Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

[Fake Messiah]

I think where they overstate the case is when they say that previous stories have figures dying and coming back FOR US. 

There are several stories of dying and coming back, either through one's own power or that of another. Hercules rescues Alcestis from Hades, Dionysus gets chopped up and reassembled, etc. So coming back from the dead is an old story.

Doing it as sacrifice for humanity is unique in Christianity, as far as I know. 

Wrong. For instance, the Sun god was considered the "Savior of the World," as it rose and brought light and life to the planet. It was revered for causing seeds to burst and thus giving its life for plants to grow.

[GrandizerII]

I think where they overstate the case is when they say that previous stories have figures dying and coming back FOR US. 

There are several stories of dying and coming back, either through one's own power or that of another. Hercules rescues Alcestis from Hades, Dionysus gets chopped up and reassembled, etc. So coming back from the dead is an old story.

Doing it as sacrifice for humanity is unique in Christianity, as far as I know. 

Wrong. For instance, the Sun god was considered the "Savior of the World," as it rose and brought light and life to the planet. It was revered for causing seeds to burst and thus giving its life for plants to grow.

Might help to provide references to primary sources just so we're clear first on what they actually say, rather than what certain people with an agenda claim they say.

Sun god is so generic and vague, by the way. What sun god are we talking about specifically?

[Belacqua]

Might help to provide references to primary sources just so we're clear first on what they actually say, rather than what certain people with an agenda claim they say.

I heard an interesting podcast last night with terms that might be relevant.

https://shwep.net/podcast/methodologies-...-of-magic/

This guy studies magic and hermeticism as a historical/sociological field. He doesn't claim to do magic.

He goes into detail about "first order" terms and "second order" terms. First order type are the ones used by the group that's being studied. Second order are the ones used by the researchers. Which sounds pretty simple, but you can see how misunderstandings could easily arise.

For example he claims that in the old days, no group claimed to do magic. Magic is something your enemies or heretics did. So it becomes problematic when a modern researcher uses the term magic -- the mental categories are different. I was thinking that a term like "sin" might have a narrow technical meaning for, say, ancient Hebrews that gets fuzzed up when modern people talk about sin. That's certainly true with the word "cause," as we saw on the other thread.

I'm thinking this may be relevant to the topic here. What modern people refer to as a god or a savior or a messiah, etc., may get blended inappropriately when talking about long-ago cultures. Especially when (as is evident) people are trying to prove something about a religion they dislike.

[Fake Messiah]

Might help to provide references to primary sources just so we're clear first on what they actually say, rather than what certain people with an agenda claim they say.

Primary source: sun goes down every day ("into the underground") then comes back again, bringing life with it. Not so hard to check.

Sun god is so generic and vague, by the way.

And Jesus isn't?
That's how it is with gods: they usually are generic, made from neighboring mythologies.

What sun god are we talking about specifically?

Yeah, there are so many suns out there.
Maybe the one worshiped in Egypt and countries nearby.

[GrandizerII]

Might help to provide references to primary sources just so we're clear first on what they actually say, rather than what certain people with an agenda claim they say.

Primary source: sun goes down every day ("into the underground") then comes back again, bringing life with it. Not so hard to check.

The sun rises and sets every day (well, from our perspective that is). All this talk about life and death, however, requires you to provide actual primary sources stating what the ancient people you're referring to believed exactly. Primary source does not mean your interpretation that is cleverly worded to affirm your anti-Christianity biases and to win the argument being had in this case.

I just want to see what those sources say first before assuming anything unnecessarily just for the sake of argument.

---

Might help to provide references to primary sources just so we're clear first on what they actually say, rather than what certain people with an agenda claim they say.

I heard an interesting podcast last night with terms that might be relevant.

https://shwep.net/podcast/methodologies-...-of-magic/

This guy studies magic and hermeticism as a historical/sociological field. He doesn't claim to do magic.

He goes into detail about "first order" terms and "second order" terms. First order type are the ones used by the group that's being studied. Second order are the ones used by the researchers. Which sounds pretty simple, but you can see how misunderstandings could easily arise.

For example he claims that in the old days, no group claimed to do magic. Magic is something your enemies or heretics did. So it becomes problematic when a modern researcher uses the term magic -- the mental categories are different. I was thinking that a term like "sin" might have a narrow technical meaning for, say, ancient Hebrews that gets fuzzed up when modern people talk about sin. That's certainly true with the word "cause," as we saw on the other thread.

I'm thinking this may be relevant to the topic here. What modern people refer to as a god or a savior or a messiah, etc., may get blended inappropriately when talking about long-ago cultures. Especially when (as is evident) people are trying to prove something about a religion they dislike.

This may be part of it, true. And I'm ready to consider when this is exactly what's happening (whether on my part or someone else), but it would be good to have something concrete from the ancient minds rather than just hastily go along with what FM says. After all, I'm very familiar with this sun god argument that FM is relying on because I've read works by a somebody called Acharya S who was known for propagating this sun god nonsense that FM is implicitly spouting. There is some attempt to mislead going on here.

[Fake Messiah]

The sun rises and sets every day (well, from our perspective that is). All this talk about life and death, however, requires you to provide actual primary sources stating what the ancient people you're referring to believed exactly. Primary source does not mean your interpretation that is cleverly worded to affirm your anti-Christianity biases and to win the argument being had in this case.
 
I just want to see what those sources say first before assuming anything unnecessarily just for the sake of argument.
 
[...]propagating this sun god nonsense that FM is implicitly spouting. 

 
Sure, I could give you sources and I gave you one in form of picture but after all it is mysticism. I mean, for instance here is Joseph Campbell saying:
 

Here we face very similar themes in the Jewish and Christian traditions. The theme is also found in the mystery religions in which Adonis dies and is resurrected.
 
And all these come at springtime, matching the bursting forth of flowers and the return of the sun. Even the plangent longing we experience at this season must be related to this.

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/15/archi...eness.html

 
But like I said, mysticism is not a science, we can only speculate what exactly was going on through the heads of ancient people when they invented all these gods. So you can't claim that I am wrong, just like you can't say that Belacqua's claims that resurrecting deities died only for their selfish reasons and not for humankind are right.

[GrandizerII]

The sun rises and sets every day (well, from our perspective that is). All this talk about life and death, however, requires you to provide actual primary sources stating what the ancient people you're referring to believed exactly. Primary source does not mean your interpretation that is cleverly worded to affirm your anti-Christianity biases and to win the argument being had in this case.
 
I just want to see what those sources say first before assuming anything unnecessarily just for the sake of argument.
 
[...]propagating this sun god nonsense that FM is implicitly spouting. 

 
Sure, I could give you sources and I gave you one in form of picture but after all it is mysticism. I mean, for instance here is Joseph Campbell saying:
 

Here we face very similar themes in the Jewish and Christian traditions. The theme is also found in the mystery religions in which Adonis dies and is resurrected.
 
And all these come at springtime, matching the bursting forth of flowers and the return of the sun. Even the plangent longing we experience at this season must be related to this.

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/15/archi...eness.html

 
But like I said, mysticism is not a science, we can only speculate what exactly was going on through the heads of ancient people when they invented all these gods. So you can't claim that I am wrong, just like you can't say that Belacqua's claims that resurrecting deities died only for their selfish reasons and not for humankind are right.

Mysticism itself is not a science, but that doesn't mean we can't ever know through writings how the ancient people interpreted things. If such writings don't exist, and all you have is speculation, then what was that about you confidently telling Belaqua he was wrong by you providing an example which you end up admitting is just based on speculation?

You can bring up multiple examples of resurrection in various myths anyway. That was never what I was questioning. What I am questioning was how the kind of resurrection (the redemptive type) found in the NT is found in myths written prior to the NT. I don't think so. I've done some research myself and haven't been able to find one such account.

[Fake Messiah]

then what was that about you confidently telling Belaqua he was wrong by you providing an example which you end up admitting is just based on speculation?

Well, I was also speculating, but it is you who demands undeniable proof.

I've done some research myself and haven't been able to find one such account.

Big deal. Some other people have done their research and were able to find similar accounts between resurrections.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm pretty sure he was responding to a comment about the claimed uniqueness of the christian god.  

Regardless of whether christians copied other narratives or not, that's not the case.  We can state, if we like, that many people over lots of time and geography came up with the type of salvific figure found in the NT all on their own - the NT being one example of it.  We do that alot, with objects and ideas.

By stating specifically that there were prior examples of figures who died for other people and then were resurrected. I just wonder where are these examples? Or rather what primary sources reveal those to be the case.

I agree nothing is truly unique about Christianity. Views evolve over time, yes, so one could argue that the resurrection of Jesus was derived from certain prior beliefs or whatever, but it doesn't mean they were based on some prior identical accounts of resurrections or that such prior accounts exist.

That's cool, but...as above, the observation that sacrificial gods are a thing is not the claim that christians copied those gods.  They never would have known about the sacrificial pantheons of mesoamerica.   Couldn't possibly have copied them, nor could the mesoamericans have known about christ and copied those beliefs.  

Multiple instances of parallel construction.  Like a bow. Like fire. Like boats. Like agriculture. Like a fishing hook. This isn't evolution over time, it's not evolution at all.

This is a generous appraisal, as we know for fact that christian authors were borrowers - but there's nothing wrong with that. OFC they were going to borrow stories and twists and phrases they found engaging. They borrowed the jewish god right from the outset, lol. Is there a hellenic influence in the character of christ, for example? OFC there is, but there was always going to be one, because hellenists came up with that particular instance of a sacrificial god. If some other current was dominant it would show those influences, and in fact does, in the argument within the NT as to who and what jesus is.

[Fake Messiah]

That's cool, but...as above, the observation that sacrificial gods are a thing is not the claim that christians copied those gods, for example.  They never would have known about the sacrificial pantheons of mesoamerica.   Couldn't possibly have copied them, nor could the mesoamericans have known about christ and copied those beliefs.  

Multiple instances of parallel construction.  Like a bow.  Like fire.  Like boats.  Like agriculture.  Like a fishing hook.

This is a generous appraisal, as we know for fact that christian authors were borrowers - but there's nothing wrong with that.  OFC they were going to borrow stories and twists and phrases they found engaging.  They borrowed the jewish god right from the outset, lol.

Yeah, you're right, there is a book called "An Edible History of Humanity" that argues how when people switched to agronomy and its lifestyle, that they started seeing/ inventing gods as sacrificing themselves for people and then people to gods to restore the order.

Here's for instance a few sentences

Some Mesoamerican cultures believed that the gods even sacrificed themselves or each other from time to time to ensure the continued existence of the universe and survival of mankind. The Maya, for example, believed that maize was the flesh of the gods containing divine power, and at harvest time the gods were, in effect, sacrificing themselves to sustain humanity. This divine power passed into humans as they ate, and was particularly concentrated in their blood. Human sacrifices in which blood was spilled were a way to repay this debt and return the divine power to the gods. Food and incense were provided as offerings as well, but human sacrifices were thought to be most important of all.

But, then again, why couldn't NT writers be influenced by Mithra's resurrection story and sacrifice?

from britannica.com

As in the Timaeus, the human soul came down from heaven. It crossed the seven spheres of the planets, taking on their vices (e.g., those of Mars and of Venus), and was finally caught within the body. The task of human life is to liberate one’s divine part (the soul) from the shackles of the body and to reascend through the seven spheres to the eternal, unchanging realm of the fixed stars. This ascent to the sky was prefigured by Mithra himself, when he left the earth in the chariot of the sun god.