(April 7, 2016 at 11:38 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: There are some Egyptian stories that describe Isis as giving a virgin birth, but there are other versions of that story that involve a detached, golden penis, so I'm not sure how much that had to do with Jesus. Probably not much.

Actually a lot because Isis was wife of Osiris who died and then resurrected few days later to became judge of the dead in the afterlife (sounds familiar?) as well as deity that granted all life, including sprouting vegetation and the fertile flooding of the Nile River.
Also symbolism of Osiris is very similar to Jesus: He carries the crook and flail-the crook is thought to represent Osiris as a shepherd god as well as fish symbol.

Osiris death and resurrection cycle was considered "The death of the grain and the death of the god were one and the same: the cereal was identified with the god who came from heaven; he was the bread by which man lives. The resurrection of the god symbolized the rebirth of the grain."

Penis you mentioned is the way he died. He was chopped up in 16 pieces which were later marked every year by his worshipers by making of molds from the wood of a red tree in the forms of the sixteen dismembered parts of Osiris, the cakes of 'divine' bread were made from each mold, placed in a silver chest and set near the head of the god with the inward parts of Osiris as described in the Book of the Dead.

(April 7, 2016 at 11:07 pm)Godschild Wrote: You all are arguing from two different starting points, this will always bring disagreement. The biggest disparity is Genesis and evolution. You all should first agree on the starting point and go from there.

GC

Fine, simple facts: Genesis is a myth created by a group of people who knew fuck all apart from taking goat penii up their rectii. It has no basis in fact or reality, and is quite clearly stolen from older creation myths, most obviously the Babylonian and Egyptian ones. Evolution on the other hand is a well documented natural phenomenon and is beyond refutation (though creatards do try hard), and the theory we have to explain it is well founded on evidence and predictive value and is one of the scientific theories out there with the lowest chance of being completely overturned.

(April 8, 2016 at 10:19 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(April 7, 2016 at 11:07 pm)Godschild Wrote: You all are arguing from two different starting points, this will always bring disagreement. The biggest disparity is Genesis and evolution. You all should first agree on the starting point and go from there.

GC

Fine, simple facts: Genesis is a myth created by a group of people who knew fuck all apart from taking goat penii up their rectii. It has no basis in fact or reality, and is quite clearly stolen from older creation myths, most obviously the Babylonian and Egyptian ones. Evolution on the other hand is a well documented natural phenomenon and is beyond refutation (though creatards do try hard), and the theory we have to explain it is well founded on evidence and predictive value and is one of the scientific theories out there with the lowest chance of being completely overturned.

 Easy there boy, don't get so bent out of shape that kind of language isn't necessary, nor is your attitude. I simply stated that those who are in this discussion should agree to argue from the same staring point, the way it stands now you are arguing apples and oranges. Everyone should agree to one starting point and make their arguments, then take the other starting point and argue from it and see what the results. Then compare the two and see if you can find some commonality between the two. I wasn't try to argue for or against creation of evolution, I though it would be interesting to see the results without my participation.

GC

Quote: I simply stated that those who are in this discussion should agree to argue from the same staring point,

"Once upon a time" is not a starting point.  For anything except a fairy tale, that is.

Given that late bronze age cultures were agricultural, and the link between death and rebirth and the seasons, it seems more unlikely that a god figure wouldn't experience a death and rebirth cycle. The Christians act like their Jesus was unique, but he wasn't. It's another example of telling the same lie over and over again to make it appear as truth.

(April 9, 2016 at 2:43 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(April 8, 2016 at 10:19 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Fine, simple facts: Genesis is a myth created by a group of people who knew fuck all apart from taking goat penii up their rectii. It has no basis in fact or reality, and is quite clearly stolen from older creation myths, most obviously the Babylonian and Egyptian ones. Evolution on the other hand is a well documented natural phenomenon and is beyond refutation (though creatards do try hard), and the theory we have to explain it is well founded on evidence and predictive value and is one of the scientific theories out there with the lowest chance of being completely overturned.

 Easy there boy, don't get so bent out of shape that kind of language isn't necessary, nor is your attitude. I simply stated that those who are in this discussion should agree to argue from the same staring point, the way it stands now you are arguing apples and oranges. Everyone should agree to one starting point and make their arguments, then take the other starting point and argue from it and see what the results. Then compare the two and see if you can find some commonality between the two. I wasn't try to argue for or against creation of evolution, I though it would be interesting to see the results without my participation.

GC

I gave you the starting point, the book written by a bunch of goatfuckers is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% bullshit written to make sure idiots like you fork over all ye're money. Until you accept this well established fact there is no point in us discussing with you, as all you're doing is putting your fingers in your ears and screeching "na na na I am not listening" while your pastor fucks you up your arse with his twenty four inch steel spiked dildo.

That's the life you've chosen for yourself, but that doesn't give you any rights to try and force it on us.

(March 29, 2016 at 12:23 pm)SteveII Wrote: If Christianity was a recycling of old myths, then it all had to be developed and synthesized between Jesus' death and the writing of Paul's letters or at the latest the gospels a few years later.

A few years later? Paul wrote his first letter a good two decades after the traditional dates for Jesus ' death. He notable almost never quotes Jesus or describes Jesus' life. With the exception of Romans, his surviving letters were written to gentile communities not groups of Jewish Christians. Sudden great consistency with jewish myth was hardly reqired.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

The the first gospel was written was Mark in 60 CE but probably closer to 70 CE. John was written last sometime between 80-95 CE. That's a generation or two after Jesus' death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic...p_and_date

Quote:That would be an impressive undertaking resulting in a systematic theology that had to:

1. Be compatible with OT monotheistic doctrine of God

But it isn't consistent. The trinity is not consistent with previous monotheist doctrine. The christian concepts of afterlife are very different from earlier jewish notions of death. Christians largely threw out the bedrock of Jewish practice of the laws of Moses.

Quote:2. Be compatible with OT prophecies

Which prophesies? Seriously. Jesus was no David. There was no prophesy of a virgin birth. Just what intricate prophecy would be hard to meet?

Quote:3. Be internally consistent.

The gospels are far from internally consistent and the description of Paul in Acts is in conflict with Paul's letters. If internal consistency were required there wouldn't be a christianity.

Quote:4. and since most of you believe that Jesus actually/probably existed, had to be compatible with what the people knew to be true about Jesus--whom Paul never net.

The fact that a man lived preached and died has little to do with how he might be mythologized decades later elsewhere in in world.

Quote:It also assumes that, presumably Paul, was familiar with the details of each of the examples of ancient myths you give. I don't see reasons why that would be true. He would have been studied in Jewish law and the OT. Access to the details of extinct and eastern religions would have to be explained for this to be plausible.

Not really. I doubt many founders of other religions borrowing ideas had extensive knowledge of the myths they borrowed. Right now new age idiots mythicise quantum mechanics without actually knowing much more than a little vocabulary. The jewish notions of death changed as they met other cultures. Extensive knowledge of those cultures was not required. Religious ideas move freely through many cultures without scholarly study by myth makers. Why would it be more difficult for early christians?

Quote:Then you are back to the question of: Why would Paul go through all that trouble to make up such a complicated story? If you are tempted to say for power and/or money, please provide evidence for that assertion.

Paul joined first one side than the other in an ongoing jewish debate about what Jesus' teachings and death meant. He didn't make up a religion, rather, he had strong ideas about a developing religion. Many, many people were involved in the making of Christianity. That is why it is so internally inconsistent.

Quote:The the first gospel was written was Mark in 60 CE but probably closer to 70 CE.

The rationale for that is the so-called Little Apocalypse.  This (the destruction of the temple) ignores two very basic points.

1-  It makes 70 the terminus a quo, the earliest possible date for an event and there is no reason to suppose that "mark" or whoever sat there writing by the flickering fires of the burning temple.  The ruins of Jerusalem remained untouched for 65+ years, except for the spot where the Xth Legion built their garrison camp, until Hadrian flattened everything to rebuild the city as Aelia Capitolina but, even more to the point is

2- the markan bullshit story says " Leaving the temple area, a disciple said: "Teacher, look at the huge blocks of stone and the enormous buildings!" Facing the temple, Jesus responds: "You see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another - all will be torn down."  The funny thing is that is exactly what happened.  But it happened after 135 as part of Hadrian's urban renewal project.

So, even the traditionalists can't specify where in the range of 70-135 'mark' was written but the temple was not leveled as predicted until the mid 2d century.

(April 10, 2016 at 11:59 am)Jenny A Wrote: With the exception of Romans, his surviving letters were written to gentile communities not groups of Jewish Christians.  Sudden great consistency with jewish myth was hardly reqired.

In Paul's writings, he puts a lot of effort into explaining why Xianity is in absolute consistency with the OT. He is constantly quoting the OT and constantly reminding his readers (mixed Jewish and gentile BTW) of the biblical meta-narrative. Consistency with the OT is non-negotiable for him.

Quote:But it isn't consistent.   The trinity is not consistent with previous monotheist doctrine.

Paul's monotheism is completely compatible with C1 Judaism, because Paul lived and died as a monotheist. What changed under early Xianity was the understanding of what monotheism meant. In addition to the Pillar of Cloud/Fire, Burning Bush, Wisdom, Torah and Tabernacled Presence, the early church believed that God had also appeared in human form. One God, many ways to communicate.

Later church councils made things complicated, and “3 in 1” approaches tend to mislead.

Quote:The fact that a man lived preached and died has little to do with how he might be mythologized decades later elsewhere in in world.  

Paul wrote, as you say, only 20 years after Jesus death, and as Paul points out, large numbers of eyewitnesses would have been alive (Peter etc). The accounts of the resurrection are a different genre of thing altogether to the legends around at the time. (For example, the birth-death cycle is...a cycle; whereas the resurrection was a one-off preview of the anticipated general resurrection.)

The NT is packed with OT references. There is little actual evidence of influences from other cultures.

Quote:In Paul's writings, he puts a lot of effort into explaining why Xianity is in absolute consistency with the OT.

Which is curious as "paul" makes his literary appearance in Marcion's canon and Marcion was, well....

Quote:The premise of Marcionism is that many of the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament. Focusing on the Pauline traditions of the Gospel, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and especially any association with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from, the truth. He further regarded the arguments of Paul regarding law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, as the essence of religious truth. He ascribed these aspects and characteristics as two principles, the righteous and wrathful God of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and a second God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy.[9]
Marcionites held that the God of the Hebrew Bible (known to some Gnostics as Yaltabaoth) was inconsistent, jealous, wrathful and genocidal, and that the material world he created was defective, a place of suffering; the God who made such a world is a bungling or malicious demiurge.
“
In the God of the [Old Testament] he saw a being whose character was stern justice, and therefore anger, contentiousness and unmercifulness. The law which rules nature and man appeared to him to accord with the characteristics of this God and the kind of law revealed by him, and therefore it seemed credible to him that this God is the creator and lord of the world (κοσμοκράτωρ [English transliteration: kosmokrator/cosmocrator]). As the law which governs the world is inflexible and yet, on the other hand, full of contradictions, just and again brutal, and as the law of the Old Testament exhibits the same features, so the God of creation was to Marcion a being who united in himself the whole gradations of attributes from justice to malevolence, from obstinacy to inconsistency."[10]
”
In Marcionite belief, Christ was not a Jewish Messiah, but a spiritual entity that was sent by the Monad to reveal the truth about existence, thus allowing humanity to escape the earthly trap of the demiurge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism


So since Marcion was the first to bundle 10 of the so-called "paul's" epistles together with The Gospel of the Lord...which turns out to be "Luke" as a canon it seems highly unlikely that whatever these letters had to say would have had anything positive to say about the OT.  Of course, later editors took care of that.