

This seems correct. However, it isn't what the Bible says. It is entirely possible that Christianity appealed to the poor (more power hungry pharisees had a problem with this). But the Bible says more miracles were worked after Jesus. It wasn't all politics. In fact, it was probably less than we both think.

But, of course, the belief in the miracles comes from belief in God and his son. So this is a dead end.

I'm talking about when Paul lost mark's favour, and Mark and St. Peter left the caravan.

Peter didn't leave with Mark. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. I addressed this in the part above where I begin quoting you, because I must have posted right after you did, and didn't see you posted. My apologies.

You never refuted anything I said anyways, you just continued the passage, it still says Paul said his god never was on earth, and if he was, he wouldn't have even been a saint. You just blabbered on about the translation, and in the end it didn't change anything. Sure, you translated greek better than me, congrats, but my point still stands, even more solidly than before.

I didn't just continue with the passage. I translated it correctly for you, and when you read it correctly, it doesn't say Paul thought Jesus never existed. It says that if Jesus WAS on Earth, (meaning, right there, right then, and even now) not HAD BEEN. The difference is major. Stop pretending it agrees with you.

If you're looking for it, look in the book of Hebrews, I'm not going hunting around in the bible for specific descriptions of Jesus, when I've already proven the bible is an illegitimate source to begin with.

I have a theory that if I look through the book of Hebrews (again), then I will not see these contradicting descriptions because either 1. They don't exist, or 2. I read it better then you did.

You can't brush it off like that. It doesn't work that way.

Think about your sources here, Paul was the one spreading christianity shortly after Jesus "died," You're telling me that Paul even had christians to persecute? Christianity wasn't even a side-religion until Paul's caravan was travelling around. Ignore what it says in the scripts that we're debating as even historically accurate to use examples from, and think for a moment. There weren't that many christians around until Paul spread the word. It's not like Jesus died and the world became christian, it took Paul to spread the word of his pagan god Christ Jesus. Think for yourself once and realize why it is that I say these things are improbable, instead of resorting back to your book for every answer, which so far I've proved isn't credible as a source of information to begin with.

You forget the apostles spread it after Jesus. Remember what I posted about Pentecost? That had nothing to do with Paul, and came before him. There were many Christians around before Paul. Paul made it even bigger.

You're getting way too caught up on the word royalty as meaning of kingly lineage, royalty is "character or quality proper to or befitting a sovereign; nobility." Mary fulfilled the prophecy and was elevated to nobility because of it. The prophecy says that she who performs the virgin birth of the future king shall ascend to become the queen of heaven. She fulfilled the qualifications to become labeled as Royalty by the Jewish people of the time. That is royalty, not having loads of money and slaves.

Where does the Bible say this? This is a catholic teaching, and isn't based on the Bible. This elevation is unbiblical and scripture even addresses it directly: "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." Jeremiah 7:18

Ok, so being tempted by satan doesn't exactly count as telling him of his childhood. If an ethereal figure relates his past to him, that's not fitting the context required, that someone must relay unto him the events of his childhood, for instance, the massacre of the innocents. If he didn't know of things like that until he became a man, then yes, this is a valid point.

No, you missed my point. The point is that, yes, Jesus MAY have never been told (which scripture doesn't indicate, so it's useless conjecture), but he already knew. This nulls your point.



If you really wanna go into specifics, Jesus has no father, aside from God, seeing as he was spawned of virgin birth. God made Herod, who tried to kill Jesus, so God attempted to kill his own son, no way to argue with that logic is there?

THAT was your logic in that 'similarity'? You're going waaaaay too specific, even more specific then the Bible ever goes anywhere. This kind of logic says that my Dad abusing me is God's will, when in fact it is against biblical teachings.

Jesus having no earthly father is a major difference, as I pointed out before.

It isn't like oedipus, but it doesn't need to be, I already explained that.

Of course it needs to be. You are using the copycat theory. Have you just admitted that you are using the word 'king' (which Jesus never was) in the context of both and creating a similarity yourself?

Becuase Jay Adams was a skateboarder, and I am a skateboarder, does that mean I am copying Jay Adams? Of course not.

Alright, if christians believe living people can ascend to heaven, then sure, whatever, but the fact that he ressurects from the dead still makes it a mighty suspicious death.

Now your using "suspicious death" and making a similarity yourself. I don't really see anything in my Oedipus Rex book that makes his death "suspicious," but whatever.

Jesus' resurrection is another major difference by the way.

And what is that about Josephus and Tacitus using the Bible? The Bible didn't exist back then, and the names of those people never occur in the Bible. They are extra-biblical, like you asked.

reading the bible gives me a headache, I try not to do it on too regular a basis,

I think this answers my suspicions. Skateyasha, I am glad you are at least trying to gain knowledge through what you are trying to prove to yourself, but you honestly don't know much about the Bible.

The bible can be used because you have refuted some parts of the bible skateyasha.

Upon further reflection, I see the topic about John Mark that Skateyasha has been getting to. I apologize for not remembering this, as the verse that says it is really stand alone. Nothing goes into detail. Anyway:

Acts 13:13 - From Paphos, Paul and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, where John left them to return to Jerusalem.
And like I said, it is completely stand alone. The Bible does not go into any detail. Theories to why he left are:

1. John objected to Paul's itinerary. Obviously Cypress was Barnabas' home territory. Because John was related to Barnabas, we might assume that he too had roots in this island or at least friendly family connections. When the trip went beyond this familiar territory John might have balked.

2. John got homesick. He did follow Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch and now returns to Jerusalem. This may be a clue that he longed for home.

3. John was frightened. The area they were headed was known to be riddled with bandits. John may have been frightened by the prospect of getting beat up. Moreover, given Paul's track record, even in Paphos, conflict with political entities was inevitable.

4. Paul may have contracted malaria. Some have suggested that the reason Paul and Barnabas bypassed Ephesus for Psidian Antioch was for the higher altitude and a more agreeable climate for recovering from malaria. Indeed Paul says in Gal. 4:13 that he came to them the first time because of a bodily illness. Perhaps John was trying to avoid this devastating disease.

5. John may have objected to Paul's leadership. Up to the conversion of Sergius Paulus, Barnabas was clearly the leader. He introduced Paul to the Apostles in Jerusalem. He verified the work in Antioch. He recruited Paul to help with the work. He gets top billing both on their mission of mercy in Jerusalem (chp 11) and their evangelistic tour on Cyprus (chp 13). Suddenly (and from here on out), Paul not only changes his name but takes the lead over Barnabas. John Mark may have been jealous for his kinsman when he took a back seat to Paul.

6. John may have objected to Paul's preaching. As Paul's message of grace turns toward Gentile audiences, it becomes clear that he will not require them to be circumcised. This has profound implications that will fester into a serious confrontation in chapter 15. John may object to Paul's "libertine" views just as other conservatives from Jerusalem did.

I personally like #4 because the rest excluding #2 is something that would have been explained. Not to mention #4 is connected with another verse. #2 seems like more conjecture. #6 and #5 couldn't be it either, because in 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul says that Mark is a great help to him. Mark certainly would not be a great help if #6 and #5 were true.

Based off of all of this, Mark couldn't have left because he didn't believe anymore (as Skateyasha hypothesised in his original thread) because this would have been a significant event, and would have been written down. He obviously couldn't have had an internal conflict with Paul and Barnabas because Paul says he is a great help. The only conclusion is that it was something minor.

Ok, so you just proposed 6 different reasons he could have left, may I note I never hypothesized, I simply said it was a possibility, and it's still irrelevant seeing as the gospel wasn't finished by Mark or Peter.

What are you talking about? I said they don't claim to make prophecies because Jesus made them all.

So then the gospel still had to be written after they died, which once again makes everything you've said ungrounded, since it all came from the gospels, and the most common belief is that Mark came first, even if you find something that disputes it, I can find people who believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean you should question whether or not it is.

Peter didn't leave with Mark. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. I addressed this in the part above where I begin quoting you, because I must have posted right after you did, and didn't see you posted. My apologies.

My apologies as well, I've been phrasing that wrong the entire time, Peter left to join Mark* But that really isn't an important detail in

I didn't just continue with the passage. I translated it correctly for you, and when you read it correctly, it doesn't say Paul thought Jesus never existed. It says that if Jesus WAS on Earth, (meaning, right there, right then, and even now) not HAD BEEN. The difference is major. Stop pretending it agrees with you.

Please point out where exactly it speaks of Jesus in the present tense, and not in the general. Because from what I can tell, it speaks in the general, applying to past, present, and future.

I have a theory that if I look through the book of Hebrews (again), then I will not see these contradicting descriptions because either 1. They don't exist, or 2. I read it better then you did.

You can't brush it off like that. It doesn't work that way.

Don't call it a theory, a hypothesis sure, but theories are reserved for things with mounds of evidence and haven't been disproven in hundreds of years, you know, like evolution.

And frankly, yes, I can brush it off like that, because you aren't willing to go through the saviour figures I compiled and research them, so why should I do a bunch of research on yours. And on top of that, if I prove something isn't a credible source, then why the heck should I go through it trying to find illegitimate information? Please explain.

You forget the apostles spread it after Jesus. Remember what I posted about Pentecost? That had nothing to do with Paul, and came before him. There were many Christians around before Paul. Paul made it even bigger.

Many being...? Statistics here man, until you show me, your word means squat. There can't have been many, for the reasons I already stated, heck it would hardly spread outside of Jerusalem, and like I also already said, it only spread to those who were poor and couldn't become members of other already founded and well believed religions, so they just gave it a shot and since poverty was incredibly common, it wasn't hard for Paul to go around recruiting hundreds of thousands of people while just saying a few words.

Where does the Bible say this? This is a catholic teaching, and isn't based on the Bible. This elevation is unbiblical and scripture even addresses it directly: "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." Jeremiah 7:18

Catholicism is christianity, to me, I don't see the difference, I know you do, but I'm not looking through your eyes, and I don't think I'm ever going (or ever want) to be able to. Don't think that really aids the conversation, but I'm just saying.

No, you missed my point. The point is that, yes, Jesus MAY have never been told (which scripture doesn't indicate, so it's useless conjecture), but he already knew. This nulls your point.

Well really, it's just useless to debate it, seeing as neither of us has anything they can readily present to back it up. Dead end.

THAT was your logic in that 'similarity'? You're going waaaaay too specific, even more specific then the Bible ever goes anywhere. This kind of logic says that my Dad abusing me is God's will, when in fact it is against biblical teachings.

Jesus having no earthly father is a major difference, as I pointed out before.

Well, that wasn't my original logic, I remember reading somewhere that Joseph did attempt to kill Jesus, but I can't recall my source, so really that's just an unfounded statement. I just said that because, well, it's true isn't it? And though I'm sorry to hear that your dad abused you, if god has a divine plan for all of us, and we are meant to fulfill that plan, then yes, your dad's beating you was god's will. And frankly, something like that would deeply impact you in childhood/early adulthood, and would explain something about your personality, and why you are so religious. It's a link of psychological comfort in finding something you can take solice in, but I'm not going to go around psycho-analyzing since my opinion isn't worth much, but if it counts for anything, I believe that your dad's abuse led you to believe even stronger in god, so if I'm saying that your dad's abuse was god's will, it really might not be far off, even for you.

Of course it needs to be. You are using the copycat theory. Have you just admitted that you are using the word 'king' (which Jesus never was) in the context of both and creating a similarity yourself?

Becuase Jay Adams was a skateboarder, and I am a skateboarder, does that mean I am copying Jay Adams? Of course not.[quote]

I'm saying that their stories aren't supposed to be paralleling, but share many, many similarities in key points of their life. If you wanna use the whole Jay Adams and you thing, well I wouldn't neccesarily choose Jay Adams, but perhaps you both were inspired by the same thing to start skateboarding, that would be one similarity similar to the hero complex similarities I wrote about.

[quote]And what is that about Josephus and Tacitus using the Bible? The Bible didn't exist back then, and the names of those people never occur in the Bible. They are extra-biblical, like you asked.

... what? Sorry don't recall those names I know I didn't say them, were those the two that ascended to heaven while they were alive? If it's not relevant to the argument then I don't know what the point was in bringing them up.

I think this answers my suspicions. Skateyasha, I am glad you are at least trying to gain knowledge through what you are trying to prove to yourself, but you honestly don't know much about the Bible.

Well really, it's not so much the bible, it's the fact that people believe that stuff, without them needing any confirmation outside of the church. What's the point in free will if you just submit to whatever information is relayed unto you.

I'm sure that, from your perspective, thinking that you're right about god and all, that reading through a bunch of athiest postings probably gives you a headache too.

p.s. Thank goodness, an intelligent christian, I was getting tired of =Z28= just saying "Jesus loves you, you're clearly wrong, and I'm going to show you how ignorant I am of evolution and then say it's wrong."

+respect
Merging doublepost
The bible can be used because you have refuted some parts of the bible skateyasha.

Que? I refuted some parts of the whatzit? I believe I've said all along that the gospels are not credible sources of information because they descend from an unknown author, and then went on to explain that it's pretty much just allegorical literature describing yet another pagan god of the time.

If I've been saying anything that refutes that, I haven't meant to refute it, I'm simply following a stream of logic proposed by someone else.

Lucky for me I am not the only religious scholar who sees though this theory. Took more time to find a website that listed all of them than anything. I may have missed some, but go wild.

Mithras: Fact to keep in mind: Roman Mithraism appeared centuries after the Hebrew Messianic Prophecies. And originally only enters recorded history by Herodotus in 440 BC.

Similarities:

Cave Birth: Jesus was not born in a cave, and Mithras came from solid rock.

Birth on December 25: Jesus was not born on December 25, but in the spring. Pagan tradition placed huge significance in the vegetative cycle. Because of this, the birth of Mithras was on this date. Christianity has no such significance with the vegetative cycle.

Tended By Shephards: The earliest account of the birth of Mithras is shows him emerging from solid rock with the help of two shephards. Fact to keep in mind: Mithras' birth was said to predate humans, but an image which originally depicted this was added later, apparently by those who didn't notice the contradiction. This picture is found in the 4th century AD.

Virgin Birth: No record of Mithra ever being born of a virgin has been found. Pictures only indicate him emerging from solid rock. (http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z236/TylerSelf/mithras_zodiac2-150x145.jpg)

12 Disciples: Mithra did not have 12 disciples, but was actually depicted as being surrounded by the 12 signs of the Zodiac (http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z236/TylerSelf/mithras_feast3-150x87.jpg). Critics only see 12 beings and assume they are disciples.

Teacher: I can find no records of Mithras ever having been a traveling teacher. It really wouldn't matter anyway because many legends speak of receiving knowledge from the gods.

Atonement of Sin: Again, no mention in any record. Mithras does sacrifice a bull to create life but there is no connection to sin.

Last Supper: Mithras is shown to be dining with Helios and his twelve Zodiac "disciples" and is claimed to have said: "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." Yet this quote was added centuries later during the middle ages and is
not even attributed to Mithras.

Ministry at age 30: No reference to age, ever.

Crucifixion: No Mithras records claim he was crucified, not even in pictures. He actually is never said to have died at all.

Holy Sunday: True only for Roman Mithraism. But considering almost every religion used Saturday or Sunday as a holy day, there was a 50/50 chance of this hitting the target and at least a 1/7 chance for the number of days in a week. Christians selected Sunday as their holy day only because it was the day of Christ's resurrection.

Titles (savior, redeemer, messiah): Mithras is never referred to by any of these. In fact, messiah is a hebrew word.



Dionysus

December 25 birth: Never mentioned. Dionysus is associated with the annual return of spring.

Traveling Teacher: Said to travel to teach people about how to make wine. Never thought to be a spiritual leader like Jesus.

Triumphant Entry: Dionysus is said to have rode a donkey and with crowds waving ivy branches. The 'people' were actually maenads (http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/maenads) and satyrs (http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/satyr). Not mortal men. Also, the branches used for Jesus were palm branches, a Jewish symbol. In Genesis 49:1, the messiah is said to ride on a donkey. Genesis was written around 1400 BC, waay before Dionysus.

Water to wine: There exist stories where Dionysus fills empty vessels with wine, the act of turning water into wine does not occur. He is the God of wine so even if this really occured, it is no surprise.

Ressurection: This event has nothing else similar to Christianity, he was killed by the Titans. His rebirth is symbolic of the vegetation cycle, not the atoning of sin.

this was seriously TL;DR

but I don't need to read to understand what's going on here. Tyler will defend Jesus no matter what. He's rigged that way.

I'll bet that if time travel was possible and you could travel back and see with your own eyes that Jesus was a joke. Tyler would outright deny it and come up with an excuse.

Problem with traveling back in time if it was possible is that religion would sabotage it because they know it will reveal the truth that they have long ignored and substituted with their own make believe reality.

Even if Jesus lived he was nothing more than L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology. Just another nut with his own ideas of life.

What about the Mormons? That sh*t is messed up.

People made sh*t up not long ago. So why wouldn't they thousands of years ago? Especially when everyone was clueless of everything.

Ok, so you just proposed 6 different reasons he could have left, may I note I never hypothesized, I simply said it was a possibility, and it's still irrelevant seeing as the gospel wasn't finished by Mark or Peter.

And I said it was an impossibility. It is illogical to think that if Mark left his faith, Paul or Barnabas wouldn't tell us. In fact, if he did leave the faith, then Paul wouldn't have said he is good help and called for him.

And again, how do you know it was finished after? I showed you the ages of the apostles and showed you that they could have finished them themselves.

Well really, it's just useless to debate it, seeing as neither of us has anything they can readily present to back it up. Dead end.

Faith shouldn't be proven.

I just said that because, well, it's true isn't it?

I have never heard of Joseph ever trying to kill Jesus. And no, it isn't true. God can't be blamed for man's evils. This is really a debate within itself.

Please point out where exactly it speaks of Jesus in the present tense, and not in the general. Because from what I can tell, it speaks in the general, applying to past, present, and future.

"If he was on Earth." Call it the conditional, call it the present, it's the same conclusion. It can be called the conditional because Paul says if Jesus was on Earth, which Paul believes Jesus ascended to heaven. It does not speak in the past tense, "Had Been."

I honestly can't see why this is a hangup for you. The difference between the context of "was" and "had been" is obvious.

your dad's beating you was god's will. And frankly, something like that would deeply impact you in childhood/early adulthood, and would explain something about your personality, and why you are so religious. It's a link of psychological comfort in finding something you can take solice in, but I'm not going to go around psycho-analyzing since my opinion isn't worth much, but if it counts for anything, I believe that your dad's abuse led you to believe even stronger in god, so if I'm saying that your dad's abuse was god's will, it really might not be far off, even for you.

For the record, I became a Christian before he did such a thing.

Anyway, as said above, God cannot be held accountable for man's sin. God did not create sin.

I'm saying that their stories aren't supposed to be paralleling, but share many, many similarities in key points of their life. If you wanna use the whole Jay Adams and you thing, well I wouldn't neccesarily choose Jay Adams, but perhaps you both were inspired by the same thing to start skateboarding, that would be one similarity similar to the hero complex similarities I wrote about.

Sounds like more conjecture. Not based on fact.

They don't parallel, this is my point.

... what? Sorry don't recall those names I know I didn't say them, were those the two that ascended to heaven while they were alive? If it's not relevant to the argument then I don't know what the point was in bringing them up.

They were Enoch and Elijah. You said by Christian standards, people ascending to heaven is impossible. Yet Christians believe people did.

And that has nothing to do with what you quoted me for. Josephus and Tacitus were the extra-biblical historians before 100 AD that say Jesus existed.
Merging doublepost
Tyler will defend Jesus no matter what. He's rigged that way.

Not true at all. There wouldn't be any defending to be had if facts were used against me. Please don't sidestep the issue here either.


I seriously cannot keep making novel posts like this. Let's narrow it down to the main issues somehow.

I tried to read this thread and my brain exploded.

Wow, that was a lot of reading, and unfortunately I accidentally skipped some stuff and I'm not sure where and it's already late. So if this has already been cleared up then sorry. But it was bugging me so I have to post about it.

Mark 13:1-2 says:

"And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said unto them, 'You see all of these things, do you not? Truly I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down'"

Jesus prophesied about the temple, not his apostles... How is that not obvious?

And about Paul's not believing Jesus existed. If you were to have died a while back. I would say something like If Skateyasha was on the forum he would be debating about Jesus. Does that mean you never came to the forum? No. It means that you aren't here anymore.

And McCrank. That's not it at all. I've debated both sides of the arguement in many instances. I'm agnostic I think there's a very good chance this is all fairytale stuff. But the argument here just doesn't stand up. I'd be willing to back up Tyler's side because it's based on facts and research with knowledge, rather than just some random wild ideas based on stuff he thinks he's heard before and heard from a bunch of random people that have hardly a clue themselves.

And Tyler man, if your father really beat you, that really sucks man, I know what it's like to come from a completely screwed childhood, just felt I should say somethin...

Anyway, that's the stuff that was bugging me...

Lucky for me I am not the only religious scholar who sees though this theory. Took more time to find a website that listed all of them than anything. I may have missed some, but go wild.

Mithras: Fact to keep in mind: Roman Mithraism appeared centuries after the Hebrew Messianic Prophecies. And originally only enters recorded history by Herodotus in 440 BC.

Similarities:

Cave Birth: Jesus was not born in a cave, and Mithras came from solid rock.

Birth on December 25: Jesus was not born on December 25, but in the spring. Pagan tradition placed huge significance in the vegetative cycle. Because of this, the birth of Mithras was on this date. Christianity has no such significance with the vegetative cycle.

Tended By Shephards: The earliest account of the birth of Mithras is shows him emerging from solid rock with the help of two shephards. Fact to keep in mind: Mithras' birth was said to predate humans, but an image which originally depicted this was added later, apparently by those who didn't notice the contradiction. This picture is found in the 4th century AD.

Virgin Birth: No record of Mithra ever being born of a virgin has been found. Pictures only indicate him emerging from solid rock. (http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z236/TylerSelf/mithras_zodiac2-150x145.jpg)

12 Disciples: Mithra did not have 12 disciples, but was actually depicted as being surrounded by the 12 signs of the Zodiac (http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z236/TylerSelf/mithras_feast3-150x87.jpg). Critics only see 12 beings and assume they are disciples.

Teacher: I can find no records of Mithras ever having been a traveling teacher. It really wouldn't matter anyway because many legends speak of receiving knowledge from the gods.

Atonement of Sin: Again, no mention in any record. Mithras does sacrifice a bull to create life but there is no connection to sin.

Last Supper: Mithras is shown to be dining with Helios and his twelve Zodiac "disciples" and is claimed to have said: "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." Yet this quote was added centuries later during the middle ages and is
not even attributed to Mithras.

Ministry at age 30: No reference to age, ever.

Crucifixion: No Mithras records claim he was crucified, not even in pictures. He actually is never said to have died at all.

Holy Sunday: True only for Roman Mithraism. But considering almost every religion used Saturday or Sunday as a holy day, there was a 50/50 chance of this hitting the target and at least a 1/7 chance for the number of days in a week. Christians selected Sunday as their holy day only because it was the day of Christ's resurrection.

Titles (savior, redeemer, messiah): Mithras is never referred to by any of these. In fact, messiah is a hebrew word.



Dionysus

December 25 birth: Never mentioned. Dionysus is associated with the annual return of spring.

Traveling Teacher: Said to travel to teach people about how to make wine. Never thought to be a spiritual leader like Jesus.

Triumphant Entry: Dionysus is said to have rode a donkey and with crowds waving ivy branches. The 'people' were actually maenads (http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/maenads) and satyrs (http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/satyr). Not mortal men. Also, the branches used for Jesus were palm branches, a Jewish symbol. In Genesis 49:1, the messiah is said to ride on a donkey. Genesis was written around 1400 BC, waay before Dionysus.

Water to wine: There exist stories where Dionysus fills empty vessels with wine, the act of turning water into wine does not occur. He is the God of wine so even if this really occured, it is no surprise.

Ressurection: This event has nothing else similar to Christianity, he was killed by the Titans. His rebirth is symbolic of the vegetation cycle, not the atoning of sin.

I would seriously question your sources on this, even your church father's admit Dionysus arose from the dead and ascended into heaven, they just say that it was clearly the work of the devil, and that he imitated the prophecy, and you skipped over loads of information. P.s. my main source on most of the paganistic and folkloristic based evidence came from "The Study of Folklore" a book written by folklorologist Alan Dundes, a former professor of UC Berkeley. For some I ended up using wikipedia like Jason and Apollo, but that is my source if you'd like to read on it yourself.

And like I say, even your church fathers admit Dionysus rose from the dead, so check your sources, or stop believing your church fathers, it wouldn't be the first time they've lied (in my opinion). After all you just pick and choose what you want to believe from the bible right? Wonder how long it'll take before there's nothing left that can logically be chosen.

For the record, I became a Christian before he did such a thing.

Anyway, as said above, God cannot be held accountable for man's sin. God did not create sin.

Well, the fact that you were christian before really doesn't change things, it strengthens my suspicions, it's comforting to feel that you have someone all-knowing that cares about you, even if that's only a thought in the back of your mind, it gives you somewhere to turn when the goings get rough, sorry if I'm getting a little personal.

Also, God created everything did he not? Then god created sin. If god didn't create sin, god didn't create everything, but he certainly indirectly created sin nonetheless, since he created what was capable of sin, and shouldn't he have already known that these sins were to be played out, seeing as he's omnipotent, and knows past present and future, then god created creatures capable of sin with full knowledge they would sin, so how is that different from god creating sin? Enlighten me?

As for the novel posts, completely agree, so here's summed up what it is that I'm still after, the rest I could care less about since it has nothing to do with my original argument anyways.

Now, that passage from the book of hebrews, I didn't translate it myself, but I got it from a trusted source, however, since you're debating it, and it seems like you know what you're talking about, then by all means, it says was, not had been. But this still doesn't refute my point. Nowhere does Paul mention anything of Jesus' life, not the virgin birth (A pretty fricking huge part), the manger, performing the miracles, raising the dead, healing the sick, his entrance into jerusalem, ponce's pilate, etc... He only ever spoke of the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. Now, apparently what I thought was before, concrete evidence saying that he thought all these occured in some other realm, was well, not as concrete.

However, I still don't see how "was" implies Paul has knowledge of Jesus being on earth, or acknowledging that he was. It simply is that if he were, then he wouldn't have been a saint etc... And the fact the he doesn't mention any of what we would call Jesus' life whilst preaching about Jesus, implies that he does not have knowledge of Jesus having lived this life, and furthermore, he still never says that Jesus was ever on earth for what he preached of.

And from what I can see, I don't know if you see it differently, you still have done nothing towards defeating the whole notion that the gospels came WAY after Jesus lived and died. And that there was only word of mouth travelling in between then, primarily from Paul, who I went over above, really had very little to say on what we would call the story of Jesus. So unless you find me something that says Jesus prophecized that the temple would be destroyed at approximately 70 AD, seeing as you say Mark and Peter were not prophets, then the author of what is commonly believed to be the first gospel written, is anonymous, and the message it delivers doesn't coincide with what Paul had been preaching, because if you want to look at it like a painting let's say, Paul painted something on a 4 inch by 4 inch section of a piece of a canvas, and showed everyone, then someone came along 40 years (minimum) later and painted the rest of the canvas, added some nice borders, and hung it in an art gallery to show the world.

And like I say, even your church fathers admit Dionysus rose from the dead, so check your sources, or stop believing your church fathers, it wouldn't be the first time they've lied (in my opinion). After all you just pick and choose what you want to believe from the bible right? Wonder how long it'll take before there's nothing left that can logically be chosen.

First of all, I am not catholic. I don't have 'fathers'. The people who see these 'striking' similarities either have made up facts or stretched them, and ones who don't see through it haven't done their own research, and thus take it at face value. A half truth that mascarades as a whole truth is an untruth.

And if I missed some points, please post them. I probably did but those are what I found.

Also, God created everything did he not? Then god created sin. If god didn't create sin, god didn't create everything, but he certainly indirectly created sin nonetheless, since he created what was capable of sin, and shouldn't he have already known that these sins were to be played out, seeing as he's omnipotent, and knows past present and future, then god created creatures capable of sin with full knowledge they would sin, so how is that different from god creating sin? Enlighten me?

You don't know what sin is.

Again, this is a debate within itself and would force me to once again write novel posts that take up an hour of my time. This debate has nothing to do with Jesus existing anyway, as that is the issue. Stop throwing me red herrings.

If you want to talk about it, make a thread or use the search bar.

Now, that passage from the book of hebrews, I didn't translate it myself, but I got it from a trusted source, however, since you're debating it, and it seems like you know what you're talking about, then by all means, it says was, not had been. But this still doesn't refute my point.

Please do not say 'trusted source'. Give me the source. Look up that passage on biblegateway.com (which gives the translation of most versions of the Bible). You'll see all versions say "was" or "were".......except one. Is this your source? One translation that argues against all others?

Nowhere does Paul mention anything of Jesus' life, not the virgin birth (A pretty fricking huge part), the manger, performing the miracles, raising the dead, healing the sick, his entrance into jerusalem, ponce's pilate, etc... He only ever spoke of the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.

You seem to think Paul should have written his own gospel. He wasn't an original apostle. This was not (or, for you, he believed) was not his mission. The three things you listed were the most important things that happened in Jesus' life, and are the most important things to Christian doctrine...the defeat of death by the son of God. He undoubtedly had to know of these things since he traveled with Peter, and Mark who was a witness to a lot of it.

You shouldn't expect someone to spell it out completely for you. I said before the Bible is not as specific as you wish it to be.

However, I still don't see how "was" implies Paul has knowledge of Jesus being on earth, or acknowledging that he was.

The verse we are discussing really has nothing to do with Jesus ever having been on Earth, that is not what it explains. It is describing how Jesus would be above priests if h were on Earth. Don't take my wording and make it say something i'm not.

You only see in this verse what you want to see. Your blind to the actual message of it.

I don't know if you see it differently, you still have done nothing towards defeating the whole notion that the gospels came WAY after Jesus lived and died. And that there was only word of mouth travelling in between then, primarily from Paul,

Again...Pentecost was before Paul. The apostles probably didn't take the task of writing the gospels right after Jesus died..do you expect them to? They were more concentrated on spreading the good news the fastest way...by mouth. I showed you though the gospels were most likely written by them.

So unless you find me something that says Jesus prophecized that the temple would be destroyed at approximately 70 AD, seeing as you say Mark and Peter were not prophets, then the author of what is commonly believed to be the first gospel written, is anonymous, and the message it delivers doesn't coincide with what Paul had been preaching, because if you want to look at it like a painting let's say, Paul painted something on a 4 inch by 4 inch section of a piece of a canvas, and showed everyone, then someone came along 40 years (minimum) later and painted the rest of the canvas, added some nice borders, and hung it in an art gallery to show the world.

The gospel is not anonymous however. Mark wrote it under the direction of Peter. It is primarily Peter's story. You could almost call it the gospel of Peter. Peter died before the gospel was finished, but Mark finished it.

Mark died in 68 AD by being dragged by horses through the streets (martyred). Mark wrote the gospel before 68 AD, therefor the prophecy was circulating before the fact (in 70 AD).

Don't forget about my extra-biblical sources I posted, as those disprove your entire theory of jesus never existing themselves.

First of all, I am not catholic. I don't have 'fathers'. The people who see these 'striking' similarities either have made up facts or stretched them, and ones who don't see through it haven't done their own research, and thus take it at face value. A half truth that mascarades as a whole truth is an untruth.

And if I missed some points, please post them. I probably did but those are what I found.

tomato tomahto, if that is entirely catholic, then once again, you've just cut off a section of my argument, so why even bother.


You don't know what sin is.

Is it doing bad things (bad is really an opinion if you ask me)? Or rather, are you referring to original sin?

Please do not say 'trusted source'. Give me the source. Look up that passage on biblegateway.com (which gives the translation of most versions of the Bible). You'll see all versions say "was" or "were".......except one. Is this your source? One translation that argues against all others?

My source for that was in an interview with Brian Flemming, a renouned athiest. I wasn't bothering to say it because technically it can be seen as a source with a bias, but so is the bible, so meh.

You seem to think Paul should have written his own gospel. He wasn't an original apostle. This was not (or, for you, he believed) was not his mission. The three things you listed were the most important things that happened in Jesus' life, and are the most important things to Christian doctrine...the defeat of death by the son of God. He undoubtedly had to know of these things since he traveled with Peter, and Mark who was a witness to a lot of it.

I certainly think Paul should have at least mentioned it somewhere.

And your logic of him having traveled with the other apostles, who must have told him the story, only holds true if for fact the events of Jesus' life had ocurred, and were not made up in allegorical literature translated into the gospel. However, currently, evidence does not point towards that being the case.

You shouldn't expect someone to spell it out completely for you. I said before the Bible is not as specific as you wish it to be.

Either it can answer my question or it can't, if it can't then that's all I need.

The verse we are discussing really has nothing to do with Jesus ever having been on Earth, that is not what it explains. It is describing how Jesus would be above priests if h were on Earth. Don't take my wording and make it say something i'm not.

You only see in this verse what you want to see. Your blind to the actual message of it.

So, still, if he were on earth. You still haven't shown me anything that says he was, and from the fact that Paul never said anything about his times on earth, which we would consider pretty important in terms of fulfilling this supposed prophecy, or are you really saying that because Paul is preaching exactly what many other pagan gods did, that this of course happened.

Again...Pentecost was before Paul. The apostles probably didn't take the task of writing the gospels right after Jesus died..do you expect them to? They were more concentrated on spreading the good news the fastest way...by mouth. I showed you though the gospels were most likely written by them.

What does pentecost have to do with anything? If you want, the first celebration of Easter was in 2400 BC. And the bolded section above explains exactly why this entire statement is bogus.

Tell me, quite seriously here, if you were trying to spread a religion, how would you do it? Go door to door and ask people for a minute of their time? Sure, it's a good strategy. But what do you really do, you bring your sources with you, not just speak off the top of your head. It's ridiculous to think that anyone would travel across the land without at least writing things down along the way. You don't think they came across skeptics who said "Where's your proof of all this?" or "Where does it say that?" Don't even try to say that people would spread salvation through such an idiotic method as "I saw it with my own two eyes, so believe me!" Cause there were plenty of people saying that about plenty of saviour figures. And on top of that, how would the people converted even know what to follow? Surely they didn't remember everything that had just been told to them once by a few guys travelling around speaking off the top of their head. The apostles weren't perfect, they'd write things down as points to make sure they'd cover them.

Which brings us back quite nicely to the whole, "Why wasn't anything written about Jesus' life until A MINIMUM of 40 years after he'd lived it?"

The gospel is not anonymous however. Mark wrote it under the direction of Peter. It is primarily Peter's story. You could almost call it the gospel of Peter. Peter died before the gospel was finished, but Mark finished it.

Mark died in 68 AD by being dragged by horses through the streets (martyred). Mark wrote the gospel before 68 AD, therefor the prophecy was circulating before the fact (in 70 AD).

Mark and Peter were apparently writing a gospel in the last stages of their life, but the temple is known to have fallen precisely in 70 AD, 2 years after Mark was martyred. Furthermore, what prophecy? Who said it? You already said Mark and Peter weren't prophets, I think you said Jesus said it, and never gave a date. So then why would they write about it if they didn't know the date? I can say that your house is going to be destroyed, and I'm certainly correct in saying that, but it could be decades, potentially even centuries before it happens. Am I a prophet? No, just a guy who realizes that a building has to fall down at some time. And even if Jesus did foresee this and prophecized it (which I'd like to see a verse or something claiming he did), political unrest toppled a lot of temples and synagogues at the time, what makes this one so special? The gospel clearly mentions it, any notion of there being an accurate prophecy within a general time is out the window, therefore someone finished the gospel at some point in time after the temple was destroyed, and was free to edit it as they liked.

I find it interesting that events such as the temple falling or say, Jesus' lifetime can be pinpointed to exact years, but there's no record of when the first gospel was released, or for that matter which gospel even came first, though I'm not trying to say it wasn't Mark, I'm just saying that I find it funny how people record all these events to the T, and then forget to note something as important as THE WORD OF YOUR LORD BEING WRITTEN DOWN FOR ALL TO SEE.

Don't forget about my extra-biblical sources I posted, as those disprove your entire theory of jesus never existing themselves.

Which sources were those? Sorry, I didn't really look through your sources with too much detail. Just pasting the links is fine, no need to explain what they're pertaining to, I'm sure I'll see.