What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[RoadRunner79]

bold mine

I thought most of it was (NT and OT). Is the OT original fantasy and the NT borrowed fantasy?

Much of the OT was borrowed and embellished from Sumerian/Babylonian mythology.   Most of the NT was rehashed OT bullshit.  But other scholars have traced some to Homer or other Greco-Roman writers.

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/...963f4.html

Finally, since before Christian times, the death and resurrection of Romulus was celebrated in an annual public ceremony in Rome. According to legend, Romulus and Remus were the sons of the god Mars, and the Vestal Virgin Rhea Silvia. Rome’s king and namesake, Romulus, was killed by the first Roman senate. His corpse vanished from the tomb, and he subsequently appeared to his loyal follower Proculus (Latin for “to proclaim”) on the road from Alba Longa to Rome. The demigod orders him to announce a message to his fellow Romans — if they are virtuous, they will conquer the world.

Likewise in Luke, after Jesus is killed and his corpse vanishes, he appears to Cleopas (Greek for “to tell all”) on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus. Jesus, too, orders his follower to proclaim his words.

Let’s look at the parallels: Both Romulus and Jesus are born of virgins and are hailed as “God,” “Son of God” and “King.” Both incarnated to establish kingdoms and are killed by a conspiracy of ruling powers. Both of their deaths were accompanied by a supernatural darkness, and both corpses later vanish. Both appear around the break of dawn to close followers whose names literally mean “to proclaim,” traveling from east to west on roads of roughly equal length. Romulus’ ethereal body gleams, befitting his glorious message of empire. Jesus materializes in humble disguise, befitting his message of humility — that the virtuous will join the spiritual kingdom.

The similarities here are too numerous to be accidental. The scenes appear to be parallel myths, the latter intentionally lifted from the former.

These were only a few examples of many that clearly demonstrate Mark and others drew from earlier source material for their versions of the Gospel tale. Though such imitation was not an uncommon practice in ancient story writing, it casts doubt on the assertion that the New Testament narratives are “gospel truth.”

I have learned to look for citations in such comparisons.  Often for the ones I have searched for, the similarities are stretched, to make them look more similar than they are.  Also some are only found after Jesus or after the prophesies found in the Old Testament (where applicable).

It also doesn't follow, that just because there are similarities that one is copied or derived from the other.  You need to show a connection or give reason, why you think that is the case.   At times, it seems like similarities are cherry picked from a number of sources (spanning time and geography) while dissimilarities are ignored.  Given this strategy, I think this strategy, could be widely abused, and I'm skeptical.

It also largely ignores the source.  That Christianities foundation is in Judaism, and they have a long tradition against the adoption of and mingling with pagan religions.   While this doesn't absolutely preclude any claims of borrowing, the culture that predominately founded Christianity does make it more unlikely that this would sway them.

This argument also doesn't effect the evidence found both early, and near to the source, which generally lessens the likely hood of legend.

[vorlon13]

difficult, however, for those other cultures to have borrowed Jewish stories before the Jews had them . . . .

[Neo-Scholastic]

It also doesn't follow, that just because there are similarities that one is copied or derived from the other.

When stories are borrowed, they are written to describe events that occurred long before but incorporate factual elements inconsistent with the period described. Unlike this, there is good evidence to suggest that the OT accounts where written within or very close to the events described. First there is a correspondence between names used in the biblical text and naming conventions found in outside contemporary sources. The second reason has to do with the price of goods. The few times prices for goods are given in the bible they also generally correspond with the prices and forms of payment found in outside contemporary sources. I'm sure with a little digging I can find those papers somewhere in my library. I send them to you when I find them. I'm sure you will find them interesting.

[Mister Agenda]

I never heard that Romulus story, though I was aware he was supposed to have disappeared with conflicting accounts on what happened to him. Is the scholarship sound?

[Brian37]

It also doesn't follow, that just because there are similarities that one is copied or derived from the other.

When stories are borrowed, they are written to describe events that occurred long before but incorporate factual elements inconsistent with the period described. Unlike this, there is good evidence to suggest that the OT accounts where written within or very close to the events described. First there is a correspondence between names used in the biblical text and naming conventions found in outside contemporary sources. The second reason has to do with the price of goods. The few times prices for goods are given in the bible they also generally correspond with the prices and forms of payment found in outside contemporary sources. I'm sure with a little digging I can find those papers somewhere in my library. I send them to you when I find them. I'm sure you will find them interesting.

No sorry. 

"We've sold this claim for centuries" does not equal fact. There are much older religions than Christianity, ones you don't buy. If logic worked like that then you should believe in the Hindu religion because it is far older, or even the Ancient Egyptian polytheism, or Zoroaster, or even Buddhist religion. ALL older than your religion. 

None of you history of making copies of an old book and history of making bad claims about men popping out of dirt, or magic babies with super powers, none of that will ever be fact. 

We can prove the existence of Ghandi but you are not Hindu or Sikh. We can prove the existence of Malala but you are not Muslim. We can prove the existence of the Dali Lama but you are not Buddhist.

How about you stop lying to us, but more importantly stop lying to yourself and be intellectually brave and consider you got it wrong. How about you consider humans make these clubs up and god claims up and pass them down to the next generation, not because they are true, because humans like the idea of a fictional "forever".

[Mister Agenda]

It also doesn't follow, that just because there are similarities that one is copied or derived from the other.

When stories are borrowed, they are written to describe events that occurred long before but incorporate factual elements inconsistent with the period described. Unlike this, there is good evidence to suggest that the OT accounts where written within or very close to the events described. First there is a correspondence between names used in the biblical text and naming conventions found in outside contemporary sources. The second reason has to do with the price of goods. The few times prices for goods are given in the bible they also generally correspond with the prices and forms of payment found in outside contemporary sources. I'm sure with a little digging I can find those papers somewhere in my library. I send them to you when I find them. I'm sure you will find them interesting.

An example of a borrowed story is Jaws, based on Moby Dick. It seems like the type of analysis you're proposing would indicate that Jaws is not based on Moby Dick. A borrowed story wouldn't likely be a copy-and-paste, the details would be updated and the elements of the story preserved. That's how borrowing stories works. I think you're getting off the mark because you're assuming that the story being borrowed from actually it happened, when it was likely also fiction.

In Jaws, the basic concept and some of the plot of Moby Dick is used, and Moby Dick itself is based on an actual event. But you're not going to find the connection to Moby Dick based on anachronisms in Jaws.

[Brian37]

When stories are borrowed, they are written to describe events that occurred long before but incorporate factual elements inconsistent with the period described. Unlike this, there is good evidence to suggest that the OT accounts where written within or very close to the events described. First there is a correspondence between names used in the biblical text and naming conventions found in outside contemporary sources. The second reason has to do with the price of goods. The few times prices for goods are given in the bible they also generally correspond with the prices and forms of payment found in outside contemporary sources. I'm sure with a little digging I can find those papers somewhere in my library. I send them to you when I find them. I'm sure you will find them interesting.

An example of a borrowed story is Jaws, based on Moby Dick. It seems like the type of analysis you're proposing would indicate that Jaws is not based on Moby Dick. A borrowed story wouldn't likely be a copy-and-paste, the details would be updated and the elements of the story preserved. That's how borrowing stories works. I think you're getting off the mark because you're assuming that the story being borrowed from actually it happened, when it was likely also fiction.

In Jaws, the basic concept and some of the plot of Moby Dick is used, and Moby Dick itself is based on an actual event. But you're not going to find the connection to Moby Dick based on anachronisms in Jaws.

I agree, but this is still a dodge on his part regardless. It still would not make magic real or babies/men with super powers real.  He'd admit that Jesus was Jewish maybe, but still ignore that the Yahweh character is a stolen name from the prior polytheism of the Canaanites where Yahweh was not the head god, but a lesser god under the head GOD "El".

Religion competes just the same way Coke and Pepsi compete. Coke comes out with a cherry flavored soda, not to be outdone Pepsi looks at that, creates its own unique recipe for a cherry soda, calls it something different, even puts out adds comparing it's soda to the Coke products to put Pepsi in a good light. But saying "Coke was the first soda" would still not make it the first beverage humans drank. 

But if either Coke or Pepsi started making fantastic claims about how their products could magically make you fly, or when you open them, magically popped out a hot chick, no sane person would buy that. But somehow, when religion makes bullshit fantastic claims, people suddenly don't want to employ the same skepticism.

[Neo-Scholastic]

An example of a borrowed story is Jaws, based on Moby Dick. It seems like the type of analysis you're proposing would indicate that Jaws is not based on Moby Dick. A borrowed story wouldn't likely be a copy-and-paste, the details would be updated and the elements of the story preserved.

It's more like saying that the someone borrowed the story of Jaws to write Moby Dick. Without extensive knowledge of the 19th century whale trade, he would likely, unless he was very careful, accidentally incorporate inappropriate modern details. Or like if I wrote a biography of Doctor Livingston and based my geography on a modern map of Africa. My errors, like writing about countries that didn't yet exist, would reveal that my story was written many years after the fact. A contemporary of Livingston would be much more likely to get the names of the countries right.

[RoadRunner79]

It also doesn't follow, that just because there are similarities that one is copied or derived from the other.

When stories are borrowed, they are written to describe events that occurred long before but incorporate factual elements inconsistent with the period described. Unlike this, there is good evidence to suggest that the OT accounts where written within or very close to the events described. First there is a correspondence between names used in the biblical text and naming conventions found in outside contemporary sources. The second reason has to do with the price of goods. The few times prices for goods are given in the bible they also generally correspond with the prices and forms of payment found in outside contemporary sources. I'm sure with a little digging I can find those papers somewhere in my library. I send them to you when I find them. I'm sure you will find them interesting.

I have heard some of those arguments before, though haven't done much research into it. If it isn't too much trouble, I would appreciate any info you have.

[Brian37]

An example of a borrowed story is Jaws, based on Moby Dick. It seems like the type of analysis you're proposing would indicate that Jaws is not based on Moby Dick. A borrowed story wouldn't likely be a copy-and-paste, the details would be updated and the elements of the story preserved.

It's more like saying that the someone borrowed the story of Jaws to write Moby Dick. Without extensive knowledge of the 19th century whale trade, he would likely, unless he was very careful, accidentally incorporate inappropriate modern details. Or like if I wrote a biography of Doctor Livingston and based my geography on a modern map of Africa. My errors, like writing about countries that didn't yet exist, would reveal that my story was written many years after the fact. A contemporary of Livingston would be much more likely to get the names of the countries right.

We don't care. 

Again, arguing who created Coke or who created Pepsi would not make either the first beverage humans drank, nor would either soda existing make any of the fantastic claims of ANY religion scientific fact. If Coke put out adds claiming "Drinking this will give you the ability to fly like Superman" would you be stupid enough to try it? Coke may be a beverage, but water was around before soda. Just like Jews were around before Christians, and the Canaanite polytheists were around before Jews, where the Jews got the Yahweh name from. 

There were oral religions long before the first human writings, and our primate cousins existed long before humans, and other life existed long before humans, and our planet is 4 billion years old, and the universe is 13.8 billion years old. And in 5 billion years our species will have long gone extinct when the sun either expands or collapses and our solar system ends. The universe did fine before humans and it will continue on without us.

Most people don't know, for example outside of si fi nerds, that the "Transporter" motif on Star Trek was not the first time a si fi product used a mundane SCREEN WIPE, with static implying dissolving of humans. Old si fi b movies older than that series used that same tactic.

The idea of a hero god who saves his tribe is not unique to Christianity. You are stuck on details when all religions are still based on "good vs evil" motifs. Everyone loves a hero story, everyone loves an underdog story. But that is not because gods are real, or that any religion is the root of goodness. Humans like the club idea because it reflects their own desire to be in control of their environment. Ideas don't pop out of nothing. You cant leave a baby alone, if you did, it would die.