zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Feb 4, 2017 18:12:38 GMT
he's just a cheap amalgamation of other, older mythological characters like Heracles, Asklepios, Mithra, Tyana of Apollonius, Buddha, Krishna, and Horus.
he's plagiarized. your faith in him is plagiarized.
|
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 5, 2017 1:46:06 GMT
he's just a cheap amalgamation of other, older mythological characters like Heracles, Asklepios, Mithra, Tyana of Apollonius, Buddha, Krishna, and Horus. he's plagiarized. your faith in him is plagiarized. Many think that, but it's not actually true. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 3:07:26 GMT
Absolutely, obviously, laughably true.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
 
|
Post by filmfan95 on Feb 8, 2017 5:02:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 8, 2017 8:38:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 12:04:14 GMT
that link proves only that it itself is fallacious, and thus to be dismissed as such.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 8, 2017 15:04:58 GMT
I don't think the linked article is that bad. Actually a lot of its arguments are good. Jesus' similarities to the dying and rising gods are nowhere near as strong as the OP is making out. Even mythicists such as Richard Carrier do not argue that there was nothing original about the Jesus story, only that it does partake of many of the motifs of the dying and rising god. Bart Ehrman points out that even Carrier's conclusions are a bit of a stretch.
The linked article does make a few poor arguments though:
Most of the authors of the NT are disputed and little is known about them. Tradition says many of them went to their deaths, but there is nothing to verify this. Also what documents are being compared to the NT exactly? Tacitus' works certainly have more verification than the NT for instance.
Not so. Cargo Cults and Rastafarianism developed mythology around figures who were still alive.
The problem with this is it requires Acts to be reliable in the first place. It's quite plausible that the author would have omitted any such heckling from Stoics and Epicureans. That's if he was even trying to recount events as they happened as opposed to portray a fanciful version.
|
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 9, 2017 0:38:40 GMT
The problem with this is it requires Acts to be reliable in the first place. It's quite plausible that the author would have omitted any such heckling from Stoics and Epicureans. That's if he was even trying to recount events as they happened as opposed to portray a fanciful version. What makes you think Acts is unreliable, Kiera? I don't know of any reason why it should be. |
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Feb 9, 2017 7:13:44 GMT
The problem with this is it requires Acts to be reliable in the first place. It's quite plausible that the author would have omitted any such heckling from Stoics and Epicureans. That's if he was even trying to recount events as they happened as opposed to portray a fanciful version. What makes you think Acts is unreliable, Kiera? I don't know of any reason why it should be. I think the point she was trying to make is that the particular paragraph was applying circular reasoning. I.E. using the Book of Acts to prove that the Book of Acts is true. I'm not going to deny that. I posted the article because it did have some useful information, as long as you ignored that paragraph. I was well aware of the flaws it had, but thought the rest of the article was worth reading. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 9, 2017 9:36:03 GMT
I think you mean "inexpensive." You did not prove that those preceded the messiah of the Jews. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 9, 2017 10:07:42 GMT
The problem with this is it requires Acts to be reliable in the first place. It's quite plausible that the author would have omitted any such heckling from Stoics and Epicureans. That's if he was even trying to recount events as they happened as opposed to portray a fanciful version. What makes you think Acts is unreliable, Kiera? I don't know of any reason why it should be. It's not that I think it is necessarily unreliable it's just, as filmfan95 said, circular logic to assume the historicity of the NT in order to argue its claims are historical.
I also think it a bit unlikely that opponents of Christianity wouldn't compare Jesus to other gods even if he bore no more than a passing resemblance to them. So even if we accept that Jesus only bore the vaguest similarities to Mithras (which I am inclined to accept), it's still pretty likely that critics would have brought up these similarities. That Acts doesn't record any such objections doesn't suggest to me that people were blown away by how radical Christianity was (Athens was a melting pot of strange new religions after all), only that the author wanted to make us think Christianity was perceived as more radical than it was.
But like I said, I think this article has some merit, it's just this and a couple of other points aren't very convincing IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 10:23:18 GMT
he's just a cheap amalgamation of other, older mythological characters like Heracles, Asklepios, Mithra, Tyana of Apollonius, Buddha, Krishna, and Horus. he's plagiarized. your faith in him is plagiarized. Jesus did exist however he was just a normal jewish person, and there were many leaders of the jewish people trying to revolt against the romans at that time period. pressthat.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/list-of-messiah-claimants/The Jewish Messiah originally meant a divinely-appointed king; David and Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great[1] are examples of such. Later, especially after the failure of Bar Kokhba’s revolt, it came to represent a figure who would deliver the Jews from oppression and usher in a new world. Judas of Galilee (?), son of Hezekiah/Ezekias, member of the Zealots faction who led a bloody revolt against a Roman census in AD 6. (JA18) Simon (ca. 4 BC), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled. Athronges (ca. 3 BC) Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC – AD 30), a wandering prophet and teacher who was crucified by the Romans; Jews who believed him to be the Messiah called him “Christ” and became the first Christians. Theudas (? – 46), who attempted a short-lived revolt against the Romans before being slain. (JA20.5.1) “Egyptian Prophet”, c.55, (an allusion to Moses), with 30,000 unarmed Jews doing The Exodus reenactment massacred by Procurator Antonius Felix (JW2.13.5, JA20.8.6, Acts 21:38) Menahem ben Judah (?), allegedly son of Judas of Galilee, partook in a revolt against Agrippa II before being slain by a rival Zealot leader. Simon bar Kokhba (?- ca. 135), founded a short-lived Jewish state before being defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 9, 2017 11:05:23 GMT
Later, especially after the failure of Bar Kokhba’s revolt, it came to represent a figure who would deliver the Jews from oppression and usher in a new world. There have always been zionists; before, during and after Jesus' time. Bible is clear however that Earthly kings were not advised by God. God merely allowed Saul to become a king because his people so much wanted one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 19:32:43 GMT
Later, especially after the failure of Bar Kokhba’s revolt, it came to represent a figure who would deliver the Jews from oppression and usher in a new world. There have always been zionists; before, during and after Jesus' time. Bible is clear however that Earthly kings were not advised by God. God merely allowed Saul to become a king because his people so much wanted one. What makes Jesus so special? His zionist revolt failed |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 10, 2017 0:01:21 GMT
What makes you think Acts is unreliable, Kiera? I don't know of any reason why it should be. I think the point she was trying to make is that the particular paragraph was applying circular reasoning. I.E. using the Book of Acts to prove that the Book of Acts is true. I'm not going to deny that. I posted the article because it did have some useful information, as long as you ignored that paragraph. I was well aware of the flaws it had, but thought the rest of the article was worth reading. Thank you filmfan95, I understand now. |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 10, 2017 0:20:22 GMT
But like I said, I think this article has some merit, it's just this and a couple of other points aren't very convincing IMO.
The author has no reason to lie, and every reason not to. Christianity's message was and is pretty radical - it's not all about power and history - it's about equality, and love. The equality part is pretty radical, although people in the 21st century ignore that. They ignore both its existence and its radical nature. |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 10, 2017 0:31:13 GMT
There have always been zionists; before, during and after Jesus' time. Bible is clear however that Earthly kings were not advised by God. God merely allowed Saul to become a king because his people so much wanted one. What makes Jesus so special? His zionist revolt failed He wasn't aiming for a Zionist revolt. Thinking that he was, was Judas' mistake. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 1:02:03 GMT
What makes Jesus so special? His zionist revolt failed He wasn't aiming for a Zionist revolt. Thinking that he was, was Judas' mistake. He was hoping to establish his Kingdom. He was 'The King of Jews' after all |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 10, 2017 1:16:49 GMT
He wasn't aiming for a Zionist revolt. Thinking that he was, was Judas' mistake. He was hoping to establish his Kingdom. He was 'The King of Jews' after all But he specifically said "My Kingdom is not of this world". His is a spiritual Kingdom. To think he spoke materially about earthly rulership is a mistake many made. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 10, 2017 11:05:24 GMT
There have always been zionists; before, during and after Jesus' time. Bible is clear however that Earthly kings were not advised by God. God merely allowed Saul to become a king because his people so much wanted one. What makes Jesus so special? His zionist revolt failed Jesus was not a zionist. He claimed to establish a "spiritual" kingdom after the Jewish model. Debate rages how successful that was. |
|
