Christianity did NOT borrow from pagan "Dying-Rising" God motifs

by yaddayadda 93 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • undercover
    undercover
    Many who were alive during the time of Jesus life on earth, later on went to horrible deaths by heheadings, being thrown to lions and other terrible deads. There was absolutely no good reason to say you believed in christ because it was a guarantee of persecution. Many want to say that these people were under some sort of dillusion and following a fictional myth? Would you allow your entire family to be thrown into a lion pit to keep up a charade of a fictional character?

    That's not a very good argument.

    What about the Bible Students/Jehovah's Witnesses who faced persecution and death for beleiving in Jehovah/Jesus/WTS (not necessarily in that order)? Were they under some sort of delusion and following a 'fictional myth' of being part of God's earthly organization?

    The point being that just because someone or a group of people are willing to die for their beliefs does not prove the existence of the higher power/supreme being/messiah/deliverer that they chose to believe in.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere
    In your own evidence which you kindly highlighted, I would like to point out this phrase used several times; "we shall seem to utter the doctrine of". What does this term mean to you?

    It tells me that the similarity between the christian and pagan teachings was so great that people mistook them for being the same.

  • kid-A
    kid-A

    "And even more so, since disbelief in God, hence disbelief in the Bible, means no accountability to anything higher than yourself and the police. Eat, drink, fornicate, and generally be merry with impunity, for tomorrow you are to die."

    LMAO!!! What a self-righteous arse. Pretty obvious who has the agenda here. Exactly what a JW elder would say! Did you cut and paste this from a Watchtower article? Get over your delusions. Anyone with even the foggiest understanding of sociocultural evolution understands that NO religious traditions exist in a vacuum. Myths, prophecies, symbols, archetypes are passed around as social and psychological memes. The writers of the NT were NOT immune to the cultures and mythos within which they were raised, and the product they produced (a highly stylized account of a man-god named Jesus, whose life had overwhelming similarities to the surrounding greek and roman mythological traditions) is an obvious reflection of this fact.

    http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_christs_getting_started.html

    A God shaped like a man, walking, talking, eating, but still having magic God powers—you can't get more Pagan than that. Ancient Gods had human bodies, that's how Paganism worked. Jesus was no different.

    Ancient Pagan Gods like Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, and others weren't just Gods in human form, they were God-men—subordinate Gods, son's of the great universal God, miraculously conceived, born of a mortal woman, living for a while on Earth rather than in Heaven. Sound familiar? Sure it does. That's because Jesus is a Pagan godman .

    Jesus a xerox copy of one particular Pagan God? When Paul and Mark and John sat down to write about Jesus, did they have the Revised Standard Edition of The Gospel of the Pagan Gods open on the table? The answer is No. Of course not. Don't be silly.

    What Paul, Mark, John, and the other early Christians had wasn't on their tables, it was in their heads. What they had were the same general notions of divinity, and cosmology and humanity, and how those things worked together, that everyone had back then. They knew how Gods worked. And when they wrote about Jesus, they made sure he worked like a God—which I do not doubt for a minute is exactly what they believed He was.

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    What then possessed Paul to keep up with proclaiming the story of the ficitional God-Man Jesus, you say was made up, even knowing it would lead to his horrible death? I think this is a very valid question. Btw, most scholars believe Paul was beheaded. How many here would go to their beheading for a fictional character?

    Many of the early Christians who now it is being claimed knew Jesus was a myth and did not walk the earth during his time, went to horrible deaths proclaiming that he did. Not only them but their entire families were persecuted and wiped out, being thrown to the lions. I know if all I had to do was tell the truth and stop spreading a myth, and my family would be saved, I certainly would do that simple thing.

    Most Bible Scholars agree that Jesus was indeed a real historical person. These ideas about him being a complete myth are a modern day invention and the result of men who want physical signs and proof before they believe in the Christ. This is similar to Thomas who refused to believe that Jesus was resurrection unless he could put his hand in his side, and see the nail holes himself. Man has not changed one bit in his thoughts. He cannot see with spiritual eyes and must seek out physical things. There is evidence of Jesus existance but whenever it is brought out, such as in Jospehus writings, modern day men tried to say that Christians tampered with the writings, and they do this without one single shred of evidence. It is theory only.

    Anyway, have to write an article, be back to alligator wrestle some more later. Lilly

  • undercover
    undercover

    What then possessed Paul to keep up with proclaiming the story of the ficitional God-Man Jesus, you say was made up, even knowing it would lead to his horrible death? I think this is a very valid question. Btw, most scholars believe Paul was beheaded. How many here would go to their beheading for a fictional character?

    What posseses people today to blow themselves up in the name of Allah? What posseses people today to go around preaching that a loving God is going to destroy 6 billion people any day now? What possesses people to drink poisen-laced Kool Aid?

    Maybe Paul was delusional. Maybe he was a cult leader. Maybe he wasn't quite right in the head. Maybe he was insane. Maybe he's a product of someone's imagination? Who knows?

    I agree that I wouldn't go to a beheading for a fictional character...but there aren't too many real characters I'd do it for either.

    Most Bible Scholars agree that Jesus was indeed a real historical person. These ideas about him being a complete myth are a modern day invention and the result of men who want physical signs and proof before they believe in the Christ. This is similar to Thomas who refused to believe that Jesus was resurrection unless he could put his hand in his side, and see the nail holes himself. Man has not changed one bit in his thoughts. He cannot see with spiritual eyes and must seek out physical things. There is evidence of Jesus existance but whenever it is brought out, such as in Jospehus writings, modern day men tried to say that Christians tampered with the writings, and they do this without one single shred of evidence. It is theory only.

    Got references? How about secular historians?

    Jesus existance is theory only as well. There is no real proof.

    If you choose to believe in his existance at one time, that's your right and choice. And I respect that choice.

    My original post was to point out that people who choose to die because of a particular belief does not prove that belief correct. I'm not all that concerned about if the Jesus myth was borrowed from earlier myths or if it was concocted on it's own. All I know is that without definitive proof, it is a myth and without more proof, I'll choose to not believe it.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Side note on the "they died for it => it's true" sophistry.

    "It is so little true that martyrs offer any support to the truth of a cause that I am inclined to deny that any martyr has ever had anything to do with the truth at all. In the very tone in which a martyr flings what he fancies to be true at the head of the world there appears so low a grade of intellectual honesty and such insensibility to the problem of "truth," that it is never necessary to refute him. Truth is not something that one man has and another man has not: at best, only peasants, or peasant apostles like Luther, can think of truth in any such way. One may rest assured that the greater the degree of a man's intellectual conscience the greater will be his modesty, his discretion, on this point. To know in five cases, and to refuse, with delicacy, to know anything further . . . "Truth," as the word is understood by every prophet, every sectarian, every free-thinker, every Socialist and every churchman, is simply a complete proof that not even a beginning has been made in the intellectual discipline and self-control that are necessary to the unearthing of even the smallest truth.--The deaths of the martyrs, it may be said in passing, have been misfortunes of history: they have misled . . . The conclusion that all idiots, women and plebeians come to, that there must be something in a cause for which any one goes to his death (or which, as under primitive Christianity, sets off epidemics of death-seeking)--this conclusion has been an unspeakable drag upon the testing of facts, upon the whole spirit of inquiry and investigation. The martyrs have damaged the truth. . . . Even to this day the crude fact of persecution is enough to give an honourable name to the most empty sort of sectarianism.--But why? Is the worth of a cause altered by the fact that some one had laid down his life for it?--An error that becomes honourable is simply an error that has acquired one seductive charm the more: do you suppose, Messrs. Theologians, that we shall give you the chance to be martyred for your lies?--One best disposes of a cause by respectfully putting it on ice--that is also the best way to dispose of theologians. . . . This was precisely the world-historical stupidity of all the persecutors: that they gave the appearance of honour to the cause they opposed--that they made it a present of the fascination of martyrdom. . . .Women are still on their knees before an error because they have been told that some one died on the cross for it. Is the cross, then, an argument?--"

    Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist

  • Inquisitor
    Inquisitor
    What then possessed Paul to keep up with proclaiming the story of the ficitional God-Man Jesus, you say was made up, even knowing it would lead to his horrible death? I think this is a very valid question. Btw, most scholars believe Paul was beheaded. How many here would go to their beheading for a fictional character?

    Dear lovelylil,

    What possessed Marshall Herf Applewhite to keep up with proclaiming the story of the fly-by UFO, which we know was made up, even knowing it would lead to his horrible death (and 38 other followers of the Heaven's Gate cult)?

    When answered this question you have, know my reply you will.

    INQ

  • Terry
    Terry
    As the early Church Fathers grappled with several religious notions, many of which seemed to bear a superficial resemblance to their own beliefs, I believe they suceeded, not without disputation, in preserving the original message of Christianity, and its Author, in an atmosphere free from intellectual influence.

    Yes? But, you don't say "why" you believe they suceeded. Also, your premise contains the presupposition that there was, indeed, an original messege to preserve.

    What is your chain of evidence and how do you obtain it? If you start out with the strong desire, as you term it to:

    As a Bible believing Christian, commited to upholding the integrity of the text of scripture,

    You clearly label yourself as a party interested in preferring one outcome over another.

    In selecting a jury attorneys for both sides try to eliminate persons committed to a specific outcome.

    How do you handle your own prejudgement and still remain intellectually honest?

    This is a struggle we all have certainly. It is the most essentially profound question we can ask ourselves. "Do we really want to let the evidence speak for itself? Or, are we committed to a particular outcome?"

  • Terry
    Terry

    The terrorists who flew airliners into the World Trade Center were willing to suffer a truly sadistic death (as well as extinguishing the lives of many innocents) because of their religious belief, conviction and attitude of utter certainty.

    Does this prove their religion is correct? Or, does it prove that people who are more willing to suffer and die than live are nutjobs with mental illness parading as humble servants of a Supreme Being?

    There is never a shortage of the mentally ill with strong convictions. It proves nothing but the cheapness of life to a neurotic and the utter lack of objectivity, skepticism and rational thought.

    This argument would only appeal to another neurotic as convincing.

  • done4good
    done4good
    The terrorists who flew airliners into the World Trade Center were willing to suffer a truly sadistic death (as well as extinguishing the lives of many innocents) because of their religious belief, conviction and attitude of utter certainty.

    True. However, although I'm largely agnostic, (in other words I don't "know" anything from a religious standpoint for sure"), I sense, for most Christians, it's not about absolute certainty. That's fundamentalism, (which some are, such as jws), but not the majority. Christianity is mostly based on faith, not certainty, and it certainly can't be proven on purely a rational basis. It also cannot be UN-proven on purely a rational basis.

    j

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit