CrowCross
Well-known member
Your simple unsupported statement...isn't quite enough.
The many gods from which Jesus arises?
- Thread starter SteveB
- Start date
SteveB
Well-known member
Actually, I have been looking at the evidence.
The evidence contained within the pages of the bible, which describes the process by which we can learn and know for ourselves.
It's quite interesting. Definitely FAR more interesting than your lack of knowledge and awareness.
Having read, and continuing to read the bible, I learn that by doing the things described therein, YHVH says that he will make himself knowable to us, and engage us in a manner that is unmistakable, and irrefutable.
It really is exactly why I keep telling you that you literally are full of BS; well, actually, in biblical parlance, you're full of yourself, and have no idea what you're talking about.
Of course you don't! It would require you to stop talking about what you believe you know, and learn what apparently scares you to learn and know.
Sure you are. The fact that you are continuing to spend not just weeks or months telling us your opinions, but years doing so, is demonstrative proof that you don't actually want to know the truth.
It's definitive proof that you are afraid to take the time to learn the truth.
You continue to claim that I believe things that others told me in childhood, with absolutely nothing but your completely uninformed belief. Which is exactly what blind faith is.
You continue to claim that I assume things, with nothing to base your opinion on, except your uninformed belief. Which is exactly what blind faith consists of.
The why is simple.
And has been explained to you, repeatedly, over and over and over and over and over and over ...... again.
Your ongoing "I'm just expressing my opinions ...." routine demonstrates that you're frightened by the fact that you have to take personal responsibility and engage him on his terms for you to learn the truth.
Especially in light of the fact that YHVH has explicitly stated that he is searching throughout the whole world looking for people to whom he can demonstrate himself strong on their behalf.
He's ready, able and willing to take you on, and engage you, and your "issues" regarding the truth.
He already has been. Since your childhood.
According to His own words,
He's given you witness by the life you have,
Act 14:17 WEB Yet he didn’t leave himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you rains from the sky and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”
he's given you witness in the heavens,
Psa 19:1-4 WEB 1 The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows his handiwork. 2 Day after day they pour out speech, and night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice has gone out through all the earth, their words to the end of the world.
He's given you the opportunity to engage him and made it simple enough for a child to understand.
Rom 1:19 WEB because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them.
So, yeah.... everything you need is already provided to you. It's now incumbent on you to respond to him.
Jesus said,
He that asks, shall receive.
He that seek, shall find.
He that knocks, to him shall the door be opened.
It's curious that the acronym of this point is
A.S.K.
That doesn't mean that he's going to force you to bow.
He's inviting you to come. It's an actual invitation.
The most likely scenario in the smallness of your finite awareness.
As it's written,
There is a way that makes sense to a man, but the end result is death.
Okee dokee artichokee!
If death is really what you want, death is what you'll receive.
Not because that's what YHVH wants for you, but because you refuse to come so he can give you life, in exchange for the death you are clinging to so assiduously.
?
Dragging ops off topic, and into the weeds kicking and screaming is the only thing atheists have to make them feel intellectually superior.
The OP still stands, regardless of how much, how far, and how hard you try to sidetrack it.
I've learned over the past 20+ years how to wander along the rabbit trail that atheists feel better about, and not get lost in the weeds. It's been an interesting experience.
But, to help you resolve this dilemma of yours, here's a reminder.
It’s often claimed that the story of Jesus was plagiarized or adopted from pagan deities. That the ideas of his virgin birth, his baptism, his gathering of disciples, his miracle working, his title as the son of god, his death and his resurrection are ideas that were taken from pre-Christ pagan myths and mishmashed together to give us the unoriginal and recycled story of another dying and rising saviour-figure: Jesus Christ.
Zeitgeist, Religulous, and other such films and books have popularized this idea, which has since then become a favourite talking point of skeptics in the blogosphere. I personally have seen this point brought up so many times it is hard to keep track, with the same sensationalist memes being recycled around the internet:
The article is much more involved. You really should read it. You'd be surprised by what you will learn when learning becomes your goal.
You have presented me with what Christians have said to resolve the issue. The best your so-called "biblical scholars" could offer in the way of reasoning is their flawed "there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,”" nonsense
When you offer a proven answer, we will see how "the anti-bible sect" react. So far I have only seen you present with flaws so big it is a wonder if you cannot see them.
SteveB
Well-known member
What is "proven" in your way of thinking?
Lucian
Well-known member
You're free to consult relevant lexica if you don't believe me, of course; the Josephus usage I had in mind was Jewish Antiquities XI. 312.
Right, because you were conditioned as a kid to think the bible is true, so naturally you assume it is.
I do not.
It is interesting that you are unable to counter what I actually said. It is your OP. How about you address the topic of the OP. For example, why should we think the virgin birth was real, and not imported from pagan ideas?
I will skip your usual diatribe, just noting that as usual you give absolutely no reason why you think the Bible is true, until we do get somewhat back on topic.
So why is so much of YOUR post off-topic, Steve?
Look at my first post. It is on-topic. I came to this thread to discuss the thread topic. Trust me, I really do not need to drag it off-topic to feel intellectually superior to you.
And my response to it still stands.
Here is a reminder of my response.
I think it most likely Jesus was real and was crucified, and the the disciples believed they had seen him resurrected, but pagan influences certainly started to work themselves into the story after that.
The virgin birth is a great example. The Jewish Christians did not believe that, they needed Jesus to be a direct male-line descendant of David - hence two genealogies that supposedly show that. The gentile Christians borrowed a virgin birth from other gods, and added it to the existing mythology, to make Jesus more divine.
Resurrection was what the Jews expected, but they expected to be resurrected in new bodies that shine like the stars - like Paul saw. The pagan influence here may have helped change that into resurrection in the original body, as Luke and John recount.
The virgin birth is a great example. The Jewish Christians did not believe that, they needed Jesus to be a direct male-line descendant of David - hence two genealogies that supposedly show that. The gentile Christians borrowed a virgin birth from other gods, and added it to the existing mythology, to make Jesus more divine.
Resurrection was what the Jews expected, but they expected to be resurrected in new bodies that shine like the stars - like Paul saw. The pagan influence here may have helped change that into resurrection in the original body, as Luke and John recount.
I do now realise I should have said miraculous birth, rather than virgin birth. Every pagan god worth his salt had to have a miraculous birth, so of course Jesus did too. That said, some examples of claimed virgin births: Alexander the Great, Romulus and Remus, Ra, Hephaestus and Perseus.
As for your article (which notably does not mention Alexander the Great, Romulus and Remus, Ra, Hephaestus or Perseus), it concludes:
The crucifixion of Jesus is a real event that occurred to a real person, making pre-Christ stories of a dying deity of no value to the origin of the belief in the crucifixion of Jesus in the first century. The belief originated because the event really happened, not because early Jews heard pagan stories through the grapevine.
I agree. But that does not make the whole story true, it only makes that bit of it true. And it does not make the virgin birth true, and it does not tell us the virgin birth was not made up following the influences of pagan religions.
A further comment
The web page linked in the OP has an image with seven attributes of Jesus that they are comparing again pagan gods.
- Born of a virgin
- Born on December 25
- Star in the east
- Had 12 disciples
- Performed miralces
- Dead for 3 days
- Resurrected
Born on December 25 is a guess, based on the assumption that Jesus was around for an exact number of years. That is to say, he was conceived on the same day of the year as he died. Someone did some calculations, based on his best guess of when Jesus was crucified, and 25 December is nine months later. So no pagan influence, but hardly something that lends credibility to the gospels.
The star in the east is also not pagan, it is from the OT. It likely never happened, but the author of Matthew assumed it had because the OT said it would. The verse in question is likely Numbers 24:17.
The twelve disciples presumably comes from the twelve tribes of the Israelites. That said, that was likely Jesus motivation for picking twelve. This one is probably true!
Any prophet of the time performed miracles. All the OT prophets did, and pagan prophets were no different. Nothing special here, though worth noting it is what prophets do, not gods.
That Jesus was raised on the third day is again from the OT, Hosea 6:2. As Paul says, "he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures". When Paul was writing the empty tomb and those appearances in Jerusalem had yet to be invented. Christians assumed Jesus rose on the third day because the OT said he would.
Most - but all - Jews believed in the resurrection of dead, so again not something unique to Christianity.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Again....Your simple unsupported statement...isn't quite enough.
Lucian
Well-known member
Again…. You're free to consult relevant lexica if you don't believe me, of course; the Josephus usage I had in mind was Jewish Antiquities XI. 312.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
What nonsense. Christians did not ASSUME He rose on the third day. At least four Christians, John, Peter and the two Marys, saw the empty tomb three days after He died and therefore KNEW He rose on the third day.
Sure, if you just assume the Bible is true. I do not.
I think the empty tomb was made up some time after AD 50, the women finding the tomb a bit later, maybe by Mark ca. AD 70, and the disciples finding it was made up later still. The whole first Easter Sunday was made up. The disciples certainly believed they had seen the risen Jesus, but in Galilee some time later.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Then you are ignorant since thousands worshiped the risen Lord between 30 AD and 50 AD.
Yeah, right. We are supposed to discount the testimony of four contemporaries from Palestine of Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, assuming they are all liars, while taking the uninformed word of a biased Brit 2000 years after the fact, with no evidence whatsoever to back up his accusations.
SteveB
Well-known member
Obviously you are assuming.
You're assuming that under no circumstances whatsoever, regardless of how much evidence you are given, will you ever actually do what Jesus said, so you can learn for yourself, that the bible is true.
You're further assuming that I assume anything I learned as a child, is true.
Providing evidence.... indeed, copious amounts of evidence, that your beliefs are one twisted, and incoherent collection of assumptions.
The existence and bodily resurrection of Jesus.
None of this could happen, if the resurrection didn't happen.
According to the bible, sin, and our parent's natures pass through the lineage of the biological father, of each generation. This is part of what I'd described in my two ops-- sin nature, and new birth/nature.
Thus, YHVH impregnated Mary, so His nature was necessary to become human, in his Son. Only through being born of a virgin could this take place. It was imperative that the nature of the Father be in the Son.
Only through this was a sinless life possible, while the temptations/experiences of the human being be present.
Furthermore, without the deity of the Father's nature, in the Son, sin could not be paid for, and the penalty satisfied.
As the religious leaders of Jesus' day said--- only God can forgive sin.
And I will recognize and acknowledge your absolute terror to be faced with the idea that it's possible to actually KNOW the bible is true, through action, and response through doing what the bible says.
So, congratulations! You're doing a bang-up job of showing how utterly terrified you are of this fact.
Well, looking at your standard practice and posts, it's obvious why.
It was clearly explained.
You dismissed everything you don't like. Once you do that, you've dragged it off topic.
And your response is still based on your own bias, and assumptions.
Sounds like you need something that is not true, to be true, so you can dismiss the gospel of Jesus.
So, why do you think that is the case?
Do you think it has something to do with the fact that you're clearly believing what others are telling you, instead of doing your own investigation, through doing what Jesus said?
Let's take a trip down your time travel lane, since you love fiction and fantasy so much.
You know, one of those Hollywood documentaries.
Let's say I heard from several other people about a decade ago that there's a guy named The Pixie, and actually is a pixie, and likes playing mind games with people, and is more like a leprechaun, and in this, is completely unreliable as a conversationalist.
Do you think I should believe them, without actually investigating for myself, and engaging that Pixie, or would it be more reasonable to take into account what they say/show about themselves, in their interactions with me?
I ask, because the manner you're handling Jesus, you'd want me to take what your antagonists are telling me about you and ignore what you say/show me in our interactions.
Which way do you think is more beneficial?
You're going to have to show me the evidence of this.
Jesus can't be Israel's Messiah if he's not the Son of David. This is in the text of the book of Samuel, Psalms, and Isaiah.
So, I'd say that this claim of yours is yet one of those pagan influences, you'd prefer to believe.
Same with the pagan influence of the virgin birth you'd rather believe.
The article is pretty clear that there are no pagan stories that predate Jesus which a virgin birth occurs.
Plenty which pop up after the fact. And their timing is what's suspicious.
And?
Sounds like you need the truth to be other than what it is.
Yet another one of those--- pagan influences, to give you permission to ignore taking the time to engage him, for yourself.
This really is a simple matter.
But, again..... shall I believe everything others, who are antagonistic towards you, tell me about you?
After all, if you can do it with others, why shouldn't i do it with you?
?
Well, children born of virgins are indeed miraculous.
And this simply shows me that you didn't actually read the article, and that I should treat you like the Pixie I was previously warned about, who is entirely leprechaun-ish in your actions.
Demonstrating yourself entirely unreliable.
Then show the evidence.
I've already provided you with an academically sourced article that shows they were not.
But, hey. You are after all a leprechaun and therefore given to flights of fancy and delusion, seeking to delude others.
Of course not.
This would require you to be honest, but your actions continue to demonstrate everything except honesty.
Thank you for clarifying.
SteveB
Well-known member
Only a couple hundred plus years after the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
So, he was crucified and then born 9 months later, on December 25th...
?
Interesting...
So, first he died, and then 9 months later he was born.
??
Thank you. This is an excellent example of my recognizing your being a leprechaun.
FWIW, when Jesus was born isn't an issue for Jesus followers. When he died on the other hand is of humongous importance!
Actually, according to 1 Chronicles 24, David defined a 24 period cycle of the priesthood service calendar.
The period of Abijah was the 8th.
Zechariah, John the Baptist's father, was a levite, and his lineage was in the lineage of Abijah. This actually is tied to the Jewish calendar. It's pretty well defined in Jewish culture.
Abijah served his period, and based on the comment of Gabriel, he wound up having a son 9 months later.
In the 6th month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary hears about it and learns she is pregnant with Jesus.
So, 15 months after Zechariah's service, Jesus is born.
Just when do you think that period of service took place?
There are two options.
1- those periods of service are broken into two, one week periods.
2- they're broken into one two week period of service.
The twenty four periods make up the whole year. So, 12 months, 2 periods per month.
The Jewish calendar starts with the Jewish month of Nisan. It's date varies year to year (comparing it to the Julian calendar). Furthermore, the Jewish calendar is a 360 day year. Not the 365 day year, with the leap year.
I suppose if you're really motivated, you can use the Julian calendar, and the Jewish calendar, and work backwards.
That year, the year would have started in either March or April.
I recall reading years ago that Jesus entered Jerusalem on March 6th... but, that's the week leading up to his death (Palm Sunday), not his birth.
Depending on which is used, December 25th is the result.
You're more than welcome to do your own research. I actually want you to.
So, don't disappoint me. Your ongoing desperation at forcing paganism in order to make sure you spend your eternity in the lake of fire is getting old. Actually, it's been old from the get go.
Your longstanding practice of playing leprechaun is hurting you. Regardless of what you want to believe.
Curious how you work what suits, and doesn't suit you.
Well, just as long as you PRESUME it, the truth doesn't matter then does it!
??
Ok.... apparently nobody ever told you...
Biblical christianity.... it's based entirely on the Jewish bible.
If Jesus isn't the Jewish Messiah (biblically speaking), he CANNOT be the Savior of the world.
I cannot overemphasize this enough for you.
We believe that Jesus saves us from our sin explicitly because he fulfilled the Jewish prophecies regarding the Messiah.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Again....Your simple unsupported statement...isn't quite enough.
Lucian
Well-known member
Again…. You're free to consult relevant lexica if you don't believe me, of course; the Josephus usage I had in mind was Jewish Antiquities XI. 312.
Beyond this, I don't know what else you want from me.
CrowCross
Well-known member
I don't need anything else from you. Your point was broken. No need to proceed.
Sure, based on the fact that that ids the case for the vast majority of theists, whatever their religion, and the fact that you are unable to say why you think the Bible is true.
No I am not. You give me the evidence that the Bible is true, and we can see what I will do with it. But just quoting Bible verses that assume the Bible is true is never going to persuade it is true.
No, I am just saying that of Christianity.
How does that prove the virgin birth? Are you saying this is an all-or-nothing deal? Either it is all true, or none of it is?
Why? Who decided that?
Do you think sex between a loving married couple is sinful?
And an all-powerful god could only do that through virgin birth?
And an all-powerful god could only do that through virgin birth? Why is that?
So just like you then Steve.
Except that when challenged I can justify my assumptions with reasons that do not themselves rely on those same assumptions.
You should look at the evidence. If he makes a claim, does he back it up it with reason and evidence - like I did at the start of this OP?
Or does he just continue to assert that his own assumptions are true, and his only rationale for believing those assumptions are in turn based on those same assumptions? You know, like you do?
Not sure what you are saying here Steve.
I earlier said:
Your second sentence there is pretty much agreeing with me, that Jewish Christians needed Jesus to be a direct male-line descendant of David.
You are aware of how sex works, right? If it was a virgin birth, Jesus was not a direct male-line descendant of David..
Actually the article only states that three specific gods did not have virgin births - Mithra, Dionysus and, Horus.
It is interesting that image at the top mentions five gods, but they only address whether those three had virgin births. They omit Attis, who did indeed have a virgin birth. Other examples that I informed you about are Alexander the Great, Romulus and Remus, Ra, Hephaestus and Perseus.
You missed my point - pagans needed their gods to have miraculous births, and virgin births are just one example of that.
Talk me through the reasoning here Steve. What have I not read in the article do you think?
What I did see was a header that listed five gods that people claim are like Jesus, and that the article was supposed to refute, and yet it only actually addressed three of them. Did YOU notice that Steve?
You you did not. You provided an article that showed that Mithra, Dionysus and Horus did not have a virgin birth.
There is nothing about Alexander the Great, Romulus and Remus, Ra, Hephaestus and Perseus in the article.
Hmm, it is almost as though you have no read the article yourself... Surely not!
Well I am not the one pretending to have read the article...
What are you blathering about here, Steve?
I earlier said:
Are you actively trying to twist what I say, or is this just bad reading ability on your part Steve?
The story is that Jesus was conceived and died on 25th March. But in different years. This is not rocket science, and frankly is not something you should get worked up about; it is not like the Bible says it was 25th of December Jesus was born on.
Right, so why are you getting all upset when I tell you how Christians settled on 25th of December?
What is your point Steve? Do you think I am wrong? If so, have the honesty to make that clear.
And again: What is your point Steve? Do you think I am wrong? If so, have the honesty to make that clear.
And if the virgin birth is true, Jesus is not a direct male-line descendant of David, and cannot therefore be the messiah.
So Steve, which is it to be? Virgin birth or messiahship?
Lucian
Well-known member
How so?