Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by Devil King
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.

As much as this may be true, it is not what the discussion was about. This is about the list that was made and why it is stupid and irrelevant in most of the cases. Mostly because it was followed by a stupid comment imply that Christianity is a composite of other religions.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The cruxifiction and resurrection are the most major elements of Christianity. The cruxification be very original and the resurrection is very different than any other.

We've already addressed why crucifixion is "unique". We needn't address that again. And the resurrection is hardly unique. We've also addressed that. Come on man, you're supposed to be better at this.

The resurrection is unique in its scope. The meaning and significance of it is very very unique and is the basis of Christianity.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The resurrection is unique in its scope. The meaning and significance of it is very very unique and is the basis of Christianity.

Okay, so expound on that. And if it's just more of the same old "he did it for us" rhetoric, you still won't have proven your point.

Seriously, I hope you explain why all of these common mythologies are important simply because they took place in regards to christianity, especially on top of the fact that Jesus wasn't a christian.

The cross would be the "he did it for us" thing. The resurrection makes the cross significant. More importantly it is the basis the theology of victory over sin, good works, the coming of the Holy Spirit, the mediation of Jesus between us and the Father and the basis for the second coming.

Spartacus is my savior 13

...never curcified though...just 2000 rebels...

Originally posted by Nellinator
The cross would be the "he did it for us" thing. The resurrection makes the cross significant. More importantly it is the basis the theology of victory over sin, good works, the coming of the Holy Spirit, the mediation of Jesus between us and the Father and the basis for the second coming.

No! Come on man, the cross is a matter of timeframe. How else would a Jew have been executed in a Roman province at that point in time?

Originally posted by Devil King
No! Come on man, the cross is a matter of timeframe. How else would a Jew have been executed in a Roman province at that point in time?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do people get offended when you tell them the truth as it pertains to the Bible?

Originally posted by Strangelove
You betray a fatal flaw here. You clarified that you believe that homosexuality is ungodly, sinful, and an abomination, and then you claimed it as the truth. If, as you claim, God does not have a specific stance on homosexuality, as per the Bible, how can you claim that your own position is the truth?

Yes God is against homosexuality or sexual pervasion which is in Bible: Revelations, John, Matt, Mark, Luke and other books of the Bible, it's a abomination against GOD it's a sin and it's forgivable like any other sin.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Yes God is against homosexuality or sexual pervasion which is in Bible: Revelations, John, Matt, Mark, Luke and other books of the Bible, it's a abomination against GOD it's a sin and it's forgivable like any other sin.

Why believe the bible?

Originally posted by Nellinator
The cross would be the "he did it for us" thing. The resurrection makes the cross significant.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I hope you understand that I meant the whole shedding his blood to wash our sins thing, not the fact that it was on a cross.

Yeah, that's why I said the whole, "he did it for us" argument doesn't make it unique to christianity. I said you still won't be explaining its signifigance by using that argument, and then you do just that.

Did you miss my explanation of the significance of the resurrection? That is what we are talking about I thought. It didn't involve the "he did it for us thing".

Originally posted by Nellinator
Did you miss my explanation of the significance of the resurrection? That is what we are talking about I thought. It didn't involve the "he did it for us thing".

I was under the impression that we'd addressed ressurection as an unoriginal exclusively christian concept.

And I was addressing it's originality in scope and meaning which is what really matters in determining whether something is orignal or not.

Originally posted by Nellinator
And I was addressing it's originality in scope and meaning which is what really matters in determining whether something is orignal or not.

What? That doesn't even make sense.

Originally posted by Devil King
I was under the impression that we'd addressed ressurection as an unoriginal exclusively christian concept.

That is the point of the list.

[list][*]Jesus is not the only person said to have descended from heaven.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have taken the form of a man.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have been born of a virgin.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have furnished evidence of his divine origin by performing various miracles and marvelous works.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have laid the foundation for salvation.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have been worshipped as God.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have been crucified or executed.[/list]

Nor is he the first.

None of these characteristics are original to Christianity.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Yes God is against homosexuality or sexual pervasion which is in Bible: Revelations, John, Matt, Mark, Luke and other books of the Bible, it's a abomination against GOD it's a sin and it's forgivable like any other sin.

🙄

Oh God ...not this again...this argument has been done a millions times already.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The resurrection is unique in its scope. The meaning and significance of it is very very unique and is the basis of Christianity.

The concept of Resurrection is not original to Christianity, for it existed in mythologies previous to that one.

The concept of Self Sacrafice is not original to Christianity, for it existed in mythologies previous to that one.

The meaning and scope are very unique. No other "resurrection" (although rather different from Christian resurrection, they are similar) has the extensive theology and significance attached to it. The act of rising from the dead is not unique, however, in Christianity the fact that Jesus rose from the dead isn't the significant part. It is what it meant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is the point of the list.

[list][*]Jesus is not the only person said to have descended from heaven.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have taken the form of a man.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have been born of a virgin.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have furnished evidence of his divine origin by performing various miracles and marvelous works.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have laid the foundation for salvation.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have been worshipped as God.

[*]Jesus is not the only person said to have been crucified or executed.[/list]

Nor is he the first.

None of these characteristics are original to Christianity.