Evidence for the Bible / God

[spud_meister]

Splitting hairs. Tiny details only reflect the individual myths. The overall themes are the same.

In all the myths, we have godmen who are born of virgins. They are half man - half god, just as in the Jesus story. They lead exemplary lives. They stand up for the downtrodden - and eventually - they are all killed. But, that does not stop them - they spend some time in the underworld before rising again.

Many pagan myths feature eating the dead godman. That played a strong and vital role in "internalizing" the myth. The blood and body of the Christ is signified by wine and bread, but the myth remains on course. Even today, the RCC insists on the doctrine of transubstantiation, meaning the wine and wafer really do turn to Christ's blood and flesh in the tummy.

Interesting, no?

Dionysus's mum was ****ed by Zeus, so not a virgin. Mithra was born of the earth, and we know the earth is a whore. And Osiris was the offspring of the god Geb, and the goddess Nut. No virgins. Dionysus was killed as an infant, and brought back to life almost immediately by Zeus. I can't find anything about Mithra being reborn that comes from an independent source. And Osiris didn't go to the underworld, being as he's the god of the underworld and all, he was simply chopped into pieces and brought back to life when his sister made him like a jigsaw and ****ed him. None led "exemplary lives", and only Dionysus interacted with mortals directly, one example he filled a boat with snakes and vines and drove everyone on it mad.

There are vague parallels, but none of the stories "closely follow" each other.

 

[spud_meister]

That makes no difference. The prophecy insists that he be born of the house of David, and as genealogy was only traced through males, the genealogy in Matthew links him to the house of David. Unfortunately, it also passes through Jechoniah.

Christ was basically adopted. He was the legal son and heir of Joseph, but not his biological son. You cannot accept Matthews narrative on Christ's genealogy without accepting his narrative on Christ's paternity.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Dionysus's mum was ****ed by Zeus, so not a virgin. Mithra was born of the earth, and we know the earth is a whore. And Osiris was the offspring of the god Geb, and the goddess Nut. No virgins.

Likewise, if we're going to accept that terminology - Mary was ****ed by the Holy Spirit - or - by God. Same thing. Just not ****ed by human males.

Dionysus was killed as an infant, and brought back to life almost immediately by Zeus. I can't find anything about Mithra being reborn that comes from an independent source. And Osiris didn't go to the underworld, being as he's the god of the underworld and all, he was simply chopped into pieces and brought back to life when his sister made him like a jigsaw and ****ed him. None led "exemplary lives", and only Dionysus interacted with mortals directly, one example he filled a boat with snakes and vines and drove everyone on it mad.

There are vague parallels, but none of the stories "closely follow" each other.

You're grasping at straws. The parallels are far from vague. They follow pagan tradition.

Try this site. It seems to be a decent accounting of all the similarities.

The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors Index

 

[HowardBThiname]

Christ was basically adopted. He was the legal son and heir of Joseph, but not his biological son. You cannot accept Matthews narrative on Christ's genealogy without accepting his narrative on Christ's paternity.

Yes, he was adopted, but his genealogy was vital to the messianic prophecies.

 

[spud_meister]

Likewise, if we're going to accept that terminology - Mary was ****ed by the Holy Spirit - or - by God. Same thing. Just not ****ed by human males.

Mary was magically impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Zeus took physical form and had literal sex with Semele.

You're grasping at straws. The parallels are far from vague. They follow pagan tradition.

Try this site. It seems to be a decent accounting of all the similarities.

The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors Index

Grasping at straws? The parallels are vague. You cite Dionysus as an example of a god born as a son of a god that came back from the dead. That is true, but the details of the story vary widely from that of Christ's. Same with Osiris and Mithra. There's vague thematic similarities, but the details are completely different. Not to mention that in the 2000 years since Christ, the various sources of these myths can be corrupted, misinterpreted and changed. In your link, one of the sources for comparing Zoroaster to Christ is a 19th century English soldier.

 

[spud_meister]

Yes, he was adopted, but his genealogy was vital to the messianic prophecies.

Yes. He was of the House of David, as the adopted son of Joseph, but he was not related by blood to Jechoniah.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Yes. He was of the House of David, as the adopted son of Joseph, but he was not related by blood to Jechoniah.

So, are you saying Jesus did not fulfill the prophesy?

 

[zyzygy]

So, are you saying Jesus did not fulfill the prophesy?

In the fictional story, yes.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Mary was magically impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Zeus took physical form and had literal sex with Semele.

Magic - superstition - mythology. No real differences between them. They all exist in the world of the incredulous.

Grasping at straws? The parallels are vague. You cite Dionysus as an example of a god born as a son of a god that came back from the dead. That is true, but the details of the story vary widely from that of Christ's. Same with Osiris and Mithra. There's vague thematic similarities, but the details are completely different. Not to mention that in the 2000 years since Christ, the various sources of these myths can be corrupted, misinterpreted and changed. In your link, one of the sources for comparing Zoroaster to Christ is a 19th century English soldier.

You obviously did not peruse the link. The Jesus myth follows the pattern of many other earlier pagan myths. Of course the stories are going to vary - if they were identical - no one would need the new story. It's the ideas that underlie the stories that run common to pagan beliefs. You haven't commented on cannibalizing the dead godman - either literally or as Christians now do it - symbolically. Why do you think more than one of these godmen enter around the winter solstice, when the days become longer and the "light" reenters the world? Why do they die around Easter, the time pagans held fertility rituals. Even the word, "Easter" has pagan origins. And, eggs and bunnies? All pagan.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Evidence for the Bible / God

Critics claim there is no evidence for God or the Bible / New Testament. Many scholars have been refuting that idea for centuries, noting archaeological evidence, fulfilled Messianic prophecies, and so on.

This thread is for debate on those issues.

p.s. This thread is being created again because we can't argue for the existence or non-existence of God in the religion forum. Here in the philosophy forum we can.

That's not really how this works. If you want to make a positive claim, ie: god is Jesus/Yahweh, you have to provide evidence. Evidence that people or places in the bible existed are not evidence of divinity. Please provide evidence that the christian god exists and is the one true god.

 

[Logicman]

The gospels/epistles are religious documents. What I am saying is that no historians that lived in the time and region of Jesus, ever noted that there was a man who was causing quite a stir among the Jews. These historian make note of many others who lived in that time, others who are mentioned in the religious documents, but there is no outside contemporary evidence that makes any sort of mention of any son of God.

That's an argument from silence. Throw the historical Gospels, etc., under the bus and then claim there's no one credible who mentioned Jesus. What, the Gospel and Epistle writers were all a part of a grand conspiracy to make Jesus up? Good luck on making that case.

The story of Jesus closely follows the earlier accounts of Dionysos and Mithras. And, to some extent, Osiris.

Nope. Let's take Mithra for instance:

“ We do know that Mithraism, like its mystery competitors, had a basic myth. Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a Phrygian cap. He battled first with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithra slew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.” Nash and other scholars are unanimous in their conclusions that the so-called “similarities” between Mithra and Christ are not found prior to the advent of Christianity and the birth of Jesus. It was only after Christianity became established that pagan influences merged with and borrowed from Christianity to come up with the alleged similarities with Jesus Christ. - Scholar Ron Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World

 

[Logicman]

In addition, the person named Jesus in the Bible descends through the cursed king, Jeconiah. God's curse was that NO descendant of Jeconiah could ever sit on the throne of Israel.

That right there bumps Jesus out of the running.

Nope.

Numerous places in Judaic literature note that the curse on Jeconiah was annulled:

Jewish Encyclopedia

Jehoiachin's sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii.30; Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b): he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).

--Louis Ginzberg, "Jehoiachin," vol. 7 p. 84.


Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg, on Jeremiah 22:30 (20th c.)

In this, too, no man of his seed shall prosper, namely that no one will occupy the throne of David nor rule in Judah. Although we find that Zerubbabel, his great grandson, did rule over Judah upon the return of the exiles, the Rabbis (Pesikta d'Rav Kahana p. 163a) state that this was because Jehoiachin repented while in prison. They state further: Repentance is great, for it nullifies a person's sentence, as it is stated: 'Inscribe this man childless.' But since he repented, his sentence was revoked and turned to the good, and he said to him, "I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you a signet" (Haggai 2:23). They state further: Said Rabbi Johanan: Exile expiates all sins, as it is said: "Inscribe this man childless," and after he was exiled, it is written: '(1 Chron. 3:17) And the sons of Jeconiah, Assir, Shealtiel his son'--[Redak].

--A. J. Rosenberg, Jeremiah: A New English Translation (New York: Judaica Press, 1985), vol. 1 p. 185. "Redak" is an acronym for Rabbi David Kimchi (13th c.), whose opinion Rosenberg cites.

Many more examples in the following link:

The Problem of the Curse on Jeconiah in Relation to the Genealogy of Jesus - Prophecy - Answers - Jews for Jesus

 

[Logicman]

Why do they die around Easter, the time pagans held fertility rituals. Even the word, "Easter" has pagan origins. And, eggs and bunnies? All pagan.

Easter isn't mentioned in the Bible.

 

[RAMOSS]

For some odd reason, I can't find OrphanSlug's comments - maybe my settings or something - but it bears note that not all the prophecies were fulfilled. In addition, the person named Jesus in the Bible descends through the cursed king, Jeconiah. God's curse was that NO descendant of Jeconiah could ever sit on the throne of Israel.

That right there bumps Jesus out of the running.

The fact that the whole messiah thing is through an unbroken male line from David, and allegedly Jesus had no earthly father bumps him out of the contention anyway.

 

[Somerville]

Yes, it is.



Sorry, not buying it. According to the opinions of dozens of scholars the Gospels and Epistles are all first century.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

"dozens of Christian scholars" who approach their studies with presumptions which accord with their religious beliefs.

There is also the problem that your linked site is one which sees only one style of Christian belief, what is generally know as fundamentalism, though I believe they prefer to call themselves "evangelical". The 'scholars' providing the dates for the various books of the New Testament seem to be saying that 13 of the Epistles were written by Paul though the general consensus is that he only wrote seven of the books. Here's a link to one scholar's thoughts - The Deutero-Pauline Letters

 

[Logicman]

"dozens of Christian scholars" who approach their studies with presumptions which accord with their religious beliefs.

As opposed to scores of biased skeptics and Christ-deniers with their suspect agenda.

There is also the problem that your linked site is one which sees only one style of Christian belief, what is generally know as fundamentalism, though I believe they prefer to call themselves "evangelical". The 'scholars' providing the dates for the various books of the New Testament seem to be saying that 13 of the Epistles were written by Paul though the general consensus is that he only wrote seven of the books. Here's a link to one scholar's thoughts - The Deutero-Pauline Letters

I wouldn't spend any time buying into their folly.

 

[ciarli]

The evidence for the Earth you must say!
The days are passing by and the testaments of good people are becoming more and more dubious. The awaited mesia is only the big impostor so called 'Deghal' in the other religion of the other good man of Islam. He will born in Syria, the God has forbidden his birth in Arabia cause is a vice of demons to rise in the light but has allowed his born in the Syria the ex-big center of Khalifat because they are all unbelievers almost, but beggars and sinners. Even the Satan is like a child before the lies of coming mesia.

 

[zyzygy]

The evidence for the Earth you must say!
The days are passing by and the testaments of good people are becoming more and more dubious. The awaited mesia is only the big impostor so called 'Deghal' in the other religion of the other good man of Islam. He will born in Syria, the God has forbidden his birth in Arabia cause is a vice of demons to rise in the light but has allowed his born in the Syria the ex-big center of Khalifat because they are all unbelievers almost, but beggars and sinners. Even the Satan is like a child before the lies of coming mesia.

Where is your evidence?

 

[Somerville]

As opposed to scores of biased skeptics and Christ-deniers with their suspect agenda.



I wouldn't spend any time buying into their folly.

Actual historians try not to allow their biases and personal views affect their research. They begin with: here is what we have, how do we show that this information is valid? A graduate level course I took focused on how historians have allowed personal bias to affect the tales they told and how new historians must learn to acknowledge and account for those personal feelings in regards to controversial/debateable subjects.

It's funny that you refuse to buy into "their folly" when the link I provided was written by a man with a PhD in the subject, unlike many of the 'scholars' you cite with their 'doctoral' degrees in unrelated fields, from various seminaries whose sole purpose is the creation of evangelical preachers

 

[Logicman]

Actual historians try not to allow their biases and personal views affect their research. They begin with: here is what we have, how do we show that this information is valid? A graduate level course I took focused on how historians have allowed personal bias to affect the tales they told and how new historians must learn to acknowledge and account for those personal feelings in regards to controversial/debateable subjects.

But Christian historians are corrupt?

It's funny that you refuse to buy into "their folly" when the link I provided was written by a man with a PhD in the subject, unlike many of the 'scholars' you cite with their 'doctoral' degrees in unrelated fields, from various seminaries whose sole purpose is the creation of evangelical preachers

Well, it's going to be a real humbling day for all those Ph.d.'s you like when they finally meet their Maker and have to eat crow.

 

[RAMOSS]

"dozens of Christian scholars" who approach their studies with presumptions which accord with their religious beliefs.

There is also the problem that your linked site is one which sees only one style of Christian belief, what is generally know as fundamentalism, though I believe they prefer to call themselves "evangelical". The 'scholars' providing the dates for the various books of the New Testament seem to be saying that 13 of the Epistles were written by Paul though the general consensus is that he only wrote seven of the books. Here's a link to one scholar's thoughts - The Deutero-Pauline Letters

did you also notice that it was just a list, and then a claim about what a specific person said, rather than looking at WHY they said that, and WHEN they said that?

 

[Somerville]

But Christian historians are corrupt?



Well, it's going to be a real humbling day for all those Ph.d.'s you like when they finally meet their Maker and have to eat crow.

Yeah, it will be interesting. The link I provided was a page written by a Jesuit priest.

 

[Logicman]

Yeah, it will be interesting. The link I provided was a page written by a Jesuit priest.

Why don't you really respect his intellect then and receive Christ as your Savior?

 

[Logicman]

"dozens of Christian scholars" who approach their studies with presumptions which accord with their religious beliefs.

There is also the problem that your linked site is one which sees only one style of Christian belief, what is generally know as fundamentalism, though I believe they prefer to call themselves "evangelical". The 'scholars' providing the dates for the various books of the New Testament seem to be saying that 13 of the Epistles were written by Paul though the general consensus is that he only wrote seven of the books. Here's a link to one scholar's thoughts - The Deutero-Pauline Letters

I think the "scholar" you cite needs to go back to the seminary and start over.

From the general website you provided above:

Re. The Resurrection

(Outline below by...) Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.

B) Biblical Background of Belief in the Resurrection:
⦁ Earliest Stages in OT: No belief in life after death whatsoever; life simply ceases to exist:

Resurrection in the New Testament

Really? Your Ph.d. scholar really believes that? Evidently he missed some very important teachings and scriptures, to wit:

Psalm 23:6 - "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever."

Then there's Daniel 12:2 - "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."

And if you want to go back to the Torah, there's this, as explained by Jesus (God), from Matthew 22 (speaking about Exodus 3:6):

That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?" Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

And there's more examples of his sloppy scholarship in that website but I'll rest with that.

So, your "scholar" has a few fleas. Beware!

 

[Somerville]

I so love those who quote mine in an always vain attempt to 'prove' their earlier statements

Yes, Father Just does write:

Earliest Stages in OT: No belief in life after death whatsoever; life simply ceases to exist:

however, he follows up with these words:

Middle Stages in OT: Belief in a general resuscitation or reanimation of many of the dead, or the whole nation, to a renewed life on earth:
<snip>
Latest Stages in OT: Beginning beliefs in continued life after death and/or resurrection from the dead for individuals:

I understand that it is difficult for the absolutist mind, but the Jesuit is doing nothing more than providing an outline for the growth and changes of the mono-theistic Judeo Christian religion. Judaism was not monotheistic from its origination but only gradually changed over a several centuries from its Canaanite origins.