Did Christ really exist ?

[joelr]

What about the scientist Doctor Leonard Brand of Loma Linda University and Doctor Davis Young?

Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood

I'm not responding to any more crank from that site. There are many actual geologists. Find one who has a paper that has been reviewed by other scientists and has reasonable reasons to consider it reliable.

Andrew Snelling - RationalWiki
Andrew A. Snelling is an Australian geologist and young-Earth creationist. He is also the first, only, and hopefully last, editor of the Answers Research Journal.[1] He is the founder of the Journal of Creation and author of the two-volume Earth's Catastrophic Past — 1100 pages of creationist twaddle.


There appear to be two Snellings with the same address. One has authored academic papers stating unequivocally that certain geological formations contain rocks that are 1.8 million years old, and the other who attempts to prove that Noah's flood was a historical event by criticizing "evolutionist" geologists and challenging creationist geologists to rebuild "our understanding of geological history within the Biblical framework."[4]

His creation research has centred around dating methods, with his pet hobbyhorse being polonium halos, which according to Answers in Genesis, he has used to demonstrate that most rock layers and fossils were deposited by a global flood 4,300 years ago.[5] He has been repeatedly overlooked for a Nobel Prize despite the importance of this discovery. He has recently sued the US National Park Service on grounds of "religious discrimination" because they won't let him collect rocks at the Grand Canyon National Park.[6]

For his excellent publication record Snelling has became an Associate Professor of Geology at the Institute for Creation Research,[7] a title as meaningful as being a Discordian Pope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The gospels were not anonymous. They were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are not stories just because they have miracles. If God exists, miracles can exist too. The creation of the world was a miracle. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels | Bible.org



What the Sikh martyrs believed in wasn't based on real life historical events that could be verified.

Nope, modern scholars appear to be pretty much unanimous that the names of the Gospels are one of tradition, not of authorship.. And your source is far from reliable. They cannot even get the arguments against the Gospels correct. They create a strawman and knock it down. That is not very impressive.

 

[joelr]

The gospels were not anonymous. They were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are not stories just because they have miracles. If God exists, miracles can exist too. The creation of the world was a miracle. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels | Bible.org

we understand the creation of planets. No god needed.
The gospels are anonymous, names added in the 2nd century and up to 90% of the Greek in Mark is copied into the others.
The vast majority of actual scholarship agrees with this. Your apologetics site will never admit this in 1 million years. If you want truth, study what scholarship has come to consensus on. Otherwise you are getting faulty information.
Bart Ehrman is a good biblical historian to study.


"Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[30] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[9] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[31] and John AD 90–110.[11] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses."
Gospel - Wikipedia

"The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts;["Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

They were copied from Mark:

"The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording."

 

[joelr]

Paul didn't have to know Jesus before he was crucified, for his conversion story to be true. Paul seeing Jesus wasn't a hallucination because there was no evidence that Paul had mental illness.

The Romans persecuted Christians and fed them to lions. This is history, not mythology.

There were periods of peace and persecution with Christians. Some times they did it to each other.
Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia

You hand waved MILLIONS of Hindu seeing miracles then support one account of a vision. Now because he "didnt have mental illness"?? But you said the Hindu accounts could be "other reasons". Your Christian buddy is in the same camp. A white lie, a flash he mistook, a descision to back up the story with evidence to help people come to belief (so it would be justified).
It's ONE PERSON?!?!?
If you hand wave millions then make excuses for one person you are demonstrating confirmation bias.

 

[Skywalker]

Problems with evolution and the eye is a common and typical tactic that apologists/creationists like to use to gain followers.
It's up to you to educate yourself. Go to the wiki page, explain to me why you didn't find any section that says they development of the eye isn't understood or is impossible to imagine having evolved.
It's a creationist trick.
The origin of the eye is from evolution which is a combination of several different things happening.
I would contrast your creationist teachings with actual evolution studies:
Evolution - Wikipedia

Jerry Coyne has a good lecture. You should at least listen to both sides and try to form your own beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by "can't explain organic molecules"? Of course we can? An amino acid is an organic compound, what do you think isn't explainable?
Amino acid - Wikipedia


Any of this stuff still has nothing to do with myths made up by people being true? Zeus and his son Hercules isn't going to be real no matter what happens with evolution. All of the bronze age stories are myths.

Evolution cannot create something that is as complicated and detailed as the human eye because not even human inventions are like that. Log into Facebook

Consider the human eye. Man has never developed a camera lens anywhere near the inconceivable intricacy of the human eye. The human eye is an amazing interrelated system of about forty individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens, and optic nerve. It has more to it than just the 137 million light-sensitive special cells that send messages to the unbelievably complex brain. About 130 million of these cells look like tiny rods, and they handle the black and white vision. The other 7 million are cone shaped and allow us to see in color. The retina cells receive light impressions, which are then translated into electric pulses and sent directly to the brain through the optic nerve.
A special section of the brain called the visual cortex interprets the pulses as color, contrast, depth, etc., which then allows us to see “pictures” of our world. Incredibly, the eye, optic nerve, and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct subsystems. Yet together they capture, deliver, and interpret up to 1.5 million pulse messages per millisecond! Think about that for a moment. It would take dozens of computers programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to performing this task.
The eye is an example of what is referred to as “irreducible complexity.” It would be statistically impossible for random processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of genetic mutations and natural selection, to be able to create forty separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the whole until the very last state of development. Ask yourself how the lens, the retina, the optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing not only appeared from nothing, but evolved into interrelated and working parts. To say that the eye happened without a Designer is ridiculous. If you disagree, try making one yourself.

DNA only works when the right amino acids are working together. How could something that has to be arranged in the right order, have just existed out of spontaneous generation?

Jesus is not Hercules. Jesus was God in the flesh. Hercules is the son of Zeus and a woman. Muslims think the Bible says that Jesus is literally God's son. That blasphemy is not taught in the Bible. Both Christians and Muslims would agree that to view God as having the same dignity as a human is blasphemous. Muslims think that the Bible has false teachings because of misconceptions of details like that. The Son of God is a reference to the Sonship of Jesus. Jesus is God the Son.

 

[joelr]

What pagan god is a Creator and Savior who died for the sins of the world? The pagan gods dont have the holiness and justice that I read about God in the Bible. The greek gods married women. Jesus was born of a virgin because He was God incarnate. Jesus has nothing to do with the demigods of mythology. Hundreds of people saw Jesus after He resurrected. They didn't all have schizophrenia. Osiris is not based on historical events. Jesus resurrected in glory. Osiris resurrected as a zombie.

YOu are being dishonest now because I already gave sources from the Pyramid text and stone tablets that show Osirus was not a zombie but went on to father a child after resurrecting.

First each demigod is different:

Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth. Paul and some Jews were abhorrent of sexuality so this translated into Christianity.

But all the demigods were born of a virgin. There is an entire PhD sourced article here:
The deep anxiety of Christians is often revealed in their desperation to convince themselves they aren’t just new fangled pagans who stole everything from other religions. The virgin birth is a classic example, and the fact-challenged ill-logic of trying to deny it is best represented by the otherwise seemingly smooth and authoritative article Was the Virgin Birth of Jesus Grounded in Paganism? by Jon Sorensen, published in 2013 at Catholic Answers (obviously).


The pagan savior gods had these things in common:
The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.
• This is sounding even more like Christianity, isn’t it? Odd that. Just mix in the culturally distinct features of Judaism that it was syncretized with, such as messianism, apocalypticism, scripturalism, and the particularly Jewish ideas about resurrection—as well as Jewish soteriology, cosmology, and rituals, and other things peculiar to Judaism, such as an abhorrence of sexuality and an obsession with blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice—and you literally have Christianity fully spelled out. Before it even existed.
• Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

 

[Skywalker]

There were periods of peace and persecution with Christians. Some times they did it to each other.
Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia

You hand waved MILLIONS of Hindu seeing miracles then support one account of a vision. Now because he "didnt have mental illness"?? But you said the Hindu accounts could be "other reasons". Your Christian buddy is in the same camp. A white lie, a flash he mistook, a descision to back up the story with evidence to help people come to belief (so it would be justified).
It's ONE PERSON?!?!?
If you hand wave millions then make excuses for one person you are demonstrating confirmation bias.

The Christians persecuted each other in Ireland because they are human beings who make mistakes like everyone else. Their behavior had nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.

There is no evidence that Paul was telling a white lie or saw a flash or was trying to convince people to come to belief. He didn't have mental illness, he was a persecutor of Christians, and there was no reason for him to lie to help people to come to faith. He wasn't persecuted and jailed when he was persecuting Christians, he was persecuted and jailed after he became a Christian. The Hindu miracles could be explained by mass hysteria.

 

[joelr]

Evolution cannot create something that is as complicated and detailed as the human eye because not even human inventions are like that. Log into Facebook



DNA only works when the right amino acids are working together. How could something that has to be arranged in the right order, have just existed out of spontaneous generation?

So says creationist sites. Find me where the Wiki article on evolution cannot explain an eye. Eyes developed from simple designs to complex. I'll start you out with a simple search on early evolutionary eye:
"Scientists think the earliest version of the eye was formed in unicellular organisms, who had something called 'eyespots'. These eyespots were made up of patches of photoreceptor proteins that were sensitive to light. ... Over time, the unicellular creature would evolve, and its eyespot evolved along with it."

Look at that. Not as hard as creationists would lead you to believe. Yet here you are spurting non-scientific crank. You do not care about truth.

Jesus is not Hercules. Jesus was God in the flesh. Hercules is the son of Zeus and a woman. Muslims think the Bible says that Jesus is literally God's son. That blasphemy is not taught in the Bible. Both Christians and Muslims would agree that to view God as having the same dignity as a human is blasphemous. Muslims think that the Bible has false teachings because of misconceptions of details like that. The Son of God is a reference to the Sonship of Jesus. Jesus is God the Son.

And Jesus was the son of Yahweh and Mary with the magic seed of David. I do not care what theology they put on this version. It's still a myth. uslims believe in a myth, Christians believe in a myth, there is zero evidence for any god, demigod or any other supernatural idea from 2000 years ago.

And the bible says Jesus is God and is also not God.
No, Jesus is not God.
God cannot be tempted. God cannot be tempted. James 1:13 Yet Jesus was tempted. (So he isn't God.) Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Matthew 4:1
Jesus ... Being forty days tempted of the devil. Luke 4:1-2

Jesus ... was in all points tempted like as we are. Hebrews 4:14-15

Jesus (sometimes) denied that he was God.
By saying:
That he was neither good nor God. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18
That his father was greater than he was. My Father is greater than I. John 14:28
That he was just a man, a child of God like everyone else. I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17
But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God. John 8:40

As he was dying, Jesus asked God why he had foresaken him. (Can God forsake God?) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 After Jesus died, he sat on the right hand of God. (Can God sit on his own right side?) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. Mark 16:19
Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Colossians 3:1

Jesus Christ: who is ... on the the right hand of God. 1 Peter 3:21-22

Jesus is the man God chose to judge other men and be their mediator. Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Acts 17:31 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5 But he is still subject to God. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:28 And although his head is God, the rest of him is human. The head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

 

[Skywalker]

YOu are being dishonest now because I already gave sources from the Pyramid text and stone tablets that show Osirus was not a zombie but went on to father a child after resurrecting.

First each demigod is different:

Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth. Paul and some Jews were abhorrent of sexuality so this translated into Christianity.

But all the demigods were born of a virgin. There is an entire PhD sourced article here:
The deep anxiety of Christians is often revealed in their desperation to convince themselves they aren’t just new fangled pagans who stole everything from other religions. The virgin birth is a classic example, and the fact-challenged ill-logic of trying to deny it is best represented by the otherwise seemingly smooth and authoritative article Was the Virgin Birth of Jesus Grounded in Paganism? by Jon Sorensen, published in 2013 at Catholic Answers (obviously).


The pagan savior gods had these things in common:
The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.
• This is sounding even more like Christianity, isn’t it? Odd that. Just mix in the culturally distinct features of Judaism that it was syncretized with, such as messianism, apocalypticism, scripturalism, and the particularly Jewish ideas about resurrection—as well as Jewish soteriology, cosmology, and rituals, and other things peculiar to Judaism, such as an abhorrence of sexuality and an obsession with blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice—and you literally have Christianity fully spelled out. Before it even existed.
• Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

The story of Jesus is consistent. The story of the death of Osiris is not. Osiris didnt die for the sins of the world. Jesus wasnt tricked and never sinned. The Christian view of the soul and Egyptian view of the soul are different. The Bible's teaching that we are saved by grace and not good deeds doesn't exist in Egyptian mythology. The Egyptian gods don't have the standard of holiness and grace that Jesus had.

The Evidence is Plain: Thoughts and Musings on Christianity : The Dying and Rising God: Jesus or Osiris?

Since the publication of Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ" in 2004 and the subsequent release of the YouTube documentary Zeitgeist in 2007, an ever-growing number of people have come to the conclusion that modern religions drew much of their inspiration from pagan mythology. Some have even gone so far as to conclude that all of the major religions in the world today are nothing more than a 21st century re-telling of ancient myths—if not outright plagiarism.
When it comes to Christianity in particular, many claims have been made that the stories of Jesus, the God who died and rose again, found in the four Gospels of the Bible, is a modernized version of the Egyptian god Osiris. After all, Osiris was a king who also died and came back to life, and promised to give eternal life to his followers as a reward for their devotion. So why wouldn’t one see the obvious parallels?
That being said, I want to present to you the facts about Osiris, as found in the ancient Egyptian mythologies, accompanied by a cross examination of the core doctrines and teachings of Christianity in order to ascertain the truth of which god is truly the Dying and Rising God.
In the Beginning: The Birth of a God
Just as the gods of ancient Egypt were numerous and varied, so too are the Egyptian accounts of creation. Some inscriptions tell of a cosmic egg that existed before creation, while other versions assert that the world was born out of water and darkness. Some of the earliest myths from the Old Kingdom attribute the creation of the world to eight primordial gods, the Ogdoad, while later stories give credit to a single creator god—Atum or Ra being two of the more popular deities. Still other accounts claim that the world began when the sun rose for the first time. However, despite their differences, most of the Egyptian creation myths do have many elements in common. That said, and for the purpose of this article, the following version of the creation myth seems to be the most accurate representation of Egyptian creation mythology.
In the beginning the world existed as a swirling void of dark, watery chaos called Nu. It was out of this darkness that the creator god, Atum emerged, creating himself through the power of his thoughts and sheer force of will. That said, spell 261 of the Coffin Text seems to imply that there was another god present before creation, Heka, the god of magic.
Heka is sometimes referred to as “the eternal god” though in reality he seems to have been viewed more as a supernatural cosmic power—magic—used by the gods, who was later deified into the god of magic and medicine. Additionally, his claim of eternal preexistence is thrown into serious doubt by the fact that he was believed by some Egyptian cults to be the son of the god Khnum and one of several goddesses: Nebetu’u (Hathor), Menhit, Mehetweret, or Neith, while still other texts assert that Heka was created by Atum at the time of creation.

 

[joelr]

The Christians persecuted each other in Ireland because they are human beings who make mistakes like everyone else. Their behavior had nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.

There is no evidence that Paul was telling a white lie or saw a flash or was trying to convince people to come to belief. He didn't have mental illness, he was a persecutor of Christians, and there was no reason for him to lie to help people to come to faith. He wasn't persecuted and jailed when he was persecuting Christians, he was persecuted and jailed after he became a Christian. The Hindu miracles could be explained by mass hysteria.

Individual Hind also saw visions of Lord Krishna.
Religious people tell white lies all the time if it helps people come to the faith. If he was telling the truth, then he fell and had a hallucination of a light. He decided it was Jesus. He claimed it spoke? He was excited and heard voices then. The story is a huge myth. Paul seeing a vision does not make a myth real.
If someone sees Harry Potter tomorrow does that mean Harry Potter is real or they just had a vision.
Your excuse "Paul had no reason to lie" is ridiculous. He may be telling the truth and had a hallucination. But he likely wanted to bring new followers and would not have thought of it as a lie. It doesn't make a make-believe savior demigod real? The story is fake?

 

[Skywalker]

we understand the creation of planets. No god needed.
The gospels are anonymous, names added in the 2nd century and up to 90% of the Greek in Mark is copied into the others.
The vast majority of actual scholarship agrees with this. Your apologetics site will never admit this in 1 million years. If you want truth, study what scholarship has come to consensus on. Otherwise you are getting faulty information.
Bart Ehrman is a good biblical historian to study.


"Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[30] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[9] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[31] and John AD 90–110.[11] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses."
Gospel - Wikipedia

"The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts;["Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

They were copied from Mark:

"The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording."

Part of the Gospel of John was written in the second century, but that wasn't too distant from the time of Jesus, that it wasn't accurate.

The Gospels being written in Greek doesn't mean they arent true because the writers could have known multiple languages.

There are the same stories often in a similar sequence and with the same wording because they were giving accounts of Jesus's life. They werent talking about a different person.

 

[Skywalker]

So says creationist sites. Find me where the Wiki article on evolution cannot explain an eye. Eyes developed from simple designs to complex. I'll start you out with a simple search on early evolutionary eye:
"Scientists think the earliest version of the eye was formed in unicellular organisms, who had something called 'eyespots'. These eyespots were made up of patches of photoreceptor proteins that were sensitive to light. ... Over time, the unicellular creature would evolve, and its eyespot evolved along with it."

Look at that. Not as hard as creationists would lead you to believe. Yet here you are spurting non-scientific crank. You do not care about truth.



And Jesus was the son of Yahweh and Mary with the magic seed of David. I do not care what theology they put on this version. It's still a myth. uslims believe in a myth, Christians believe in a myth, there is zero evidence for any god, demigod or any other supernatural idea from 2000 years ago.

And the bible says Jesus is God and is also not God.
No, Jesus is not God.
God cannot be tempted. God cannot be tempted. James 1:13 Yet Jesus was tempted. (So he isn't God.) Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Matthew 4:1
Jesus ... Being forty days tempted of the devil. Luke 4:1-2

Jesus ... was in all points tempted like as we are. Hebrews 4:14-15

Jesus (sometimes) denied that he was God.
By saying:
That he was neither good nor God. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18
That his father was greater than he was. My Father is greater than I. John 14:28
That he was just a man, a child of God like everyone else. I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17
But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God. John 8:40

As he was dying, Jesus asked God why he had foresaken him. (Can God forsake God?) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 After Jesus died, he sat on the right hand of God. (Can God sit on his own right side?) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. Mark 16:19
Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Colossians 3:1

Jesus Christ: who is ... on the the right hand of God. 1 Peter 3:21-22

Jesus is the man God chose to judge other men and be their mediator. Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Acts 17:31 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5 But he is still subject to God. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:28 And although his head is God, the rest of him is human. The head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

Jesus allowed Satan to tempt Him even though He was sinless so that he could sympathize with us.

Jesus wasn't denying that He was God, he was asking those people why they called Him good.

Jesus said my God my God why hast thou forsaken me, when He was separated from God the Father on the cross.

Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God the Father because of the hypostatic union. He became a man and stayed that way, but He didn't lose his divine nature.

God the Son will judge at the great white throne because God the Son paid the price of sin. This is consistent with God does everything with an order and a purpose, all things decently and in order, and God is not the author of confusion.

 

[joelr]

The story of Jesus is consistent. The story of the death of Osiris is not. Osiris didnt die for the sins of the world. Jesus wasnt tricked and never sinned. The Christian view of the soul and Egyptian view of the soul are different. The Bible's teaching that we are saved by grace and not good deeds doesn't exist in Egyptian mythology. The Egyptian gods don't have the standard of holiness and grace that Jesus had.

The Evidence is Plain: Thoughts and Musings on Christianity : The Dying and Rising God: Jesus or Osiris?

As we have seen and I've proven the CHristian concept of resurrection/soul was a Persian concept.

You don't know Egyptian mythology so you cannot say if grace/good deeds are part of their theology. You have repeatedly used an apologetics site that has shown faulty information yet continue to post articles. I will read sources when you use scholarship.
The theology doesn't mean it's real? It's just concepts men made up according to their beliefs and what concepts were already in the religion. Christianity looks exactly like a savor god version of Judaism. Plus some Persian ideas and that's all it is.

BTW, Krishna has ALL of that holyness, grace and attributes in spades. I dated a Hindu woman. Krishna is exactly like Jesus in that regard. Still both are myth.


"Another sect of Zoroastrianism is monotheism. Monotheists are the most flourishing among Zoroastrians and have formed the mainstream Zoroastrian most of the times. They believe that Ahura Mazda, composed of only Holy Spirit, is the only being worth being God, and Destructive Spirit can never be equal or override Ahura Mazda. This concept of God Ahura Mazda is similar to that of Christianity, since Christians also regard God as being omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, but Satan as being opposed to God but never able to win over God."

 

[joelr]

Part of the Gospel of John was written in the second century, but that wasn't too distant from the time of Jesus, that it wasn't accurate.

The Gospels being written in Greek doesn't mean they arent true because the writers could have known multiple languages.

There are the same stories often in a similar sequence and with the same wording because they were giving accounts of Jesus's life. They weren't talking about a different person.

No the synoptic problem consists of pages and pages of verbatim Greek. Including mistakes. Matthew copied Mark, there is no doubt in this. Your ad-hoc to a gigantic issue among Christian scholars is ridiculous. You clearly don't even study what Christian scholars have to say.

97% of Mark is found in other gospels. There is NO question Matthew/Luke copied from some source but the question was what source, Q or Mark.
Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

Jesus allowed Satan to tempt Him even though He was sinless so that he could sympathize with us.

Jesus wasn't denying that He was God, he was asking those people why they called Him good.

Jesus said my God my God why hast thou forsaken me, when He was separated from God the Father on the cross.

Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God the Father because of the hypostatic union. He became a man and stayed that way, but He didn't lose his divine nature.

God the Son will judge at the great white throne because God the Son paid the price of sin. This is consistent with God does everything with an order and a purpose, all things decently and in order, and God is not the author of confusion.

Yes, I know the story. It isn't real. Judaism was obsessed with "sin". Yahweh couldn't do anything without blood magic. Every year at the temple you kill a goat to get rid of sin for a year. Passover, Yoom Kippur, substitutionary blood atonement magic is what the Jesus story is and it's an archaic story about a God that requires blood magic. If that isn't sign of a myth then I don't know what is. Why people today still think this is real is bizarre?

 

[Skywalker]

As we have seen and I've proven the CHristian concept of resurrection/soul was a Persian concept.

You don't know Egyptian mythology so you cannot say if grace/good deeds are part of their theology. You have repeatedly used an apologetics site that has shown faulty information yet continue to post articles. I will read sources when you use scholarship.
The theology doesn't mean it's real? It's just concepts men made up according to their beliefs and what concepts were already in the religion. Christianity looks exactly like a savor god version of Judaism. Plus some Persian ideas and that's all it is.

BTW, Krishna has ALL of that holyness, grace and attributes in spades. I dated a Hindu woman. Krishna is exactly like Jesus in that regard. Still both are myth.


"Another sect of Zoroastrianism is monotheism. Monotheists are the most flourishing among Zoroastrians and have formed the mainstream Zoroastrian most of the times. They believe that Ahura Mazda, composed of only Holy Spirit, is the only being worth being God, and Destructive Spirit can never be equal or override Ahura Mazda. This concept of God Ahura Mazda is similar to that of Christianity, since Christians also regard God as being omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, but Satan as being opposed to God but never able to win over God."

I mentioned that the Persians copied their beliefs from the Christians. The date of Zoroastrian writings existed after the Bible.

Osiris didn't die for the sins of the world so that we could be saved by grace.

The idea of a Savior God is mentioned in the book of Isaiah. Job believed in a Mediator Advocate Redeemer as the Messiah.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, I know the story. It isn't real. Judaism was obsessed with "sin". Yahweh couldn't do anything without blood magic. Every year at the temple you kill a goat to get rid of sin for a year. Passover, Yoom Kippur, substitutionary blood atonement magic is what the Jesus story is and it's an archaic story about a God that requires blood magic. If that isn't sign of a myth then I don't know what is. Why people today still think this is real is bizarre?

Do you agree that Jesus mirroring the Old Testament is why he matches the description of the Messiah?

 

[Skywalker]

No the synoptic problem consists of pages and pages of verbatim Greek. Including mistakes. Matthew copied Mark, there is no doubt in this. Your ad-hoc to a gigantic issue among Christian scholars is ridiculous. You clearly don't even study what Christian scholars have to say.

97% of Mark is found in other gospels. There is NO question Matthew/Luke copied from some source but the question was what source, Q or Mark.
Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

Matthew got some his information about Jesus from the same sources as Mark because they were part of the same generation. That's why Matthew and Luke might have gotten some of the same information from Mark as a person, directly.

 

[joelr]

I mentioned that the Persians copied their beliefs from the Christians. The date of Zoroastrian writings existed after the Bible.

Osiris didn't die for the sins of the world so that we could be saved by grace.

The idea of a Savior God is mentioned in the book of Isaiah. Job believed in a Mediator Advocate Redeemer as the Messiah.

Why are you lying?
I already provided a video of Professor Stravopolou explaining the Judahite religion was re-worked during the Persian invasion starting in 5 BCE?

"With possible roots dating back to the second millennium BCE, Zoroastrianism enters recorded history in the 5th century BCE.["

She explained the OT was rebranded using Persian concepts that were never before part of the Jewish religion.
I also posted a video of PhD Carrier explaining the same thing.
If the Jewish version reworked the savior myth using "grace" or if it was already inan earlier mystery religion, who cares? It's still all mythology?
We have already visited this. Are you in denial or did you forget?

 

[joelr]

Do you agree that Jesus mirroring the Old Testament is why he matches the description of the Messiah?

When the OT was reworked around 5BC and added Persian elements the messiah concept was one of the additions. A prophecy of a messiah.
When a writer made up a story about a dying/rising demigod happening in the Jewish religion (obviously created by a Greek speaking Jew) we had Christianity.
There are many versions that emerged in the first 2 centuries. What's in the bible now are 4 of 40 gospels. Many were extremely different.