Is Christianity based on older myths?

[JesusHChrist]

So Steve, you dispute syncretism as an explanation for the melding of various practices and doesn't occur, or you just don't think it happened with Christianity in 1st century Palestine?

Because it is certainly happening to Christianity today. For example:

The New Age movement is syncretistic, blending various religions, relying on various gods, and crediting the "universe" with power it doesn't have. Chrislam, as its name suggests, is also syncretistic, blending elements of Christianity and Islam. Muslims use Chrislam theology as a way into Christian pulpits, essentially opening the door to false worship.

Pope Francis recently welcomed Israeli and Palestinian presidents to meet at the Vatican (a first in history) where they incorporated Jewish, Catholic and Muslim prayers in several languages—and readings from the Quran. Although the spirit of unity is admirable, these sorts of world events forward the gospel-eroding cancer of syncretism.

And this from a Christian source...

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/watc...syncretism

How else would it happen? Oh that's right. God wrote the book hizsef. Or gave the words to an angel in a cave.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Maybe i am wrong but from what i can tell, not a scrap of evidence has been produced in this thread which suggests Christianity was copied from other religions.

I came to the conclusion 10 pages back that there was no real substance to the claim that Christianity came from old myths. It is a useful theory to the atheist who is hell-bent on discrediting the gospels/epistles. For some atheists, discrediting them seems to be so necessary that any theory (no matter how unsupported by facts) that helps is latched onto with certainty and propagated as fact.

In a nutshell, it is a fringe theory (origins:myth) supporting a fringe theory (the NT events/writings are manufactured) in support of the fringe conclusion that Christianity was started for power and money.

FFS.

Ok, let's work it from another angle. What concrete evidence do you have that suggests the gospels (as an example) were actually written by the apostles entitled? Just anything, what is it?

Here's the thing - the bible is the claim. The things in the bible are the claims made that constitute the entire biblical claim. With me thus far? Why should I, as someone who is skeptical of claims with no substance, take your word about the truth value behind that claim over the null hypothesis that it's all bunk until proven otherwise?

And here's the other thing that you haven't even touched upon since 10 pages back where your own conclusion preceded the subsequent discussions. Whether the Jesus myth is real or not is irrelevant when compared to the claims of divinity which are (again) held within the bible. for that, you'd need to present something to match in incredibleness [sic] of the constituent claim[s], to which thus far I've seen the same amount as you convincing us that the story of Jesus existing is even real in the first place.

[FatAndFaithless]

Here's the thing - the bible is the claim.

We've already spent dozens and dozens of pages in multiple threads trying to get him to acknowledge at least that minute point. He has refused.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Here's the thing - the bible is the claim.

We've already spent dozens and dozens of pages in multiple threads trying to get him to acknowledge at least that minute point. He has refused.

It's also odd that he thinks our entire purpose here is 'discredit' xtianity.

Personally I couldn't give two shits about whether Jesus was real or not. What I care about is people evidencing their claims and not just inferring them as given. What I care about it the evidence behind someone's request that I believe in the same things they do.

The only real, hard conclusion I can take from this is that our bar for evidence is set at a decent position, whilst Steve's is set so low it's next to fucking dinosaur bones.

[robvalue]

I honestly had hopes he had gone away and had a good hard think about all this. But I feel we've just slipped through a wormhole and everything we said has been erased.

[SteveII]

Ok, let's work it from another angle. What concrete evidence do you have that suggests the gospels (as an example) were actually written by the apostles entitled? Just anything, what is it?

Here's the thing - the bible is the claim. The things in the bible are the claims made that constitute the entire biblical claim. With me thus far? Why should I, as someone who is skeptical of claims with no substance, take your word about the truth value behind that claim over the null hypothesis that it's all bunk until proven otherwise?

And here's the other thing that you haven't even touched upon since 10 pages back where your own conclusion preceded the subsequent discussions. Whether the Jesus myth is real or not is irrelevant when compared to the claims of divinity which are (again) held within the bible. for that, you'd need to present something to match in incredibleness [sic] of the constituent claim[s], to which thus far I've seen the same amount as you convincing us that the story of Jesus existing is even real in the first place.

If I write that the early church, Paul, John, Peter, and James (epistle writers) believed that Jesus was God, died and rose again, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it.

If I write that the multiple attestation of miracles is evidence that a miracle did happen, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it, hearsay is not evidence (when it is).

If I write that the alternative is a massive deception and there are not good reasons for a massive deception, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it. (Or the more ignorant will say for money and power.)

If I write that most scholars believe that Jesus existed and even that his baptism and crucifixion really happened, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it, appeal to authority.

So I won't write those things again.

[Mudhammam]

Conclusion:
Steve has no evidence for the veracity of the Gospels/epistles, he simply "trusts" later traditions that assigned the epistles to "Jesus' disciples," and believes a story involving magic happened because the story says so.

How do you consider yourself a reasonable person exactly?

[robvalue]

Right. You have absolutely no evidence yet you choose to believe. That's how faith works. But it's not how a sceptic works, so if you intend to have any kind of honest debate you have to do better. It's not our fault there is no evidence. Part of your brain knows you're not making any sense.

---

Here's a hint: the bible is not magic. It's just a book. Books aren't magically true just because you really want them to be. Appealing to characters in the book as evidence is like appealing to Gandalf to prove Sauron is real.

[dyresand]

If I write that the early church, Paul.

Don't write up paul at all he didn't know if jesus was a human or not. In fact paul never knew jesus at all and what information he had on jesus was not that much. Also paul self appointed himself as a apostle and his word should never be taken into consideration.

[robvalue]

Also, Paul is quite possibly yet another made up character. Got any evidence Paul is a real person?

I haven't looked into Paul, so who knows, maybe you can convince me of something here.