(July 1, 2015 at 8:05 pm)tonechaser77 Wrote:(June 30, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Well this certainly seems to play into my over-arching point so thank you. As far as your red herring concerning Pilate, Just because someone throws a real person in a mythical story does it make that story any more true. Besides, the irony of how closely related Jesus Christ (Son of God) and Barabbas (Son of Father) is pretty odd. Both allegedly arrested as rebels etc. It seems more likely the perfect metaphor for the scapegoat into the wilderness taken from the Old Testament. This points heavily to some doctored writing of a myth based on that information. It has all the common elements.
Oh my...more magic invented here. Keep it coming sir, you are making my day!!
Again...
After noon on the day before the Passover meal:
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. John 18:28
Mid-morning on the day after the Passover meal:
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? Mark 14:12
It seems likely that the author of John is actually trying to make a “truth-claim” about Jesus in the way he has told his story. Readers have long noted — and this can scarcely be either an accident or unrelated to our present dilemma — that John’s is the only Gospel that explicitly identified Jesus as “the Lamb of God.”
In fact, at the very outset of the Gospel, Jesus’ forerunner, John the Baptist, sees him and says, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (1:29); and seven verses later, he says it again: “Behold the Lamb of God” (1:36). John’s Gospel thus portrays Jesus as the Passover lamb, whose blood somehow brings salvation, just as the blood of the Passover lamb brought salvation to the children of Israel so many centuries before.
John, or someone who told him the story, made a slight change in a historical datum in order to score a theological point. For John, Jesus really was the Lamb of God. He died at the same time (on the afternoon of the day of Preparation), in the same place (Jerusalem), and at the hands of the same people (the Jewish leaders, especially the priests) as the Passover lambs. In other words, John has told a story that is not historically accurate, but is, in his judgement, theologically true.
The castration of Attis was also embarrassing, yet no one would argue that therefore there must really have been an Attis who really did castrate himself. Arguably this was even more embarrassing than the women issue; emasculating yourself was regarded as the most shameful of all fates for any man. Yet “no one would make that up” clearly isn’t a logically valid claim here. Attis did not exist, and a non-existent being can’t ever have castrated himself. So clearly someone did make that up. It's being embarrassing did not deter them in the slightest. And in fact that is true throughout the history of religions: embarrassing myths were (and in all honesty, still are) the norm, not the exception. Thus “embarrassment” just isn’t a valid argument. You need to look at all the available explanations and compare their relative probabilities.
Again, grabbing information from gospels written by people many many many years after the fact with so many holes in the story can't be deemed as reliable. Especially when the story breaks the laws of physics as we know it. That should be your first red flag. To plead this argument is the simplest of fallacies. If you give claim to this then you must say Joseph Smith, Ron Hubbard or any other religion starter who makes outrageous invocations, has equal ground on it's claim. We simply know this isn't logical.
Best of luck in your music ministry.
