Historical records of Jesus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Groundhog, I clearly have underestimated you. That is in your ability to be unembarrassed. No sooner do I explain how your "evidence" is cut and pasted from dubious websites than you put up a post with a cut and paste from a sketchy atheist website. And then you have the chutzpah to blast others posters for their lack of use of scientific resources and not digging down into primary references.

Wow!

Journals are dubious websites?

Wiki is dubious. However, if there are citations in Wiki, you visit them. Not all journals are credible, however. So you need to be careful.

I don't know to whom you're speaking. (maybe to the voice in your head) But I'm one groundhog who's certainly using credible sources. And there are plenty to show that Christianity stems from pagan beliefs.

But when you deny that, you're only trying to keep your religious bubble from popping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Groundhog, groundhog hunters - really? I didn't realize the Religion board was so nutso.

I can see why the "Groundhog" would say that Jesus is a mythical person, a legend passed down orally. I'm sure you can understand how non-Christians would see this.

And I can also see why (s)he would say that Christianity has adopted some pagan rituals. Is that even debated?

Yes, there are many on this forum who don't (or simply won't) see the connection btw pagan beliefs and Christianity. They think it's ludicrous and blasphemous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is a groundhog?

A groundhog is a (I actually think "the" but , who knows, there may be more than one of her) poster who seizes on stray comments on Religion Forum threads to promote her pet theories about the origin and nature of Christianity.

Specifically, she believes that Jesus is a mythological figure whose followers made him up using a pastiche of other ancient gods, especially Horus and Mithras. Christmas topics are meat to Groundhog because she can then say how it was not the birthday of Christ but a bastardization of pagan winter solistice holidays, thus underscoring her point that Christianity is really a pagan cult.

Groundhog never provides cites for her sources but some dedicated posters have located the sketchy atheist websites from which she often cuts and pastes.

Her postings re-iterating the same themses show up over and over again in Religion threads, often disrupting and derailing them. Hence the name some have fondly given her--Groundhog as in the movie, "Groundhog Day."

Witness the birth of a 21st century myth

[Anonymous]

Waot. One thing is to say that Christianity "stems" from pagan traditions (weird), which "shows " that Jesus didn't exist (weirder)

Another entirely different thing is to say that some Christian rituals were influenced by non-Christian sources (eg December 25). That's pretty uncontroversial and irrelevant to one's faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Waot. One thing is to say that Christianity "stems" from pagan traditions (weird), which "shows " that Jesus didn't exist (weirder)

Another entirely different thing is to say that some Christian rituals were influenced by non-Christian sources (eg December 25). That's pretty uncontroversial and irrelevant to one's faith.

The early Jews - and it says so in the bible (see below) - worshiped idols - which is to say they held pagan beliefs. But you claim that Christianity stemming from pagan traditions is "weird."

Here's my question to you that maybe you can help me answer. Why would God suddenly show himself to the Jews? Why wasn't he always there? So he leaves his people to be on their own, allowing them for ages to worship many gods. And the suddenly - poof! - he shows up and punishes people for NOT believing in him. So then he has to send his son, born of a virgin (seen in pagan myths, by the way), to die on a cross to save our sins. And folks, we now have TRUE Christianity!

Did I capture that correctly?

1 Corinthians 8:1-13

Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— ...

[Anonymous]

^^ How old are you?

[Anonymous]

To 17:34 you know the dubious reference mentioned by the poster is to the cut and paste made from the atheist blog. A later reference was made to a journal article on Zorastriansim but that is not what was referred to. You seem to be trying way to hard to cover up that you tried to pass off as fact something you cut and pasted from a sketchy atheist website without attribution and we're caught redhanded.

I have no problem with your being an atheist but do try to be one with intellectual integrity. What you do is as unscholarly as what those who quote from the Bible to support the existence of Jesus do. Worse actually because you obscure your references while they are forthright about theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What other ancient god w as also crucified?

Zoroastrianism

ATTIS : Born of the virgin Nana on December 25. He was both the Father and the Divine Son. He was a savior crucified on a tree for the salvation of mankind. He was buried but on the third day the priests found the tomb empty -- He had arisen from the dead (on March 25th). He followers were baptized in blood, thereby washing away their sins -- after which they declared themselves "born again." His followers ate a sacred meal of bread, which they believed became the body of the savior.

Mithraism : Every year at first minute of December 25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense. Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God." With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead -- an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

Sound familiar? Hundreds of years before Jesus.

That doesn't mean that Jesus was not true. Some people think that the devil planted those ancient stories to confuse people later on about the real Messiah. Like the dinosaur bones that were placed by the devil to confuse people about evolution. But plenty of christians believe in Jesus AND evolution with no problem whatsoever.

None of the stories the pp before you quotes actually bear any resemblance to the story of Jesus. Mithras was born from a rock. Attis was born from a woman who ate genitalia in the form of fruit and then cut off his own genitalia and died. I don't even know what pp is referring to regarding zoroasterianism. Ridiculous.

variations on a theme

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ How old are you?

Old enough to have outgrown Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Jesus myth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 17:34 you know the dubious reference mentioned by the poster is to the cut and paste made from the atheist blog. A later reference was made to a journal article on Zorastriansim but that is not what was referred to. You seem to be trying way to hard to cover up that you tried to pass off as fact something you cut and pasted from a sketchy atheist website without attribution and we're caught redhanded.

I have no problem with your being an atheist but do try to be one with intellectual integrity. What you do is as unscholarly as what those who quote from the Bible to support the existence of Jesus do. Worse actually because you obscure your references while they are forthright about theirs.

A 21st Century myth is born

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 17:34 you know the dubious reference mentioned by the poster is to the cut and paste made from the atheist blog. A later reference was made to a journal article on Zorastriansim but that is not what was referred to. You seem to be trying way to hard to cover up that you tried to pass off as fact something you cut and pasted from a sketchy atheist website without attribution and we're caught redhanded.

I have no problem with your being an atheist but do try to be one with intellectual integrity. What you do is as unscholarly as what those who quote from the Bible to support the existence of Jesus do. Worse actually because you obscure your references while they are forthright about theirs.

I have no idea who posted from the "sketchy website," as that wasn't mine.

Any reference to a credible journal article about an ancient religion - one that predates Christianity - is worth reading. That's the problem with Christians. You stick to the bible and refuse to study it w/in its proper context. Furthermore, you seem to believe that cultures develop in isolation. This is simply not the case.

When an atheist reads the bible, s/he examines it through a neutral lens. What beliefs were in place to influence the message? We are all products of our environment. So to use that bible as the primary source that proves God and Jesus exist is simply ignorant. These were stories written by people who had little knowledge of science. Yet you take the bible as the word of some supreme being.

Where's the divine intervention now? God was all over the Jews at one point and yet has stepped back?

It's all so absurd.