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.

The story of Attis does not sound familiar at ALL. It is delightfully strange:

In the late 4th century BC, a cult of Attis became a feature of the Greek world. The story of his origins at Agdistis, recorded by the traveler Pausanias, have some distinctly non-Greek elements: Pausanias was told that the daemon Agdistis initially bore both male and female attributes. But the Olympian gods, fearing Agdistis, cut off the male organ and cast it away. There grew up from it an almond-tree, and when its fruit was ripe, Nana, who was a daughter of the river-god Sangarius, picked an almond and laid it in her bosom. The almond disappeared, and she became pregnant. Nana abandoned the baby (Attis). The infant was tended by a he-goat. As Attis grew, his long-haired beauty was godlike, and Agdistis as Cybele then fell in love with him. But the foster parents of Attis sent him to Pessinos, where he was to wed the king's daughter. According to some versions the King of Pessinos was Midas. Just as the marriage-song was being sung, Agdistis/Cybele appeared in her transcendent power, and Attis went mad and cut off his genitals. Attis' father-in-law-to-be, the king who was giving his daughter in marriage, followed suit, prefiguring the self-castrating corybantes who devoted themselves to Cybele. But Agdistis repented and saw to it that the body of Attis should neither rot at all nor decay.[6]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Groundhog likely got this "fact" from this book of dubious historicity written in 1875 or a later book inspired by it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World's_Sixteen_Crucified_Saviors

This groundhog doesn't rely on Wiki. Wiki is not a credible source.

This Wiki is simply a listing of a book and a bare bones description of what is says.

Could just have well have linked to this. Objective enough for you?

http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Sixteen-Crucified-Saviours-Christianity/dp/093281395X

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."

Doesn't seem to apply to this thread, whose topic is specifically about historical records of Jesus. Also, several posts include citations.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Groundhog likely got this "fact" from this book of dubious historicity written in 1875 or a later book inspired by it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World's_Sixteen_Crucified_Saviors

This groundhog doesn't rely on Wiki. Wiki is not a credible source.

Anonymous wrote:^^ Do you realize that Jesus was not deemed an historically important figure by historians during his lifetime, which explains why no non-follower care to write about him?

And who is talking about proving that he was the Messiah? We are talking about whether he existed.

And your comparison between oral tradition among insignificant Jewish peasants about another insignificant Jewish peasant vis-a-visit the Iliad is truly idiotic.

Stories are stories. At one point in time, the Greeks believed in many gods. Those stories kept up the tradition, as did the Greek tragedies and comedies. And don't forget that these stories were used to indoctrinate the "insignificant" peasants.

idiotic? no - fact based on research

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."

Anonymous wrote:

Frankly, I think that looking for irrefutable non-Christian sources that he rose from the dead or performed miracles is a little weird. I'm not a Christian, but if I had irrefutable evidence that he did those things, then I'd become Christian, so I wouldn't be able to be your non-Christian source.

I believe that Jesus lived, preached and died. I also believe that a lot of what he said made sense. I don't believe that he walked on water, or rose from the dead.

Do you believe those things, or do you think them. Do you think Jesus is extraordinary for what he preached?

I think a lot of people said similar things, before and after Jesus, a lot of what he said makes good sense, generally speaking, in all human societies. He gets so much credit for his sayings because he was made into the son of god.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

Can always count on you Groundhog!

Gossip abounded I am sure, but by nature it is evanescent and seldom leaves historical traces.

So . . . you're saying to one of the many groundhogs that you DON'T belief in scientific fact? that stone carvings mean nothing to you? (primary artifacts) that cultural crossover never existed? that more powerful groups did NOT steal from weaker groups?

I'm glad you think homeschooling worked for you, PP. must be a nice little fantasy world you live in

Sorry, Groundhog, my comment did not go to the part of your remark on carvings.

Yes ancient inscriptions are very informative when they exist. But many did not survive over time or have not been uncovered. And given Jesus's background and that of his followers the inscriptions likely would have been more in the form of graffiti, a type of carving that is perhaps least likely to survive. You cannot conclude with certainty that something did not happen simply because there are no inscriptions.

But I knew you were Groundhog because of this part of your response: "they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection." You didn't specifically mention Horus or Mithras because we have outed you so many times on those, but we knew what you were thinking....

Are there people here who post as part of a group, or is this the "royal we" ?

No, there a couple of independent posters, who have engaged in Groundhog hunting here. At one point Groundhog complained to Jeff about sock puppeting and Jeff was able to identify three or four different posters who were responding to her unusual takes on the origin of Christianity, all strictly on the grounds of faulty history. Groundhog appears to think they are all homeschooled fundamentalist Christians, but not one of the Groundhog hunters has ever used the Bible to refute her theories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

Can always count on you Groundhog!

Gossip abounded I am sure, but by nature it is evanescent and seldom leaves historical traces.

So . . . you're saying to one of the many groundhogs that you DON'T belief in scientific fact? that stone carvings mean nothing to you? (primary artifacts) that cultural crossover never existed? that more powerful groups did NOT steal from weaker groups?

I'm glad you think homeschooling worked for you, PP. must be a nice little fantasy world you live in

Sorry, Groundhog, my comment did not go to the part of your remark on carvings.

Yes ancient inscriptions are very informative when they exist. But many did not survive over time or have not been uncovered. And given Jesus's background and that of his followers the inscriptions likely would have been more in the form of graffiti, a type of carving that is perhaps least likely to survive. You cannot conclude with certainty that something did not happen simply because there are no inscriptions.

But I knew you were Groundhog because of this part of your response: "they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection." You didn't specifically mention Horus or Mithras because we have outed you so many times on those, but we knew what you were thinking....

Are there people here who post as part of a group, or is this the "royal we" ?

What is a groundhog?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can always count on you Groundhog!

Gossip abounded I am sure, but by nature it is evanescent and seldom leaves historical traces.

So . . . you're saying to one of the many groundhogs that you DON'T belief in scientific fact? that stone carvings mean nothing to you? (primary artifacts) that cultural crossover never existed? that more powerful groups did NOT steal from weaker groups?

I'm glad you think homeschooling worked for you, PP. must be a nice little fantasy world you live in

Sorry, Groundhog, my comment did not go to the part of your remark on carvings.

Yes ancient inscriptions are very informative when they exist. But many did not survive over time or have not been uncovered. And given Jesus's background and that of his followers the inscriptions likely would have been more in the form of graffiti, a type of carving that is perhaps least likely to survive. You cannot conclude with certainty that something did not happen simply because there are no inscriptions.

But I knew you were Groundhog because of this part of your response: "they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection." You didn't specifically mention Horus or Mithras because we have outed you so many times on those, but we knew what you were thinking....