-->
@Stephen
why?
Dying and Rising God/Jesus myth
Posts
Total:
62
-->
@Dr.Franklin
why?
Because you can't and need leading by the snout to everything. But I suppose that has been the story of your whole life though, hasn't it, doc?
-->
@Stephen
Now i get why Ethang hated you so much
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Now i get why Ethang hated you so much
" lovethy neighbour," and "in the dark" , Ethang, do you mean?
1 John 2:9
I don't mind that delusional dunce hating me. It makes me feel so happy.
-->
@Stephen
It makes me feel so good.
Wow there
-->
@Stephen
It makes me feel so good.
I'm sure it does masochist.
I thought he said.
It makes me feel so happy.
-->
@EtrnlVw
He changed it to happy! LOL
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
he changed it
-->
@Dr.Franklin
LMAO
I did. Meant to put it makes me feel so good and happy that that delusional dunce hates me. I am indeed proud.
stick to the subject matter,
here is another Christ myth complete with halo
The thing is that you fawning Jesus sycophants simply cannot accept that your god-man is the only dying and rising god. There have been hundreds.
Max von Sydow and Robert Powel both have as much in common with the biblical Jesus as any of those BC god-men
Or what about the great lord of them all , Will Ferrell?
-->
@Stephen
makes me feel so good
We're not particularly interested in your fetishes of getting off on being decimated.
-->
@EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw,
IN TURN, YOUR REVEALING QUOTE ABOUT YOURSELF! : "We're not particularly interested in your fetishes of getting off on being decimated."
Welcome back! Talking about being decimated, it looks as though your wounds have been healed enough subsequent to Jesus and I BIBLE SLAPPING®️ you silly relative to you calling Him a LIAR! Unfortunately for you, is the fact that when you step out of line regarding Jesus' inspired word again, and at your expense, you will be shown to be the Bible fool that you are, understood?
Regarding your complete Bible ignorance, it won't take you long to perform this ungodly act!
We can see that you are still too ashamed to fill out your biography as a pseudo-christian, especially in what division of Christianity that you follow, of which, we can only wonder in what Jesus thinks about you in this respect. As if calling Jesus a LIAR wasn't bad enough, huh?! LOL!
"For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38)
You are excused for now.
.
-->
@Stephen
Its not an "attack" on Christ or Christians. You lot always have to play the victim at every given chance. I believe I have made myself more than clear and on hundreds of occasions now. So here it is again for the billionth time note underlined in bold>>>Christians have taken myths from many mystery schools, myths and legends and wrapped them around a very real human being who simply wanted to free his people -JEWS - from the Roman yoke and - according to many - paid with his life. That is the REAL biography of your Christ. Jesus was a JEW not a Christian. He taught at a JEWISH temple not a Christian church. he was a JEWISH priest not a Christian Priest. He preached to JEWS not Christians. He returned from the Egyptian mystery schools to save JEWS, not Christians. He was king of the JEWS not king of the Christians. And he didn't perform a single "miracle". never,at all. And you have four anonymous gospels that cannot even agree on the facts which day your god-man was born or was crucified..From my understanding, Jesus king and high priest of the JEWS would have been totally appalled that a whole new religious ideology had sprung up in his name.The whole pint of this thread is that your god-man is not the first alleged dying and rising god of which there have been many. So stop your whining, and playing victim and accept it for what it is.
Whining?
This is a debate site. Why would you accuse someone of challenging your views as whining? Do you just make these threads just to read like a blog. Even blogsters allow for comments.
I understand the point of your thread, and others and myself have challenged your claims. What you really need to do is argue the actual existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then similarities could be a result of copying from regional myths. But if God exists, your theories are blown out of the water.
The problem though is the claims are wrong because similarities do not really parallel as claimed. If you can accept coincidence to any degree, then you should be careful making claims as being absolute. Do you think the Titanic, or it's sinking was a myth? Do you think either Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy were myths? And where you're also in error is when you claim Christians are made uncomfortable by these claims.
-->
@Stephen
Not all of these god-men were of virgin birth
So then this claim of yours is wrong?
Krishna: Hindu god, born of a virgin devaki around 1200BC.
Many of them were all the same person know by different names in different mystery cultures and settings. Mithra/Persia is a good example: AKA Osiris in Egypt - Dionysus in Greece - Bacchus in Rome/Italy - Attis in Asia Minor - Adonis in Syria and so on. The myth that has been wrapped around your god man Jesus is a combination of all of these BC myths.And you seem to be missing my point. I am not saying your god-man Jesus didn't exist and is a 'mythical' character . I am saying Christians have swaddled him in all of these myths of these earlier miracle working ancient gods born of virgins. See #16
What's the relevance? What has this have to do with your obviously questionable claims?
-->
@Stephen
I did. Meant to put it makes me feel so good and happy that that delusional dunce hates me. I am indeed proud.
Nah, you wanted it and now we know why
-->
@EtrnlVw
You are excused for now.
hear that? You have been EXCUSED /s
-->
@RoderickSpode
Whining?
Yes, whining.
This is a debate site.
It is. But you and others here soon turn "debate" in to a whining fest and playing victim - once they run out of insults that is - when you have no responses or answers. I am just too idle to show you all the whining and playing of victim that comes from yourself, @ FAUXLAW. and - whiner in chief - Melcharaz. This is you isn't it, WHINING about my post and others on line " attacking Christ" #23 and in turn Christianity?
I have simply highlighted the similarities between your god-man and the plethora of others god-men just like him that came hundreds,if not thousands of years before. It is up for discussions. You just don't like the subject matter and the fact that I have highlighted them. So you turn to whining and playing victim while others simply turn to vulgar and vile insults.
Why is it that Christians forget that it is they that has to support and defend and explain all of the claims made in these scriptures. The atheist isn't making the claims., what the atheist/me does is question the claims made by Christians and you have either to explain them ( not to be confused with explain them AWAY) with logical fact or you simply ignore me and go away, that is your responsibility and you owe it to your faith. I don't have to explain a damn thing, at all.
Why would you accuse someone of challenging your views as whining?
Oh behave yourself. Challenge my views all day long, just leave out the victim hood. I am not attacking Christ or Christians. I don't give a shite about your beliefs or the fact that you have faith. It is what you have faith in that I am scrutinizing, highlighting and questioning.
you really need to do is argue the actual existence of God.
No. What I do is up to me. Which is that I highlight, scrutinize and question these unreliable , ambiguous biblical half stories.
the claims are wrong because similarities do not really parallel as claimed
Oh yes, they were so, so wrong and coincidental that all of these images of other dying and rising god-men - although over hundreds or thousands of years apart - just happen to be "coincidence"?
'virgin' Mary with child Jesus. https://www.google.com/search?q=mary+with+child&rlz=1C1DSGK_en-gbGB437GB453&oq=mary+with+child&aqs=chrome.0.0l8.7018j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Here is another "Christ" myth complete with halo . Semele with Dionysus
'virgin' Mary with child Jesus. https://www.google.com/search?q=mary+with+child&rlz=1C1DSGK_en-gbGB437GB453&oq=mary+with+child&aqs=chrome.0.0l8.7018j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
AND it worried many of the earlier church fathers enough that they got their wild imaginations into top gear and came up with this diabolical and absurd explanation for all of the striking similarities between these dying and rising gods-men and your own .
Tertullian called the myth and mystery of Mithras - the Devil's "diabolical mimicry " . Tertullian has it that the devil " whose business it is to pervert the truth" had the audacity to preempt the exact circumstances of the coming of Jesus and the divine sacraments over a thousand + years before the event :
" he baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Mount and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread and brings in the symbol of resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the Devil that copies those of the divine" <<<<<<<< this was the utter desperation that Christians went to explain away the striking similarities that the Christian cult has with the ancient Mithras/Zoroastian a Pagan cult of Persia.#17
So we see, that the church fathers created one of the most absurd explanations. They had actually declared that the Devil had plagiarised Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that "the true son of god" was to come to earth, the Devil had copied the whole story of the life of Jesus over a thousand years advance.
Bravo Mr Satan Devil Lucifer, what a clever little creation of god you are.
Get used to it sunshine, the myth surrounding your particular dying and rising god-man is not new or is it exclusive to Christianity. No matter how much you whine about the;
"attacks on the deity of Christ that is continually circulating online". <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< whining!!!!!
Not only this, but these pagan religions have scant early manuscripts found before AD100 and the bulk comes from around AD300 and beyond.
This will have much to do with the early Christian church fathers/Christians -- burning, scrolls and manuscripts and books that they didn't understand and considered heretical. Thank your god for the deliverance of the Nag Hamadi scrolls (which go far back as Egypt. Didn't the Jesus family flee to Egypt?) also considered "heretical" by the Christian church,
The early church has much to answer for when it comes to who and what they deemed to be 'heretical' . The decimation of the Templars, the genocide of the Albigensians just to name two.
Socrates, was condemned to death on a religious charge. In her time Hypatia the world’s leading mathematician and astronomer, she was unlucky enough to be too clever for the early church and so Hypatia was brutally murdered by a mob of Christian fanatics.
I may start a thread on those lovely topics just to read the wild and imaginative explaining away the apologists try to invent in playing down the abhorrent behaviour of their own early church fathers.
-->
@Stephen
i.e., I'll go on a rant to get you emotionally distracted so you forget I avoided this question.
So then this claim of yours is wrong?Krishna: Hindu god, born of a virgin devaki around 1200BC.
-->
@RoderickSpode
So then this claim of yours is wrong?Krishna: Hindu god, born of a virgin devaki around 1200BC.
Well now that just depends on who one reads and who's word it is you are willing to accept.
The point is, is that your god - man is not the first of who it is said to have be born of a "virgin". there are many. You Christians have swaddled a real human being in a myth that you have plagiarized from the ancients.
First off, in Greek virgin simply means young girl or maiden. It doesn't mean that the female is necessarily chaste or virgo intacta
In the case of Krishna his " virgin birth" birth simply means that he was born without his mother having sex. It doesn't necessarily mean that she was virgo intacta.
But it matters not. The point is, is that your boys back story and biography is a fake, it is a myth, and what's more it is a plagiarized myth, told time and time again the world over and well before your god-man came onto the scene.
You really need to study these things before trying to spring gotcha moment on people.
Must try harder.
-->
@Stephen
Well now that just depends on who one reads and who's word it is you are willing to accept.The point is, is that your god - man is not the first of who it is said to have be born of a "virgin". there are many. You Christians have swaddled a real human being in a myth that you have plagiarized from the ancients.First off, in Greek virgin simply means young girl or maiden. It doesn't mean that the female is necessarily chaste or virgo intactaIn the case of Krishna his " virgin birth" birth simply means that he was born without his mother having sex. It doesn't necessarily mean that she was virgo intacta.But it matters not. The point is, is that your boys back story and biography is a fake, it is a myth, and what's more it is a plagiarized myth, told time and time again the world over and well before your god-man came onto the scene.You really need to study these things before trying to spring gotcha moment on people.Must try harder.
I apparently don't need to try at all. You keep putting your foot in your mouth.
First off, it's ironic that all of a sudden you're hip to broad definitions when translating the Greek language. The majority of our arguments revolved around translating from original language to English when the original language definition had a broader meaning. I think most of my definition references involved Hebrew translation. Is it that you only accept broad Greek definitions when translated into English and not Hebrew?
In addition, there's no textual evidence of Krishna not being conceived from sexual intercourse. And, you're now telling me Christ's virgin birth was plagiarized because Mary was a young girl or maiden. How old do you think Krishna's mother was?
And yes it does matter. You can't just make a list of alleged plagiarizing, and then later ignore one's shown to be inaccurate. You made a false claim. You can't claim it doesn't matter by throwing in words like many, expecting it to cover up your false statements.
its crazy-literally none of the supposed deities before Jesus were born of a virgin
-->
@RoderickSpode
First off, it's ironic that all of a sudden you're hip to broad definitions when translating the Greek language.
Irrelevant. The fact is that the ancient Greek word for "virgin" is young girl or maiden.
You can't just make a list of alleged plagiarizing, and then later ignore one's shown to be inaccurate.
I can and I have. You haven't shown anyone that they are inaccurate though have you. You have simply said they are not plagiarized and are untrue. ACCORDING TO WHO ???
For every opinion that you produce their will be a counter opinion. There are respected authors researchers and scholars who I happen to agree with. And a quick search of the www will produce hundreds of stories concerning god men born immaculately of virgins including Krishna (sounds so much like the word Christ doesn't it).
Here this took me all of two seconds>> https://gsgriffin.com/2016/12/08/other-gods-born-to-virgins-on-december-25-before-jesus-christ/
another two seconds>.
another two seconds
and what an interesting title>> Chrishna As The Prototype Of Christ
I'll have to find time to read that one.
So you see o learned one; at the click of a mouse and in seconds all your opinions can and do have counter opinions. And this is not no mention the hundreds of books written on the subject of Immaculate Conceptions and god - men born of young girls and maidens.
Like I have said , these opinions will always depend on what one has read and who one chooses to believe. I believe your god - man myth has been plagiarized from the ancients. I don't care what you believe. And you can deny this fact until the famous promised return of your god-man comes to fruition.
You believe your god - man physically "walked on water" and "made water become wine" . The bible lists so called `miracles` said to have been performed by your god-man yet you have absolutely not a shred evidence what- so- ever for these events actually happening. You have only what you have read, who you believe and of course a faith in the supernatural. You and your religious ideology is fake.
Oh and the "miracle" of turning water into wine, isn't original or exclusive to your god-man either. That little trick was performed in Egypt and Greece hundreds and thousands of years before Christians hijacked this myth also. As was the NT story of "the widows son" taken straight out of Egyptian mythology.
Get over it. You have absolutely no more evidence for the 'immaculate conception' of your god - man myth than the Hindu does for the born of a virgin Krishna. Why? Because it is MYTH! and Christians have lifted this myth and many others from the ancients and simple swaddled your god-man in them.
-->
@Stephen
The internet is the new 7-11 tabloid. That's why you pull up links so quickly to a genre equivalent to "Half man, half rat found" type articles we used to see at the convenience store counter. As long as there's gullible people, there will be an outlet for the type of articles for people who think that shape shifters are used for bodyguards for the president, Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley are alive and working for the CIA, and every little tiny similarity between an ancient myth and the Bible cries plagiarism. And Krishna sounding like Christ? Have you noticed that Donald sounds like Ronald? Maybe Donald Duck and Ronald McDonald are one and the same?
Sometimes these fishers of a gullible audience write books and claim to be scholars. There (almost unbelievably....emphasis on almost) is actually a self proclaimed scholar who wrote a book and actually claimed Jesus promoted self-mutilation when saying And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off.... A child will read that verse, and know it's a metaphor.
You are right in saying there's a counter to every opinion. Including yours. I'm a pluralist. I believe individuals have a right to believe what they want. Please, by all means, believe what thou wilt!
-->
@RoderickSpode
The internet is the new 7-11 tabloid
It makes no difference. My point was - AS YOU WELL KNOW - that there will always be a counter argument. I happen to agree with what is written in those links by those authors. You don' and won't accept that, and I don't care. I don't care that you dismiss any of those links. It simply proved my point that the MYTH of dying and rising god-men predate your god-man by hundreds if not thousands of years. And you STILL haven't shown me a single piece of evidence that proves your god-man is the only one to have "risen from the dead" or was 'immaculately conceived and born of "virgin" . You simply cannot accept that these Myths are not new or exclusive to your boy Jesus.
If I had mentioned authors and their books saying the same it would have made no difference to you. But I shall remember that when YOU ever use links from the WWW as some kind of evidence or proof for one claim or another.
Sometimes these fishers of a gullible audience write books and claim to be scholars.
Then is all you have to do is debunk them and their claims don't you. But before you do that of course, you have to prove your own fkn claims first!!!
Can I suggest that you start by proving the immaculate conception Jesus, and we'll take it from their.
There (almost unbelievably....emphasis on almost) is actually a self proclaimed scholar who wrote a book and actually claimed Jesus promoted self-mutilation when saying And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off.
So? I don't care. Why should that bother me...... at all?
I believe individuals have a right to believe what they want.
Me too. And I also believe I have a right to challenge what it is that you believe IN! You just don't like me doing that.
Please, by all means, believe what thou wilt!
I do, and also, I will disbelieve what I " wilt " until I don't.
-->
@Stephen
Since all my posts are pro- Christian it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what I consider to be myths and the one I don't.
-->
@ronjs
Since all my posts are pro- Christian it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what I consider to be myths and the one I don't.
Well now good for you. Now tell me, can you figure out if your god-man myth came before or after all those other god-man myths. Take your time
-->
@Stephen
It makes no difference. My point was - AS YOU WELL KNOW - that there will always be a counter argument. I happen to agree with what is written in those links by those authors. You don' and won't accept that, and I don't care. I don't care that you dismiss any of those links. It simply proved my point that the MYTH of dying and rising god-men predate your god-man by hundreds if not thousands of years. And you STILL haven't shown me a single piece of evidence that proves your god-man is the only one to have "risen from the dead" or was 'immaculately conceived and born of "virgin" . You simply cannot accept that these Myths are not new or exclusive to your boy Jesus.If I had mentioned authors and their books saying the same it would have made no difference to you. But I shall remember that when YOU ever use links from the WWW as some kind of evidence or proof for one claim or another.
Of course, I don't know the authors you're into, but for the record, there are brilliant non-Christian writers, including atheists that write books on religion. The better one's are more objective. So there's different levels of non-Christian writers on the subject. From the more objective authors, to the extremists who look for every punctuation mark in the Bible that bares the slightest similarity with one in an ancient myth.
Then is all you have to do is debunk them and their claims don't you. But before you do that of course, you have to prove your own fkn claimsfirst!!!Can I suggest that you start by proving the immaculate conception Jesus, and we'll take it from their.
Matthew 7:7
Verse (Click for Chapter)
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
This is a bold claim from the Bible. This tells us that if you seek Him, you will find him. The question is, do you want to find Him?
So? I don't care. Why should that bother me...... at all?
Why should anything you've said bother me?
Me too. And I also believe I have a right to challenge what it is that you believe IN! You just don't like me doing that.
What makes you assume that? Because I disagree with you?
I do, and also, I will disbelieve what I " wilt " until I don't.
Sounds good to me.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Then is all you have to do is debunk them and their claims don't you. But before you do that of course, you have to prove your own fkn claims first!!!Can I suggest that you start by proving the immaculate conception Jesus, and we'll take it from their.Matthew 7:7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.This is a bold claim from the Bible. This tells us that if you seek Him, you will find him. The question is, do you want to find Him?
But goes nowhere in proving that Jesus was "immaculately conceived"not to mention the only one said to be "immaculately conceived" and we haven't even got to "walking on water", yet.
The question is, do you want to find Him?
See, your doing it again. That isn't the question I asked at all, is it? This is what I asked >>>>>" Can I suggest that you start by proving the immaculate conception Jesus"#56