Did contemporary historians mention Jesus?

[AMbomb]

I don't address the central issue?! You gotta be kidding me! The central issue is the similarity of the Jesus story to earlier pagan godman myths. That's the reason for my conclusion that there was no Jesus. Getting other people to address it has been like pulling teeth! That's why I've had to repeat myself so damn many times! And if you think the life of Jesus is well documented, go look through the Roman archives and see if you can find any mention of him. And when you're finished, you can go through the writings of the 27 pagan writers who lived within a century of when Jesus is said to have lived and see if any of them mention him. That'll take you a while, though. They're writings could fill a library. I know you're a Christian. What you need to do is divorce yourself as much as possible from that and think about what I wrote in the third message from the top of page 5 if you actually read it. And if you didn't, read it.

Ah yes, the similarity of the Jesus story. I am acutely aware of your mantra. As I am acutely aware of your cognitive dissonance. While I understand that you cannot seperate yourself from your presuppositions and therefore will wrongly conclude that Jesus is a myth, I still enjoy this debate.

Let me shed some additional light on this subject. If you care to open up your mind to the possibility that the Biblical gospels are the truth, then read through this link:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/tex ... j0169a.txt

Some highlights from the link:

RECONSTRUCTING THE MYSTERIES_*

It is not until we come to the third century A.D. that we find
sufficient source material (i.e., information about the mystery
religions from the writings of the time) to permit a relatively
complete reconstruction of their content. Far too many writers use
this late source material (after A.D. 200) to form reconstructions
of the third-century mystery experience and then uncritically
reason back to what they think must have been the earlier nature of
the cults. This practice is exceptionally bad scholarship and
should not be allowed to stand without challenge. Information about
a cult that comes several hundred years after the close of the New
Testament canon must not be read back into what is presumed to be
the status of the cult during the first century A.D. The crucial
question is not what possible influence the mysteries may have had
on segments of Christendom after A.D. 400, but what effect the
emerging mysteries may have had on the New Testament in the first
century.


Mithraism_*

Attempts to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of Mithraism
face enormous challenges because of the scanty information that has
survived. Proponents of the cult explained the world in terms of
two ultimate and opposing principles, one good (depicted as light)
and the other evil (darkness). Human beings must choose which side
they will fight for; they are trapped in the conflict between light
and darkness. Mithra came to be regarded as the most powerful
mediator who could help humans ward off attacks from demonic
forces.[8]

The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century
Christianity is possible is the timing: it's all wrong! The
flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New
Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything
that appears in the New Testament.[9] Moreover, no monuments for
the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this
dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions.
Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a
Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable.
Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an
influence.

STRIKING PARALLELS?_*

Enough has been said thus far to permit comment on one of the
major faults of the above-mentioned liberal scholars. I refer to
the frequency with which their writings evidence a careless, even
sloppy use of language. One frequently encounters scholars who
first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and
practices, and then marvel at the striking parallels they think
they have discovered. One can go a long way toward "proving" early
Christian dependence on the mysteries by describing some mystery
belief or practice in Christian terminology. J. Godwin does this in
his book, _Mystery Religions in the Ancient World,_ which describes
the criobolium (_see_ footnote 6) as a "blood baptism" in which the
initiate is "washed in the blood of the lamb."[10] While uninformed
readers might be stunned by this remarkable similarity to
Christianity (_see_ Rev. 7:14), knowledgeable readers will see such
a claim as the reflection of a strong, negative bias against
Christianity.

Exaggerations and oversimplifications abound in this kind of
literature. One encounters overblown claims about alleged
likenesses between baptism and the Lord's Supper and similar
"sacraments" in certain mystery cults. Attempts to find analogies
between the resurrection of Christ and the alleged "resurrections"
of the mystery deities involve massive amounts of
oversimplification and inattention to detail.

The Risen Christ and the "Rising Savior-Gods"_*

Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the
dead? Certainly no early texts refer to any resurrection of Attis.
Nor is the case for a resurrection of Osiris any stronger. One can
speak of a "resurrection" in the stories of Osiris, Attis, and
Adonis only in the most extended of senses.[17] For example, after
Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris's dismembered body,
Osiris became "Lord of the Underworld." This is a poor substitute
for a resurrection like that of Jesus Christ. And, no claim can be
made that Mithras was a dying and rising god. The tide of scholarly
opinion has turned dramatically against attempts to make early
Christianity dependent on the so-called dying and rising gods of
Hellenistic paganism.[18] Any unbiased examination of the evidence
shows that such claims must be rejected.

Christian Rebirth and Cultic Initiation Rites_*

Liberal writings on the subject are full of sweeping
generalizations to the effect that early Christianity borrowed its
notion of rebirth from the pagan mysteries.[19] But the evidence
makes it clear that there was no pre-Christian doctrine of rebirth
for the Christians to borrow. There are actually very few
references to the notion of rebirth in the evidence that has
survived, and even these are either very late or very ambiguous.
They provide no help in settling the question of the source of the
New Testament use of the concept. The claim that pre-Christian
mysteries regarded their initiation rites as a kind of rebirth is
unsupported by any evidence contemporary with such alleged
practices. Instead, a view found in much later texts is read back
into earlier rites, which are then interpreted quite speculatively
as dramatic portrayals of the initiate's "new birth." The belief
that pre-Christian mysteries used "rebirth" as a technical term
lacks support from even one single text.

Most contemporary scholars maintain that the mystery use of the
concept of rebirth (testified to only in evidence dated after A.D.
300) differs so significantly from its New Testament usage that any
possibility of a close link is ruled out. The most that such
scholars are willing to concede is the _possibility_ that some
Christians borrowed the metaphor or imagery from the common speech
of the time and recast it to fit their distinctive theological
beliefs. So even if the metaphor of rebirth was Hellenistic, its
content within Christianity was unique.



SEVEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIAN DEPENDENCE ON THE MYSTERIES_*

I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal
efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential
beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.

(1) Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the
mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This
fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two
things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other.
As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal
connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the
mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars
often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from
Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak
of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis.
It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word "savior" with all of
its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as
though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.

(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of
information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced
early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers
quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts
to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the
assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or
practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore
had the same belief or practice in the first century.

(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan
religions. All of our information about him makes it highly
unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He
placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of
Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort
of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed
to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien
speculations (Col. 2:8).

(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen
explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. "A man could become
initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all
giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into
the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all
other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing
syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the
religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone."[21] This Christian
exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the
possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors.
Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused
immediate controversy.

(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on
events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the
mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were
dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real
historical events, as Paul regarded Christ's death and resurrection
to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of
Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and
place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.

(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian
influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, "It
must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always
influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable
that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite
direction."[22] It should not be surprising that leaders of cults
that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do
something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than
by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the
growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly
apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the
Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.


*_A FINAL WORD_*

Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian
revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse
quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is
clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad
scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous. According
to one writer, a more accurate account of these bad arguments would
describe them as "prejudiced irresponsibility."[23] But in order to
become completely informed on these matters, wise readers will work
through material cited in the brief bibliography.

You have already been informed of the Roman and pagan writers who mentioned Jesus in their writings. Not only Jesus but His brother James, John the Baptist, etc. As far as your demand for contemporaries: there aren't as many surviving Roman records as you claim. In addition, do you really think a Roman historian would give a hoot for Jesus? Jesus was a peasant, running around a dreadful Palestinian outpost, teaching other Jews in the desert about the Jews' God, and this peasant Jesus was on the scene for a mere 3 1/2 years?

In the message before this last one, you wrote about the similarities between the Jesus story and the pagan godman myth as if they supported your argument. Now you post a quote that says they were exaggerated. What happened? Did you figure out that the similarity between the stories means that I'm right? And you stated earlier that the life of Jesus is well documented. And now you admit that there aren't many surviving Roman records, implicitly admitting that there is, in fact, no mention of him in the Roman archives. You said I've already been informed of the Roman and pagan writers who mention Jesus. Then you ask why a Roman historian would give a hoot for him as if to offer an explanation why they don't mention him. Give it up, dude. Your godman's not real and never was.

[FaithnJC]

In the message before this last one, you wrote about the similarities between the Jesus story and the pagan godman myth as if they supported your argument. Now you post a quote from a site that says they were exaggerated. What happened? Did you figure out that the similarity between the stories means that I'm right? Give it up, dude. Your godman's not real and never was.

In my message before this last one I indeed wrote about some similarites. I quote from that post:

"This legend, taken as a whole, provides few (if any) real parallels to the story of Jesus. Furthermore, when all the stories about characters who supposedly were similar to Christ are told in their entirety, it is obvious that each of them contains only a few characteristics that come anywhere close to resembling those contained in the life story of Jesus. Additionally, some of the alleged parallels rest upon tenuous documentation and may even be fabricated. "

Now then, what that post did, was demonstrate the fact that your assertions are not new. That the early church apologists dealt with them and used them. It went into detail that some of the few similarities that may exist should not surprise us. I showed that Mankind has a religious instinct and has always felt a need to sacrifice.

I stated in my next post, "Let me shed some additional light on this subject" (godman similarities). In other words, in my next post I expounded on the earlier post about the supposed "similarities" and went into greater detail on the fabrications.

I don't see where you find any confusion. It is still apparent that you aren't reading in a coherent manner. You said for me to give it up. How can I give up Christ when after my whole life of being an agnostic, He came to me and radically changed my life?

[AMbomb]

In the message before this last one, you wrote about the similarities between the Jesus story and the pagan godman myth as if they supported your argument. Now you post a quote from a site that says they were exaggerated. What happened? Did you figure out that the similarity between the stories means that I'm right? Give it up, dude. Your godman's not real and never was.

In my message before this last one I indeed wrote about some similarites. I quote from that post:

"This legend, taken as a whole, provides few (if any) real parallels to the story of Jesus. Furthermore, when all the stories about characters who supposedly were similar to Christ are told in their entirety, it is obvious that each of them contains only a few characteristics that come anywhere close to resembling those contained in the life story of Jesus. Additionally, some of the alleged parallels rest upon tenuous documentation and may even be fabricated. "

Now then, what that post did, was demonstrate the fact that your assertions are not new. That the early church apologists dealt with them and used them. It went into detail that some of the few similarities that may exist should not surprise us. I showed that Mankind has a religious instinct and has always felt a need to sacrifice.

I stated in my next post, "Let me shed some additional light on this subject" (godman similarities). In other words, in my next post I expounded on the earlier post about the supposed "similarities" and went into greater detail on the fabrications.

I don't see where you find any confusion. It is still apparent that you aren't reading in a coherent manner. You said for me to give it up. How can I give up Christ when after my whole life of being an agnostic, He came to me and radically changed my life?

I notice you've chosen to ignore the part of my message about archives and writers. Religion is the primitive man's science. It's how people explained things before there was science. There is what you might call a religious instinct of sorts among some people. People who have cytosine in a particular locale in the vmat2 gene tend to be more spiritually oriented than those who don't. This raises the question if there's such a thing as a god who wants us to believe in him, why didn't he give everybody cytosine at that locale? But, that's not relevent to this thread. Anyway, I wouldn't trust anything I read from the Christian Research Institute as far as I could throw it. The Jesus Mysteries is a very thoroughly researched book (64 pages of notes and an 8 page bibliography) written by objective scholars who were raised Christians. They, unlike Christians, let the facts lead them to the conclusion, instead of starting with a conclusion and looking for facts to support it. Bottom line: I trust what Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy say, not what the Christian Research Institute says. You ask how you can give up Christ after he changed your life. The insidious thing about Christianity is that it preys on the vulnerable. People whose lives aren't going well often turn to it out of desperation. And their lives get better and they credit Jesus, when in reality it's the Dumbo Effect. Your belief in Jesus gave you the confidence to make your life better. But, it was you that did it. You don't need to believe in Jesus. Just believe in yourself.

[FaithnJC]

I notice you've chosen to ignore the part of my message about archives and writers. Religion is the primitive man's science. It's how people explained things before there was science. There is what you might call a religious instinct of sorts among some people. People who have cytosine in a particular locale in the vmat2 gene tend to be more spiritually oriented than those who don't. This raises the question if there's such a thing as a god who wants us to believe in him, why didn't he give everybody cytosine at that locale? But, that's not relevent to this thread. Anyway, I wouldn't trust anything I read from the Christian Research Institute as far as I could throw it. The Jesus Mysteries is a very thoroughly researched book (64 pages of notes and an 8 page bibliography) written by objective scholars who were raised Christians. They, unlike Christians, let the facts lead them to the conclusion, instead of starting with a conclusion and looking for facts to support it. Bottom line: I trust what Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy say, not what the Christian Research Institute says. You ask how you can give up Christ after he changed your life. The insidious thing about Christianity is that it preys on the vulnerable. People whose lives aren't going well often turn to it out of desperation. And their lives get better and they credit Jesus, when in reality it's the Dumbo Effect. Your belief in Jesus gave you the confidence to make your life better. But, it was you that did it. You don't need to believe in Jesus. Just believe in yourself.

Actually I didn't ignore your archives and writers comment If you'd read, you'd notice I stated: "You have already been informed of the Roman and pagan writers who mentioned Jesus in their writings. Not only Jesus but His brother James, John the Baptist, etc. As far as your demand for contemporaries: there aren't as many surviving Roman records as you claim. In addition, do you really think a Roman historian would give a hoot for Jesus? Jesus was a peasant, running around a dreadful Palestinian outpost, teaching other Jews in the desert about the Jews' God, and this peasant Jesus was on the scene for a mere 3 1/2 years?

Oh, the ‘God Gene' Dr. Dean Hamer spouts off about. You can put the god gene in the same sophistry category as Hamer's now proven false gay gene. So now you are resorting to pseudoscience are you. Hey, how about a rape gene? A murder gene? I know, I know....a stealing gene?

Btw, if the presence of this version of the gene makes the person who has it more religious and spiritual than people who do not, it is awfully strange that for 37 years I had no desire to do anything spiritual.

The Jesus mysteries are objective scholars eh? I really don't think so. The information from CRI is information that is readily available. It didn't exclusively come from CRI. As far as them being raised Christians, that is suppose to mean....? Countless numbers of prominent atheists have turned Christian when investigating the evidence objectively, i.e., Lee Strobel. Josh McDowell, Sir Willaim Ramsey, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Hugh Ross, etc. etc., the list could go on forever.

Your comment on Christianity preys on the vulnerable is absolutely baseless. Myself being a case in point. I had it all before Christ, $100,000+ a year salary, beautiful wife, children, home, two brand new vehicles, lots of friends, great health...I had it all (except for eternal life of course).

[AMbomb]

I notice you've chosen to ignore the part of my message about archives and writers. Religion is the primitive man's science. It's how people explained things before there was science. There is what you might call a religious instinct of sorts among some people. People who have cytosine in a particular locale in the vmat2 gene tend to be more spiritually oriented than those who don't. This raises the question if there's such a thing as a god who wants us to believe in him, why didn't he give everybody cytosine at that locale? But, that's not relevent to this thread. Anyway, I wouldn't trust anything I read from the Christian Research Institute as far as I could throw it. The Jesus Mysteries is a very thoroughly researched book (64 pages of notes and an 8 page bibliography) written by objective scholars who were raised Christians. They, unlike Christians, let the facts lead them to the conclusion, instead of starting with a conclusion and looking for facts to support it. Bottom line: I trust what Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy say, not what the Christian Research Institute says. You ask how you can give up Christ after he changed your life. The insidious thing about Christianity is that it preys on the vulnerable. People whose lives aren't going well often turn to it out of desperation. And their lives get better and they credit Jesus, when in reality it's the Dumbo Effect. Your belief in Jesus gave you the confidence to make your life better. But, it was you that did it. You don't need to believe in Jesus. Just believe in yourself.

Actually I didn't ignore your archives and writers comment If you'd read, you'd notice I stated: "You have already been informed of the Roman and pagan writers who mentioned Jesus in their writings. Not only Jesus but His brother James, John the Baptist, etc. As far as your demand for contemporaries: there aren't as many surviving Roman records as you claim. In addition, do you really think a Roman historian would give a hoot for Jesus? Jesus was a peasant, running around a dreadful Palestinian outpost, teaching other Jews in the desert about the Jews' God, and this peasant Jesus was on the scene for a mere 3 1/2 years?

Oh, the ‘God Gene' Dr. Dean Hamer spouts off about. You can put the god gene in the same sophistry category as Hamer's now proven false gay gene. So now you are resorting to pseudoscience are you. Hey, how about a rape gene? A murder gene? I know, I know....a stealing gene?

Btw, if the presence of this version of the gene makes the person who has it more religious and spiritual than people who do not, it is awfully strange that for 37 years I had no desire to do anything spiritual.

The Jesus mysteries are objective scholars eh? I really don't think so. The information from CRI is information that is readily available. It didn't exclusively come from CRI. As far as them being raised Christians, that is suppose to mean....? Countless numbers of prominent atheists have turned Christian when investigating the evidence objectively, i.e., Lee Strobel. Josh McDowell, Sir Willaim Ramsey, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Hugh Ross, etc. etc., the list could go on forever.

Your comment on Christianity preys on the vulnerable is absolutely baseless. Myself being a case in point. I had it all before Christ, $100,000+ a year salary, beautiful wife, children, home, two brand new vehicles, lots of friends, great health...I had it all (except for eternal life of course).

You ignored the part in my message before my last message, not my message before my message before my last message. Anyway, if you think you can find a reference to Jesus in the works of the 1st century pagan writers, go through them. As for vmat2, we're talking about tendencies here. People who have cytosine in the locale have are more prone to be spiritual than those who don't. People with or without cytosine in the locale can start out non-religious and become religious and vice versa. The gay gene hasn't been disproven though. Research supports the theory that homosexuality is genetic. If you don't believe that, do some research of your own using secular sources. The fact that Freke and Gandy were raised Christians proves their objectivity. They weren't looking to find evidence disproving the existence of Jesus. And if you had it all, that proves you don't need to believe in a deity. :D Besides, even if what I was talking about doesn't apply to you, there are a lot of people to whom it does apply. As for eternal life, you don't need Christianity for that, either. All you have to do to reverse the aging process is figure out how to activate the telomerase gene. By the way, have you read the third message from the top of page 5 yet?

[FaithnJC]

You ignored the part in my message before my last message, not my message before my message before my last message. Anyway, if you think you can find a reference to Jesus in the works of the 1st century pagan writers, go through them. As for vmat2, we're talking about tendencies here. People who have cytosine in the locale have are more prone to be spiritual than those who don't. People with or without cytosine in the locale can start out non-religious and become religious and vice versa. The gay gene hasn't been disproven though. Research supports the theory that homosexuality is genetic. If you don't believe that, do some research of your own using secular sources. The fact that Freke and Gandy were raised Christians proves their objectivity. They weren't looking to find evidence disproving the existence of Jesus. And if you had it all, that proves you don't need to believe in a deity. :D Besides, even if what I was talking about doesn't apply to you, there are a lot of people to whom it does apply. As for eternal life, you don't need Christianity for that, either. All you have to do to reverse the aging process is figure out how to activate the telomerase gene. By the way, have you read the third message from the top of page 5 yet?

Are my posts that much of a sockdolager for you? You almost had it right; since I had it all, I didn't feel I deeded a diety. But alas, Christ reached down and I responded because frankly, I have no problem with there being a creator. And I thank Him everyday for providing a way to Him.

Your god gene is only sophistry put on by Dr. Hamer, pseudoscience at its finest. I'm still waiting on that rape gene :lol: Besides resorting to psuedoscience, you are using a strawman, e.g., people who have the god gene are prone to be spiritual and people without the god gene can become spiritual and vice versa :lol:

We can have a theory for anything but the fact remains, there is no evidence for a gay gene. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. There being no evidence comes from secular sources although what this is suppose to mean is nonsense. The medical field is full of believers and nonbelievers, their beliefs in a diety is irrelevant. How about a murder gene?

Another strawman, "The fact that Freke and Gandy were raised Christians proves their objectivity." Very well then, the fact that countless numbers of prominent atheists have turned Christian when investigating the evidence proves their objectivity, i.e., Lee Strobel. Josh McDowell, Sir Willaim Ramsey, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Hugh Ross, etc. etc.

Strawman that it is, Christ spoke numerous times of people who thought they were His followers, i.e., Freke and Gandy. Of course I won't inform you of what Christ said since you are not able to discern clearly:

"I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,

'I will destroy human wisdom
and discard their most brilliant ideas.'

So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe. God's way seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven to prove it is true. And it is foolish to the Greeks because they believe only what agrees with their own wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended, and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the mighty power of God and the wonderful wisdom of God. This "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God's weakness is far stronger than the greatest of human strength. 1 Cor 1:18-25.

So, as you can see from the afformetioned scripture, it is a waste of time trying to reason with the close minded.

Anyway, this topic has turned into nothing more than badinage. And to that end, I will probably be finished bantering with you. I will leave my valuable free-time to those who want to explore the evidence without preconceived suppositions.

[AMbomb]

You ignored the part in my message before my last message, not my message before my message before my last message. Anyway, if you think you can find a reference to Jesus in the works of the 1st century pagan writers, go through them. As for vmat2, we're talking about tendencies here. People who have cytosine in the locale have are more prone to be spiritual than those who don't. People with or without cytosine in the locale can start out non-religious and become religious and vice versa. The gay gene hasn't been disproven though. Research supports the theory that homosexuality is genetic. If you don't believe that, do some research of your own using secular sources. The fact that Freke and Gandy were raised Christians proves their objectivity. They weren't looking to find evidence disproving the existence of Jesus. And if you had it all, that proves you don't need to believe in a deity. :D Besides, even if what I was talking about doesn't apply to you, there are a lot of people to whom it does apply. As for eternal life, you don't need Christianity for that, either. All you have to do to reverse the aging process is figure out how to activate the telomerase gene. By the way, have you read the third message from the top of page 5 yet?

Are my posts that much of a sockdolager for you? You almost had it right; since I had it all, I didn't feel I deeded a diety. But alas, Christ reached down and I responded because frankly, I have no problem with there being a creator. And I thank Him everyday for providing a way to Him.

Your god gene is only sophistry put on by Dr. Hamer, pseudoscience at its finest. I'm still waiting on that rape gene :lol: Besides resorting to psuedoscience, you are using a strawman, e.g., people who have the god gene are prone to be spiritual and people without the god gene can become spiritual and vice versa :lol:

We can have a theory for anything but the fact remains, there is no evidence for a gay gene. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. There being no evidence comes from secular sources although what this is suppose to mean is nonsense. The medical field is full of believers and nonbelievers, their beliefs in a diety is irrelevant. How about a murder gene?

Another strawman, "The fact that Freke and Gandy were raised Christians proves their objectivity." Very well then, the fact that countless numbers of prominent atheists have turned Christian when investigating the evidence proves their objectivity, i.e., Lee Strobel. Josh McDowell, Sir Willaim Ramsey, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Hugh Ross, etc. etc.

Strawman that it is, Christ spoke numerous times of people who thought they were His followers, i.e., Freke and Gandy. Of course I won't inform you of what Christ said since you are not able to discern clearly:

"I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,

'I will destroy human wisdom
and discard their most brilliant ideas.'

So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe. God's way seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven to prove it is true. And it is foolish to the Greeks because they believe only what agrees with their own wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended, and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the mighty power of God and the wonderful wisdom of God. This "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God's weakness is far stronger than the greatest of human strength. 1 Cor 1:18-25.

So, as you can see from the afformetioned scripture, it is a waste of time trying to reason with the close minded.

Anyway, this topic has turned into nothing more than badinage. And to that end, I will probably be finished bantering with you. I will leave my valuable free-time to those who want to explore the evidence without preconceived suppositions.

I'm close minded? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. There is nothing more close minded than a fundie. No matter how well reasoned an argument, no matter how much evidence is presented which contradicts your beliefs, you still continue to have them. Anyway, who we are is a result of a complex interaction between genes and environment. That much is clear. So, why is it so hard for you to believe that thing like spirituality and sexual orientation have genetic components? The difference between Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy and those other people you mentioned is that they present evidence supporting their argument. Christians can't present evidence supporting their arguments because they don't have any. Assuming they really did arrive at their conclusions objectively, they must have seen evidence where it didn't really exist. Since you refuse to respond to the third message at the top of page 5 or even to let me know if you've read it, I'll post it in this message:

Christians, let's say you were studying a religion of another planet. Now let's say that there was a story about a character in this religion. Let's say that the story takes place within the context of an actual period of this planet's history. It contains actual figures from the planet's history and events in the story can be pinpointed to specific dates in the planet's history. But, let's say it turns out that this story was actually first propogated thousands of years before it supposedly took place according to the belief of the religion you're studying. This means, of course, that if the story was true, it would've had to have come true thousands of years after it was first propogated. Would you believe that story was true or simply that it was a retelling of the original story from thousands of years earlier?

[jcr4runner]

Christians, let's say you were studying a religion of another planet. Now let's say that there was a story about a character in this religion. Let's say that the story takes place within the context of an actual period of this planet's history. It contains actual figures from the planet's history and events in the story can be pinpointed to specific dates in the planet's history. But, let's say it turns out that this story was actually first propogated thousands of years before it supposedly took place according to the belief of the religion you're studying. This means, of course, that if the story was true, it would've had to have come true thousands of years after it was first propogated. Would you believe that story was true or simply that it was a retelling of the original story from thousands of years earlier?

You want someone to say that the story could not be true because it was based on an earlier myth? Okay, I'll bite.

The more recent story was based on an earlier myth.

You think this analogy proves that the resurrection stories were borrowed from eastern pagan cults called "mystery religions.” The people who wrote the Jesus story took an earlier story and passed it on via Jesus. You think that similarities among stories told among cults and mystery religions disprove the resurrection of Jesus.

The writers of the New Testament mention the “mystery religions” — most notably, the Apostles Peter, John and Paul. What is described in their writings is Gnosticism — an eastern cult that had followers the world over at the time of the Roman Empire. At the time of Jesus, even Judaism had succumbed to the effects of the ancient mystery religions. So it is at least possible that the early Christians could have borrrowed stories from the Gnostics.

Let's say for the sake of argument that your thesis is correct. That the Gnostic stories were exactly the same in every detail as the story of Jesus -- (which I don't agree with because there are major diffferences between the Gospel and these myths).

But let's examine this thesis as if it were true.

Let's say that one or more of the Apostles may have borrowed a story from the Gnostics about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead in order to give themselves some credibility.

Here are a few problems with this thesis:

1. The Apostles were writing only a few years after the time of Jesus. Why would they have consciously borrowed from the Gnostics in order to invent a fictitious resurrection story while at the same time condemning the Gnostics' teachings?

2. In the first century, one or more of the Apostles may have invented a story about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. If the resurrection were a hoax, why would there be a growing Christian movement in the immediate years after Jesus’ death? Why would there even be an Apostle who would want to record a falsified history?

3. Many of the disciples who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection died as martyrs for their faith. Why would these people die for what they knew was a fraudulent claim?

While your thesis is possible, it is highly implausible. It simply doesn't make sense to say that Christians who were writing only a few years after the time of a falsified event were willing to go to such lengths in order to protect the integrity of the story of a man they knew never existed.

[jcr4runner]

I know you will read all of my last post and you will have various objections.

However, I really wanted to get you take on this one vital point:

If the resurrection were a hoax, why would there even be a Christian movement in the years immediately after Jesus’ death?

If Christ’s life was fiction, why would there even be an Apostle who would want to record a falsified record of Jesus’ death and resurrection as though it were factual history?

Even if I were not a committed Christian with a personal experience of salvation in Christ, this would seem far fetched to me. Obviously, they must have known a person called Jesus. They must have seen something to convince them that He really rose from the dead. Even if I were a skeptic, it would be obvious to me that at least they believed it.

[AMbomb]

I know you will read all of my last post and you will have various objections.

However, I really wanted to get you take on this one vital point:

If the resurrection were a hoax, why would there even be a Christian movement in the years immediately after Jesus’ death?

If Christ’s life was fiction, why would there even be an Apostle who would want to record a falsified record of Jesus’ death and resurrection as though it were factual history?

Even if I were not a committed Christian with a personal experience of salvation in Christ, this would seem far fetched to me. Obviously, they must have known a person called Jesus. They must have seen something to convince them that He really rose from the dead. Even if I were a skeptic, it would be obvious to me that at least they believed it.

Asking why there would be a Christian movement in the years immediately after Jesus's death assumes Jesus lived and died. The 4 gospels didn't necessarily intentionally falsify anything. It's entirely possible that they did, in fact, believe the story. But even if they did, that doesn't make it true.

[AMbomb]

Christians, let's say you were studying a religion of another planet. Now let's say that there was a story about a character in this religion. Let's say that the story takes place within the context of an actual period of this planet's history. It contains actual figures from the planet's history and events in the story can be pinpointed to specific dates in the planet's history. But, let's say it turns out that this story was actually first propogated thousands of years before it supposedly took place according to the belief of the religion you're studying. This means, of course, that if the story was true, it would've had to have come true thousands of years after it was first propogated. Would you believe that story was true or simply that it was a retelling of the original story from thousands of years earlier?

You want someone to say that the story could not be true because it was based on an earlier myth? Okay, I'll bite.

The more recent story was based on an earlier myth.

You think this analogy proves that the resurrection stories were borrowed from eastern pagan cults called "mystery religions.” The people who wrote the Jesus story took an earlier story and passed it on via Jesus. You think that similarities among stories told among cults and mystery religions disprove the resurrection of Jesus.

The writers of the New Testament mention the “mystery religions” — most notably, the Apostles Peter, John and Paul. What is described in their writings is Gnosticism — an eastern cult that had followers the world over at the time of the Roman Empire. At the time of Jesus, even Judaism had succumbed to the effects of the ancient mystery religions. So it is at least possible that the early Christians could have borrrowed stories from the Gnostics.

Let's say for the sake of argument that your thesis is correct. That the Gnostic stories were exactly the same in every detail as the story of Jesus -- (which I don't agree with because there are major diffferences between the Gospel and these myths).

But let's examine this thesis as if it were true.

Let's say that one or more of the Apostles may have borrowed a story from the Gnostics about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead in order to give themselves some credibility.

Here are a few problems with this thesis:

1. The Apostles were writing only a few years after the time of Jesus. Why would they have consciously borrowed from the Gnostics in order to invent a fictitious resurrection story while at the same time condemning the Gnostics' teachings?

2. In the first century, one or more of the Apostles may have invented a story about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. If the resurrection were a hoax, why would there be a growing Christian movement in the immediate years after Jesus’ death? Why would there even be an Apostle who would want to record a falsified history?

3. Many of the disciples who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection died as martyrs for their faith. Why would these people die for what they knew was a fraudulent claim?

While your thesis is possible, it is highly implausible. It simply doesn't make sense to say that Christians who were writing only a few years after the time of a falsified event were willing to go to such lengths in order to protect the integrity of the story of a man they knew never existed.

First of all, one of the apostles you mention, Paul, was a gnostic. He wrote the earliest known Christian documents. He could've been the founder of Christianity! Secondly, the gnostics themselves borrowed the story from earlier mystery religions. The pagan godman myths, including the Jesus myth, are all different to a small degree. But they're all basically the same story. As it's put in Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, Jesus was a new god the way the first Honda Civic was a new car. For more information on the pagan godman myths, I suggest you buy a book called The Ancient Mysteries and compare for yourself. Early Christianity had a whole bunch of different factions. They were divided into two groups: gnostics and literalists. The literalists believed the story of Jesus was literally true. They condemned the gnostics because the gnostics didn't. Jesus supposedly died between 30 and 35. There is no evidence of the existence of Christianity before the letters of Paul, written around 50. The original Christians knew there was no Jesus. So, the movement didn't initially grow because people believed there really was a Jesus who died and rose from the dead. There is no evidence supporting the Biblical claim that anyone witnessed Jesus's resurrection. Furthermore, Christians were persecuted for a total of only 4 years in the whole history of the Roman Empire, from 257-259 and from 303-305. [/b]

[jcr4runner]

How could Paul be a Gnostic when he refuted it as heresy -- in very strong terms?

You really don't know too much about the Bible except what you read in Freke's book.

[AMbomb]

How could Paul be a Gnostic when he refuted it as heresy -- in very strong terms?

You really don't know too much about the Bible except what you read in Freke's book.

Some of the writings attributed to Paul are forgeries.

[jcr4runner]

It's difficult to take you seriously. Your whole tactic is to deny what historians have believed for centuries and cling to what some oddball skeptics have written in the last few years.

There are no less than seven New Testament passges condemning Gnosticism. The Apostles could not have been Gnostics.

Gnostic views of the Godhead were opposed by Paul in his writings, by Peter in his second epistle, by the Apostle John in his writings, and by the Church Fathers and apologists.

The Apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to Timothy:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20).

It’s worth noting here that the word translated as “science,” or as “knowledge” in some translations, is the Greek word gnosis. Paul is warning his young disciple Timothy against the error of Gnosticism. Likewise, the letter to the Colossians also deals with Gnosticism.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind (Colossians 2:18).

Peter’s second epistle also warns against heresies. Many scholars believe he is referring specifically to the teachings of Gnosticism.

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).

John’s writings were written in part to counter the Gnostic error that supposed that Christ came in spirit form only, but not in human flesh.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands (1 John 1:1).

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God (1 John 4:2).

John further condemns the “mystery religions” that had corrupted first century Jews represented by the harlot in the book of Revelation.

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (Revelation 17:3,4).

Around 180 A.D., the Christian apologist, Irenaeus, wrote his great polemic, Against Heresies: The Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called, dealing with Gnostic heresies. Irenaeus makes 1,819 references to New Testament scriptures.

At about the same time, Tertullian quoted the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, 1 John and the book of Revelation in arguing against Marcion the Gnostic heretic and quotes from the New Testament 7,258 times.

[jcr4runner]

There were actually ten persecutions of Christians under ten Emperors.

1. Nero (Roman emperor AD 54–68), persecution stirred up in AD 64. In this persecution was the Apostle Paul killed and the apostle Peter crucified in Rome. This first persecution ceased under Vespasian (reigned AD 69–79).

2. Domitian (Roman emperor AD 81–96).

3. Trajan (Roman emperor AD 98–117). Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch suffered in this persecution.

4. Marcus Aurelius, his other name being Antoninus Verus (Roman emperor AD 161–180). Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, and the Christian martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, two cities in France, were martyred in this persecution.

5. Septimius Severus (Roman emperor AD 193–211). This persecution extended to northern Africa, which was a Roman province.

6. Maximinus, Gaius Julius Verus (Roman emperor AD 235–238).

7. Decius (Roman emperor AD 249–251). In this persecution was Fabian martyred; Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, forced into exile; and Origen imprisoned and tortured.

8. Valerian (Roman emperor AD 253–260).

9. Aurelian (Roman emperor AD 270–275).

10. Diocletian (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, reigned AD 284–305) and Maximian (reigned AD 285–305) governed as emperors together. Diocletian began his furious persecution against the Christians in 303.