• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Resurrection, Something Borrowed, Something New, But Certainly not True

calamity said:
Christians think they have a unique event...Christ Rising from the dead. But, of course, that myth has been around for ages. Long before the sandal wearing hippie ever walked the dunes between Jerusalem and Galilee, rode an ass in Damascus or faced his fate on a cross planted atop a hill, mythical characters were rising from the dead.



So, really, what we have here is myth sharing. Clearly, since Jesus came after all these other resurrected characters from what amount to fairy tales, reason dictates the Jesus myth too is a fairy tale.

Now, of course, Christians will say those other resurrections are myths but the resurrection of Jesus was real. Of course, we know better. Fact remains, Jesus myth is just as contrived as the Osirus and Achilles myths. Is there any doubt?
Click to expand...

Look at us, today! We're on the same side!

You're right -- the Jesus myth is a copy of previous myths.

I, however, would go a step further and state that Jesus, even as a man, never existed, and was simply a figment in the imagination of the myth-makers, most likely the Essene leaders of the time.

There is no contemporary, extraneous evidence for Jesus outside of the religious scriptures, yet it stands to reason that if the scriptures were true, one of the historians of the day would have recorded something about the man that people were making claims as to being able to walk on water, turn water to wine, heal the sick and raise the dead. Yet, none exist, and I hate to even open that can of worms, because someone's going to scream "Josephus," but he, of course, lived after Jesus supposedly died so not a "contemporary" historian, but rather one who had to rely on the stories that were coming from the religious documents and the followers who were beginning to amass.

The idea of a resurrection was a common pagan theme back then, and virtually required for anyone to take notice of a new messiah.
 
calamity said:
Christians think they have a unique event...Christ Rising from the dead. But, of course, that myth has been around for ages. Long before the sandal wearing hippie ever walked the dunes between Jerusalem and Galilee, rode an ass in Damascus or faced his fate on a cross planted atop a hill, mythical characters were rising from the dead.



So, really, what we have here is myth sharing. Clearly, since Jesus came after all these other resurrected characters from what amount to fairy tales, reason dictates the Jesus myth too is a fairy tale.

Now, of course, Christians will say those other resurrections are myths but the resurrection of Jesus was real. Of course, we know better. Fact remains, Jesus myth is just as contrived as the Osirus and Achilles myths. Is there any doubt?
Click to expand...

Who knows better? I don't really see that anyone knows at all much less better. There are those that believe they know, of course, or say they know. In the context of science these people sound poorly informed. But they do get 100 points on persistence.
 
calamity said:
Yeah, coming back from the dead is a parallel. Hence it was borrowed from myths of days gone by. The crap about sin forgiveness is new.
Click to expand...

There is no parallel.

Just because you say so....doesn't mean, it is.
Especially when your opinion is based on ignorance!

You didn't even know what Mettinger had concluded, until I showed it to you! :lol:



You may want to buy your own bs, and swallow it whole......but, that's you!
Remind me of old folks' sensible advise - "just because someone wants to eat poop, would you?"

Only the stupid, or desperate anti-Christians blinded by their own bias, will hold up their noses and
eat what you claim. I'm sure, sensible folks - on the other hand - will agree with me.
 
Last edited:
HowardBThiname said:
Look at us, today! We're on the same side!

You're right -- the Jesus myth is a copy of previous myths.

I, however, would go a step further and state that Jesus, even as a man, never existed, and was simply a figment in the imagination of the myth-makers, most likely the Essene leaders of the time.

There is no contemporary, extraneous evidence for Jesus outside of the religious scriptures, yet it stands to reason that if the scriptures were true, one of the historians of the day would have recorded something about the man that people were making claims as to being able to walk on water, turn water to wine, heal the sick and raise the dead. Yet, none exist, and I hate to even open that can of worms, because someone's going to scream "Josephus," but he, of course, lived after Jesus supposedly died so not a "contemporary" historian, but rather one who had to rely on the stories that were coming from the religious documents and the followers who were beginning to amass.

The idea of a resurrection was a common pagan theme back then, and virtually required for anyone to take notice of a new messiah.
Click to expand...

Though, The Guardian tenfs towards anti American opiniins, as a commentator on Christian history, they seem less tainted. So, maybe this could be interesting to read.
https://www.google.es/amp/s/amp.the...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
 
Originally Posted by calamity View Post
Yeah, coming back from the dead is a parallel. Hence it was borrowed from myths of days gone by. The crap about sin forgiveness is new.
Click to expand...

If, with modern science, we still have some people that are pronounced dead and yet, coming back to life - even to this day......what more, in ancient times?

I'll repeat - there's more to just coming back to life!



I bet some of those who wrote those mythological stories were inspired by true events!
Somebody probably came back to life, and it was big gossip at the time! "He was about to get mummified, when suddenly....."
All the speculations by the simple folks would've undoubtedly ascribed it to their gods!

And those writers who came at the time when the Scriptures was verbalized.....and, after the Old testament was written, and after the New testament was written - were most likely even inspired by the Scriptures - of the prophesies, and of Jesus Christ!




Don't forget too, the coming of the Messiah was prophesied throughout the Old Testament - thousands of years before Jesus! There were even prophesied details of His death - which Jesus all fulfilled.



The reason why your own source Mettinger doesn't believe Jesus was copied from myths, has been
explained by Mettinger, himself.


Lol. It was you who brought out Mettinger! Right in your OP!
You gave Mettinger as your own source - and yet, you won't take what he explained?


Man, you're giving atheism a bad rap - how can it not end up getting ridiculed?
You make it so easy for us. :lol:
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
It's not my author. It's from a wiki page.
Click to expand...


You're now trying to distance yourself from him???? Dropping him like a hot potato? :lamo


You finally realized you made a major boo-boo by giving an author who clearly says the opposite of what you're claiming!
By giving him - you not only showed your ignorance about your own topic, but also about him! Imagine that! It's like getting hammered by your own hammer - at your own hand! Priceless.



You quoted that part from Wiki (green fonts), and at the bottom of it - you gave it as the one that cemented your claim (bold font)!

Tryggve Mettinger argues in his recent book that the category of rise and return to life is significant for the following deities: Ugaritic Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Osiris and Dumuzi.

In ancient Greek religion a number of men and women were made physically immortal as they were resurrected from the dead. Asclepius was killed by Zeus, only to be resurrected and transformed into a major deity. Achilles, after being killed, was snatched from his funeral pyre by his divine mother Thetis and resurrected, brought to an immortal existence in either Leuce, Elysian plains or the Islands of the Blessed. Memnon, who was killed by Achilles, seems to have received a similar fate. Alcmene, Castor, Heracles, and Melicertes, were also among the figures sometimes considered to have been resurrected to physical immortality. According to Herodotus's Histories, the seventh century BC sage Aristeas of Proconnesus was first found dead, after which his body disappeared from a locked room. Later he found not only to have been resurrected but to have gained immortality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection


calamity:

So, really, what we have here is myth sharing. Clearly, since Jesus came after all these other resurrected characters from what amount to fairy tales, reason dictates the Jesus myth too is a fairy tale.
Click to expand...



So, really, what we have here is the statement that damned you! :lol:
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Angel said:
The OP thesis appears to be based on the erroneous premise that if something occurs in a story, it cannot occur in life, an argument demonstrating scant appreciation of the relationship between art and life. Love and marriage, to say nothing of journeys and quests, take place universally in myths. According to the OP logic, these mythic tropes don't happen in life, and to claim otherwise is worthy of derision.

Enough said. We can hear the edge of this axe grinding a mile away.
Click to expand...
Not really. Case in point: few people over age-10 will argue that a lady fairy swaps coins for teeth or that a bunny hides eggs. But, start a conversation about some desert dweller raising up from the dead to atone for our sins, and a billion people sign right up.
Click to expand...
Well put. You can turn a phrase, there's no denying that.
But again, as with the problematic OP premise (that mythos forecloses reality), your illustration here relies on a shaky premise, namely, that human being does not undergo maturation and that there is no difference between the understanding of a child and the understanding of an adult.
The kicker is that even without close scrutiny of its premise, on its face the illustration illustrates the opposite of what is intended: namely, that a story billions of mature rational human beings believe true must have the ring of truth to it.
 
Angel said:
Well put. You can turn a phrase, there's no denying that.
But again, as with the problematic OP premise (that mythos forecloses reality), your illustration here relies on a shaky premise, namely, that human being does not undergo maturation and that there is no difference between the understanding of a child and the understanding of an adult.
The kicker is that even without close scrutiny of its premise, on its face the illustration illustrates the opposite of what is intended: namely, that a story billions of mature rational human beings believe true must have the ring of truth to it.
Click to expand...
argumentum ad populum fallacy.
 
Chagos said:
argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Click to expand...
I understand in Internet chat it has become very popular for chatters to throw around these Latin names in lieu of understanding what they're reading or engaging an interlocutor in earnest fashion, but I'm afraid there is no argumentum in the post to which you'd like to reply, just some observations.
 
Angel said:
I understand in Internet chat it has become very popular for chatters to throw around these Latin names in lieu of understanding what they're reading or engaging an interlocutor in earnest fashion, but I'm afraid there is no argumentum in the post to which you'd like to reply, just some observations.
Click to expand...
I can translate it just for you as meaning "appeal to popularity" fallacy.

As to the argument I referred to, I highlighted it in the post of yours that I replied to.

And just for your reference, whether it interests you or not, I was engaged in pointing out logical fallacies long before the net (as we know it today) came into being.

If you can't stomach your fallacies of argument being pointed out, snark is the worst way of getting yourself out of that predicament.
 
Chagos said:
I can translate it just for you as meaning "appeal to popularity" fallacy.

As to the argument I referred to, I highlighted it in the post of yours that I replied to.

And just for your reference, whether it interests you or not, I was engaged in pointing out logical fallacies long before the net (as we know it today) came into being.

If you can't stomach your fallacies of argument being pointed out, snark is the worst way of getting yourself out of that predicament.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you again, Fallacy Hunter: I make no argument in the post you'd like to reply to. It is a post of observations merely. I hope you appreciate the difference. If not, I expect you'll milk yet another "reply" out of this nugatory exchange of ours.
 
calamity said:
Christians think they have a unique event...Christ Rising from the dead. But, of course, that myth has been around for ages. Long before the sandal wearing hippie ever walked the dunes between Jerusalem and Galilee, rode an ass in Damascus or faced his fate on a cross planted atop a hill, mythical characters were rising from the dead.



So, really, what we have here is myth sharing. Clearly, since Jesus came after all these other resurrected characters from what amount to fairy tales, reason dictates the Jesus myth too is a fairy tale.

Now, of course, Christians will say those other resurrections are myths but the resurrection of Jesus was real. Of course, we know better. Fact remains, Jesus myth is just as contrived as the Osirus and Achilles myths. Is there any doubt?
Click to expand...

Psst...you got the wrong religious holiday to slag, homie, it's Christmas. Save this one for Easter, there's plenty of great, low hanging fruit to reach for this time of year to demonstrate what idiots we are... ;)

Just trying to be a blessing... :lol: Happy holidays, bud.
 
Angel said:
I'll tell you again, Fallacy Hunter: I make no argument in the post you'd like to reply to. It is a post of observations merely. I hope you appreciate the difference. If not, I expect you'll milk yet another "reply" out of this nugatory exchange of ours.
Click to expand...
By convenience of my dealing with asinine spin only for the time it takes to point it out, nope.
 
William Rea said:
...
Produce a resurrection Angel. If you can't show it, you don't know it.
Click to expand...
You're a little confused, Bill. This thread is about debunking the Resurrection. The onus is on the debunker here. Stop demanding proof, man, and debunk!
 
Angel said:
You're a little confused, Bill. This thread is about debunking the Resurrection. The onus is on the debunker here. Stop demanding proof, man, and debunk!
Click to expand...
Produce a resurrection, it's not my claim, if you can't show it, you don't know it.
 
tosca1 said:
Don't forget too, the coming of the Messiah was prophesied throughout the Old Testament - thousands of years before Jesus! There were even prophesied details of His death - which Jesus all fulfilled.


How can that be when Jesus did not build the third temple? Ezekiel 37:26-28

Nor did he return all the Jews to Israel as it was the prophecy. Isaiah 43:5-6

They were also to know the Messiah because He would herald in world peace. Another miss for Jesus. Isaiah 2:4

The Messiah was also supposed to unite all the people under one god -- Him. That, too, never happened. Zechariah 14:9

You have to understand that had Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, there would be no Jews today -- they all would believe. But, Jesus didn't meet the standard of the predicted Messiah of the Old Testament, so, of course, they rejected him.

Torah law also opposed a trinity, Deut. 6:4. Not "three in one." Just one.
Click to expand...
 
OlNate said:
Psst...you got the wrong religious holiday to slag, homie, it's Christmas. Save this one for Easter, there's plenty of great, low hanging fruit to reach for this time of year to demonstrate what idiots we are... ;)

Just trying to be a blessing... :lol: Happy holidays, bud.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Christmas myth. Three kings, mangers, and stars leading everyone to the holy grail--or something to that effect.
 
Angel said:
You're a little confused, Bill. This thread is about debunking the Resurrection. The onus is on the debunker here. Stop demanding proof, man, and debunk!
Click to expand...

lol...no. The thread mostly just shows the silliness of believing Christians were the first to come up with a Resurrection Myth. And, to point out that if they weren't first, they certainly are not the only. And, if they are not the only, then the Jesus resurrection is just more hogwash like all the other myths focusing on people coming back from the dead.
 
This thread is operating under a false premise.

First, prove to me that deities exists...then we can talk about the details.
 
Angel said:
Well put. You can turn a phrase, there's no denying that.
But again, as with the problematic OP premise (that mythos forecloses reality), your illustration here relies on a shaky premise, namely, that human being does not undergo maturation and that there is no difference between the understanding of a child and the understanding of an adult.
The kicker is that even without close scrutiny of its premise, on its face the illustration illustrates the opposite of what is intended: namely, that a story billions of mature rational human beings believe true must have the ring of truth to it.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's a fallacy. Billions of unenlightened people can believe all sorts of stupid crap. And they have and continue to do so.

What gets me about the myth-buying is that one can make the most of the Jesus concept without attaching the children's story to it. If anything, I am of the not so humble opinion that the fairy tale takes away from the true meaning of the Christ tale. That meaning would be follow the golden rule. Seems to me, more Christians are hung up on the worship side of the fence than the doing good deeds side, especially Evangelical Christians.
 
beancounter said:
This thread is operating under a false premise.

First, prove to me that deities exists...then we can talk about the details.
Click to expand...

Deities probably do not exist. But, it's the details which we can focus on and prove to be ridiculous. In fact, it's because of the details, the far out overreaching claims, that most of us "atheists" scoff at religions.
 
tosca1 said:
You're now trying to distance yourself from him???? Dropping him like a hot potato? :lamo


You finally realized you made a major boo-boo by giving an author who clearly says the opposite of what you're claiming!
By giving him - you not only showed your ignorance about your own topic, but also about him! Imagine that! It's like getting hammered by your own hammer - at your own hand! Priceless.



You quoted that part from Wiki (green fonts), and at the bottom of it - you gave it as the one that cemented your claim (bold font)!





So, really, what we have here is the statement that damned you! :lol:
Click to expand...

you said wut?
 
calamity said:
the far out overreaching claims, that most of us "atheists" scoff at religions.
Click to expand...


Bitter diatribe?


Hahahahaha Hello, Pot. Trying to smear the kettle again? :lol:

So ironic......

It's your far out over-reaching claims (which even the author you gave for reference doesn't support), is the reason I'm scoffing at certain atheists' claims!

I bet some atheists also scoff at other atheists - like the new atheists - for their ridiculous claims!


I tend to believe the New Atheists, are a different breed.







Devolution?
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Bitter diatribe?

Hahahahaha Hello, Pot. Trying to smear the kettle again? :lol:

So ironic......

It's your far out over-reaching claims (which even the author you gave for reference doesn't support), is the reason I'm scoffing at certain atheists' claims!

I bet some atheists also scoff at other atheists, for their ridiculous claims!


I tend to believe the New Atheists, are a different breed.

Click to expand...


lol...so, you deny that almost every culture on earth which we know of had a resurrection myth. Why am I not surprised?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom