Is Christianity based on older myths?

[robvalue]

Do you think there was some sort of special element in the air that made people not only tell the exact truth but assign accurate supernatural causation in a way that is impossible even today?

You just want it to be true, and that's all there is to it. Special pleading. If you take a story book at face value you are gullible or willfully dishonest.

[Minimalist]

In 160 Ad Justin Martyr wrote his apologia to Emperor Antoninus Pius. In this entire lengthy work he does not mention any Paul even once. This in spite of the claim that Paul brought xtianity to the Romans a century earlier.

There are big fucking problems with the Paul story.

I find it humorous that you use Justin Martyr as a source for Paul's non-existence.

1. Justin Martyr's works did not all survive.
2. In his surviving writings, he did refer to the "memoirs of the apostles" (gospels-plural) multiple times. He believed them to be reliable, and lastly,
3. The following quote suggest you are just wrong.

Reflecting his opposition to Marcion, Justin's attitude toward the Pauline epistles generally corresponds to that of the later Church. In Justin's works, distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and 1 John. The apologetic character of Justin's habit of thought appears again in the Acts of his martyrdom, the genuineness of which is attested by internal evidence.[43] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

Other early church writers have told us what Marcion said and what his 'canon' comprised: 10 epistles of 'paul' and a truncated version of luke.

What is at issue is the persona of this 'paul' character who no one seems to know about until after Marcion is denounced as a heretic.

We know that "luke" was grabbed by the proto-orthodox and fleshed out to make it conform to the rest of their bullshit. It seems likely that the "paul" letters were also salvaged and redone. Remember that we have only the versions which the proto-orthodox put forward. We have not a single clue about what the original documents might have said.
For all you know, they could have said that "jesus would not be some smelly jew" because that would be in keeping with Marcion's p-o-v.

When you can stop treating this bullshit as somehow 'inspired' then you may be able to look at them critically. I have little hope that you will ever demonstrate that ability.

[robvalue]

No one denies it is written by man. So who's word do we have that it was "inspired by God"? Man. So what is more likely, when man makes a claim like this? It was actually inspired, or he done gone and made a thing up like people do every day? Huh.

If you think inspired by a supernatural being is more likely, you need your head examined.

[Mister Agenda]

Nah... we'd all like magic to be a part of the equation... the thing is, there's no evidence that magic is real. Hence, there's no reason to even consider that ancient writings about magic are representative of reality.
They are, instead, representative of our specie's shared wishful thinking that magic should be real... and, of this, we do have evidence.

I am interested to read your evidence.

You seriously do not already possess sufficient evidence that many people take magical thinking seriously?

[SteveII]

I find it humorous that you use Justin Martyr as a source for Paul's non-existence.

1. Justin Martyr's works did not all survive.
2. In his surviving writings, he did refer to the "memoirs of the apostles" (gospels-plural) multiple times. He believed them to be reliable, and lastly,
3. The following quote suggest you are just wrong.

Reflecting his opposition to Marcion, Justin's attitude toward the Pauline epistles generally corresponds to that of the later Church. In Justin's works, distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and 1 John. The apologetic character of Justin's habit of thought appears again in the Acts of his martyrdom, the genuineness of which is attested by internal evidence.[43] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

Other early church writers have told us what Marcion said and what his 'canon' comprised: 10 epistles of 'paul' and a truncated version of luke.

What is at issue is the persona of this 'paul' character who no one seems to know about until after Marcion is denounced as a heretic.

We know that "luke" was grabbed by the proto-orthodox and fleshed out to make it conform to the rest of their bullshit. It seems likely that the "paul" letters were also salvaged and redone. Remember that we have only the versions which the proto-orthodox put forward. We have not a single clue about what the original documents might have said.
For all you know, they could have said that "jesus would not be some smelly jew" because that would be in keeping with Marcion's p-o-v.

When you can stop treating this bullshit as somehow 'inspired' then you may be able to look at them critically. I have little hope that you will ever demonstrate that ability.

Except Acts was written 80-90 AD and goes into quite a bit of detail on Paul. Why is your go-to assumption that things were changed? What evidence is there? The fact that Marcion had other ideas in no way suggests that the originals gospels and letters were altered (as to the basic content).

[JesusHChrist]

Yes Acts goes into quite a bit of detail about Paul, in the same way as Lord of the Rings goes into the details around Frodo.

[Minimalist]

Acts is a pile of shit. BTW, there were lots of different "Acts" books...most of them too stupid even for early xtians to accept.

https://www.academia.edu/3305696/The_His...ok_of_Acts

All in all, the book of Acts was written for a different purpose than what we areasking. It was not written to show literal, realized history in the sense that we think of today.Luke was writing apologetically in defense of his own tradition. With this realization we canmove forward and test the text verse by verse and compare it to other sources of the sameperiod. In many instances it can be shown that Luke took the story and smoothed it out tofulfill his apologetic needs of depicting a fully unified church which has been led by Godthrough divine inspiration

Xtain wishful thinking aside, we have no manuscript evidence for any xtian writings in the first century. The true believers keep trying to push this shit earlier but the scholars keep coming up with 2d and 3d century dates.

Of course, believers will believe anything if it suits them.

[SteveII]

Acts is a pile of shit. BTW, there were lots of different "Acts" books...most of them too stupid even for early xtians to accept.

https://www.academia.edu/3305696/The_His...ok_of_Acts

All in all, the book of Acts was written for a different purpose than what we areasking. It was not written to show literal, realized history in the sense that we think of today.Luke was writing apologetically in defense of his own tradition. With this realization we canmove forward and test the text verse by verse and compare it to other sources of the sameperiod. In many instances it can be shown that Luke took the story and smoothed it out tofulfill his apologetic needs of depicting a fully unified church which has been led by Godthrough divine inspiration

Xtain wishful thinking aside, we have no manuscript evidence for any xtian writings in the first century. The true believers keep trying to push this shit earlier but the scholars keep coming up with 2d and 3d century dates.

Of course, believers will believe anything if it suits them.

Except of course Mark and the epistles (and perhaps others)

Here is a list: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

---

Any your using a Mormon author to discredit Acts!!

---

Exactly why is believing the gospels are accurate special pleading? What other 4 historical documents attesting to the same basic series of events and backed up by other period writings are dismissed as inaccurate? You say I cannot assume anything about any of these writings because there is no proof. Well, yes I can. I can assume they are correct until proven wrong. That is not an irrational position.

Your problem is the content. Your philosophy prevents you from believing the content so you are forced to come up with theories about why they contain the content they do. It is your burden of proof to falsify the claims and I have not heard any evidence--only theories peppered with incredulity. Is your only proof that miracles cannot happen your presupposition that miracles cannot happen? That is begging the question is it not?

Another thing, the fact that we do not know who wrote them is irrelevant. There is no evidence that they were "anonymous"--which implies that the author wished to separate themselves from the content. The first Christians almost certainly would have known the provenance of the documents. Justin Martyr, mentioned just a few pages ago, called them the Apostle's Memoirs. He quoted them in his writings. He was born in 100 AD. Was his understanding of their provenance and/or content wrong?

Martyr goes on to say they were read every Sunday in the church service in Rome. You can suggest that their basic content was intentionally changed over time, however there is no proof or even a good reason to think it likely with documents so prized by the community.

And so, my belief in the events of Jesus' life are almost identical to those worshiping only 100 years from Jesus' death. What has changed since then to make me think they were all wrong and you all are right?

[robvalue]

Assuming something is correct until proven wrong is the classic argument from ignorance fallacy. It is entirely irrational. Any unfalsifiable belief can be held in the same esteem and is just as "true" according to that argument. In other words, you have to accept any nonsense I come up with as well. For more details, please read:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

If you don't care about logical fallacies, no one will take you seriously. Just some advice.

The bible is 1 document. It has been edited and fucked around with and come out in one entire piece. To say parts of it are independent is absolutely ridiculous. Also, it is well established, even among biblical scholars, that two of the gospels are heavily copied from a third (Luke and Matthew, from mark). Also, the ressurection is largely believed to be a forgery.

---

I'm sure none of that is important though. Good night everyone

[pocaracas]

Exactly why is believing the gospels are accurate special pleading? What other 4 historical documents attesting to the same basic series of events and backed up by other period writings are dismissed as inaccurate?

Oh, just a little nothing people have come to call the Epic of Gilgamesh:

The Epic of Gilgamesh has influenced both ancient and modern literature and culture, and themes from the Epic can be found in later biblical and classical literature.

Relationship to the Bible
Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Epic of Gilgamesh have counterparts in the Hebrew Bible, notably the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the advice from Ecclesiastes, and the Genesis flood narrative.

I guess, using your logic, the akkadian gods are real, huh?
Hmmm.... then the bible god is real too.... but then the guy can't be the only one there is... but it says there that there's only one... oh boy... paradoxxxxxxxx