Here He is

Photizo

Photizo

Ambassador/Envoy
Valued Senior Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2inXKD6PI

"Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Blessed is the man who listens to Me (JESUS), watching daily at My doors, waiting at My doorway (reading and learning from His Word, the Bible). For whoever finds Me finds Life and receives favor from The LORD. But whoever fails to find Me harms himself; all who hate Me (JESUS) love death."

"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?"
 
Dying and Rising Deities

The Jesus narrative parallel ancient Greek and Egyptian myths of dying and rising deities, parallels that Christian apologists have always tried to minimize.

images.jpg


77% Believe Jesus Rose From the Dead

Busting The Dying And Rising Gods Myths

Nevertheless, I still go along with the festivities. Fun,fun!

Happy Easter!
 
Last edited:
Trooper said:
Dying and Rising Deities

The Jesus narrative parallel ancient Greek and Egyptian myths of dying and rising deities, parallels that Christian apologists have always tried to minimize.
Click to expand...

How do they try to minimize it? I would like to know what excuses they could come up for, lol.
 
Photizo said:
How might that be explained?
Click to expand...

These attributes were probably added as time went on in order to lend the faith a familiar aspect to those whom might be converted. For example, Mark and John never mention Jesus' virgin birth. And in the original manuscript of Mark, even the resurrection is omitted, and tacked on in later versions. So we have evidence of the evolution of the Christian gospel in its early stages, as it relates to the addition of mystical elements that were not there in the beginning.
 
Photizo said:
How might that be explained?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBqUw6GcjGo
Click to expand...

And the purpose of that clip was what? :bugeye:

“The resurrection of Jesus is the Christian religious belief that Jesus Christ returned to bodily life on the Sunday following the Friday on which he was executed by crucifixion. It is a central tenet of Christian faith and theology and part of the Nicene Creed: "On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures".

Many Christians believe in the resurrection. They believe Jesus was god and he gave us victory over sin and death through the resurrection. However, he was not the only one raised from the grave.

Mathew 27:52-53:
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Matthew is the only one whoever says anything about this. If the night of the living dead happened today, and there were many witnesses, I would think that it would make headlines. Hell, Fox News would be all over that. Hmm…I wonder what ever became of these other so-called zombies, who also had victory over death. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus
 
It's also curious that Mary seems completely baffled by Jesus' actions later in his life, as if she has no recollection of the fact that she gave birth to God's seed as a virgin.
 
JDawg said:
These attributes were probably added as time went on in order to lend the faith a familiar aspect to those whom might be converted. For example, Mark and John never mention Jesus' virgin birth.
Click to expand...

Scholars generally agree that each Gospel was written with a particular readership/purpose in mind. However, to say the event was added “as time went on” as some sort of accommodation to net a larger haul of pagan faithful contradicts a fundamental teaching of Jesus Himself i.e. “let your yes be yes and your no, no because anything else is from the evil one.” Concerning the purposes of the author of Mark, it was to underscore the role of Jesus as a servant, both of God The Father and Man. In the case of John, it was to declare and demonstrate Christ’s Deity. Nativity accounts do not suit the purposes of the authors in these cases. On the other hand, concerning Matthew and Luke it is understandable they include this information (the Virgin Birth) so as to inform readers of Jesus’ right to the Jewish Messianic throne along information detailing His human lineage.

JDawg said:
And in the original manuscript of Mark, even the resurrection is omitted, and tacked on in later versions.
Click to expand...

"And in the original Manuscript of Mark"? lol. The resurrection is NOT omitted in Mark but in fact mentioned numerous times:

And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mk 8:31

For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later." Mk 9:31

They were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful. And again He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, saying, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles." They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again. Mk 10:32-34

What are omitted from some manuscripts are specific appearances of the risen Jesus but the resurrection event itself and the fact He would be seen by them is indeed included in Mark: "And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you."

The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts (about mid A.D. 300’s) do indeed omit verses 9-20 of Mk 16, but a majority of other ms don't. Interestingly, scribes involved with the writing of S and V left space after verse 8 of Mark 16 suggesting they were aware of a longer ending to Mark but it was not available to them on the particular ms they were copying from. Researching early Christian writings ( Justin Martyr, Apology 1.45, ca. A.D.145; Tatian, Diatessaron, ca. A.D. 170; and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.10.6 ca. A.D. 180), one finds evidence indicating verses 9-20 of Mk. 16 were already known roughly 200 yrs. before S and V.

JDawg said:
So we have evidence of the evolution of the Christian gospel in its early stages, as it relates to the addition of mystical elements that were not there in the beginning.
Click to expand...

What you call "evidence", I call an unwarranted leap as the result of sloppy thinking. I suggest you do further research.
 
Photizo said:
Scholars generally agree that each Gospel was written with a particular readership/purpose in mind. However, to say the event was added “as time went on” as some sort of accommodation to net a larger haul of pagan faithful contradicts a fundamental teaching of Jesus Himself i.e. “let your yes be yes and your no, no because anything else is from the evil one.” Concerning the purposes of the author of Mark, it was to underscore the role of Jesus as a servant, both of God The Father and Man. In the case of John, it was to declare and demonstrate Christ’s Deity. Nativity accounts do not suit the purposes of the authors in these cases. On the other hand, concerning Matthew and Luke it is understandable they include this information (the Virgin Birth) so as to inform readers of Jesus’ right to the Jewish Messianic throne along information detailing His human lineage.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the addition of pagan traits to the Christ myth goes against Jesus' teaching is completely irrelevant (though I fail to see how the "yes is yes" passage speaks to this in any manner). All that matters is that Jesus bears a striking resemblance to hundreds of pagan and other deities. How else was it that he came to be born of a virgin, rose on the third day, ascended bodily into heaven, like so many other, earlier gods? You think that's a coincidence?

As to why two gospel writers would willfully omit Jesus' miraculous birth, the theory holds no water. How would his virgin birth not speak to his divinity? It was the trait of a god. Granted, it was remarkably common among deities, but still a staple of divinity. This is also why so much trouble was made of explaining Mary'd divinity by concocting the Immaculate Conception.

And you obviously mistake the purpose of Mark's gospel, which would be better stated as a case for Jesus' divinity. Indeed, Mark begins with "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God." His divinity could not be more important to the narrative if it is to begin with a claim to such. Add to this the inclusion of at 19 specific miracles, and allusions to several others, and the explanation for the exclusion of Jesus' nativity falls flat on its face. His divinity was affirmed countless times in Mark; there is no clear reason why this would have been left out, if it were in fact true.

"And in the original Manuscript of Mark"? lol. The resurrection is NOT omitted in Mark but in fact mentioned numerous times:

And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mk 8:31

For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later." Mk 9:31

They were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful. And again He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, saying, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles." They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again. Mk 10:32-34

What are omitted from some manuscripts are specific appearances of the risen Jesus but the resurrection event itself and the fact He would be seen by them is indeed included in Mark: "And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you."

The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts (about mid A.D. 300’s) do indeed omit verses 9-20 of Mk 16, but a majority of other ms don't. Interestingly, scribes involved with the writing of S and V left space after verse 8 of Mark 16 suggesting they were aware of a longer ending to Mark but it was not available to them on the particular ms they were copying from. Researching early Christian writings ( Justin Martyr, Apology 1.45, ca. A.D.145; Tatian, Diatessaron, ca. A.D. 170; and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.10.6 ca. A.D. 180), one finds evidence indicating verses 9-20 of Mk. 16 were already known roughly 200 yrs. before S and V.
Click to expand...

I was mistaken about the resurrection. That is my fault.

However, Justin Martyr is the earliest example of 16:9-20 appearing in the gospel. No earlier manuscripts featured an actual depiction of a risen Jesus.

What you call "evidence", I call an unwarranted leap as the result of sloppy thinking. I suggest you do further research.
Click to expand...

I suggest the same to you, and try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating weak apologist crap.
 
JDawg said:
Whether or not the addition of pagan traits to the Christ myth goes against Jesus' teaching is completely irrelevant (though I fail to see how the "yes is yes" passage speaks to this in any manner). All that matters is that Jesus bears a striking resemblance to hundreds of pagan and other deities. How else was it that he came to be born of a virgin, rose on the third day, ascended bodily into heaven, like so many other, earlier gods? You think that's a coincidence?
Click to expand...

Pragmatic attempts to facillitate conversions by adding pagan traits to the Gospel account without regard to their truthfullness contradicts the teaching of Jesus concerning truthfullness in communication. This is not irrelevant when one considers the fate of men and women rests on the truthfullness of these accounts. This is why the passage about ones Yes or No was quoted. The writers have a tremendous responsibility to the human race. You ask how else was it that He came to be born of a virgin, etc? Well, it had nothing to do with pagan ideas. The Word of God tells you how He came to be born of a virgin, rose the third day, and ascended bodily into heaven. You either believe Him/the writers or you don't.

The pagan accounts certainly do not exist by coincidence. Mark mentions that Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days tempted by Satan. Matthew and Luke detail His encounter with this being who felt his knowledge/grasp of Scripture was sufficient to match wits with Jesus. So, point being, these pagan accounts amount to a 'first strike' launched by demonic spirits aware of Scriptural prophecies concerning Jesus, the Resurrection etc. Accordingly, they undermine human apprehension of, and trust in, the truth of God. You are a case in point, demonstrating the attitude he desires for mankind concerning God's Truth.


JDawg said:
I was mistaken about the resurrection. That is my fault.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Photizo said:
Pragmatic attempts to facillitate conversions by adding pagan traits to the Gospel account without regard to their truthfullness contradicts the teaching of Jesus concerning truthfullness in communication. This is not irrelevant when one considers the fate of men and women rests on the truthfullness of these accounts. This is why the passage about ones Yes or No was quoted. The writers have a tremendous responsibility to the human race. You ask how else was it that He came to be born of a virgin, etc? Well, it had nothing to do with pagan ideas. The Word of God tells you how He came to be born of a virgin, rose the third day, and ascended bodily into heaven. You either believe Him/the writers or you don't.
Click to expand...

So you believe nothing was added after the fact because Jesus told his followers to be honest? That's circular logic. "It's true because it's true."

And of course it had to do with Pagan ideas. Look at the attributes of Christ and the attributes of hundreds of other gods.

The pagan accounts certainly do not exist by coincidence. Mark mentions that Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days tempted by Satan. Matthew and Luke detail His encounter with this being who felt his knowledge/grasp of Scripture was sufficient to match wits with Jesus. So, point being, these pagan accounts amount to a 'first strike' launched by demonic spirits aware of Scriptural prophecies concerning Jesus, the Resurrection etc. Accordingly, they undermine human apprehension of, and trust in, the truth of God. You are a case in point, demonstrating the attitude he desires for mankind concerning God's Truth.
Click to expand...

So the depiction of Pagan gods thousands of years prior to Jesus' birth is nothing more than subterfuge by Satan? If that's what you believe, then this conversation can go no further, because I can't argue with delusion.

Fair enough.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you ignored my counters to your weak arguments for Mark and John "playing to certain audiences."
 
JDawg said:
So you believe nothing was added after the fact because Jesus told his followers to be honest?
Click to expand...

Correct. I believe the Person of Christ as presented in the Gospels is true and accurate, sufficient to provide faith in Him as Lord and Savior.

JDawg said:
So the depiction of Pagan gods thousands of years prior to Jesus' birth is nothing more than subterfuge by Satan? If that's what you believe, then this conversation can go no further, because I can't argue with delusion.
Click to expand...

Again, fair enough.
 
Photizo said:
Correct. I believe the Person of Christ as presented in the Gospels is true and accurate, sufficient to provide faith in Him as Lord and Savior.
Click to expand...

I have a question about this, but first I would point you again to my earlier retorts to your position that John and Mark were "playing to certain audiences" as reason for why Jesus' birth was never mentioned (this also fails to explain why Matthew and Luke tell conflicting versions of the nativity). You've glossed over them, and I'm curious as to why.

Okay, now onto my question: Why is it, exactly, that you believe this?
 
@Photizo

Are you a religious inclusivist, or a Christian exclusivist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top