The Pagan Christ

by poopsiecakes 127 Replies latest jw friends

tec

sigh...
Debate 101 - If you make a claim (such as the claims about Jesus life are true) then the burden of proof lies on you. It does NOT lie on someone else to prove it false.
If you make a claim that Christ is a myth, then THAT burden of proof lies on you. All I've done is point out the proven falsehoods of those who are telling us that Christ is a myth.
The older Mithraic myth from Persia (not the Roman myth that had him springing from a rock) has a virgin birth for Mithras.
Can you give me your source for this, please? (Unbiased source) Because so far the only evidence I have heard about from the Mithras thing is from writings that post-date Christianity. Perhaps I'm wrong about this one. But even if I am, what about all the other obvious falsehoods? Why do Christ-mythers use them to pad their case?
If that's the standard we are using them then claims of Jesus birth (the census), geneaology, life, miracles, existence and divinity are sketchy at best.
I consider the books written, the mention of Jesus outside the bible, as well as the terrible persecution of Christians in the first and second centuries to be slightly better than sketchy. But everyone is welcome to their own opinion on this. It should be noted that sketchiness is not an outright lie, as are the things I've pointed out about Christ-myth'ers.
You do realize that pretty much every sect of Christianity has accused every other sect of the same thing? I mean, the Christian faith isn't even internally consistent. It seems.....ironic?
True, the Christian faith is not internally consistent. It has also done many terrible things that will have to be answered for- those things do not follow the teachings of Christ, by the way.
But are you saying that we should accept lies simply because Christians and non-christians alike have lied? I am as angry with a Christian that lies or deliberately misinterprets scripture to push their own self-serving agenda, as I am with anyone else.
It should also be mentioned that a misunderstanding of scripture is not the same thing as a deliberate falsehood.
Poopsiecakes - thank you for welcoming my view. I have no doubt that you and many others are honest in their search. The fact that these authors had no preconceived agendas is definitely a mark in their favor. And in the end, we must all weigh the evidence and theories and come to our own conclusion.
Tec
notverylikely

If you make a claim that Christ is a myth, then THAT burden of proof lies on you.
I didn't make that claim. I am asking some some proof posotive for his existance since you are asserting Christ existed.
Can you give me your source for this, please? (Unbiased source)
I'm not your research monkey.
Because so far the only evidence I have heard about from the Mithras thing is from writings that post-date Christianity.
It literally took me less than five minutes to find. I have faith in you.
But even if I am, what about all the other obvious falsehoods? Why do Christ-mythers use them to pad their case?
Toss them in the bucket with all the lies that the polar opposite Christ-myther use to attempt to prove his existance. Goose, gander, etc.
I consider the books written, the mention of Jesus outside the bible, as well as the terrible persecution of Christians in the first and second centuries to be slightly better than sketchy.
The only contemporary one that wasn't christian (tacitus) just mentions that there were christians, followers of christ. The joseph flavius mentions are ALL later additions. lots of people were persecuted long before the christians rolled around, that in no way makes them unique (in fact, they were, depending upon the time in history, the terrible perpetrators of persecution, does that prove Christanity false?).
But are you saying that we should accept lies simply because Christians and non-christians alike have lied?
Sigh....again. I never said anyone should accept lies. That's a classic attempt in a debate when backed into a corner, turn something around and assert the OTHER person said it and ask them to explain it. Since I never said anything of the sort, I have to reject the attempt at misdirection.
So, if you want to say "I have faith in Jesus and beleive in him", that's awesome. But, when you start throwing facts and history around and talking about proof and bias, then i like to keep the playing field level and make sure we are all playing by the same rules.
tec

I didn't make that claim. I am asking some some proof posotive for his existance since you are asserting Christ existed.
The only assertion I made was that the Christ myth-ers are lying. I provided proof for that on this and other threads. And if a Christ-myther makes the claim that Christ is a myth, then THAT burden of proof does fall on them.
Believe in Christ's existence, or not, as you prefer or as your reason and conscience dictate. I am only suggesting that people not disbelieve based on these lies.
I'm not your research monkey.
You made the claim that Mithras was born of a virgin. As you said, make a claim and the burden of proof falls on you. However... I looked it up anyway, which is what took me so long to respond to your post. About.com has a persian mithra story... Mithra born from a rock. David Ulansey who wrote the Origins of Mirthra Mysteries and includes Persian/roman models, also claims that mithra was born from a rock. Encyclopedia Mithra... same thing.
There is however a saying that Anahita is the Immaculate mother of mithra on the internet, which does not provide a source - in this same article it is mentioned that Mithras is also written to be born of a rock. And If one looks up Annahita in the Encyclopedia Mythica, then one finds that Annahita is sometimes referred to as Mithra's consort. No mention of her being his mother.
Toss them in the bucket with all the lies that the polar opposite Christ-myther use to attempt to prove his existance. Goose, gander, etc.
What lies? Not being able to provide unquestionable evidence does not make something a lie. It just makes it unproven. But saying that you have proof of something, and then not having that proof... that is a lie.
(Just to clear something up, when I write 'you', I am speaking in a general sense. I am not targeting you -notverylikely- of anything in particular.)
lots of people were persecuted long before the christians rolled around, that in no way makes them unique (in fact, they were, depending upon the time in history, the terrible perpetrators of persecution, does that prove Christanity false?).
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I never said Christians were unique in being persecuted. I only stated that this recorded persecution, combined with the other sources that I gave to believe that Jesus existed, were better than *sketchy* proofs. I also said this is my opinion. Do I also believe on faith, because of the love and compassion taught by Christ? Yes. Do you have to accept this? No.
Sigh....again. I never said anyone should accept lies. That's a classic attempt in a debate when backed into a corner, turn something around and assert the OTHER person said it and ask them to explain it. Since I never said anything of the sort, I have to reject the attempt at misdirection.
I never claimed you said that. I asked a genuine question, because it seemed like you were doing this.
example. Me- Christ-mythers lie.
You - So do Christians. It is ironic.
I also said that I hold Christians to the same standard. You never responded to my original post, except to say that Christians also lie. If I misunderstood you, then please explain how. I did not feel backed into a corner, and I don't have a clue what classic debate attempts might be.
Again, I never started throwing proofs and history around to say that Jesus existed. Decide that for yourself, and I wish you all the best no matter what you believe or don't believe.
All I did was rebut the lies that Christ-myth'ers use.
Tec
Poopsiecakes = I'm truly sorry about taking over the thread. Would you rather we take this somewhere else?
notverylikely

The only assertion I made was that the Christ myth-ers are lying. I provided proof for that on this and other threads. And if a Christ-myther makes the claim that Christ is a myth, then THAT burden of proof does fall on them.
Sigh...you've provided debating views. Not evidence of lies. So, I am asking you, do you beleive that Jesus was a myth? Parts, all, none?
About.com has a persian mithra story... Mithra born from a rock. David Ulansey who wrote the Origins of Mirthra Mysteries and includes Persian/roman models, also claims that mithra was born from a rock. Encyclopedia Mithra... same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
Interestingly, everything I found was pretty much split half and half on that. Clearly there is DEBATE on the subject, not necesarily lies. What is interesting is that that the only sites that claim the other side is lying and Christianity came up with all of this anew are the aplogetics.
What lies? Not being able to provide unquestionable evidence does not make something a lie.
Interesting that when that standard is applied to your assertions they aren't lies either.
It just makes it unproven. But saying that you have proof of something, and then not having that proof... that is a lie.
So the existance of Jesus is unproven? Cool!
Again, I never started throwing proofs and history around to say that Jesus existed.
No, you didn't, you were engaging in an attempt to push an agenda. You have some different conclusions based on the evidence and are clearly pushing the "lies!" lines pretty hard. I was showing how that words equally well in the opposite direction.
I did not feel backed into a corner
You were.
I don't have a clue what classic debate attempts might be.
I can tell.
All I did was rebut the lies that Christ-myth'ers use.
You are accusing people debating a subject and holding a particular view of having an agenda and lying. Again, you clearly have an agenda as well and since you said that you can only use unbiased sources that don't have an agenda, you unwittingly ruled yourself out as reliable.
yadda yadda 2

Here's a thread on the subject:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/128069/1/Christianity-did-NOT-borrow-from-pagan-Dying-Rising-God-motifs
notverylikely

Here's a thread on the subject:
Man, you turned angry in that thread quickly.
So, a comment in the "ulterior motives" portions of that thread (and partially this one). There are generally two competing ideas, one that generally falls into wanting the research and facts to prove the bible and the other following the research and facts to where they may lead. They BOTH have an ulterior motive, one is to prove their viewpoint correct, the other is to figure out what is correct.
You don't use science to prove you are right, you use science to become more right. (shamelessly stolen from XKCD).
So, when someone says "I see an ulterior motive" and they are referring to people using evidence to prop up the bible. A return answer like this...
Oh come on! Spare us the self-righteous 'ulterior motive' crap. The exact same thing could be said of those who attack the reliablity of the New Testament. They can just as easily be charged with being motivated by a disbelief of God.
(But if you want to indulge in ad hominem attacks, hows this) 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. Complete moral freedom. Lovely notion aye. So very tempting. I'd fight tooth and nail to defend my right to complete moral freedom.

Its not hard to see who has more reason for 'ulterior motives'.
See, if the evidence doesn't support the NT or the OT or anything else, saying so isn't "attacking". Throwing out comments like that pretty much negates ANY credibility you had. Up to the point where I read that I was thinking "some interesting points worth considering here".
tec

Notverylikely - Yes I have an agenda. My agenda is that people do not believe the lies that Christ-myth'ers have told. Could I be wrong? Of course, but I have not seen any evidence to the contrary. And I have not use biased sources to push my agenda. I have not present FACTS that have no proof to back them up.
So lets begin. I hope we're both doing this without malice? Just as a debate, right?
So, I am asking you, do you beleive that Jesus was a myth? Parts, all, none?
I do not believe Jesus was a myth. Nor did I start a thread saying Jesus was real or that I have the facts to prove it. Obviously there are arguments either way, and we each choose which of those arguments have merit. I only accused Christ-myth'er of using lies to pad their case, and wondered at the motives in that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
Interestingly, everything I found was pretty much split half and half on that. Clearly there is DEBATE on the subject, not necesarily lies. What is interesting is that that the only sites that claim the other side is lying and Christianity came up with all of this anew are the aplogetics.
This is what I found written in wikipedia that you quoted:
-- Some have tried to demonstrate Christian dependence on a Roman mystery cult called Mithraism, which was established prior to Christianity. Early reconstructions of the Mithras legend proposed, from Persiansources, that he might have been born of the union of Mother Earth and Ahuramazda, however the theory has not endured. Carvings illustrating the legend reinforce documentary sources that focus on Mithras being born purely from rock (saxigenus), [ 48 ] as Athena, the daughter of Zeus and Metis, [ 49 ] sprang from the forehead of Zeus.--
Every single other source that I gave you above that is non-biased (meaning they were not trying to prove or disprove a comparison between mithra and Jesus; they were just relaying the myth) claims Mithra being born of rock. I see nothing half and half here either by the way. I see that the 'theory has not endured.'
Interesting that when that standard is applied to your assertions they aren't lies either.
If someone claims that something is true, and then the evidence proves that claim false, then it is false. You cannot prove that Jesus did not exist. You can only speculate, based on which argument you believe has merit. No, you didn't, you were engaging in an attempt to push an agenda. You have some different conclusions based on the evidence and are clearly pushing the "lies!" lines pretty hard. I was showing how that words equally well in the opposite direction. Yes, I am pushing the lies line pretty hard. Because their claims are contradicted in the unbiased writings of mythology. I haven't lied about anything to do with Jesus. You don't think there's enough evidence to prove Jesus existed. Your choice. I think there is. My choice. You were. (backed into a corner) Are you trying to tell me how I felt? Or are you assuming I was backed into a corner and either didn't recognize it or am lying about it? I can tell. Appreciate the personal attack. (Perhaps we aren't both in this without malice after all? But I could be reading too much into that.) Again, you clearly have an agenda as well and since you said that you can only use unbiased sources that don't have an agenda, you unwittingly ruled yourself out as reliable. I am not a source. I am a person who has used unbiased sources to present her case and I have also looked up the sources you supplied. I have not told anyone to take me at my word. I have said to check them yourself if you want to know if they are unbiased, false or true. I don't think either of us is going to come around to the others' point of view. I believe they were lying, and have given my reasons for this. Padding your case, seems to me, to be deceitful at least. But perhaps I should simply have said that their claims were false, and then went on to explain why I thought so from there. Would that have made a difference to you? Respectfully, Tec (sorry - don't know how the post got so squished together)
yadda yadda 2

"Throwing out comments like that pretty much negates ANY credibility you had."
Nonsense. How does someone's tone negate the truthfulness or otherwise of what they're saying? It simply suits you to say that so you don't have to deal with the academic research I canvassed in that thread. Read the research I posted and respond to it...don't dismiss the whole thread just because you have some problem with my attitude. Otherwise you're obviously just using an excuse.
notverylikely

I do not believe Jesus was a myth. Nor did I start a thread saying Jesus was real or that I have the facts to prove it. Obviously there are arguments either way, and we each choose which of those arguments have merit. I only accused Christ-myth'er of using lies to pad their case, and wondered at the motives in that.
The problem is that you are starting with an inherent bias towards a subject. Your OBVIOUS bias can be seen by calling conclusions you don't like lies, using inflammatory words, etc., rather than saying something like "the research doesn't support that conclusion based on this evidence".
I see nothing half and half here either by the way. I see that the 'theory has not endured.'
OK, and? You are focusing on the virgin birth portion and saying "see, there is no connection" when you are ignoring other myths like god impregnating women, etc. Dismissing that as not similiar because it doesn't support your bias is foolish at best and intelectually dishonest at worst. You have an agenda to push, why would I NOT presume you are cherry picking your fights?
If someone claims that something is true, and then the evidence proves that claim false, then it is false. You cannot prove that Jesus did not exist. You can only speculate, based on which argument you believe has merit.
I am not trying to prove he didn't. You keep wanting to argue this with me. Until you prove that Jesus did, we are arguing which old story came from which other old story. Also, you don't seem to be getting that studies of myths in antiquity is not as simple as 2+2=4. There are stories, other stories, competing stories, figuring out from incomplete records what wrote, beleived and re-told what and when. Evidence is rarely conclusive and you are treating it like you have eyewitness accounts in a court of law. Your approach is wrong and your imflammatory words don't lend you any credence.
Yes, I am pushing the lies line pretty hard. Because their claims are contradicted in the unbiased writings of mythology.
People writing those myths (including the ones inclkuding Jesus, until you prove they are true) were ALL pushing their agenda, just like you. You are as biased as the source you are using. That's why clear evidence is so hard to come by.
Are you trying to tell me how I felt? Or are you assuming I was backed into a corner and either didn't recognize it or am lying about it?
I don't know why you put that false dichotomy out there, I never aid you were lying about it, but since you asked, it's clear that you don't understand research or debate well enough to realize it. You are blinded by trying to push your agenda.
I am not a source. I am a person who has used unbiased sources to present her case and I have also looked up the sources you supplied. I have not told anyone to take me at my word. I have said to check them yourself if you want to know if they are unbiased, false or true.
You have an admitted bias. Any source that does not agree with your agenda you label as biased. Therefore, any source you use already agrees with you. Even if the SOURCE isn't biased, you are using it in a biased way.
I believe they were lying, and have given my reasons for this. Padding your case, seems to me, to be deceitful at least. But perhaps I should simply have said that their claims were false, and then went on to explain why I thought so from there.
That would have been a better start, yes. But to assume malice (lying) when in fact all they do is draw different conclusions based on evidence makes me think you might be incapable of that.
notverylikely

Nonsense. How does someone's tone negate the truthfulness or otherwise of what they're saying?
It doesn't. It just means you're acting like a jerk and no one will listen beyond that.
It simply suits you to say that so you don't have to deal with the academic research I canvassed in that thread. Read the research I posted and respond to it
Why? When someone finds research or a theory that disagrees with your agenda, you turn into a jerk. That's not debate.
don't dismiss the whole thread just because you have some problem with my attitude.
I didn't, just you for being jerky.
Otherwise you're obviously just using an excuse.
Riiiight. Pot, kettle, rafter, eye, etc.

The Pagan Christ

Share this