Egyptian Book of the Dead

Oh OK I assumed deep was serious about the Mithra thingy and that you thought he was serious about it having anything to do with Jesus. My bad carry on.

---

No, it's not random BS.  There appear to be ample evidence to support either side on this debate.  I'd like to find some definitive account of the story of Mithras but that does't exist on the net as far as I can tell.  You have to piece the story together from various civilizations and the fact is that each civilization seems to have added a bit to the Mithras myth.  So one certainly can say he was born to a virgin.  One civilization does say that.  But another account says of a rock.  Some say the "rock could be translated as "cave."  

And you must admit that even the bible is conflicted with accounts of Mary's virginity.  Two books say she is, two gospels don't even mention it which is tantamount to saying she wasn't (that would be a VERY important thing to mention, you know, so omitting it is quite telling).

But then there is the Egyptian god Horus who re-dated Jesus by about 800 or more years.  There are some smimilarities and disimilarities between him and Jesus, too.  Here is a Christian perspective on the similarities: http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html 

The author attempts to discount Horus as a source for the Jesus myth  and does a decent job as far as I can tell.  He does seem to be willing to admit some similarities but just dismisses others. Its an interesting read.

Our local saviur Bill claimed that the Horus story was manufactured by God in order to predict the story if Jesus (or some crap like that). So even Bill admits the Horus account is eerily similar.   Do you dare doubt the inerrant Word of Bill?

There there is Krishana, the Hindu savior.  Lot's of similarities there, too. This seem to be a balanced look at it but I'm sure you will find something that completely discredits all of it.   http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm  

Nash, you can continue to deny all the dozens of similarities between Jesus and other previous gods all you want but the rational conclusion is that his life story was borrowed from other life stories -- probably via oral storytelling until it was finally written down decades after his supposed death then codified nearly 300 years after his supposed death.  

He's serious and I have no doubt he believes it. I show how the theory fails so others won't fall for it. But it's nothing personal against Deep, he's got good taste in music.

Uno, the Jesus/Horus connection has long since been debunked and discredited. No academic, historian, or scholar gives it any merit whatsoever.

I've seen the Zeitgeist clip that made the comparison go viral online. Apparently, Horus was born on December 25th to a virgin named Meri and three kings came to visit him.

The reality is that Horus was born to Isis who was married to Osiris. The exact day is not given, and visitors following a star to the east is not part of the story at all.

The Bible does not mention December 25th or how many kings, magi, or wise men visited Jesus. Therefore, those two points are null and void.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. It's an internet myth with no historical credibility.

OK, so you win.  There is absolutely no resemblance to the story of Jesus to any other historical man/god.  

Now, how does that bolster your position that this mythical being existed?  

Nash I refuse to believe deep lends any credibility to the claim.

Unoi on the other hand is an expert liar. Ask them both point blank in the interest of the truth they claim to hold dear if they believe it. Yes or no.

____________________________________

I'm glad we finally agree on that.

Jesus' existence is a matter of historical fact. It's not hard to prove that Christianity stemmed from a Roman execution in 1st Century Judea. One can also easily find out who was executed and under whose authority. It doesn't take a lot of research to find that there is plenty of extra Biblical evidence that Jesus was in fact a real person.

There is far more evidence of Jesus' existence than Socrates. Do you believe Socrates is a mythical being?

We do not agree on any such thing.  You realize that there are no writings whatever regarding Jesus earlier than the Greek scribblings several decades after his death?  The legends of Jesus were co-opted with more ancient legends, this much is pretty clear.

Son of God?  Pretty old by Jesus' time.  The alleged miracles mean nothing, they were commonplace.  As was resurrection, after all just look at the Daughter of Jairus, Lazarus, and the multitudes of corpses that arose upon the Crucifiction.  Horus arose from the dead every freakin' day.  This behavior was expected of godmen of the time.

Now, regarding Mithra's birth, as well as many other godmen, it was not necessarily a virgin birth, but was otherwise supernatural and odd.  Shall I bore you with a list of such godmen?  It goes on and on.  Jesus was one of the last of such figures, nothing more.  What is more likely, that a virgin gave birth, or that a Jewish girl in the Levant lied about her history?

The influence of religious, dogmatic, superstitious zeitgeist (small "z") of the time cannot be dismissed.  Jesus was one of many prophets and godmen whose stories and cults were rampant at the time.  Save for the canny political judgment of Constantine, you might well be defending Mithra with the same zeal you do Jesus.

It's all politics.  And none of it is real.

DF

We do not agree on any such thing.  You realize that there are no writings whatever regarding Jesus earlier than the Greek scribblings several decades after his death?  The legends of Jesus were co-opted with more ancient legends, this much is pretty clear.

 

If we excluded all ancient historical figures whose lives were recorded decades after their deaths, we wouldn't have many left. Alexander the Great, Socrates, Hannibal, etc. Are they all just legends or actual people?

It's also assumed that any similarity between the two religions means Christianity was the copier. Isn't it possible that it may be the other way around.

Not to mention that the story of Christ actually predates Christ. Judaism is a lot older than Horus, Mithra, Buddha, and so on. There are a lot of significant events recorded in the NT that was part of OT prophecy centuries earlier.

The theory just doesn't work.

Nash, if that were easy, we would not be having this discussion.  But even if you did provide convincing extra-biblical proof (which does't exist)...

 

It's been mentioned countless times here before. Annuls of Rome by Tacitus is just one. Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and others wrote in some way about the founder of Christianity. Those works definitely exist.

Jesus' claims can also be proven if one is willing to accept the Gospels as credible works. Look at them from an historian's point of view. Understanding basic human behavior and looking at the events objectively, it's pretty easy to do.

The problem is most atheists, including you, are not objective. You don't grasp basic Christian theology and you don't want to. That's your choice. The evidence is there if one chooses to look for it, that's why atheism isn't permanent.

My dear Nash,

There are many concurrent accounts of Alexander the Great.  Socrates is a bit fuzzy, but it does not matter, since no one threatens ASocratians with Hell.  His ideas are what is important.  I could grant you that he did not exist, it would not matter.  Hannibal is a matter of contemporary history.

Christianity did copy the earlier religions and hero myths, as did Judaism.  The Torah was re-written,after all copies of it had been destroyed , during the Babylonian Captivity.  "Revelation" was given as the source, although tradition was more likely.  The Mithrain mythology is much older than either the Torah or the Bible.  It turns out the Torah is only about 2500 years old.  The Torah was obviously influenced by Babylonian mythology, especially the Enuma Elish.

Mithrasim did not copy Christianity.  It's a much older religion.  The Egyptian influences in Christianity are obviously much older than Jesus, as are the astrological influences.  Things like miraculous births way outdate Christianity.  Horus is much older than Moses.

Once again, I refer Bart Ehrman.  He's a biblical scholar of highest repute.  He's fair with regard to the Bible, but calls them like he sees them.  In the interim between the life of Jesus and the Greek scribes who wrote the first Gospels (after the letters of Paul, by the way), the superstitious raconteurs of the Jesus Myth had plenty of time to ascribe to him the attributes of the other respected godmen.  It would be remarkable if they did not.

I cannot suggest Bart Ehrman highly enough.  He is a scholar's scholar.  I would also recommend Xoroaster at YouTube.  Here's one of his latest, follow it back to earlier submissions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awg52anmTb8

Enjoying the convo.

DF

Oh, I forgot.  As well as the Enuma Elish, let's not forget the Epic of Gilgamesh.

DF

deep, why in the name of common sense would you post this link?.

The guy admits he is not smart enough to understand what the fool wrote in the book.

 

Nash I'm appalled you let deep by with such garbage.

read the posts /comments after the video.

 

I'm sorry, but to say Ehrman is a credible Biblical scholar is like saying Weekly World News is a respected journalistic periodical.

Ehrman is good at selling books to people who are looking for reasons for Christianity to be false. His work is not for people who are looking for objective answers. Actual Biblical scholars pull his claims apart pretty easily. Here is one good example of such.

http://benwitherington.blogspo...-criticism-bart.html

There is a lot to address in those two posts and a lot wrong. To discredit the Torah because it may have been rewritten doesn't work. It leaves out the fact that in ancient times more people relied on oral tradition rather than written works. It's still part of Jewish culture today. There is also the fact that there isn't one master template of the Torah from which all others were copied.

Just because a religion is older doesn't mean it didn't copy Christianity. The Christian faith spread very, very fast. Other cults and faiths could have easily tried to adopt aspects of Christianity to try and retain it's members. The fact Christianity spread so quickly in such a hostile environment is very significant and is often over looked by those wanting to debunk it.

The only way to believe that Christianity is a recycled religion is to overlook and ignore all the historical data and evidence that shows otherwise. One has to want to believe the theory first for it to  sound plausible.

In the first place, Bart Ehrman is a Distinguished professor at the University of North Carolina, hardly a Zip City Bible College.

In the second place, he was educated at the finest conservative Christian academies.  His research and findings led him to skepticism.  Check out his bio,

Now, regarding a Recycled Jesus, I would suggest the works of one of the acknowledged Early Church Fathers, Justin Martyr.  In his First Apology, and it's telling that even in the 2nd Century he had to apologize, he states in Chapter 18 of that apology that the pagans should accept the story of Jesus in the fashion that they accepted the miraculous lives of previous sages, only perhaps more so since Jesus was the new kid in town.

I'll post the First Apology for purposes of context: http://www.earlychristianwriti...yr-firstapology.html

Between Jesus' life and the original Greek scriptures, several decades had passed.  In the meantime, there was ample opportunity for the oral mythology of Jesus to absorb the attributes of the commonly known godmen, such as miraculous birth, miracles, resurrection (not, seemingly, uncommon at the time), etc.  Indeed, Jesus would not have been taken seriously as simply the natural son of a carpenter.

You DO know, don't you, that the Gospels are antecedent to the letters of Paul?  You do realize that Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple has no merit, since the first writings of his words happened after that fact?  You realize, of course, that a story-by-story analysis of the Gospels tell widely variant stories?

Nash, the stories of the Bible are just that.  Stories.  Most likely written to compliment the Pauline philosophy.  No more compelling than the stories of Zeus and Apollo.  The Bible had the impetus of the Roman Empire behind it for centuries, and then it had the benefit of the printing press.

Naturally, the Japanese, Indians, Iranians, Peruvians, Eskimos, and all other cultures have mythologies every bit as compelling as the Bible.  It's a matter of geography.  And each is every bit as compelling, or not, as Judaism/Christianity.  Try telling an Iranian that Jesus is Lord.

My dear sir, the availability of information on the development of the Church, as well as other religions, is too vast and deep to encapsulate here.  I encourage you to seek the truth of your beliefs on your own, from independent sources, and apply critical thinking to them all.

Regards,

DF

My dear sir, the availability of information on the development of the Church, as well as other religions, is too vast and deep to encapsulate here.  I encourage you to seek the truth of your beliefs on your own, from independent sources, and apply critical thinking to them all.

Regards,

DF

==================================

Deep you could have admitted a long time ago that you don’t know what the hell you are talking about and saved us all a lot of grief.

Now you have the galls to advise Nash to study history of his religion.

Man, he’s done that as far as I can tell.

I had a college professor who was nuts and said things in class that were inaccurate. One of which was that the US should have never used the atomic bomb on Japan and that it didn't end the war. The reality is that it did help bring a quick end to the war and avoided the US from having to invade.

College professors are not immune from personal bias. In fact, many make their opinions known and teach them as fact when it's not always the case. I'm sure I could find some instances in the news where professors gave out inaccurate information, but drawing from my own experience is faster.

The Gospels were not first written by Greeks. There are no "original Greek scriptures". The earliest manuscripts we have are written in Greek. That's different.

Plus, you're also leaving out oral tradition. The culture in 1st Century Judea was very different than today. People didn't instantly pull out a pad and paper to write what they saw. Writing materials were expensive and a lot of people didn't even know how to read.

What is significant is that the Gospels were written using real people's names and real locations within a short period of time. Those people and their families were still alive to contest the events recorded if they were not true.

An interesting link about the historical accuracy and background of the Gospels.

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Ehrman is not the first professor or academic to try and discredit the New Testament and he won't be the last. Objectivity is key and Ehrman is not objective.

The Gospels were written anonymously. Irenaeus named the authors of the Gospels from oral tradition. Even though there are some questions as to Mark, it's agreed that Matthew, Luke, and John were written by Matthew, Luke, and John.

There is a lot more to it than that, but since you like to skim that's it in a nutshell.

It's also important to note that no one else claimed or can be credited as authors of the Gospels. There has never been any debate among early church leaders and historians who would have been exposed to the earliest creeds and oral traditions.

Of course, there are those who will try to discredit the NT by saying the authors credited were not really the authors. However, there is absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise.

Historians and, seemingly, you agree that the Gospels were written anonymously.  That alone is enough to discount them as anything close to "credible."

But there is more: They have been dated to have been written 30 to 70 years after the events supposedly took place. That supposition is based ONLY on the events described in the bible.  The works could have been written up to 300+ years after the events according to archaeological evidence of one bit of papyrus that is the oldest surviving piece.  So dating them to the original source lacks credibility.

There there is the fact that they contradict each other in very important ways.  One book mentions a virgin birth. Others do not mention this most-important event.  Some mention a war that was going on.  Other completely skip over that.  Again, another strike against "credibility."

There is so much I could list but here it is nicely laid out, Nash: http://www.infidels.org/librar..._contradictions.html

I know, it's probably not quite as "objective" as you would like because this is an atheist website.  But an "objective person like you could certainly blow holes in their claims, right?  

Yet you contradict yourself by claiming they are credible?  You again contradict yourself when you claim you are objective?  What gives, Nash?

Something I find quite interesting is the Gospel of Q. I'm sure you've heard of it.  It is a fascinating theory but one that will likely never be solved  http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

Until then, the question of the credibility of the Gospels and existence of Jesus is strictly a matter of faith, not history.  An "objective" person can only conclude "maybe" Jesus existed.  I think "probably not." 

 

You skipped everything else I wrote which addresses the points made in your response.

Could have saved yourself some time. Might want to go back and read more than the first line of my post. Just because the Gospels were written anonymously doesn't mean we have no idea who wrote them.

===

Jesus.  You said, "it's agreed that Matthew, Luke, and John were written by Matthew, Luke, and John. "

Yet you admit we don't know who wrote them.  How in the heck do you fit both those ideas in your head?

Gnash,

Science can be scrupulously objective often, but no discussion like this can be.  However, Ehrman is about as objective as one can be about the topic.

Like I said, he came to study theology as a True Believer.  His honest pursuit of truth led him to doubt and ultimately abandon his faith.  That's open minded and objective.

You are the first person I've heard, except the incurious sheeple, who says that any of the Gospels were written by the people whose names are on them.  I have a couple reasons to question this.

First, the earliest gospels were written in Greek.  It's hard enough to believe that the uneducated fishermen and such who became disciples could write Aramaic, much less Greek.  Scholars of ancient Greek say the early accounts were obviously written by educated men.  Second, they spoke of themselves in the Third Person if they did.  This writing style was not necessary at the time.  Third, the earliest Gospels were written more than 30 years after Jesus' death.  Why wait so long?

If you can think of one scholarly reason to think that any of the Gospels were written by the disciples whose names are on them, I'd like to hear it, because I haven't come across any such claim in what has become an ongoing hobby.

DF

_____________________________________________________________________________

Nash said they were written anonymously. I gave an anonymous donation the other day, to a very worthy cause.  Just because the donation was anonymous does not mean that it wasn't ME who gave it. I just didn't sign my name to it.

Some people adamantly claim that any type of miracle is absolutely impossible. Why do they say “no” to miracles? There are many reasons, but perhaps most significant is that they do not believe that God exists (or that if He does, He does not intervene in the natural world). A person who believes that the Universe and its contents evolved through natural processes over billions of years cannot believe in miracles because he or she thinks that nothing exists outside of nature. As the late, eminent astronomer of Cornell University, Carl Sagan, put it: “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” (1980, p. 4). Since a miracle is an extraordinary event that demands a supernatural explanation, no such event ever could occur in a world where only natural forces operate. Once a person denies God and the miracle of Creation, then he or she is forced to deny that miracles of any kind can occur. Christians believe in miracles because they believe that God exists and that the Bible (which reports some of God’s miracles) is His Word, whereas atheists reject miracles because they do not believe in a higher, supernatural Being.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1772

Depends on what you mean by a miracle, ok.  If a miracle is a one in a million occurrance, then miracles occur in LA 16 times a day.

If you mean the suspension of natural laws, then you have it precisely.

DF

What natural laws are you talking about?

You're missing it again. Maybe you should stop skimming and read what I wrote.

Already addressed this. Please see post above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

uno,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,It really makes little difference. If Luke or Mark borrowed from Q, what they borrowed would be used by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of divine inspiration and then become Holy Writ. In other words, Q does not have to be from divine inspiration in order for Luke or Mark to use Q for Holy Writ. What Luke or Mark drew from Q, and was then intended to be used by the Holy Spirit for Scripture, would indeed be used and inspired.

There really is no proof for Q's existence. It is merely theoretically deduced. Q is the abbreviation for quelle, the German word for "source." The liberals invented Q in order to put a crack in the theory of divine inspiration. They figured that if they could push the idea that Luke and Mark did not have all the material from their own experience for their Gospels, this would mean that another "source" had to be used, but that source would have suffered from the corruption.

What you don't see uno, is that the Holy Spirit could determine what would be used from any Q source, and only that which was not in error would be selected and given to Luke or Mark.

So, in the final analysis, it make no difference whether Luke and Mark wrote from their own experience or they got some material from Q. The same selection process under divine inspiration would have occurred.

.

Since someone mentioned that great metropolis of Zip City, let's all go to a Drive-By Truckers concert. Or maybe just ten of us...or maybe just four. Let's go ahead and say four. Then we ask these four to write down their experiences. Will all four accounts contain all the same elements? If more than one mentions the same element, will they describe it in the same way? This is something usually taught in Writing 101.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Fire, this has been pointed out to them so many times, and yet these "people of reason", refuse to acknowledge the reasonableness and common sense of what you just wrote.

_____________

 The present number of Greek manuscripts—whole and partial—that attest to the New Testament stands at an unprecedented 5,748 (Welte,  2005) .

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=704

-

 Scholars generally agree that there was probably one original source document or oral story that the authors of the Gospels "borrowed" material from and inserted their own ideas here and there.

 

No, that is absolutely not true.

I'm restating what I've already written, but you skimmed over it and totally missed it. Just because something was written anonymously doesn't mean we can't know who wrote it. The authorship of the Gospels have been commonly accepted since Irenaeus. No one else has laid claim to authorship and there has been no other evidence to prove the claim false.

The Gospel of Q or Quelle is a theory. There is no evidence that this document ever existed, it's simply a hypothetical.

However, if the Gospel of Q did exist, it would mean it predates the Gospels and brings the written account even closer to the actual events. Matthew was written around 50 A.D., less than 20 years after the Crucifixion. So if Q exists, it could put the authorship of the Gospels at less than 10 years.

It's basically an attempt to discredit the Gospels that backfires. If you believe the Gospel of Q exists, then you have to throw out the argument that they were written decades later. One theory disproves the other.