> Do you really think there are atheist writers out there who need to > deliberately make up stuff about Jesus's pagan origins? An atheist > doesn't need to do that to convince himself there isn't a god.
lmao
There is no greater intellectual dishonesty than to pretend one is truly only an atheist.
>> Do you really think there are atheist writers out there who need to >> deliberately make up stuff about Jesus's pagan origins? An atheist >> doesn't need to do that to convince himself there isn't a god.
> lmao
> There is no greater intellectual dishonesty than to pretend one is truly > only an atheist.
Eh? Could you explain more clearly (1) what you mean and (2) why you believe it?
(For what it's worth, btw, I *bet* there are atheist writers out there who make things up about the (putative) pagan origins of the Jesus story. Why wouldn't there be? Atheism isn't a guarantee of honesty or good sense any more than Christianity is. On the other hand, I also bet that most falsehoods about Christianity that circulate among atheists -- I'm making no comment on how common such falsehoods are, not least because I don't know -- arise in the same sort of way as falsehoods that circulate among Christians: not from deliberate lying but from indifference to inconvenient truths. When someone hears a story that fits his prejudices -- be they Christian or atheist or anything else -- the fact-checking impulse tends not to be very strong.)
>I'm not hiding a lack of research. Why should I take time out to >research it, unless you count just doing some reading as research? I >prefer to look at what is probable rather than waste time checking out >the bona fides of every godman. Why should I check to see whether a >particular godman myth existed, and if it existed, how many people >believed it and for how long. I prefer to look at what is probable. On >balance it is highly probable that none of the godmen, including >Jesus, were really godmen.
Fine. But if you want to use the multiplicity of ascension myths to discredit the Christian ascension story - if, that is, you want these facts to persuade anyone else - wouldn't it be a good idea to at least find out whether these other myths existed? Or are you happy to take it on faith that a godman called Horus was claimed to have ascended to heaven?
>> >> [1] I'm trusting that your list is correct. Can you give me some >> >> evidence for (say) your first no. 11?
>> >I offer no evidence that any of them were godmen.
>> I'm not asking for proof that Hesus ascended to heaven, I'm asking for >> evidence that there was ever such a belief. You have it to hand, of >> course.
>Why should I go through them one by one?
I haven't asked you to go through them one by one; Ive asked you for your reasons for believing just one of thoise claims.
>If you want to believe it's >all a great conspiracy got up by some atheists and there were NO >godmen, with similar life events to Jesus, worshipped before the time >of Jesus, that's up to you.
So why present them in the first place? You clearly have no reason to suppose these myths ever existed other than someone has claimed it and you choose to believe their claims with no evidence. Are we to see this as the moral high-ground?
>> >Can you give me some evidence that your godman was really a god, other >> >than evidence in the form of assertions made by his followers?
>> Nope. Are you ready to answer my question?
I'll take that as a 'no', then shall I?
>> >Could you explain to me why such a list isn't very troubling to an >> >intelligent believer?
>> 1) I have no evidence that anyone ever believed these things.
>Are you saying that people had these myths but knew they were myths? >If that is true, they were more advanced than today's Christians.
No, I'm saying that you haven't provided any reason to suppose that anyone ever had these myths.
>You can't go back in time and go into people's heads. Bearing in mind >Christians believe some pretty tall stories today, it's reasonable to >suppose people were at least equally credulous several thousand years >ago.
But not as credulous as you, obviously. Someone only has to claim that a myth existed and you accept it as fact!
>> 2) the fact that a true God-man would ascend to heaven at the end of >> his earthly mission is a good reason for expecting fictional god-men >> to do the same.
>Yes, but the thing is the "fictional god-men" who ascended came before >your supposed true godman. So it's reasonable to expect your godman >(one of the last) to ascend like all the godmen who came before him.
>>I notice that, in many fictional accounts of war, >> people die. This doesn't mean that we should mistrust supposed true >> accounts where people also die.
>> >Did you already have faith in your particular >> >godman, before you ever heard of (mythical) godmen, with very similar >> >cvs, that were worshipped before yours lived?
>> No, I first heard of Esus from reading The White Goddess, at a time >> when I wasn't a Christian.
>> From a brief glance, I'd say that the parallels are artificially >> enhanced. For example, the number 'three' is never mentioned in the >> Bible in relation to the visiting wise men; and the use of the word >> 'angels' to describe the annunciation of the birth of Horus is >> surprising - what is meant by 'angel' in the context of Egyptian >> religion? You obviously know the answer to this - perhaps you'd care >> to shareyour understanding with us.
>> Neither is the birth of Jesus in the bible dated to the winter >> solstice. I think it's widely agreed that the date of Christmas >> derives either from an existing pagan celebration or from the same >> human impulse that gave rise to pagan solstice events.
>> None of this causes me any more trouble than the last time some >> atheist tried to use it to persuade me that Christianity was just >> another myth. You might do better to take one example and argue it in >> depth than to use a scatter-gun approach.
>Do you really think there are atheist writers out there who need to >deliberately make up stuff about Jesus's pagan origins? An atheist >doesn't need to do that to convince himself there isn't a god.
> On 1 Apr, 14:54, Giles <g_har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> 27 stumbling blocks for this atheist in accepting the Christian belief >> that Jesus was God and ascended to heaven: "The following world >> saviors and "sons of God," were crucified or executed and were >> resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven. They predate the so- >> called Jesus Christ."http://www.destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41935
> No, they were not.
>> 1. Adad of Assyria >> 2. Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece >> 3. Alcides of Thebes >> 4. Attis of Phrygia >> 5. Baal of Phoenicia >> 6. Bali of Afghanistan >> 7. Beddru of Japan >> 8. Buddha of India >> 9. Crite of Chaldea >> 10. Deva Tat of Siam >> 11. Hesus of the Druids >> 11. Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded >> appearance was adopted for the Christ character >> 12. Indra of Tibet/India >> 13. Jao of Nepal >> 14. Krishna of India >> 15. Mikado of the Sintoos >> 16.Mithraof Persia >> 17. Odin of the Scandinavians >> 18. Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece >> 19. Quetzalcoatl of Mexico >> 20. Salivahana of Bermuda >> 21. Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later >> turned into the disciple Thomas >> 22. Thor of the Gauls >> 23. Universal Monarch of the Sibyls >> 24. Wittoba of the Bilingonese >> 25. Xamolxis of Thrace >> 26. Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia >> 27. Zoar of the Bonz
>> Satisfied?"
> Not really. Why on earth didn't you verify this lie before posting > it?
> Provide detailed references to the ancient sources for each of your > claims above.
A couple of points here. First of all, it would be a little difficult to explain away, when a 'god made flesh' in one religion or another simply drops down dead and that's an end to it. So to my mind, variants on the ascension belief are an inevitable, predictable and convenient way for the priesthoods in question to wriggle out of otherwise potentially awkward situations. In other words, those beliefs and mythologies that have earthly representatives of the divine are likely in every scenario that I can conceive of to end up with some variation of the ascension/reincarnation story.
Secondly few written records from ancient times have survived intact, for obvious reasons.
> One of the problems that I have with atheists is their tendency to > repeat unchecked any old falsehood if it seems convenient. How else > could such a list as above come into existence?
As very silly generalisations go, that's a whopper. If I said that one problem I have with believers is their willingness to jump to conclusions and pigeonhole atheists as liars, Christian contributors here would criticise me straight away, and rightly so.
>>> Do you really think there are atheist writers out there who need to >>> deliberately make up stuff about Jesus's pagan origins? An atheist >>> doesn't need to do that to convince himself there isn't a god.
>> lmao
>> There is no greater intellectual dishonesty than to pretend one is truly >> only an atheist.
> Eh? Could you explain more clearly (1) what you mean and (2) > why you believe it?
Certainly. Imho a person who expresses a lack of belief in God as there only position on the subject is being dishonest.
I have yet to meet anyone who has a stated position of "atheist" who fits the claimed definition, they all have beliefs about God.
Such intellectual dishonesty is just to avoid being accused of holding a faith position, that there is no God or that there isn't God x.
> > On 1 Apr, 14:54, Giles <g_har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> 27 stumbling blocks for this atheist in accepting the Christian belief > >> that Jesus was God and ascended to heaven: "The following world > >> saviors and "sons of God," were crucified or executed and were > >> resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven. They predate the so- > >> called Jesus Christ."http://www.destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41935
> > No, they were not.
> >> 1. Adad of Assyria > >> 2. Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece > >> 3. Alcides of Thebes > >> 4. Attis of Phrygia > >> 5. Baal of Phoenicia > >> 6. Bali of Afghanistan > >> 7. Beddru of Japan > >> 8. Buddha of India > >> 9. Crite of Chaldea > >> 10. Deva Tat of Siam > >> 11. Hesus of the Druids > >> 11. Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded > >> appearance was adopted for the Christ character > >> 12. Indra of Tibet/India > >> 13. Jao of Nepal > >> 14. Krishna of India > >> 15. Mikado of the Sintoos > >> 16.Mithraof Persia > >> 17. Odin of the Scandinavians > >> 18. Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece > >> 19. Quetzalcoatl of Mexico > >> 20. Salivahana of Bermuda > >> 21. Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later > >> turned into the disciple Thomas > >> 22. Thor of the Gauls > >> 23. Universal Monarch of the Sibyls > >> 24. Wittoba of the Bilingonese > >> 25. Xamolxis of Thrace > >> 26. Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia > >> 27. Zoar of the Bonz
> >> Satisfied?"
> > Not really. Why on earth didn't you verify this lie before posting > > it?
> > Provide detailed references to the ancient sources for each of your > > claims above.
> A couple of points here. First of all, it would be a little difficult to > explain away, when a 'god made flesh' in one religion or another simply > drops down dead and that's an end to it.
Um, perhaps some documentation for this claim would be a good start?
But really, discussing "a god made flesh"... if we phrase things vaguely enough, anything can be made to look like anything.
> Secondly few written records from ancient times have survived intact, for > obvious reasons.
Indeed. But if there are no written records recording the above statements, on what basis are they posted as fact?
> > One of the problems that I have with atheists is their tendency to > > repeat unchecked any old falsehood if it seems convenient. How else > > could such a list as above come into existence?
> As very silly generalisations go, that's a whopper. (change of subject snipped)
Another problem that I have with atheists is their tendency to rely on denial followed by a tu quoque, rather than rational argument. Look up... how else did such a list come into existence? Look at your post -- you don't know whether this list is true, but you're defending it anyway.
>>>> Do you really think there are atheist writers out there who need to >>>> deliberately make up stuff about Jesus's pagan origins? An atheist >>>> doesn't need to do that to convince himself there isn't a god.
[Phil:]
>>> There is no greater intellectual dishonesty than to pretend one is truly >>> only an atheist.
[me:]
>> Eh? Could you explain more clearly (1) what you mean and (2) >> why you believe it?
[Phil:]
> Certainly. Imho a person who expresses a lack of belief in God as there only > position on the subject is being dishonest.
> I have yet to meet anyone who has a stated position of "atheist" who fits > the claimed definition, they all have beliefs about God.
Oh, I see. But I think you've misunderstood Giles. He wasn't playing the "I merely lack belief" gambit, or even the "to be an atheist one need merely lack belief" gambit: he implied that atheists are convinced that there isn't a god:
| An atheist doesn't need to do that to convince himself | there isn't a god.
> Such intellectual dishonesty is just to avoid being accused of holding > a faith position, that there is no God or that there isn't God x.
I don't see any grounds for thinking that that's always, or even usually, the motivation of people who say that they don't have positive beliefs about the existence of God (or of any god), though my own position goes further than that since I think there is good reason for *disbelieving* in God as understood by most theists. (And in Russell's teapot, and in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on. The mere fact that something's impossible to get evidence about doesn't mean that the best attitude to it is pure agnosticism; one can instead say "Of course it *could* exist, but it seems very improbable". But I digress.)
>> Such intellectual dishonesty is just to avoid being accused of holding >> a faith position, that there is no God or that there isn't God x.
> I don't see any grounds for thinking that that's always, or even > usually, the motivation of people who say that they don't have > positive beliefs about the existence of God (or of any god), though > my own position goes further than that since I think there is good > reason for *disbelieving* in God as understood by most theists. > (And in Russell's teapot, and in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and > in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on. The mere fact that > something's impossible to get evidence about doesn't mean that > the best attitude to it is pure agnosticism; one can instead say > "Of course it *could* exist, but it seems very improbable". But > I digress.)
And joining in on this digression, even if some atheists do go as far as claiming that deities do not exist, they are by no means in the majority in my experience. Most of those I have discussed this with prefer something along the lines of Gareth's last sentence, with variations on the degree of improbability that they perceive. Personally I cannot think of how one could be more intellectually honest than through being equally consistent both with respect to the lack of justification for belief in the existence of deities, and to belief in the nonexistence of deities. Which doesn't imply that one is not entitled to think that one position is more likely to be correct than the other, of course. I happily state that I think deities, especially the personal creator variety, are extremely improbable. An impression of improbability that has strengthened somewhat since joining in on and reading discussions in this ng.
I would have replied more fully, but along with certain other contributors OE refuses to insert the extra > before your latest comments.
However I note that you snipped the key part of my argument, failed to answer the point made, and concluded by misrepresenting my views (I at no point made any assertion as to the validity of any part of the list). You then compounded your earlier generalisation about atheists with another one. Not much point discussing this further with you, then.
On 8 Apr, 13:35, "PG" <p...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
> "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> a écrit dans le message denews: 445f3db0-a71d-42f1-be4f-27411e240...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 8 Apr, 05:48, "PG" <p...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
> > "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> a écrit dans le message > > denews: > > 1dddc67b-4d6d-4b7b-a97e-09e85795e...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> I would have replied more fully, but along with certain other contributors > OE refuses to insert the extra > before your latest comments.
> However I note that you snipped the key part of my argument, failed to > answer the point made, and concluded by misrepresenting my views (I at no > point made any assertion as to the validity of any part of the list). You > then compounded your earlier generalisation about atheists with another one. > Not much point discussing this further with you, then.
Thanks for your comments.
I note that the key issue -- whether you (or anyone) could justify the list of names, or your support for it -- seems somehow to be missing from the above. But of course they cannot be justified.
This leads on to my second point, a side issue if you like; that one reason I have a problem with atheists is their tendency to repeat hearsay so freely.
I'm sorry that you feel unhappy with how I characterised atheists. But if atheists object to how others perceive them -- and few people online are more willing both to give and take offence -- then perhaps changing that perception would be the right way forward? This, of course, means avoiding the sorts of (almost reflex) behaviours on which I remarked.
This cannot happen, tho, while atheists continue to justify that perception. I'm sorry that, if you disagreed, you didn't feel that you could engage with that.
In message <66365347-c19d-4d87-985e-429f7c61f...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Giles <g_har...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Apr 3, 5:04 pm, Michael J Davis <?...@trustsof.demon.co.uk>
>> >Jesus says in the bible that his parables are intended to deceive and >> >confuse some people. Maybe you're onto something.
>> Quote please?
>I'm thinking of Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; >and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they >should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
I think that's a very good question. My understanding is that Jesus formed a group around Him to whom He explained what He doing. (Even though they were not able to appreciate it until the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. But meanwhile He was also demonstrating that much of what He taught was not understood by those who had the wrong attitude toward Him. Later, those disciples were able to explain that the Kingdom of God had been revealed.
You will note that similar comments were made in the OT, especially:-
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.' "But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets." Zech 7:9-12
>Are you going to tell me that is all a misunderstanding due to a >mistranslation or something?
No, not at all! ;-)
>> >God gets people to believe in false godmen to prepare later >> >generations for the real godman. Mmm.
>> No, I didn't say that. I just said that some people may get glimpses of >> the truth. However, glimpses of the truth may often mislead. We need the >> whole truth.
>But it's not just that scholars are saying these godmen spouted >similar things to Jesus, but that these godmen were said to have >experienced big events in their lives shared with the (later) Jesus.
Is that so? If you'd like to give some specific examples we could discuss them. But IME, for the few that I have examined, it's only when someone with a vested interest (in debunking Jesus) has drawn up the parallels that the story even seems similar.
>If an alleged godman (before Jesus) was believed to have come back >from the dead, etc, etc, that's not a prophecy with a "glimpse of the >truth," is it? It's someone beating Jesus to parts of Jesus's life.
No, I don't think so. However, I think that the concept of 'eternal life' has been an understandable human desire since story telling began. So it's not surprising that fables of gods and goddesses offering their immortality to humans has been a common theme.
As I said previously - the historicity of Jesus is important to us. And our own personal experience of His power in our lives is part of that. AFAIK, not one of the original stories that you referred to has someone dying so that others may have life. CS Lewis said that what is remarkable about the Jesus story is the *lack* of the obvious metaphors - when Jesus said "I am the bread of life" He did NOT go into a long metaphor about wheat falling to the ground to die and rise again. (Don't confuse that with the parable of the sower.)
>> >I can't think of a better way to make people back in the Bronze Age >> >sceptical as to the bona fides of each godman that came into their >> >midst. "Not another godman! We had one in here only last week!"
>> >Perhaps Jesus is a myth that prepares people for the true godman yet >> >to come.
>> I said before that Jesus is no myth, but the reality. You may wish to >> refer to John 14:6-7 & John 15:26.
>> I note that you haven't answered truthfully whether these stories are >> your own research, or whether you found a mish mash on the Internet.
>I'm not hiding a lack of research. Why should I take time out to >research it, unless you count just doing some reading as research?
Why should you waste our time answering stuff that doesn't bear the meaning you assert it does?
>I >prefer to look at what is probable rather than waste time checking out >the bona fides of every godman.
me2, which is why I don't see the point in replying in more detail.
>Why should I check to see whether a >particular godman myth existed, and if it existed, how many people >believed it and for how long.
OK, tell us that then.
>I prefer to look at what is probable. On >balance it is highly probable that none of the godmen, including >Jesus, were really godmen.
Sure, if you look at forty 'godmen' and there is only one true one, then you will be right 97.5% of the time by dismissing them all. Do you know people gamble on winning the Lottery on smaller odds than that! And that would only benefit them in this life.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] -- Michael J Davis http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk <>< For this is what the Lord has said to me, "Go and post a Watchman and let him report what he sees." Isa 21:6 <><
In message <83bc8760-f4e4-44a5-8f87-338556f70...@v32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Giles <g_har...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Are you saying that people had these myths but knew they were myths? >If that is true, they were more advanced than today's Christians.
I think, if you are going to pursue this discussion, you'd better understand the status & meaning of 'myth' as we may well use it here.
A 'myth' may or may not reflect a true event, but the story as told carries a truth that transcends the actual details of the story.
myth // n. 1 a traditional narrative usu. involving supernatural or imaginary persons and often embodying popular ideas on natural or social phenomena etc.
In that we don't see the historicity of Jesus as a 'myth', but some of the other myths to which you refer may still communicate truths to us all.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] -- Michael J Davis http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk <>< For this is what the Lord has said to me, "Go and post a Watchman and let him report what he sees." Isa 21:6 <><
"Giles" wrote: > 27 stumbling blocks for this atheist in accepting the Christian belief > that Jesus was God and ascended to heaven: "The following world > saviors and "sons of God," were crucified or executed and were > resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven. They predate the so- > called Jesus Christ." http://www.destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41935
> 1. Adad of Assyria > 2. Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece > 3. Alcides of Thebes > 4. Attis of Phrygia > 5. Baal of Phoenicia > 6. Bali of Afghanistan > 7. Beddru of Japan > 8. Buddha of India > 9. Crite of Chaldea > 10. Deva Tat of Siam > 11. Hesus of the Druids > 11. Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded > appearance was adopted for the Christ character > 12. Indra of Tibet/India > 13. Jao of Nepal > 14. Krishna of India > 15. Mikado of the Sintoos > 16. Mithra of Persia > 17. Odin of the Scandinavians > 18. Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece > 19. Quetzalcoatl of Mexico > 20. Salivahana of Bermuda > 21. Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later > turned into the disciple Thomas > 22. Thor of the Gauls > 23. Universal Monarch of the Sibyls > 24. Wittoba of the Bilingonese > 25. Xamolxis of Thrace > 26. Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia > 27. Zoar of the Bonz
... at which point various people started asking for evidence that they have in fact been believed to be saviours or "sons of God" who were executed, returned to life, and ascended into heaven. No one's offered either any such evidence or a concrete refutation of the claim, so I thought I'd take a look.
I used the following oh-so-scientific methodology: look each one up in Wikipedia, see whether the article indicates whether they were (1) a saviour or son of God or godman or something of the kind, (2) killed or crucified, (3) resurrected or reborn or reincarnated, and/or (4) taken up into heaven. In each case I've put "Y" or "N" if the Wikipedia page makes it reasonably clear, or "?" if it doesn't. In general a "?" is likely to mean a no, since you'd think such things would get mentioned. I've generally given the benefit of the doubt when there is much.
In most cases I looked further than Wikipedia. In some cases I couldn't find anything at all (or, sometimes, nothing except pointers to this list and maybe some pages saying "I looked for this and couldn't find anything"); in such cases I've put "-" in each column.
It's not clear what constitutes being a "world saviour or son of God". I've taken it to mean any of the following: - god who becomes incarnate (avatars count) - person who gets deified - demigod or other god/human hybrid - person or god who fixes something terribly broken about the world - person who founds a religion, is its chief prophet, etc. Merely being a god doesn't count.
The columns of the table below are for those four things in the order I gave, followed by the name, followed in some instances by my comments, or rather by pointers to them.
N ? ? ? Adad Y Y ? ? Adonis [1] - - - - Alcides [2,23] N N N N Apollo Y Y Y N Attis [3] ? ? ? ? Baal [4] - - - - Bali [2] - - - - Beddru [2] Y N Y Y Buddha [5] - - - - Crite [2] - - - - Deva Tat [6] Y Y N Y Heracles [24] N N N N Hesus [7] N N N N Horus [8] N N N N Indra - - - - Jao [2] Y ? N N Krishna [9] - - - - Mikado [2,10] N N N N Mithra [11] ? ? ? ? Mithra [12] N Y N N Odin [13] ? Y Y ? Osiris/Serapis [14] Y N N N Prometheus N N N N Quetzalcoatl [15] - - - - Salivahana [2,16] N Y Y N Tammuz [17] - - - - Thor [2,18] - - - - Universal Monarch of the Sibyls [2,19] N ? ? ? Wittoba [2,20] Y N ? N Xamolxis [21] Y ? N N Zarathustra/Zoroaster [22] - - - - Zoar [2]
[1] It seems to be usual to describe Adonis as a god who dies and is reborn, but none of the more detailed descriptions I can find of what was believed about Adonis actually includes rebirth, let alone ascension. Ovid's version, e.g., ends with his death.
[2] I think these come from Kersey Graves's notoriously unreliable "The world's sixteen crucified saviours".
[3] Being reborn as a pine tree seems to me a pretty far cry from Christian-style resurrection, but I'm being generous here.
[4] "Baal" just means "lord" and can refer to any number of gods. Maybe one of them was supposed to have died and been resurrected; who knows?
[5] It feels like I'm being *absurdly* generous here. Sure, some versions of Buddhism say that there have been multiple incarnations of the Buddha, but (a) they also say that just about *everyone* gets reincarnated, and (b) they recard getting reincarnated as something to *avoid*. If the Buddha does it it's an act of generosity, more akin to the crucifixion (or at least the incarnation) than to the resurrection.
[6] Also from Graves. There's some reason to think that "Deva Tat of Siam" = Buddha; sorry, you don't get to count the same one twice just because he has different names in different places. If not, I've no idea who or what s/he might be.
[7] Gaulish god about whom almost nothing is known (there are a couple of statues and one line in Lucan). No evidence of incarnation, death, rebirth, or ascension.
[8] The Horus/Jesus parallels appear to have been made up by a chap called Massey in the 19th century.
[9] Krishna did die (avatars generally do, I think); it seems that some traditions reckon his death an accident, and some blame it on a curse put on him.
[10] I suspect that "Sintoos" is a garbled form of "Shinto" and this is some sort of reference to the divine Emperor of Japan. But, as always with Kersey Graves, who can tell?
[11] If the Zoroastrian deity Mithra is really intended.
[12] If Mithras, of the Roman mystery religion, is intended.
[13] I'm being pretty generous here. Odin was hung from Yggdrasil for a while, by his own spear, but he didn't die and wasn't expected to, and it wasn't a punishment, and his purpose was the selfish one of gaining wisdom and power. Oh, and it's at least possible that this story postdates that of the crucifixion.
[14] In one version: Originally human; killed, resurrected temporarily, died again, and then deified by the gods. But the more details of that you fill in, the less Jesus-like it gets. "Serapis" was basically just another name for Osiris, lightly retouched for Greek use.
[15] However, Quetzalcoatl is sometimes alleged to have been born of a virgin.
[16] There's a legendary Indian hero called Shalivahana. No godlike attributes so far as I know.
[17] It seems to be a bit controversial whether Tammuz was regarded as having been reborn. I'm being generous, as usual. I've no idea where whoever-it-is gets the idea that Tammuz "turned into the disciple Thomas".
[18] Thor of the *Gauls*? WTF? I'm assuming this isn't referring to the Norse god; if it is, replace all the "-" with "N".
[19] As so often with Kersey Graves, all I can say is "wtf?".
[20] Wittoba = Vithoba = Vitthala, a manifestation of Krishna, an avatar of Vishnu. It must be awfully complicated being a Hindu. At least, I think that's who's meant here; or maybe Kersey Graves was just making stuff up again. I have no idea who the Bilingonese might be.
[21] Zamolxis, actually. According to some sources he disappeared for a while and was thought dead, and on his return was thought to have returned from death.
[22] Zoroaster gets a "Y" in the first column only because he founded a religion; he gets a "?" in the second only because according to some accounts he was murdered. He doesn't seem to have been regarded as anything more than a prophet. I have only just discovered that Sarastro (in Mozart's "The magic flute") is meant to be Zoroaster.
[23] Alcides appears to be another name for Heracles, who has his own entry.
[24] "Ascension" is a bit of a stretch here, but he was deified.
I make that a grand total of zero out of 31 (or 32 if you count both versions of Mithras) with all the claimed attributes and conclude that, yes, someone has been making things up. Mostly Kersey Graves.
It seems to me quite possible that bits of the Jesus story have been borrowed from other religions, but this blunderbuss throw-everything-and-hope-some-sticks list doesn't make much of a case.
> [Giles Harrap:] >>>>> Do you really think there are atheist writers out there who need to >>>>> deliberately make up stuff about Jesus's pagan origins? An atheist >>>>> doesn't need to do that to convince himself there isn't a god.
> [Phil:] >>>> There is no greater intellectual dishonesty than to pretend one is >>>> truly >>>> only an atheist.
> [me:] >>> Eh? Could you explain more clearly (1) what you mean and (2) >>> why you believe it?
> [Phil:] >> Certainly. Imho a person who expresses a lack of belief in God as there >> only >> position on the subject is being dishonest.
>> I have yet to meet anyone who has a stated position of "atheist" who fits >> the claimed definition, they all have beliefs about God.
> Oh, I see. But I think you've misunderstood Giles. He wasn't > playing the "I merely lack belief" gambit, or even the "to be > an atheist one need merely lack belief" gambit: he implied that > atheists are convinced that there isn't a god:
Indeed, convinced by self. They look for support for their belief.
> In uk.religion.christian on Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:41:33 GMT, "Phil Saunders" > <philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> }"Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote in message > }news:87tzidcjo2.fsf@g.mccaughan.org.uk... > }> Phil Saunders wrote: > }> > }>> "Giles" <g_har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > }>> > news:83bc8760-f4e4-44a5-8f87-338556f70a5a@v32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > }>>> On Apr 3, 8:53 pm, Alec Brady <alec.br...@virgin.net> wrote: > }>>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Giles > <g_har...@yahoo.co.uk> > }>>>> wrote: > }>> > }>> snip > }>> > }>>> Do you really think there are atheist writers out there who need to > }>>> deliberately make up stuff about Jesus's pagan origins? An atheist > }>>> doesn't need to do that to convince himself there isn't a god. > }>> > }>> lmao > }>> > }>> There is no greater intellectual dishonesty than to pretend one is > truly > }>> only an atheist. > }> > }> Eh? Could you explain more clearly (1) what you mean and (2) > }> why you believe it? > } > }Certainly. Imho a person who expresses a lack of belief in God as there > only > }position on the subject is being dishonest. > } > }I have yet to meet anyone who has a stated position of "atheist" who fits > }the claimed definition, they all have beliefs about God. > } > }Such intellectual dishonesty is just to avoid being accused of holding a > }faith position, that there is no God or that there isn't God x.
> I am an atheist - there are no gods.
> So carry on and insult me in the name of your religion
Phil Saunders <philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote in message > news:87tzidcjo2.fsf@g.mccaughan.org.uk... > > Phil Saunders wrote:
> >>> Do you really think there are atheist writers out there who need to > >>> deliberately make up stuff about Jesus's pagan origins? An atheist > >>> doesn't need to do that to convince himself there isn't a god.
> >> lmao
> >> There is no greater intellectual dishonesty than to pretend one is truly > >> only an atheist.
> > Eh? Could you explain more clearly (1) what you mean and (2) > > why you believe it?
> Certainly. Imho a person who expresses a lack of belief in God as there only > position on the subject is being dishonest.
> I have yet to meet anyone who has a stated position of "atheist" who fits > the claimed definition, they all have beliefs about God.
Inasmuch as you have met me online that is a blatant lie since I have expressed and argued exactly that point with you a number of times.
Peter
-- Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country www.the-brights.net
>I make that a grand total of zero out of 31 (or 32 >if you count both versions of Mithras) with all the >claimed attributes and conclude that, yes, someone >has been making things up. Mostly Kersey Graves.
>It seems to me quite possible that bits of the Jesus >story have been borrowed from other religions, but this >blunderbuss throw-everything-and-hope-some-sticks list >doesn't make much of a case.
Thanks Gareth. I think you deserve many jelly babies for your research. If I were a newspaper editor I would say: "This closes the correspondence" but being ukrc the thread will no doubt continue rambling pointlessly onward ;-) --
Richard Emblem "God loves each of us as if there were only one of us" St Augustine.
> I make that a grand total of zero out of 31 (or 32 > if you count both versions of Mithras) with all the > claimed attributes and conclude that, yes, someone > has been making things up. Mostly Kersey Graves.
> It seems to me quite possible that bits of the Jesus > story have been borrowed from other religions, but this > blunderbuss throw-everything-and-hope-some-sticks list > doesn't make much of a case.
I've seen this list before, and it seems obviously rather unresearched to say the least. At least some of the references do indeed appear to come from "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours" (Kersey Graves).
However I would be interested to know what you think about the inevitability of ascension/reincarnation stories arising when alleged 'godmen' die. I developed this a little more in a previous post to this thread. The (permanent) death of gods would be rather difficult to explain away, after all.
Secondly there are some resources that do draw parallels with myths that predate Christianity, and seem to be a little more bona fide in nature. For example, in "Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Volume 2: The Writings of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras", Justin Martyr (c.100-165) writes: "ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?"
He continues:
"As to the objection of our Jesus's being crucified, I say, that suffering was common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter]... As to his being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than what you say of your Aesculapius."
From Martyr's 'Dialogue with Trypho' the Jew: "Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, "strong as a giant to run his race," has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?... And when I hear, Trypho, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this."
The Devil got there first, apparently, conterfeiting the Christ story in advance. Hmm.
Anyway there is much out there on these alleged similarities, how accurate the above passages and their translations are, I have little idea - but I certainly got a different impression to Gareth's after a very brief search, with respect to the number of similarities between the various mythologies and religions (crucifixion, ascension, etc). But this post is long enough already, so no more quotes for now.
> >> >> [1] I'm trusting that your list is correct. Can you give me some > >> >> evidence for (say) your first no. 11?
> >> >I offer no evidence that any of them were godmen.
> >> I'm not asking for proof that Hesus ascended to heaven, I'm asking for > >> evidence that there was ever such a belief. You have it to hand, of > >> course.
> >Why should I go through them one by one?
> I haven't asked you to go through them one by one; Ive asked you for > your reasons for believing just one of thoise claims.
> >If you want to believe it's > >all a great conspiracy got up by some atheists and there were NO > >godmen, with similar life events to Jesus, worshipped before the time > >of Jesus, that's up to you.
> So why present them in the first place? You clearly have no reason to > suppose these myths ever existed other than someone has claimed it and > you choose to believe their claims with no evidence. Are we to see > this as the moral high-ground?
> >> >Can you give me some evidence that your godman was really a god, other > >> >than evidence in the form of assertions made by his followers?
> >> Nope. Are you ready to answer my question?
> I'll take that as a 'no', then shall I?
> >> >Could you explain to me why such a list isn't very troubling to an > >> >intelligent believer?
> >> 1) I have no evidence that anyone ever believed these things.
> >Are you saying that people had these myths but knew they were myths? > >If that is true, they were more advanced than today's Christians.
> No, I'm saying that you haven't provided any reason to suppose that > anyone ever had these myths.
> >You can't go back in time and go into people's heads. Bearing in mind > >Christians believe some pretty tall stories today, it's reasonable to > >suppose people were at least equally credulous several thousand years > >ago.
> But not as credulous as you, obviously. Someone only has to claim that > a myth existed and you accept it as fact!
> >> 2) the fact that a true God-man would ascend to heaven at the end of > >> his earthly mission is a good reason for expecting fictional god-men > >> to do the same.
> >Yes, but the thing is the "fictional god-men" who ascended came before > >your supposed true godman. So it's reasonable to expect your godman > >(one of the last) to ascend like all the godmen who came before him.
> >>I notice that, in many fictional accounts of war, > >> people die. This doesn't mean that we should mistrust supposed true > >> accounts where people also die.
> >> >Did you already have faith in your particular > >> >godman, before you ever heard of (mythical) godmen, with very similar > >> >cvs, that were worshipped before yours lived?
> >> No, I first heard of Esus from reading The White Goddess, at a time > >> when I wasn't a Christian.
> >> From a brief glance, I'd say that the parallels are artificially > >> enhanced. For example, the number 'three' is never mentioned in the > >> Bible in relation to the visiting wise men; and the use of the word > >> 'angels' to describe the annunciation of the birth of Horus is > >> surprising - what is meant by 'angel' in the context of Egyptian > >> religion? You obviously know the answer to this - perhaps you'd care > >> to shareyour understanding with us.
> >> Neither is the birth of Jesus in the bible dated to the winter > >> solstice. I think it's widely agreed that the date of Christmas > >> derives either from an existing pagan celebration or from the same > >> human impulse that gave rise to pagan solstice events.
> >> None of this causes me any more trouble than the last time some > >> atheist tried to use it to persuade me that Christianity was just > >> another myth. You might do better to take one example and argue it in > >> depth than to use a scatter-gun approach.
> >Do you really think there are atheist writers out there who need to > >deliberately make up stuff about Jesus's pagan origins? An atheist > >doesn't need to do that to convince himself there isn't a god.
> So why *do* they do it?
On the religious tolerance site a number of reasons are put forward as to how it could be that there are apparently many similarities between god-men pre-dating Jesus, and Jesus.
I think the following pretty much covers you Alec:
"Forgeries: Some have suggested that ancient evidence of Pagan god-men living similar lives to Jesus prior to the first century CE is a gigantic hoax. Anti-Christian religious historians and archaeologists have simply created fictional sets of religious beliefs, promoted them as accurate representations of ancient religions, and have perpetrated a massive hoax. This also is unlikely. The original source material is still available for academics to check. Someone by now would have written a book exposing the hoax; it would have become a best-seller." http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm
I see Michael J Davis's response to too many godmen is in there as well: "It was a type of prophecy: Other Christian writers have concluded that the Mysteries were a type of pre-echo of Jesus' life -- 'somewhat like premonitions or prophecies.' "
> > Do you really think there are atheist writers out there who need to > > deliberately make up stuff about Jesus's pagan origins? An atheist > > doesn't need to do that to convince himself there isn't a god.
> lmao
> There is no greater intellectual dishonesty than to pretend one is truly > only an atheist.
> Phil
My position is that there is a very long shot possibility of something being behind it all.
Are you open to the possibility that God/gods of ancient times could be the true god rather than the one you believe in?
>On the religious tolerance site a number of reasons are put forward as >to how it could be that there are apparently many similarities between >god-men pre-dating Jesus, and Jesus.
That's kind of assuming that there *are* such similarities. Which you still haven't shown.
>I think the following pretty much covers you Alec:
>"Forgeries: Some have suggested that ancient evidence of Pagan god-men >living similar lives to Jesus prior to the first century CE is a >gigantic hoax. Anti-Christian religious historians and archaeologists >have simply created fictional sets of religious beliefs, promoted them >as accurate representations of ancient religions, and have perpetrated >a massive hoax.
Have I said that? All I've done is ask you to substantiate your assertions. Rather than do so, you've seen fit to bluster.
Mind you, Gareth's research certainly seems to show that there is some measure of falsification. So I'd say the onus is on you to come up with some reason why we *should* believe your list.
>This also is unlikely. The original source material is >still available for academics to check. Someone by now would have >written a book exposing the hoax; it would have become a best-seller." >http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm
That's hardly evidence of the truth of the claims. For that you'd want, um, evidence of the truth of the claims. Which, so far, you've avoided providing.
>I see Michael J Davis's response to too many godmen is in there as >well: "It was a type of prophecy: Other Christian writers have >concluded that the Mysteries were a type of pre-echo of Jesus' life >-- 'somewhat like premonitions or prophecies.' "
Well, I'm sure you can argue that case with Michael. All I'm interested in is getting you to offer some evidence for your claims.
> "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> a écrit dans le message > denews: > 445f3db0-a71d-42f1-be4f-27411e240...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 8 Apr, 05:48, "PG" <p...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
> > "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> a écrit dans le message > > denews: > > 1dddc67b-4d6d-4b7b-a97e-09e85795e...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
[pga wrote]: > I would have replied more fully, but along with certain other contributors > OE refuses to insert the extra > before your latest comments.
> However I note that you snipped the key part of my argument, failed to > answer the point made, and concluded by misrepresenting my views (I at no > point made any assertion as to the validity of any part of the list). You > then compounded your earlier generalisation about atheists with another > one. > Not much point discussing this further with you, then.
[Roger Pearse wrote]: -"Thanks for your comments.
-I note that the key issue -- whether you (or anyone) could justify the -list of names, or your support for it -- seems somehow to be missing -from the above. But of course they cannot be justified."
I have quoted from Justin Martyr elsewhere in this thread. Look forward to reading people's views on this. Once again, I will not justify any point, whether made by an atheist or a little green man from Mars, unless I think there is good reason to do so.
[Roger Pearse wrote]: -"This leads on to my second point, a side issue if you like; that one -reason I have a problem with atheists is their tendency to repeat -hearsay so freely."
To the best of my knowledge, I have never knowingly repeated hearsay to back up a view I hold, as in debate with ilntelligent opponents this only serves to undermine one's position. Your continued tendency to generalise gratuitously about atheists is noted.
[Roger Pearse wrote]: -"I'm sorry that you feel unhappy with how I characterised atheists. -But if atheists object to how others perceive them -- and few people -online are more willing both to give and take offence -- then perhaps -changing that perception would be the right way forward? This, of -course, means avoiding the sorts of (almost reflex) behaviours on -which I remarked."
All that is needed is an ability on your part to see atheists as a group of random individuals, with no common cause, morality, or objective. All they share is a lack of belief in deities. Once people are able to shed this misapprehension of atheists as some kind of movement or belief system they will find it easier to engage with the arguments presented.
[Roger Pearse wrote]: -"This cannot happen, tho, while atheists continue to justify that -perception. I'm sorry that, if you disagreed, you didn't feel that -you could engage with that."
Only one person is resonsible for that perception in this exchange, and it is not one of the atheists.
|
