Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

No, no life was with them without them doing anything. It is not because of them that they produce living cells that can grow to be adult human.

No, it wasn't. I was not "with them" until they created me. It is because of their actions that I exist.

But babies body is not woman's body. Or, if it is so, then your mother could kill you also today.

How does the second sentence follow from the first? If my mother killed me today it would be called murder, because I do not reside inside of her, living of her body, and I exist as a wholly separate, fully developed human being with cognition, social connections, etc.

Maybe so, but there is no way to defend the thief logically and objectively from theft, if he has done it also.

This was in response to, "This is the old "eye for an eye" mentality that I don't find to be particularly moral either.
If someone steals from someone, we don't punish them by stealing their stuff in return. And I don't think that it's a moral position to say "Killing is wrong" so we're going to kill you because you killed someone. I find that kind of barbaric."

I don't see how your above response addresses the point.

 

[joelr]

I imagine Bart Ehrman also would be an apologist to you if he had not fallen away from faith.

Not if he went into the history field. Richard Miller, a high level scholar and fundamentalist also had to leave when he switched to history:

His education was at a private theological seminary after all.

He studied with Bruce Metzger the top scholar in the U.S. at Princeton for interpreting the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels.

The thing about 2 Passovers is not that this is known definitely to have happened in 30AD, it is that there is evidence that it did happen, has happened. IOW there is nothing wrong with the gospels saying that is what happened.

It's just an inconsistency that went unnoticed. Nothing wrong with it, it shows they were writing stories not history. That is just the first in his book, he has many more in Jesus Interrupted.

Slight variations like that don't really matter in an era when they did not have watches, and they can be harmonised more anyway if John was using the Roman time system, which began at midnight. And no John does not say he was nailed at noon, it says it was about the 6th hour when Jesus was condemned by Pilate.

Right and Mark says the 3rd hour. There are far worse inconsistencies than that.

There are various ways to read the gospels so that there is no problem. Option 4 in this site speaks of what is made out by you or Bart Ehrman to be a passover for sectarian fringe groups outside Jerusalem, it seems to be possible just how it was done for convenience sake and because of different interpretations of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(Jn. 13:1) Does John contradict the Synoptics regarding the Passover meal? | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

It already stated that Jesus followed the Pharisee calendar, where in John does it say even though they are following the Pharisee calendar he's dating it as if it's a different calendar? That makes no sense. The times and day are off. The explanation about John wanting to change the event to make Jesus the lamb of God is an excellent explanation. We already know John has different ideas theologically so this makes sense.

Nevertheless you want Joseph of Arithamea and Nicodemus to take Jesus off the cross and bury Him and using 75 pounds of spices on a day of no work.
Golgotha is about 1.5 miles from Jerusalem and a day's walk on the Sabbath was only about a mile. The guy who carried Jesus cross was coming in from the country to Jerusalem.

Having some improbable things is not uncommon in the Gospels. They are fictional stories, that will happen. We start out by men leaving their families to fend for themself to follow Jesus. Not likely. Likely in a fictional story. Mark just happens to follow Jesus Ben Ananias and Romulus so closely?

 

[Brian2]

It's just an inconsistency that went unnoticed. Nothing wrong with it, it shows they were writing stories not history. That is just the first in his book, he has many more in Jesus Interrupted.

Or it's just an inconsistency which can be explained by looking deeper into the history of the times.

Right and Mark says the 3rd hour. There are far worse inconsistencies than that.

Condemned by Pilate and executed are different things.
The Roman time system and the Jewish time system are different things.
It boils down to there possibly being no inconsistency at all.
Some see the face value inconsistency and cheer, others see it and discover, after looking into it, that it probably is not really an inconsistency.

It already stated that Jesus followed the Pharisee calendar, where in John does it say even though they are following the Pharisee calendar he's dating it as if it's a different calendar? That makes no sense. The times and day are off. The explanation about John wanting to change the event to make Jesus the lamb of God is an excellent explanation. We already know John has different ideas theologically so this makes sense.

We don't know that John has different ideas theologically.
The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (Quote from John the Baptist) is not the passover lamb, it is a sin offering. The other gospels also have Jesus as a ransom sacrifice that covers our sins and redeems us from hades/death.
Why would John need to explain which time system he was using or which calendar. It was all just common knowledge for John (that the passover sacrifices went over 2 days) and needed no explanation, and he was writing to Gentiles who all used the Roman system of time probably.

Having some improbable things is not uncommon in the Gospels. They are fictional stories, that will happen. We start out by men leaving their families to fend for themself to follow Jesus. Not likely. Likely in a fictional story. Mark just happens to follow Jesus Ben Ananias and Romulus so closely?

On the contrary, fictional stories cover the bases, real events run into historical things that make the stories look wrong or inconsistent.
So these days people don't know what was common knowledge in those days and the knowledge of which is buried somewhere.
Some people realise this and others say the stories are wrong as soon as the inconsistency is realised.
Some people hear of Jesus Ben Ananias and immediately say that is proof of when Mark was written and others realise that is nonsense.
Some people read about Romulus and say that a writer of the gospels must have copied that and others realise that is just speculation of those who have no faith in Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or it's just an inconsistency which can be explained by looking deeper into the history of the times.

That usually cannot be done. Did you forget your failure with the birthdates of Jesus?

Condemned by Pilate and executed are different things.
The Roman time system and the Jewish time system are different things.
It boils down to there possibly being no inconsistency at all.
Some see the face value inconsistency and cheer, others see it and discover, after looking into it, that it probably is not really an inconsistency.

It does not work with the Jewish timing system either. For them the new day starts at sunset on the night before. I sincerely doubt that the Romans would have had a trial that late at night.

We don't know that John has different ideas theologically.
The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (Quote from John the Baptist) is not the passover lamb, it is a sin offering. The other gospels also have Jesus as a ransom sacrifice that covers our sins and redeems us from hades/death.
Why would John need to explain which time system he was using or which calendar. It was all just common knowledge for John (that the passover sacrifices went over 2 days) and needed no explanation, and he was writing to Gentiles who all used the Roman system of time probably.

Each writer of the Gospels (remember, John almost certainly did not write John) had their own message to get across, but the one in John is significantly different from the others.

On the contrary, fictional stories cover the bases, real events run into historical things that make the stories look wrong or inconsistent.
So these days people don't know what was common knowledge in those days and the knowledge of which is buried somewhere.
Some people realise this and others say the stories are wrong as soon as the inconsistency is realised.
Some people hear of Jesus Ben Ananias and immediately say that is proof of when Mark was written and others realise that is nonsense.
Some people read about Romulus and say that a writer of the gospels must have copied that and others realise that is just speculation of those who have no faith in Jesus.

No the stories are inconsistent. Do a parallel reading sometime. And you lose when you accuse others or "speculation'. If you want to claim that something is speculation you take on a burden of proof. And whether the Gospels are accurate or not should not have anything to do with one's faith. You are all but admitting that they are wrong when you use that excuse.

 

[joelr]

Or it's just an inconsistency which can be explained by looking deeper into the history of the times.

I don't see how that works. They are in the capital and not going by other groups calendars and claiming John is using a different calendar "from the enemy perspective" seems odd. Where does he do that in other places?

Condemned by Pilate and executed are different things.
The Roman time system and the Jewish time system are different things.
It boils down to there possibly being no inconsistency at all.
Some see the face value inconsistency and cheer, others see it and discover, after looking into it, that it probably is not really an inconsistency.

I'm not a PhD in the Greek manuscripts. Ehrman spent a lot of time looking fro ways to patch it up. He's the expert. He was a fundamentalist and wanted the Bible to be without error. He believes there is no solution.
There are not any fields I can think of where I just tell experts what the answer is in their specialty.

We don't know that John has different ideas theologically.
The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (Quote from John the Baptist) is not the passover lamb, it is a sin offering. The other gospels also have Jesus as a ransom sacrifice that covers our sins and redeems us from hades/death.

The day John has Jesus die corresponds with the lamb and why he said
Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away
the sins of the world.” The time change is explained by the lamb is killed on
(the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon),
when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple.

Why would John need to explain which time system he was using or which calendar. It was all just common knowledge for John (that the passover sacrifices went over 2 days) and needed no explanation, and he was writing to Gentiles who all used the Roman system of time probably.

It would not be common knowledge if he was going by a different time. But he isn't so it makes sense.

On the contrary, fictional stories cover the bases, real events run into historical things that make the stories look wrong or inconsistent.

What are you talking about? Fictional stories have improbable events. People leaving their family to travel with Jesus is hugely improbable.
The stories are also re-writes of Elija and Moses, Romulus and others. HE also uses ring structure and has a chiasmus that cannot happen in real life. It's made up.

So these days people don't know what was common knowledge in those days and the knowledge of which is buried somewhere.
Some people realise this and others say the stories are wrong as soon as the inconsistency is realised.

No, historians are looking at all of the known evidence, not one thing.

Some people hear of Jesus Ben Ananias and immediately say that is proof of when Mark was written and others realise that is nonsense.
Some people read about Romulus and say that a writer of the gospels must have copied that and others realise that is just speculation of those who have no faith in Jesus.

Faith is not a path to truth. I can have faith in the KKK, does that make it true? Having faith in Krishna or Jesus doesn't make it true either.
You need evidence. Romulus and Jesus Ben Ananias are just 2 pieces of evidence in Mark. There is more as well. But there are parallels.

Look at the parallels just from Jesus Ben Ananias:

1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)
3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)
5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)
6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)
7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)
8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)
9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)
10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)
11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)
12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.30
13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)
14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)
15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)
16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)
17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)
19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)
20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)
21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)
The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.

Romulus/Jesus parallels

1- The hero son of god

2 - His death is accompanied by prodigies

3 - The land is covered in darkness

4- The heroes corpse goes missing

5 - The hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had

6 - His resurrection body has on occasion a bright shining appearance

7 - After his resurrection he meets with a follower on the road to the city

8 - A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending

9 - An inspired message of resurrection or “translation to heaven” is delivered to witnesses

10 - There is a great commission )an instruction to future followers)

11- The hero physically ascends to heaven in his divine new body

12 - He is taken up into a cloud

13 - There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witnesses)

14 - Witnesses are frightened by his appearance and or disappearance

15 - Some witnesses flee

16 - Claims are made of dubious alternative accounts

17 - All of this occurs outside of a nearby but central city

18 - His followers are initially in sorrow over his death

19 - But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and rejoicing

20 - The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a G

 

[1213]

No, it wasn't. I was not "with them" until they created me. It is because of their actions that I exist.

They produced two cells. And that is not their own merit that they produce cells that may grow into a full human being.

 

[1213]

The people who actually did the studies disagree.
And remember, these were people that we explicitly looking for evidential support of the biblical flood story, being certain the flood story was correct.

To me that shows they didn't understand how the flood happened and possibly that they were not believers.

 

[1213]

When it comes to geology we understand what sediments are deposited in what environments and how fast they can occur. Chalk cliffs alone refute your beliefs. Chalk is made up of tiny little skeletons of animals called coccolithophores. We can look at chalk under microscopes and see them. We understand how many can live in the a body of water at one time. Though the number is huge they do not deposit very rapidly at all:

Oozes accumulate very slowly, at a rate of only about 1 to 6 centimeters per thousand years (Garrison 2002) but the deposition of the chalk in Dorset took place 100 million years ago until the end of the cretaceous 65 million years ago (Gallois 1995) so it had a long time to build up over 410 meters of chalk (Rayner 1967).

Worse yet the a worldwide flood would not have resulted in an impossibly high number of new coccolithophores. it would kill the few that existed at the time.

Sorry, I have not enough faith in you to believe all that. If the flood happened as told in the Bible, it is possible that those sediments in Dorset were carried there from larger area, which means they did not have to grow in that place at once. It is also possible that the chalk was formed before the flood.

Young Earth Creationists cannot explain chalk, geologists can. And that is only one example. We have example after example that could not have been deposited by a flood and they all add up to billions of years of existence for the Earth. You are claiming that God had to lie by planting false evidence. If God can't lie, Genesis cannot be read literally. Every time that you say that you believe that the Noah's Ark myth is true you are also saying that you think that God is a liar.

Or, you are just wrong. Anyone can make explanations. Making an explanation doesn't necessary mean it is also truth.

 

[1213]

In Mark 14:12, the disciples ask Jesus where they are to prepare the
Passover meal for that evening. In other words, this is on the Day of
Preparation for Passover.

But Mark doesn't say it was "the Day of Preparation for Passover". But, perhaps the key in this is in correct translation of John. The translations that I have, don't have John saying it was the day of preparation. For example Green's literal says:
"And it was the Preparation of the Passover". So, with that translation there is no problem.

 

[joelr]

But Mark doesn't say it was "the Day of Preparation for Passover". But, perhaps the key in this is in correct translation of John. The translations that I have, don't have John saying it was the day of preparation. For example Green's literal says:
"And it was the Preparation of the Passover". So, with that translation there is no problem.

Mark 15:42 said Jesus died on the Day of Preparation. But he explains it is the Day of Preparation “for the Sabbath”

And in John we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the
sentence: “It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was
about noon” (John 19:14).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To me that shows they didn't understand how the flood happened and possibly that they were not believers.

They were believers allright. They also, in the end at least, turned out to be honest enough to acknowledge they were incorrect when the evidence piled on.
Sounds like you still require some practice in that area.

 

[metis]

But Mark doesn't say it was "the Day of Preparation for Passover".

John does.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They produced two cells. And that is not their own merit that they produce cells that may grow into a full human being.

They produced me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To me that shows they didn't understand how the flood happened and possibly that they were not believers.

It shows me that they follow the evidence where it leads, no matter what their a priori beliefs may be.
In other words, they were intellectually honest with themselves.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, I have not enough faith in you to believe all that. If the flood happened as told in the Bible, it is possible that those sediments in Dorset were carried there from larger area, which means they did not have to grow in that place at once. It is also possible that the chalk was formed before the flood.

You don't have enough faith to accept empirical evidence? Well, that's a bizarre statement.

Notice how you make up other possible explanations not in evidence, rather than actually considering the evidence in front of you?

Or, you are just wrong. Anyone can make explanations. Making an explanation doesn't necessary mean it is also truth.

Yes, anyone can make up explanations out of thin air, as you've demonstrated above.

The cool thing is that geologists have actually empirically demonstrated their explanations with evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I have not enough faith in you to believe all that. If the flood happened as told in the Bible, it is possible that those sediments in Dorset were carried there from larger area, which means they did not have to grow in that place at once. It is also possible that the chalk was formed before the flood.

Or, you are just wrong. Anyone can make explanations. Making an explanation doesn't necessary mean it is also truth.

You don't need faith. Faith is your problem. You can take some classes, learn how science is done, and confirm those facts.


That is what is so awesome about science. Once someone does all of the hard work of the original discovery almost anyone can repeat his discovery. As part of learning you can see what his false steps were and why they were false. There is a huge advantage to hindsight.

Just think of it! You won't have to claim that your God is a liar any more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me that shows they didn't understand how the flood happened and possibly that they were not believers.

It should show to you that they were more honest than creationists are.

 

[Brian2]

I don't see how that works. They are in the capital and not going by other groups calendars and claiming John is using a different calendar "from the enemy perspective" seems odd. Where does he do that in other places?

The idea is that the usual thing in those days for pragmatic reasons and because of differences between Pharisees and Saducees is that the Passover went over 2 days.
It was just a normal practice. There were no enemies involved.
There are also plenty of other ideas to harmonise the gospel accounts.

I'm not a PhD in the Greek manuscripts. Ehrman spent a lot of time looking fro ways to patch it up. He's the expert. He was a fundamentalist and wanted the Bible to be without error. He believes there is no solution.
There are not any fields I can think of where I just tell experts what the answer is in their specialty.

We are just presenting the possibilities that the experts argue about. Bart Ehrman is not the only expert.

The day John has Jesus die corresponds with the lamb and why he said
Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away
the sins of the world.” The time change is explained by the lamb is killed on
(the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon),
when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple.

afaik all the gospels have Jesus die in the afternoon of the day of preparation for the Passover.
The actual first day of Passover (after the Passover seder) is not likely because of the work that is said to have been done then.
The first day of Passover (after the Passover seder) is also not likely because it seems to defeat the purpose of getting rid of Jesus before the Passover to avoid riots.

It would not be common knowledge if he was going by a different time. But he isn't so it makes sense.

Jesus and disciples were just doing what they usually did at the Passover. Common knowledge for the people then.

What are you talking about? Fictional stories have improbable events. People leaving their family to travel with Jesus is hugely improbable.
The stories are also re-writes of Elija and Moses, Romulus and others. HE also uses ring structure and has a chiasmus that cannot happen in real life. It's made up.

The stories usually give good reason that the disciples followed Him. And we can't dismiss the possibility that they knew of Jesus already.

No, historians are looking at all of the known evidence, not one thing.

Yes historians look at evidence and sometimes cannot find proof one way or the other even if they like to present their arguments as the best ones.

Faith is not a path to truth. I can have faith in the KKK, does that make it true? Having faith in Krishna or Jesus doesn't make it true either.
You need evidence. Romulus and Jesus Ben Ananias are just 2 pieces of evidence in Mark. There is more as well. But there are parallels.

You would need to be looking for the parallels to see them and then to exaggerate them and then to be working from the faith position that all religions copy from each other, then to dismiss the idea of OT prophecy concerning the Messiah and say that it is not prophecy, just a source for getting ideas to invent Jesus story etc.

Look at the parallels just from Jesus Ben Ananias:

1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)
3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)
5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)
6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)
7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)
8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)
9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)
10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)
11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)
12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.30
13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)
14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)
15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)
16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)
17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)
19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)
20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)
21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)
The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.

You seem to be exaggerating the similarities. Here is Josephus.
…there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman[1], who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles [2] to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds[3], a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides[4], and a voice against this whole people!” …Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator[5], where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!”[6]…for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!” And just as he added at the last, “Woe, woe to myself also!” there came a stone[7] out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost[8].
I could easily argue that God again was prophesying through this Jesus to warn Jerusalem and also to remind people (Christians in particular) what Jesus said.
From the actual evidence, the gospels were written pre 70AD but this is proposed as a source for the gospels because of faith that the supernatural is wrong and that the gospels therefore had to have been written after 70AD.

 

[Brian2]

Romulus/Jesus parallels

1- The hero son of god

2 - His death is accompanied by prodigies

3 - The land is covered in darkness

4- The heroes corpse goes missing

5 - The hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had

6 - His resurrection body has on occasion a bright shining appearance

7 - After his resurrection he meets with a follower on the road to the city

8 - A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending

9 - An inspired message of resurrection or “translation to heaven” is delivered to witnesses

10 - There is a great commission )an instruction to future followers)

11- The hero physically ascends to heaven in his divine new body

12 - He is taken up into a cloud

13 - There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witnesses)

14 - Witnesses are frightened by his appearance and or disappearance

15 - Some witnesses flee

16 - Claims are made of dubious alternative accounts

17 - All of this occurs outside of a nearby but central city

18 - His followers are initially in sorrow over his death

19 - But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and rejoicing

20 - The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a G

There are various accounts of the story. Here is the basic story, which shows that you have to be seriously looking for the similarities. Certainly the story line is completely different and even the so called similarities are not as similar as Christ Mythicists present them. The whole thing ends up like the many clues that Paul McCartney had died, that people had found on the cover of the Sargeant Pepper's album. Interesting but stupid unless you are gullible or looking for confirmation of your beliefs. From this site: SUPERFICIAL SIMILARITIES AND SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES: THE APOTHEOSIS OF ROMULUS VS. THE RESURRECTION JESUS

The general plot of the Romulus myth indicates that the founders of Rome are said to have been the twin brothers Romulus and Remus. Their mother, Rhea, had been forced to become a Vestal Virgin[3] by her uncle, Amulius, because he had been warned that Rhea would bear sons that might overthrow him. However, Rhea became pregnant when she was raped by the god of war, Mars.[4]

Enraged, Amulius ordered that Rhea be buried alive. This was the standard execution for a Vestal Virgin who broke her vow of celibacy. He also ordered that the twins be executed.[5] However, the slave who was to perform the execution placed the boys in a basket upon the Tiber River floating to safety.[6]
The river god Tiberinus rescued the twins, and took them to the Palatine Hill, along the banks of the river, to be nursed by a she-wolf and fed by a woodpecker. In time, Amulius discovered that the twins were still alive, and set out to kill them. However, by that time the twins commanded a militia army, and they defeated and killed Amulius.
They set out to found their own city on the slopes of the Palatine Hill, where they had been raised. However, they disagreed about where the location of the city should be. They decided to have a contest to see who had the will of the gods on his side. Using augury, (which was an ancient form of reading the will of the gods through signs in nature), they each counted the number of vultures they saw in the sky. Romulus saw the most and won the contest. Remus was outraged and the two brothers fought. Romulus won the fight and killed his brother.[7] Thus, he built the city in the location he desired, along the Palatine Hill, and named it Rome after himself. Rome was founded in the year 753 B.C.
Romulus became the first king of the city. In the 38th year after the founding of the city, Romulus and a number of local citizens went to the Campus Martius (the Field of Mars), which was a wide, grassy plain to the west of the city, where games, elections, and other municipal events were held. While they were there, a great storm arose, which darkened the entire city.[8] While this was happening, Romulus was snatched up by a cyclone into heaven to live with the gods. A temple was built on the spot to honor him, and he was worshiped thereafter as a god.
There was no trace of Romulus’ body. However, one morning he appeared to Julius Proculus,[9] appearing larger and more beautiful than before, armed welding weapons shining like fire. Although in a state of shock, Proculus managed to remember Romulus’ last words concerning the future greatness of Rome. The resurrected Romulus explains that he now dwells again in heaven, where he originally came from. Proculus reports his experience to the Roman people and swears to the accuracy of his account with an oath.

 

[1213]

You don't need faith. Faith is your problem.

Sorry, I want to be faithful/loyal to truth. I am sorry, if it is a problem for you.