Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Hero Pattern (Could Jesus be fake?)...

page: 12
4
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by contemplator
 


I suspected this sort of activity, it will not deterr me from seeking answers to my question(s).

It seems to me these 'attackers/derailers' think that I am attacking Christianity. I am asking a question, offering what I think to be the answer. When I ask for a equal equation from the other side of the fence, I get ramblings and off-topic remarks.

Que sera-sera I suppose. I mean, I will get all my answers when I die. Unless I cease to exist, then I guess I won't really care.




posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by StopComplaining
Stone is dropped, falls to the ground.
Stone is dropped, falls to the ground.
Stone is dropped, falls to the ground.

Therefore gravity is real.

Why do you not apply this rule to history.

I.E. something happens over and over again, therefore it does not exist?


I am afraid you have lost me here, If you mean that the 'hero pattern' is real because it is repeated through history then I can see your point.

Your equation is a bit basic though, in my opinon of course. When we see that the stone, after dropped, falls to the ground. The only safe assumption we can make is that when the stone is released it falls.

While it is gravity which causes the action of falling, doesn't mean we know what it (gravity) is. Which is my point with Jesus, just because there is a book with writings about him does not mean he existed, all it means is that there is a book with writings about him.

The hero pattern (etc) is my 'proof' for my stance.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


I believe that you may have misunderstood me. In your post you set up (or reference from 'The Hero: A Study in Myth and Tradition') a very specific chronology.

8) What foster parents? Are you referring to Joseph? His mother was Mary and correct me if I'm wrong, but she was with him.

9) There are many, many tales of his childhood. Most are not accepted by the orthodoxy, but they are out there and extremely popular (and becoming more so).

11) What victory over Satan are you referring to?

13) He does not 'become' King. There was no coronation, no change in status.

14) Where did he reign? Who did he reign over?

It seems that you are finding what you want to find.

By the way, what specific church were you referring to when discussing the adherence to the gnostic gospels?

Eric



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by EricD
reply to post by adigregorio
 


I believe that you may have misunderstood me. In your post you set up (or reference from 'The Hero: A Study in Myth and Tradition') a very specific chronology.

8) What foster parents? Are you referring to Joseph? His mother was Mary and correct me if I'm wrong, but she was with him.


Here is the scale I gave Jesus, I never gave him #8


(1) His mother was a virgin. His father was (2) god (also referred to as Lord (aka king)). He was (4) born of immaculate conception. Again his father is (5) god, or Jehova. King Herod heard of this "savior" and (6) attempted to have him killed. (7) He is spirited away. (9) We are told nothing of his childhood. (10) But when he hits manhood he returns to his future kingdom. (11) After a victory over Satan, he becomes (13) "king of the Jews". (14) For a time he reigns uneventfully, (15) and prescribes laws. However, (16) he loses favor with the Jews, and is (17) driven from his throne as king of the jews. He (18) meets with a mysterious death, (19) on top of a hill. (20) He has no children to succeed him. (21) His body is never buried, and (22) he has holy sepulchres.



Originally posted by EricD
9) There are many, many tales of his childhood. Most are not accepted by the orthodoxy, but they are out there and extremely popular (and becoming more so).


Weasel words are not evidence, wiki link on weasel words: Weasel Words

Many, many tales? How many? What tales?

Most are not accepted... Most? More than 51%? How much more?

Like I said, I am going to give him number nine based on this argument. If you have a better defense against number 9, I am open to hear it.


Originally posted by EricD
11) What victory over Satan are you referring to?


How about the one where he gets the keys to hell? Or the one where he is in the wilderness and is tempted over and over again (refusing each time.)? Do you know the story of Jesus?


Originally posted by EricD
13) He does not 'become' King. There was no coronation, no change in status.


That is your opinion, nothing more.

Edit--His status changed from carpenter to King of the Jews. And you do not need a coronation to become a king.--Edit


Originally posted by EricD
14) Where did he reign? Who did he reign over?

Umm, I would imagine that the "King of the Jews" would have reigned in Jerusalem, over the Jews.


Originally posted by EricD
By the way, what specific church were you referring to when discussing the adherence to the gnostic gospels?


Take your pick of any 'main stream' denominations.

Lastly, I gave you the benifit of the doubt before. If you want to contribute to the thread, maybe you should exersize your reading comprehension skills. I have answered those questions throughout the thread.

[edit on 6/8/2009 by adigregorio]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by contemplator
adigregorio don't bother. The christians rule this site and are already well into derailing your thread just as they derail and shut down any thread that puts their cult in a negative light. Their tactic is relentless bombardment until the OP or other posters give up and leave. Kind of like a filibuster against reason.


Really? I thought that my replies and questions were reasoned and reasonable and I'm a Christian.

How on earth is anyone shutting down the thread? Take a look at how many threads there are that parallel this theme and ask yourself again if the Christians rule this site.

Eric



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


For someone that likes to use the term ‘weasel words’ you seem to be very short on specificity.

The three main texts of interest on the early years of Jesus are the Infancy Gospel of James, the Gospel of the Infancy, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. They, in conjunction with other apocrypha, are entitled the Infancy Gospels. In them you will find numerous tales of the childhood of Christ.

Is that specific enough for you?

Speaking of specificity, can you please provide a source for receiving the keys to hell? And refusing temptation is a rather placid victory over a dragon, wouldn’t you say? The Christian belief of Christ’s victory over Satan is that it comes in the end times.

You are providing a very clear timeline. He is victorious over a dragon (Satan) and then becomes king. Can you please provide a reference for that sequence? Please, no weasel words.

You claim that it is believed that he reigned in Jerusalem over the Jews. Can you provide a source for that? Again, specific references and citing would be appreciated.

What is a ‘main stream denomination’? How many people who claim to be Christians belong to such groups as opposed to those that don’t? How many ‘main stream denominations’ refute the apocryphal texts? Please, no weasel words.

Lastly, I gave you the benefit of the doubt on actually reading what I wrote. If you want to reply to my posts you may want to work on your reading comprehension skills. I quite clearly said that I hadn’t read through the thread.

Eric



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by EricD
reply to post by adigregorio
 

The three main texts of interest on the early years of Jesus are the Infancy Gospel of James, the Gospel of the Infancy, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. They, in conjunction with other apocrypha, are entitled the Infancy Gospels. In them you will find numerous tales of the childhood of Christ.


So those three texts are taught as common? They are included in the canon which is held as the core rule book? They are taught to the little kids in Sunday school? ....didn't think so.

We are told nothing of his childhood.

Let's assume you 'win' on point 9. Well that is one down, what about the rest? Seems kinda funny you are putting all this effort into one number on a multi point scale. Oh, and what part of I will not accept that as an argument against #9 did you not see?


Originally posted by EricD
Speaking of specificity, can you please provide a source for receiving the keys to hell? And refusing temptation is a rather placid victory over a dragon, wouldn’t you say? The Christian belief of Christ’s victory over Satan is that it comes in the end times.


2 parts to this response

1: The source to the 'keys to hell' is the bible. I do not know the specific verses, but if you persist I will pull them out. I am really suprised you are not familliar with them, perhaps you should read the bible? Then you would be able to contribute fully to this thread.

2: So you say Satan was never reffered to as a Dragon!

Attn: All readers, EricD is saying that Satan was not a dragon, nor a wild beast. And that Jesus never ever defeated him. Which is fine, adds creedence to the fact that Jesus was not who is portrayed in the Bible (Thanks!)


Originally posted by EricD
You are providing a very clear timeline. He is victorious over a dragon (Satan) and then becomes king. Can you please provide a reference for that sequence? Please, no weasel words.


Like I have said, tis in the bible. Since it is obvious you are trying to 'win' this debate I refuse to post the exact scriptures. They are in there, and there are plenty of Christians who HAVE read the Bible. Those Christians are the ones I was hoping to have a discussion with.


Originally posted by EricD
You claim that it is believed that he reigned in Jerusalem over the Jews. Can you provide a source for that? Again, specific references and citing would be appreciated.


You don't even read posts I have already made on this page!! Someone needs to learn how to read.

Well it is obvious you have come in here to pollute this thread. You have no intention of discussion, you are grasping at straws trying to make it look like I do not know what I am typing about. Well, I am afraid that is a futile attempt.

You, like others before you, will not 'win' since 'winning' is impossible in a debate. (By winning I mean, switching your opponents position)

Perhaps you should be less bias? Just because I do not believe Jesus was a 'savior' does not mean I am 'evil'. And just because you think you need a coronation to be king, doesn't mean that you do.

Read the Bible, then you will have enough info to contribute properly to this thread, otherwise it is just ignorance put to text.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


There is a huge difference between judging and stating an observation.

And unless you are "guilty" of acting like a baby, then quit claiming the shoe fits, Cinderella.

It appears you are here to showboat - not really interested in a debate or discussion, rather thriving on people's posts so you can repost them and then pick them apart with your "mentality".
So you can have the post, my friend - I prefer intelligent conversation.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


This is getting ridiculous. You accused me of using weasel words in my referencing the Infancy Gospels. I go and get you specific information on them and then you wonder why I'm doing so. Well, maybe it's because you asked for specifics?

You seem to be a stickler for specificity and give no references to the keys of hell even after being asked for them.

You decry the lack of reading comprehension in others and then claim that I said that Satan is not referred to as a dragon or wild beast (please note that I said neither).

You continuously ignore the fact that the listing of 'criteria' aren't isolated points, but follow a specific chronology, which then invalidates the inclusion of Jesus in your pattern.

Your thesis is flawed, your argumentative is poor and your ascribing motives to other posters is just silly. Your reasoning doesn't even measure up to the level of specious.

You don't offer any citations or specifics to back up your assertions and then lambaste the same in others.

You lament the lack of attention your thread receives and 'bump' it to get more attention and then accuse people who are attempting to have a reasoned discussion of polluting the thread.

It's becoming clear that this thread is an exercise in mental onanism where you hope to espouse your theories without discussion or refutation. Sorry, that's not going to happen on an open forum.

Eric


[edit on 8-6-2009 by EricD]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by EricD
reply to post by adigregorio
 


....I go and get you specific information on them and then you wonder why I'm doing so. Well, maybe it's because you asked for specifics?


I apologize! I misunderstood what was being typed, I thought you were continuing against my stance of "We are told nothing of his childhood" Not being more 'specific' about a previous post.


Originally posted by EricD
You seem to be a stickler for specificity and give no references to the keys of hell even after being asked for them.


First, I told you where I got it from 'The Bible'. Second, here is the scripture:


Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.



Originally posted by EricD
You decry the lack of reading comprehension in others and then claim that I said that Satan is not referred to as a dragon or wild beast (please note that I said neither).


Originally posted by EricD
Also, upon reading your recap; your trying to shoehorn Jesus into #’s 11, 13, 14 and 15 seem spurious at best and if you accept the possible legitimacy of the Gnostic gospels then # 9 is also thrown into doubt.



11: After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast


Now you never came out and said it, but 'hinting' it is just as bad (imo). I asked if that was your stance and was ignored (until now). Of course, the reader(s) will know that by now.


Originally posted by EricD
You continuously ignore the fact that the listing of 'criteria' aren't isolated points, but follow a specific chronology, which then invalidates the inclusion of Jesus in your pattern.


This is semantics, a popular past time of debators here apparently. It does not invalidate Jesus if it is considered chronological. Stating a claim, does not make it fact. Again, the people following the discussion already know this.


Originally posted by EricD
Your thesis is flawed, your argumentative is poor and your ascribing motives to other posters is just silly. Your reasoning doesn't even measure up to the level of specious.


And you like to insult, I knew you would when your run-a-rounding wouldn't work. Even a previous poster fortold this. And it is not "my" thesis, it is Lord Raglans. He did not include Jesus in the book due to a problem with the publisher.


Originally posted by EricD
You don't offer any citations or specifics to back up your assertions and then lambaste the same in others.


Well I have offered my 'citations' that back up the current assertion. I suspect crickets will be the response, since your 'smoking gun' (ie lack of keys to hell) turned out to be not so smokey.


Anyways, keep up the big words. It sure shows that you know more words than I do!

PS If you are resorting to insults, perhaps this discussion is not for you?


vic⋅to⋅ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.
2. an engagement ending in such triumph: American victories in the Pacific were won at great cost.
3. the ultimate and decisive superiority in any battle or contest: The new vaccine effected a victory over poliomyelitis.
4. a success or superior position achieved against any opponent, opposition, difficulty, etc.: a moral victory.
5. (initial capital letter) the ancient Roman goddess Victoria, often represented in statues or on coins as the personification of victory.

Source


So yes, the hero had a victory over Satan. And, unless someone says otherwise, Satan is a Dragon or 'Wild Beast'.

11 is still going strong.


EDIT-BBCode
EDIT2-More BBCode
EDIT3-Victory Definition

[edit on 6/11/2009 by adigregorio]

[edit on 6/11/2009 by adigregorio]

[edit on 6/11/2009 by adigregorio]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Late arrival, haven't read all 12 pages yet. Let me see if I understand this. For a figure to be a hero, in tradition, myth, or drama, the story surrounding the figure must/should/tends to bear many of these 22 features, as proposed by Lord Raglan, many/all of which apply quite readily to the story of Jesus. From this we debate the question of whether the authors intended to write fiction or non-fiction.

So, does this dichotomy hold, that either the authors of his story wrote a work of fiction according to some common pattern, or Jesus is/was a real hero, and his story would naturally meet any reasonable criterion for heroism? This seems like a fairly inert topic, as anyone who "believes in Jesus" would have no problem believing the latter, and anyone who does not "believe in Jesus" could study the details of his story dispassionately and believe whatever makes the most sense from available data.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
You've encountered something important here.

Look into Horus, Mitras, Krishna, Beowulf and Harry Potter too. all the same story, with varying degrees of departure from consensus reality.



An important concept in esoteric study hinges on the understanding that all of history's great heroes have been retreads of a single story: lack of factual reality does not deprive something of power. Even if these fictional characters are only symbolic, they serve as fulcrums against which the ponderous might of the human Will can be turned to great achievements.

We need our lies, because they help us understand what the truth should be.



excellent research, and great thread.


The important thing to remember that when one is studying the esoteric and exoteric history of religion AKA the mystery school religions, what one is actulaly doing is studying luciferian satanism. Which the exact same religion as the illluminati. The study of such things is experiencing a revival on a grand scale and it is turning out deluded religious zealots on the internet of epic proprotion. I wonder why that is???



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


The stories in popular culture were taken centuries ago every 2050 years or so, another "hero" rises in desperate times.

We are in desperate time, but I'm not waiting for a hero to save us, we can save ourselves, destiny is in our hands.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join