Book about Jesus for non-Christian child

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the minister's book review linked above. It uses the well-worn metaphor of fingers pointing to the moon. But God is not the moon. Marcus Borg is a Christian heretic. Read at your own risk.

In your opinion. There are lots of different kinds of Christians and many admire him greatly.

+1. Geez. The fire and brimstone people are so tedious.

Just like the new-thought "Christians" and the Horus/Mithras/Osiris folks. Someone is wrong. Are you sure you know who it is?

Or maybe none/all of them are wrong.

I think of religion as being like the pictures a little child draws of their mother. All of them are "true" in that they are the closest representation a child can make, and drawn to reflect the child's love. But they aren't exactly accurate, unless the mom has arms growing out of her ears, or eyes almost as big as her head.

Having an image of God in my mind helps me focus my prayers, but that doesn't mean it's perfectly accurate or give me the right to judge people who use an other image.

I love this outlook, PP.

-humanist Jew

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the minister's book review linked above. It uses the well-worn metaphor of fingers pointing to the moon. But God is not the moon. Marcus Borg is a Christian heretic. Read at your own risk.

In your opinion. There are lots of different kinds of Christians and many admire him greatly.

+1. Geez. The fire and brimstone people are so tedious.

Just like the new-thought "Christians" and the Horus/Mithras/Osiris folks. Someone is wrong. Are you sure you know who it is?

Well I'm pretty sure the Mithras people are wrong, because there's historical evidence that Mithras appeared among the centurions a couple of centuries after Jesus' death. But for the rest, I've read Borg and like many of his arguments.

Really -- sightings of a god? I didn't know historians did that. I thought they were limited to the material world. That is, they could report that Roman Centurions said they saw Mithras, but they couldn't actually report a sighting of a supernatural being.

At any rate, the fact that Roman centurions saw Mithras 200 years after Christ doesn't mean Mithras didn't exist as a god long before that in other places. People are still reporting sightings of Jesus - and Mary too. That doesn't mean that Jesus and Mary just started to exist. Everyone knows they been around over 2,000 years.

You know very well that by "appeared" I meant "the first recorded evidence of this God." And I certainly hope you understand the difference between evidence starting from 60-90 AD for Jesus vs. evidence starting from 200-300AD for Mithras. I suspect you're not really this dense, and you just want to stir the pot.

But if Mithras, and Horus with his golden penis, seem like credible sources for the Christian resurrection to you, then whatever floats your boat!

Mithras is an ancient persian god that roman soldiers picked up on much later. Sort of like the native Hawaians not hearing about Jesus until the 19th century when protestant missionaries introduced Christianity to the indigenous people there.

So you think Mithras emerging from a rock is like the virgin birth? And Mithras killing a bull is like the crucifixion? Okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the minister's book review linked above. It uses the well-worn metaphor of fingers pointing to the moon. But God is not the moon. Marcus Borg is a Christian heretic. Read at your own risk.

In your opinion. There are lots of different kinds of Christians and many admire him greatly.

+1. Geez. The fire and brimstone people are so tedious.

Just like the new-thought "Christians" and the Horus/Mithras/Osiris folks. Someone is wrong. Are you sure you know who it is?

Well I'm pretty sure the Mithras people are wrong, because there's historical evidence that Mithras appeared among the centurions a couple of centuries after Jesus' death. But for the rest, I've read Borg and like many of his arguments.

Really -- sightings of a god? I didn't know historians did that. I thought they were limited to the material world. That is, they could report that Roman Centurions said they saw Mithras, but they couldn't actually report a sighting of a supernatural being.

At any rate, the fact that Roman centurions saw Mithras 200 years after Christ doesn't mean Mithras didn't exist as a god long before that in other places. People are still reporting sightings of Jesus - and Mary too. That doesn't mean that Jesus and Mary just started to exist. Everyone knows they been around over 2,000 years.

You know very well that by "appeared" I meant "the first recorded evidence of this God." And I certainly hope you understand the difference between evidence starting from 60-90 AD for Jesus vs. evidence starting from 200-300AD for Mithras. I suspect you're not really this dense, and you just want to stir the pot.

But if Mithras, and Horus with his golden penis, seem like credible sources for the Christian resurrection to you, then whatever floats your boat!

Mithras is an ancient persian god that roman soldiers picked up on much later. Sort of like the native Hawaians not hearing about Jesus until the 19th century when protestant missionaries introduced Christianity to the indigenous people there.

So you think Mithras emerging from a rock is like the virgin birth? And Mithras killing a bull is like the crucifixion? Okay.

PP knows quite a lot about Mithras, incl that he was an ancient Persian god later discovered by roman soldiers. Also, like a couple of other gods, he was born on Dec 25, long before Jesus. It was a popular date -- already celebrated by numerous ancient religions because it coincides with the winter solstice. Of course it doesn't really matter when the birth of Jesus or any other God is celebrated. What's important is that Jesus is the son of God who came to die for our sins so people who believe in him could have everlasting life. There's really no need to try to minimize gods who have a few things in common with Jesus. Believing in Jesus is what's important. No one has believed in Mithras for centuries, but Jesus has endured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the minister's book review linked above. It uses the well-worn metaphor of fingers pointing to the moon. But God is not the moon. Marcus Borg is a Christian heretic. Read at your own risk.

In your opinion. There are lots of different kinds of Christians and many admire him greatly.

+1. Geez. The fire and brimstone people are so tedious.

Just like the new-thought "Christians" and the Horus/Mithras/Osiris folks. Someone is wrong. Are you sure you know who it is?

Well I'm pretty sure the Mithras people are wrong, because there's historical evidence that Mithras appeared among the centurions a couple of centuries after Jesus' death. But for the rest, I've read Borg and like many of his arguments.

Really -- sightings of a god? I didn't know historians did that. I thought they were limited to the material world. That is, they could report that Roman Centurions said they saw Mithras, but they couldn't actually report a sighting of a supernatural being.

At any rate, the fact that Roman centurions saw Mithras 200 years after Christ doesn't mean Mithras didn't exist as a god long before that in other places. People are still reporting sightings of Jesus - and Mary too. That doesn't mean that Jesus and Mary just started to exist. Everyone knows they been around over 2,000 years.

You know very well that by "appeared" I meant "the first recorded evidence of this God." And I certainly hope you understand the difference between evidence starting from 60-90 AD for Jesus vs. evidence starting from 200-300AD for Mithras. I suspect you're not really this dense, and you just want to stir the pot.

But if Mithras, and Horus with his golden penis, seem like credible sources for the Christian resurrection to you, then whatever floats your boat!

Mithras is an ancient persian god that roman soldiers picked up on much later. Sort of like the native Hawaians not hearing about Jesus until the 19th century when protestant missionaries introduced Christianity to the indigenous people there.

So you think Mithras emerging from a rock is like the virgin birth? And Mithras killing a bull is like the crucifixion? Okay.

PP knows quite a lot about Mithras, incl that he was an ancient Persian god later discovered by roman soldiers. Also, like a couple of other gods, he was born on Dec 25, long before Jesus. It was a popular date -- already celebrated by numerous ancient religions because it coincides with the winter solstice. Of course it doesn't really matter when the birth of Jesus or any other God is celebrated. What's important is that Jesus is the son of God who came to die for our sins so people who believe in him could have everlasting life. There's really no need to try to minimize gods who have a few things in common with Jesus. Believing in Jesus is what's important. No one has believed in Mithras for centuries, but Jesus has endured.

Groundhog pops up every year on this board to tell us Jesus never existed and his story is all based on Horus and Mithras. Given that Horus' and Mithras' stories are such hoots, and they don't even remotely resemble the Christian nativity and crucufuxtion stories, the whole thing is a hoot. Some of us are actually sort of fond of Groundhog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the minister's book review linked above. It uses the well-worn metaphor of fingers pointing to the moon. But God is not the moon. Marcus Borg is a Christian heretic. Read at your own risk.

In your opinion. There are lots of different kinds of Christians and many admire him greatly.

+1. Geez. The fire and brimstone people are so tedious.

Just like the new-thought "Christians" and the Horus/Mithras/Osiris folks. Someone is wrong. Are you sure you know who it is?

Well I'm pretty sure the Mithras people are wrong, because there's historical evidence that Mithras appeared among the centurions a couple of centuries after Jesus' death. But for the rest, I've read Borg and like many of his arguments.

Really -- sightings of a god? I didn't know historians did that. I thought they were limited to the material world. That is, they could report that Roman Centurions said they saw Mithras, but they couldn't actually report a sighting of a supernatural being.

At any rate, the fact that Roman centurions saw Mithras 200 years after Christ doesn't mean Mithras didn't exist as a god long before that in other places. People are still reporting sightings of Jesus - and Mary too. That doesn't mean that Jesus and Mary just started to exist. Everyone knows they been around over 2,000 years.

You know very well that by "appeared" I meant "the first recorded evidence of this God." And I certainly hope you understand the difference between evidence starting from 60-90 AD for Jesus vs. evidence starting from 200-300AD for Mithras. I suspect you're not really this dense, and you just want to stir the pot.

But if Mithras, and Horus with his golden penis, seem like credible sources for the Christian resurrection to you, then whatever floats your boat!

Mithras is an ancient persian god that roman soldiers picked up on much later. Sort of like the native Hawaians not hearing about Jesus until the 19th century when protestant missionaries introduced Christianity to the indigenous people there.

So you think Mithras emerging from a rock is like the virgin birth? And Mithras killing a bull is like the crucifixion? Okay.

PP knows quite a lot about Mithras, incl that he was an ancient Persian god later discovered by roman soldiers. Also, like a couple of other gods, he was born on Dec 25, long before Jesus. It was a popular date -- already celebrated by numerous ancient religions because it coincides with the winter solstice. Of course it doesn't really matter when the birth of Jesus or any other God is celebrated. What's important is that Jesus is the son of God who came to die for our sins so people who believe in him could have everlasting life. There's really no need to try to minimize gods who have a few things in common with Jesus. Believing in Jesus is what's important. No one has believed in Mithras for centuries, but Jesus has endured.

Groundhog pops up every year on this board to tell us Jesus never existed and his story is all based on Horus and Mithras. Given that Horus' and Mithras' stories are such hoots, and they don't even remotely resemble the Christian nativity and crucufuxtion stories, the whole thing is a hoot. Some of us are actually sort of fond of Groundhog.

I'm NOT the guy(s) you're talking about but there is a growing body of scholarship that makes the argument that Jesus never existed. Have you read any of this? I'm not saying that this is the default position to take but you seem pretty confident Jesus was a real guy and so I'd be curious to hear what these historians are missing.

[Anonymous]

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Was-Jesus-Ellen-Morgan/dp/0448483203/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482365056&sr=1-1&keywords=who+was+jesus

There is a "Who Was Jesus" in the popular "Who is...." or "Who Was..." series for children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the minister's book review linked above. It uses the well-worn metaphor of fingers pointing to the moon. But God is not the moon. Marcus Borg is a Christian heretic. Read at your own risk.

In your opinion. There are lots of different kinds of Christians and many admire him greatly.

+1. Geez. The fire and brimstone people are so tedious.

Just like the new-thought "Christians" and the Horus/Mithras/Osiris folks. Someone is wrong. Are you sure you know who it is?

Well I'm pretty sure the Mithras people are wrong, because there's historical evidence that Mithras appeared among the centurions a couple of centuries after Jesus' death. But for the rest, I've read Borg and like many of his arguments.

Really -- sightings of a god? I didn't know historians did that. I thought they were limited to the material world. That is, they could report that Roman Centurions said they saw Mithras, but they couldn't actually report a sighting of a supernatural being.

At any rate, the fact that Roman centurions saw Mithras 200 years after Christ doesn't mean Mithras didn't exist as a god long before that in other places. People are still reporting sightings of Jesus - and Mary too. That doesn't mean that Jesus and Mary just started to exist. Everyone knows they been around over 2,000 years.

You know very well that by "appeared" I meant "the first recorded evidence of this God." And I certainly hope you understand the difference between evidence starting from 60-90 AD for Jesus vs. evidence starting from 200-300AD for Mithras. I suspect you're not really this dense, and you just want to stir the pot.

But if Mithras, and Horus with his golden penis, seem like credible sources for the Christian resurrection to you, then whatever floats your boat!

Mithras is an ancient persian god that roman soldiers picked up on much later. Sort of like the native Hawaians not hearing about Jesus until the 19th century when protestant missionaries introduced Christianity to the indigenous people there.

So you think Mithras emerging from a rock is like the virgin birth? And Mithras killing a bull is like the crucifixion? Okay.

PP knows quite a lot about Mithras, incl that he was an ancient Persian god later discovered by roman soldiers. Also, like a couple of other gods, he was born on Dec 25, long before Jesus. It was a popular date -- already celebrated by numerous ancient religions because it coincides with the winter solstice. Of course it doesn't really matter when the birth of Jesus or any other God is celebrated. What's important is that Jesus is the son of God who came to die for our sins so people who believe in him could have everlasting life. There's really no need to try to minimize gods who have a few things in common with Jesus. Believing in Jesus is what's important. No one has believed in Mithras for centuries, but Jesus has endured.

Groundhog pops up every year on this board to tell us Jesus never existed and his story is all based on Horus and Mithras. Given that Horus' and Mithras' stories are such hoots, and they don't even remotely resemble the Christian nativity and crucufuxtion stories, the whole thing is a hoot. Some of us are actually sort of fond of Groundhog.

I'm NOT the guy(s) you're talking about but there is a growing body of scholarship that makes the argument that Jesus never existed. Have you read any of this? I'm not saying that this is the default position to take but you seem pretty confident Jesus was a real guy and so I'd be curious to hear what these historians are missing.

It's not that the historians are missing something, it's that they are historians, looking a Jesus from an historical angle, not from a position of religious faith. Facts are not needed for faith, which comes from within. There are understandably few facts about Jesus. If he existed, it was as a poor Jewish carpenter, 2000 years ago, when only very important people were written about. Jesus only became well known after his death, thanks to Paul, and then became famous centuries later, thanks to the Catholic Church.

There's no need to be threatened by stories that Jesus shares his powers with earlier mythical gods. That sort of melding of the real with the mythical happened a lot in those days. Only people who are insecure in their faith are bothered by the similarities between Jesus and gods with similar back stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not that the historians are missing something, it's that they are historians, looking a Jesus from an historical angle, not from a position of religious faith. Facts are not needed for faith, which comes from within. There are understandably few facts about Jesus. If he existed, it was as a poor Jewish carpenter, 2000 years ago, when only very important people were written about. Jesus only became well known after his death, thanks to Paul, and then became famous centuries later, thanks to the Catholic Church.

There's no need to be threatened by stories that Jesus shares his powers with earlier mythical gods. That sort of melding of the real with the mythical happened a lot in those days. Only people who are insecure in their faith are bothered by the similarities between Jesus and gods with similar back stories.

I'm one of the Borg readers here, so I like to think I have an open mind about Jesus and his message. The problem with the supposed Horus/Mithras connection is that the back stories aren't similar at all. The idea that the virgin birth derived from a tale about an earlier god's golden penis, which his spouse/partner retreived from the dirt and used to impregnate herself, isn't threatening so much as laughable. I think that's why you see such unrestrained hilarity every year about this time, when Groundhog pops up to repeat the claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not that the historians are missing something, it's that they are historians, looking a Jesus from an historical angle, not from a position of religious faith. Facts are not needed for faith, which comes from within. There are understandably few facts about Jesus. If he existed, it was as a poor Jewish carpenter, 2000 years ago, when only very important people were written about. Jesus only became well known after his death, thanks to Paul, and then became famous centuries later, thanks to the Catholic Church.

There's no need to be threatened by stories that Jesus shares his powers with earlier mythical gods. That sort of melding of the real with the mythical happened a lot in those days. Only people who are insecure in their faith are bothered by the similarities between Jesus and gods with similar back stories.

I'm one of the Borg readers here, so I like to think I have an open mind about Jesus and his message. The problem with the supposed Horus/Mithras connection is that the back stories aren't similar at all. The idea that the virgin birth derived from a tale about an earlier god's golden penis, which his spouse/partner retreived from the dirt and used to impregnate herself, isn't threatening so much as laughable. I think that's why you see such unrestrained hilarity every year about this time, when Groundhog pops up to repeat the claim.

Just to be clear, you're reading the reaction to Groundhog as coming from a defensive, threatened mindset. In fact, several of us here see Groundhog and her Horus/Mithras posts as almost a DCUM seasonal tradition, and one that's funny to boot. Thus the happy cries on other threads of "Groundhog, we wondered when you'd show up!"