Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, you see, the link that FeceMan gave does in fact refute most of it. The only similarities between most of the people you mentioned and Jesus would be that they were miracle workers either divine or divinely inspired. However, since this is relatively insignificant to who Jesus was it is negligible. Basically, the list shows nothing. No pagan influences, nothing at all really. Any list of that nature with Mohammed on it is immediately uncredible considering Mohammed came 600 years after Jesus. Not to mention that he wasn't crucified, or born of a virgin, nor did miracles. I could do a post like the one I did about Horus for almost all of them (some I am too unfamiliar with), but I think you understand how that will go. These are recycled arguments, that if they had validity would shake the faith of someone who did proper research. However, those who do proper research find these lists amusing and annoying at the same time because they are hilarious in their invention, but annoying in their frequency.

The link that Feceman provided does not refute anything. It acknowledges the similarities between Jesus and other mythological characters, but attempts to dismiss those similarities by pointing out ways in which they are different–as if the existence of differences somehow negates their similarities.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The link that Feceman provided does not refute anything. It acknowledges the similarities between Jesus and other mythological characters, but attempts to dismiss those similarities by pointing out ways in which they are different–as if the existence of differences somehow negates their similarities.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Let's see... Your three main premises were that they were crucified, resurrected, did miracles, were born of virgins. Krishna was not crucified, not born of a virgin, nor resurrected. Miracles are insignificant considering the relationship between Jesus and miracles. Therefore 2 out of the 3 premises were refuted as false making them very dissimilar.

No, my premise is that the over 40 saviors on the list were said to share many of the same characteristics, e.g. having descended from heaven, taken the form of men, been born of virgins, furnished evidence of their divine origin by various miracles and marvelous works, laid the foundation for salvation, been worshipped as Gods, been crucified, etc.

There are secondary premises. Three of the ones you highlighted I aforementioned. The similarities are stretches at best, or neglible. I'm still wondering how Mohammed made that list, or Attis, or Horus, etc.

Originally posted by Nellinator
LOL. Research them instead of reading stupid websites. Off the top of my head I can call out Atys, Chrishna, Budha, Indra, Orus, Quexalcote and Baal out as straight out lies. Heck, I'm pretty sure they are discredited immediately on some because of misspelling. You see, you haven't actually researched, nor could you back up any of these claims. You are being a little sheep.

😖mart:

👆

✅

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Both Hanukkah and Chanukah are acceptable spellings of the same word. The point is that just because a word is spelled differently than the way that is familiar to you, it does not follow from this that it is mispelled.

Moreover, the link that Feceman provided does not refute anything. It acknowledges the similarities between Jesus and other mythological characters, but asserts that Jesus is real and the others are myths.

Because Jesus is real and the others are myths.

😎

Originally posted by Nellinator
Let's see... Your three main premises were that they were crucified, resurrected, did miracles, were born of virgins. Krishna was not crucified, not born of a virgin, nor resurrected. Miracles are insignificant considering the relationship between Jesus and miracles. Therefore 2 out of the 3 premises were refuted as false making them very dissimilar.

I addressed this. Crucifixion is a Roman practice.

The basic points here are:

"Divinely" inspired, born or concieved.

Performed miracles based on divine intervention, endowment and/or progeny.

Died

Rebirth

And in most cases 'ascension' there after.

Don't act like all the examples cited were fact for fact or example for example. We're talking themes here, not specifics. Again, how many of those examples can be addressed with specifics? Only one specific mythological event honestly need be addressed: divine rebirth after certain death. This is the crux of christianity, and no amount of scholarly research is going to disprove that such attributes exist in dozens of other cultures and mythologys.

What you need to do is spend less time trying to prove these themes original to christianity, and more time trying to prove why they are more credible because of their association with the religion and the particular figure of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
😖mart:

👆

✅

Heavy words to endorse, coming from the first lemming off the cliff.

Originally posted by Devil King
Heavy words to endorse, coming from the first lemming off the cliff.

Originally posted by Devil King
I addressed this. Crucifixion is a Roman practice.

The basic points here are:

"Divinely" inspired, born or concieved.

Performed miracles based on divine intervention, endowment and/or progeny.

Died

Rebirth

And in most cases 'ascension' there after.

Don't act like all the examples cited were fact for fact or example for example. We're talking themes here, not specifics. Again, how many of those examples can be addressed with specifics? Only one specific mythological event honestly need be addressed: divine rebirth after certain death. This is the crux of christianity, and no amount of scholarly research is going to disprove that such attributes exist in dozens of other cultures and mythologys.

What you need to do is spend less time trying to prove these themes original to christianity, and more time trying to prove why they are more credible because of their association with the religion and the particular figure of Jesus Christ.

See, what the guy did was compile a bunch of mythological characters that might have one or two main features in common with Christ, threw it together, and said, "HA! This is a list of mythological characters who have all these features that are like Jesus's; Christianity is a myth!"

Of course, taken as a whole, the statement would be true, but his intent was to make it seem as though they all had the same features.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Is that how you "win" a debate, by defalting to pictures of a cartoon character? No, I think not. You "win" debates by posting bible verses and saying they're fact simply because they're bible verses. Jesus in a cape would have been a more appropriate image to post.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I concede your point. My main point isn't that the themes are different, but that Christianity isn't a bunch of borrowed mythology

Why is that? Because you believe in it? I also think it's interesting that you want to assign the concept of "common" to a list of about 40 characters in the scheme of 10,000 years of modern human history. I think the better term is "unoriginal'. If it makes you feel better, it isn't just a bunch of "borrowed" mythology. It's a mythology based on the common human condition. But I suppose the word to which you take exception is mythology.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Of course, taken as a whole, the statement would be true

So, which is it? Total bullshit or not?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Devil King
What you need to do is spend less time trying to prove these themes original to christianity, and more time trying to prove why they are more credible because of their association with the religion and the particular figure of Jesus Christ.

So, which is it? Total bullshit or not?

Originally posted by Devil King
Why is that? Because [b]you believe in it? I also think it's interesting that you want to assign the concept of "common" to a list of about 40 characters in the scheme of 10,000 years of modern human history. I think the better term is "unoriginal'. If it makes you feel better, it isn't just a bunch of "borrowed" mythology. It's a mythology based on the common human condition. But I suppose the word to which you take exception is mythology.[/B]

I think he means to say how can Christians call Scientology "silly" when they believe in men parting seas, for example.

Originally posted by Devil King
Is that how you "win" a debate, by defalting to pictures of a cartoon character? No, I think not. You "win" debates by posting bible verses and saying they're fact simply because they're bible verses. Jesus in a cape would have been a more appropriate image to post.

I was being facetious.

🙂 🙁 😄 🙄 😎

Originally posted by Nellinator
A common human condition exists, yes. Most religions, try to address that, yes. I'm not arguing against that. I just really think it is stupid to claim that Christianity is borrowed mythology when it is so unique in its approach and scope. I don't take exception to the word "mythology" because I understand that that is what some people see it as. I obviously don't believe it is mythology, but I'm not going to argue semantics. I do take exception to the whole "Christianity has all been done before... See here's an internet link that shows Horus and Jesus were identical, obviously Christianity is false" stupidity.

I can't help but point out that you are being silly. No one has claimed that the mythology is word for word inclusive, but that the over all factors of the christian mythology are completely unoriginal. Perhaps you want to say that the particular arrangment of those factors is the "intelligent design" version of god speaking in terms we can understand, (by the way, that's an out for you in this discussion) but the fact remains that the most sacred staples of the christian faith are old hat when it comes to religion. It had all been done before, and it's been done since. You want to pretend that it's the particular arrangment of sushi orders at a resturant that make it truth, but that can not be argued. A little from column A and a little from column B are absurd arguments. You want to say it's truth because it's specifically column A #s 32, 27 and 61 and column B #s 43, 22 and 75. Well, I'm sorry, but that is crazy. There is nothing insane about pointing out that all the combinations have been done before, including the christian example.

Yes, I know it's an absurd example, but what better to illustrate my point than an absurd scenario?

And again, I think you should be spending more time addressing the fact that there should be legitimate reasons all these examples are relevant based soley on the fact that they occure in christian mythology, rather than trying to argue that they don't take place in hundreds of other religions through out the ages.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I was being facetious.

🙂 🙁 😄 🙄 😎

Sadly, that fact is not lost on me. Not only isn't it lost on me, but it's a poor substitue for a real answer, especially when your faith is the topic at hand. A topic you believe you're 100% qualified to address. It should be easy for you to refute, but you don't. Instead you rely on sock tactics and distraction methods.

edit