No more Horus and Mithras please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Groundhog has seized upon HM as in his/her view it is evidence that the Jesus story was inspired by these myths and, thus, itself is a myth, showing that Jesus did not exist and Christians are seriously misguided or worse for believing in him and following cultic pagan Christian teachings.

That is why we get the constant groundhog day of the HM-Christ connection and when it repeatedly gets rejected on historical accuracy/chronology grounds, Groundhog segues immediately that none of our refutations of the HM-Christ axis proves that Jesus existed. Groundhog does not believe the historical references to Christ and his followers are solid enough to believe he physically existed. So, if he physically did not exist, he must be a myth dreamed up by a group of people in the first century AD.

But since, as Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun, Groundhog feels the need to source the outlines of the cooked up Jesus myth and alights upon Horus and Mithra as the inspiration. Posters have pretty well demolished this last part of the Groundhog hypothesis.

There are other holes, however. In the mileu of the time--and actually of later times--those constructing elaborate theories that explain the secret of the universe have a very strong tendency to want to keep this knowledge to themselves and a chosen few. In other words, they are gnostic, and available only to select initiates. (Mithraism had strong overtones of gnosticism.) But the followers of Jesus felt impelled to spread the good news to whomever would listen--the very opposite of gnosticism. The gnostic offshoots that developed were early on denounced as antithetical to the message of Christ as most Christians saw it.

Groundhog's theory of the made up mythic origins of Christianity would perhaps historically makes sense in the context of a gnostic cult, but far less in the context of such an outward reaching religion as early Christianity.

The other hole in Groundhog's theory is that the basic message of Christianity is not that if you believe in his death and resurrection you will be saved. If Christianity were simply a pagan cult, that would naturally be the message. Rather, the overarching message of Christianity is that if you live a life loving others you will be saved. There are rituals that are outward signs you have accepted this message like baptism but they are secondary to the message. And belief in Jesus's death and resurrection underpins why loving others will save you but that belief alone is not sufficient, and in many versions of Christian teachings not strictly necessary to be saved if you live a life in accordance with Jesus's message of love.

^^groundhog debunker has entirely too much time on her hands.

15:15 here, and I'm not the PP you're calling the Groundhog Debunker. I think she, like I, enjoys a good debate over history and religion, and hilarity over the HM theory doesn't hurt. And may I remind you that this thread wouldn't exist if Groundhog weren't so bloody-minded about inserting Horus and Mithras into so many threads over the past few months -- talk about having too much time on your hands!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, Cain killed Abel just as Set killed Osiris. Claudius killed his brother in the famous Shakespearean play. So the stories live on.

Logic, please. You say this like every story must be based on some earlier story. Not true. Sometimes stories (Hamlet) are based on timeless human truths. Brothers kill each other, and Shakespeare didn't have to look back to Cain and Able to come up with this plot line. Moreover, the story about Cain and Able doesn't invaldate actual incidents of fratricide that occur 1000s of years later. So why should some pre-existing story (involving far-fetched golden penises and/or chronological errors, no less) have any bearing on the truth of God sending Jesus?

Elizabethan Theatre was based on Greek and Roman models.
http://shakespearean.org.uk/elizthea1.htm

Originally English Tragedies and Comedies tended to be written in close imitation of Greek and Roman models and much was made of the Classical rules of writing plays - rules which Renaissance writers took from Aristotle’s Poetics and expanded upon.

Furthermore, the bible (yikes) was oftentimes inspiration for Shakespeare's plays.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/faq/shakespeareinspired.html

However, we can see from Shakespeare's work that no source had a more profound impact on his writing than the Bible.

And are you questioning his obsession with Cain and Abel?

lol

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/quotes/shakespeareoncain.html

Shakespeare, Cain, and Abel

Like all citizens of Tudor England, Shakespeare would have had an intimate knowledge of every story in the Bible. There are scores of biblical references in Shakespeare's works, but the story of Cain and Abel seems to have been one of his favorites, as we see in the following quotations.

This be Damascus, be thou cursed Cain,
To slay thy brother Abel, if thou wilt.
"1 Henry VI" (1.3.40)

Further I say and further will maintain
Upon his bad life to make all this good,
That he did plot the Duke of Gloucester's death,
Suggest his soon-believing adversaries,
And consequently, like a traitor coward,
Sluiced out his innocent soul through streams of blood:
Which blood, like sacrificing Abel's, cries,
Even from the tongueless caverns of the earth,
To me for justice and rough chastisement;
And, by the glorious worth of my descent,
This arm shall do it, or this life be spent.
"Richard II" (2.1.99)

They love not poison that do poison need,
Nor do I thee: though I did wish him dead,
I hate the murderer, love him murdered.
The guilt of conscience take thou for thy labour,
But neither my good word nor princely favour:
With Cain go wander through shades of night
And never show thy head by day nor light.
Lords, I protest, my soul is full of woe,
That blood should sprinkle me to make me grow.
"Richard II" (5.6.39)

Let heaven kiss earth! now let not Nature's hand
Keep the wild flood confined! let order die!
And let this world no longer be a stage
To feed contention in a lingering act;
But let one spirit of the first-born Cain
Reign in all bosoms, that, each heart being set
On bloody courses, the rude scene may end,
And darkness be the burier of the dead!
"2 Henry IV" (1.1.207)

O, my offence is rank it smells to heaven;
It hath the primal eldest curse upon't,
A brother's murder.
"Hamlet" (3.3.40)

That skull had a tongue in it, and could sing once:
how the knave jowls it to the ground, as if it were
Cain's jaw-bone, that did the first murder! It
might be the pate of a politician, which this ass
now o'er-reaches; one that would circumvent God,
might it not?
"Hamlet" (5.1.77)

I have heard you say
That we shall see and know our friends in heaven:
If that be true, I shall see my boy again;
For since the birth of Cain, the first male child,
To him that did but yesterday suspire,
There was not such a gracious creature born.
But now will canker-sorrow eat my bud
And chase the native beauty from his cheek
And he will look as hollow as a ghost,
As dim and meagre as an ague's fit,
And so he'll die; and, rising so again,
When I shall meet him in the court of heaven
I shall not know him: therefore never, never
Must I behold my pretty Arthur more.
"King John" (3.4.80)

You two are book-men: can you tell me by your wit
What was a month old at Cain's birth, that's not five
weeks old as yet?
"Love's Labor's Lost" (4.2.40)

My point is this - that we ALL influenced by past events and stories. And these stories live on forever in great works. They're known as ALLUSIONS.

Go study, my friend, and you'll start to see connections. Literature is based on myth, and the bible is literature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Groundhog has seized upon HM as in his/her view it is evidence that the Jesus story was inspired by these myths and, thus, itself is a myth, showing that Jesus did not exist and Christians are seriously misguided or worse for believing in him and following cultic pagan Christian teachings.

That is why we get the constant groundhog day of the HM-Christ connection and when it repeatedly gets rejected on historical accuracy/chronology grounds, Groundhog segues immediately that none of our refutations of the HM-Christ axis proves that Jesus existed. Groundhog does not believe the historical references to Christ and his followers are solid enough to believe he physically existed. So, if he physically did not exist, he must be a myth dreamed up by a group of people in the first century AD.

But since, as Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun, Groundhog feels the need to source the outlines of the cooked up Jesus myth and alights upon Horus and Mithra as the inspiration. Posters have pretty well demolished this last part of the Groundhog hypothesis.

There are other holes, however. In the mileu of the time--and actually of later times--those constructing elaborate theories that explain the secret of the universe have a very strong tendency to want to keep this knowledge to themselves and a chosen few. In other words, they are gnostic, and available only to select initiates. (Mithraism had strong overtones of gnosticism.) But the followers of Jesus felt impelled to spread the good news to whomever would listen--the very opposite of gnosticism. The gnostic offshoots that developed were early on denounced as antithetical to the message of Christ as most Christians saw it.

Groundhog's theory of the made up mythic origins of Christianity would perhaps historically makes sense in the context of a gnostic cult, but far less in the context of such an outward reaching religion as early Christianity.

The other hole in Groundhog's theory is that the basic message of Christianity is not that if you believe in his death and resurrection you will be saved. If Christianity were simply a pagan cult, that would naturally be the message. Rather, the overarching message of Christianity is that if you live a life loving others you will be saved. There are rituals that are outward signs you have accepted this message like baptism but they are secondary to the message. And belief in Jesus's death and resurrection underpins why loving others will save you but that belief alone is not sufficient, and in many versions of Christian teachings not strictly necessary to be saved if you live a life in accordance with Jesus's message of love.

^^groundhog debunker has entirely too much time on her hands.

15:15 here, and I'm not the PP you're calling the Groundhog Debunker. I think she, like I, enjoys a good debate over history and religion, and hilarity over the HM theory doesn't hurt. And may I remind you that this thread wouldn't exist if Groundhog weren't so bloody-minded about inserting Horus and Mithras into so many threads over the past few months -- talk about having too much time on your hands!

not the poster dubbed "groundhog' and thinking you also have too much time on your hands

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, Cain killed Abel just as Set killed Osiris. Claudius killed his brother in the famous Shakespearean play. So the stories live on.

Logic, please. You say this like every story must be based on some earlier story. Not true. Sometimes stories (Hamlet) are based on timeless human truths. Brothers kill each other, and Shakespeare didn't have to look back to Cain and Able to come up with this plot line. Moreover, the story about Cain and Able doesn't invaldate actual incidents of fratricide that occur 1000s of years later. So why should some pre-existing story (involving far-fetched golden penises and/or chronological errors, no less) have any bearing on the truth of God sending Jesus?

Elizabethan Theatre was based on Greek and Roman models.
http://shakespearean.org.uk/elizthea1.htm

Originally English Tragedies and Comedies tended to be written in close imitation of Greek and Roman models and much was made of the Classical rules of writing plays - rules which Renaissance writers took from Aristotle’s Poetics and expanded upon.

Furthermore, the bible (yikes) was oftentimes inspiration for Shakespeare's plays.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/faq/shakespeareinspired.html

However, we can see from Shakespeare's work that no source had a more profound impact on his writing than the Bible.

And are you questioning his obsession with Cain and Abel?

lol

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/quotes/shakespeareoncain.html

...

My point is this - that we ALL influenced by past events and stories. And these stories live on forever in great works. They're known as ALLUSIONS.

Go study, my friend, and you'll start to see connections. Literature is based on myth, and the bible is literature.

Ahem. My grandfather was a world-renowned (and I do mean the "world" part) expert on Shakespeare. Everything you post is blindingly obvious to any high school student. Any gibbon or groundhog can google Shakespeare snippets until he's blue in the face.

Fact is, all this still has no logical bearing on Horus, Mithras, and Jesus. You're not making a coherent argument when you claim that because Shakesoeare used biblucal references (and who didn't, back then) to Cain, this means that Jesus is derived from other myths.

Go back and read the posts about syllogisms, correlation and causation. From a logical perspective, the existence of two similar things (although the thinking person doesn't agree that HM are similar to Jesus) does not prove that one CAUSED the other. Did you know that some historians think that Jesus caused the Mithras myth, and not the other way around.

[Anonymous]

Struggling with Groundhog's argument here. But the starting point still seems to be to be that the Jesus story is literature, not nonfiction.

Groundhog then supports that point by saying that the Jesus story contains allusions to the myths of Horus and Mithras.

We have:

All literature (nonfiction) contains allusions to myths.

The Jesus story has allusions to myth.

Therefore, the Jesus story is literature (nonfiction).

Groundhog, refresh your memory on false syllogisms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My point is this - that we ALL influenced by past events and stories. And these stories live on forever in great works. They're known as ALLUSIONS.

Go study, my friend, and you'll start to see connections. Literature is based on myth, and the bible is literature.

Um, no. "Allusions" is not the word you want. Allusions are backwards-looking references. You, however, seem to be arguing that Shakespeare couldn't have come up with Hamlet on his own, if he hadn't already been familiar with the Cain and Abel myth. Your theory would make Cain and Abel much more than a mere "allusion" for Shakespeare, and more like a "primary source."

You've taken Campbell's ideas, you've run too far with them, and you've mired yourself in a bog. Whatever your issues with terminology, you're still wrong. Fratricide has scandalized humankind since our ancestors first stood up straight. You don't have to rely on old stories to think fratricide woukd be a good subject for a play. Pretty sure that Campbell would agree that you've stretched the myth thing too far here. Sure, you can fancify your play by using the "literary convention" of sprinkling in "allusions" to the Bible, but that in no way means that Shakespeare wouldn't have known about fratricide without the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Struggling with Groundhog's argument here. But the starting point still seems to be to be that the Jesus story is literature, not nonfiction.

Groundhog then supports that point by saying that the Jesus story contains allusions to the myths of Horus and Mithras.

We have:

All literature (nonfiction) contains allusions to myths.

The Jesus story has allusions to myth.

Therefore, the Jesus story is literature (nonfiction).

Groundhog, refresh your memory on false syllogisms.

Honestly, I think you're struggling because Groundhog doesn't put much effort into her arguments. You, I, and others here enjoy rolling up our sleeves and diving into the historical and logical merits of an argument. Groundhog likes tossing out things to see if they stick, and if they don't then she quickly moves right on to something else ("never mind HM, I don't think Jesus ever existed"). I also don't think she reads replies very carefully--that, or she's so uninterested in the historical and logical truths that she doesn't really care that she's still arguing something that was shown on another thread to be ridiculous. That's the difference.

[Anonymous]

Groundhog is a lot like Whack-a-Mole. "You don't believe that Jesus' story is related to the Mithras myth? Well, here's a page of Shakespeare quoting Cain and Abel!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, Cain killed Abel just as Set killed Osiris. Claudius killed his brother in the famous Shakespearean play. So the stories live on.

Logic, please. You say this like every story must be based on some earlier story. Not true. Sometimes stories (Hamlet) are based on timeless human truths. Brothers kill each other, and Shakespeare didn't have to look back to Cain and Able to come up with this plot line. Moreover, the story about Cain and Able doesn't invaldate actual incidents of fratricide that occur 1000s of years later. So why should some pre-existing story (involving far-fetched golden penises and/or chronological errors, no less) have any bearing on the truth of God sending Jesus?

Elizabethan Theatre was based on Greek and Roman models.
http://shakespearean.org.uk/elizthea1.htm

Originally English Tragedies and Comedies tended to be written in close imitation of Greek and Roman models and much was made of the Classical rules of writing plays - rules which Renaissance writers took from Aristotle’s Poetics and expanded upon.

Furthermore, the bible (yikes) was oftentimes inspiration for Shakespeare's plays.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/faq/shakespeareinspired.html

However, we can see from Shakespeare's work that no source had a more profound impact on his writing than the Bible.

And are you questioning his obsession with Cain and Abel?

lol

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/quotes/shakespeareoncain.html

...

My point is this - that we ALL influenced by past events and stories. And these stories live on forever in great works. They're known as ALLUSIONS.

Go study, my friend, and you'll start to see connections. Literature is based on myth, and the bible is literature.

Ahem. My grandfather was a world-renowned (and I do mean the "world" part) expert on Shakespeare. Everything you post is blindingly obvious to any high school student. Any gibbon or groundhog can google Shakespeare snippets until he's blue in the face.

Fact is, all this still has no logical bearing on Horus, Mithras, and Jesus. You're not making a coherent argument when you claim that because Shakesoeare used biblucal references (and who didn't, back then) to Cain, this means that Jesus is derived from other myths.

Go back and read the posts about syllogisms, correlation and causation. From a logical perspective, the existence of two similar things (although the thinking person doesn't agree that HM are similar to Jesus) does not prove that one CAUSED the other. Did you know that some historians think that Jesus caused the Mithras myth, and not the other way around.

who cares about someone's grandfather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, Cain killed Abel just as Set killed Osiris. Claudius killed his brother in the famous Shakespearean play. So the stories live on.

Logic, please. You say this like every story must be based on some earlier story. Not true. Sometimes stories (Hamlet) are based on timeless human truths. Brothers kill each other, and Shakespeare didn't have to look back to Cain and Able to come up with this plot line. Moreover, the story about Cain and Able doesn't invaldate actual incidents of fratricide that occur 1000s of years later. So why should some pre-existing story (involving far-fetched golden penises and/or chronological errors, no less) have any bearing on the truth of God sending Jesus?

Elizabethan Theatre was based on Greek and Roman models.
http://shakespearean.org.uk/elizthea1.htm

Originally English Tragedies and Comedies tended to be written in close imitation of Greek and Roman models and much was made of the Classical rules of writing plays - rules which Renaissance writers took from Aristotle’s Poetics and expanded upon.

Furthermore, the bible (yikes) was oftentimes inspiration for Shakespeare's plays.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/faq/shakespeareinspired.html

However, we can see from Shakespeare's work that no source had a more profound impact on his writing than the Bible.

And are you questioning his obsession with Cain and Abel?

lol

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/quotes/shakespeareoncain.html

...

My point is this - that we ALL influenced by past events and stories. And these stories live on forever in great works. They're known as ALLUSIONS.

Go study, my friend, and you'll start to see connections. Literature is based on myth, and the bible is literature.

Ahem. My grandfather was a world-renowned (and I do mean the "world" part) expert on Shakespeare. Everything you post is blindingly obvious to any high school student. Any gibbon or groundhog can google Shakespeare snippets until he's blue in the face.

Fact is, all this still has no logical bearing on Horus, Mithras, and Jesus. You're not making a coherent argument when you claim that because Shakesoeare used biblucal references (and who didn't, back then) to Cain, this means that Jesus is derived from other myths.

Go back and read the posts about syllogisms, correlation and causation. From a logical perspective, the existence of two similar things (although the thinking person doesn't agree that HM are similar to Jesus) does not prove that one CAUSED the other. Did you know that some historians think that Jesus caused the Mithras myth, and not the other way around.

who cares about someone's grandfather.

There was no claim about "causation," Granddaddy's Girl. fact is we're all influenced by the past . . .

Just b/c you can't get it through your head that myths were indeed instrumental in explaining the world around you doesn't mean you're right.

You moronic Christians have no ability to think critically, to make connections, to get past your insular worlds.

It's all about the bible and Jesus and his virgin birth and the Holy Spirit and his death and his resurrection.

So he had to DIE in order to free our souls. ever think about that one, dumb ass? He died, descended into hell to FREE the souls condemned down there so that they, too, could hit heaven.

oh yeah - We have evidence to prove that.

So I guess if those imprisoned in hell could hit heaven, why can't an atheist?

lol

[Anonymous]

you two should get a room

[Anonymous]

Wow! A tad nasty there.

What evidence is there that Christians deny that myths have been instrumental in explaining the world around us? Christianity sees that very well--witness the adoption of midwinter as the time to celebrate Christ's birth.

No one knows when Christ was born but why not choose mid-winter to symbolize the age of light Christians believe Christ brought? There's a mythic connection. That it was a pagan connection isn't a strike against Christianity, it speaks in Christianity's favor because it embraces the natural and universal human tendency to look forward to the new life spring brings in the depths of darkness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was no claim about "causation," Granddaddy's Girl. fact is we're all influenced by the past . . .

Just b/c you can't get it through your head that myths were indeed instrumental in explaining the world around you doesn't mean you're right.

You moronic Christians have no ability to think critically, to make connections, to get past your insular worlds.

It's all about the bible and Jesus and his virgin birth and the Holy Spirit and his death and his resurrection.

So he had to DIE in order to free our souls. ever think about that one, dumb ass? He died, descended into hell to FREE the souls condemned down there so that they, too, could hit heaven.

oh yeah - We have evidence to prove that.

So I guess if those imprisoned in hell could hit heaven, why can't an atheist?

lol

Gosh, this mean-spirited, poorly reasoned, poorly punctuated rant really makes me respect the author's POV.

I don't think anybody disagrees with you that we're all "influenced by the past." The disagreement is over the leap you make to "therefore, the Jesus birth narrative can't possibly be true and, because all stories [you insist] are based on earlier stories, the Jesus story must be based on Horus and Mithras." (The causation bit.)

As for finding positive proof of the Jesus narrative, many of us see the four gospels, written so soon after his death, together with the beauty and logic of the message, to be compelling proof. Certainly more compelling than an argument that 1. there is nothing new under the sun, story-wise, therefore 2. Horus and Mithras, despite the massive narrative dissimilarities and chronological issues. Anyway, since you don't believe, it doesn't seem worth spending so much of your time and emotional energy on this, so why don't you let us worry about satisfying ourselves re proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow! A tad nasty there.

What evidence is there that Christians deny that myths have been instrumental in explaining the world around us? Christianity sees that very well--witness the adoption of midwinter as the time to celebrate Christ's birth.

No one knows when Christ was born but why not choose mid-winter to symbolize the age of light Christians believe Christ brought? There's a mythic connection. That it was a pagan connection isn't a strike against Christianity, it speaks in Christianity's favor because it embraces the natural and universal human tendency to look forward to the new life spring brings in the depths of darkness.

interesting bit of rationalization there - fascinating how one can hang on to the premise that one story is real while surrounded by similar myths. I bet it's possible to do that with any myth. It also sounds like something learned in law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no claim about "causation," Granddaddy's Girl. fact is we're all influenced by the past . . .

Just b/c you can't get it through your head that myths were indeed instrumental in explaining the world around you doesn't mean you're right.

You moronic Christians have no ability to think critically, to make connections, to get past your insular worlds.

It's all about the bible and Jesus and his virgin birth and the Holy Spirit and his death and his resurrection.

So he had to DIE in order to free our souls. ever think about that one, dumb ass? He died, descended into hell to FREE the souls condemned down there so that they, too, could hit heaven.

oh yeah - We have evidence to prove that.

So I guess if those imprisoned in hell could hit heaven, why can't an atheist?

lol

Gosh, this mean-spirited, poorly reasoned, poorly punctuated rant really makes me respect the author's POV.

I don't think anybody disagrees with you that we're all "influenced by the past." The disagreement is over the leap you make to "therefore, the Jesus birth narrative can't possibly be true and, because all stories [you insist] are based on earlier stories, the Jesus story must be based on Horus and Mithras." (The causation bit.)

As for finding positive proof of the Jesus narrative, many of us see the four gospels, written so soon after his death, together with the beauty and logic of the message, to be compelling proof. Certainly more compelling than an argument that 1. there is nothing new under the sun, story-wise, therefore 2. Horus and Mithras, despite the massive narrative dissimilarities and chronological issues. Anyway, since you don't believe, it doesn't seem worth spending so much of your time and emotional energy on this, so why don't you let us worry about satisfying ourselves re proof.

Talk about a leap! Talk about emotional energy! Talk about trying to discourage/block out/minimize the value of logic and rational investigation! All without one word about faith -- which is the underlying theme and driving force of this post. With faith anything is possible - including using ones intellectual skills to support it.

ps - I'm not immediate pp