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

reply to post by adigregorio


I guess the real proof is in the millions of changed lives and testimonies of other Christians. You can nit pick history all you want and always find something to complain about I suppose, but then you have to believe all these millions of Christians are delusional. My biggest problem wasn't all the issues about history or theology, it really was the fact I didn't want to follow the rules. I waned to sin and not feel bad about it, I wasn't being honest with myself.

I had to give it a chance and put some of my questions aside for a while. I made a decision to accept Christ. As I pray and study, more is revealed. I remember how I was a lot like you when I made a decision, faith grows and so does knowledge. I have learned from answering your questions. I can see God at work in my life, that's all the proof I really need anymore. At the very least I glad you' came to the conclusion Jesus was a real person.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by adigregorio

 

...but then you have to believe all these millions of Christians are delusional...

I do not believe that anyone, let alone Christians, are delusional. They follow their beliefs, like many other humans (including myself).

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
My biggest problem wasn't all the issues about history or theology, it really was the fact I didn't want to follow the rules. I waned to sin and not feel bad about it, I wasn't being honest with myself.

This is one problem I have. What is "right" to one person, is "wrong" to another. What is a "sin" to one person is not to another. What is "good" to one person is "bad" to another. So my belief is that nothing is good/bad, right/wrong. Things are just things, nothing more nothing less. Applying human qualities to things that are not human is a common practice. A practice, I believe, that is used too often. Who am I to say that is wrong/right? I much prefer to say, is wrong/right for me. For I only know what is beneficial for me, no one else. This is a whole different topic though, and not one I want to go into at this time.

I am glad that you have all the proof you require to believe. But many of us do not, and I think if my questions were answered that it would solidify mine/others beliefs regarding this subject. Whether it be, "We found historical documents from eye witnesses, Jesus was real!" or "We found historical documents from eye witnesses, Jesus was a fraud!" I am sure that some of us would stop teetering on the fence and choose a side. While my side, being already chosen, would either become more secure, or switch entirely.

So I pose the questions to others on the site:

--Pulled out of various posts I made earlier in this thread

Given this pattern, does it not seem a little suspicious that "Jesus" has 19 out of 20?

Why did the church(es) make their "leading men" (ie saviors, founders, etc) so close to other "heroes"?

And what makes the other "heroes" false, when the current ones are not?

Some of the traditional "heroes" come ages before our current ones, is it not possible that the current "heroes" are not just the previous ones reincarnated?

However, where did the gospels get their "proof" (for lack of a better word) on Jesus' life?

Since I was directed to the link in AshleyD's signature, what are the thoughts on my responses? And do we have any non-hearsay proof?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I guess the real proof is in the millions of changed lives and testimonies of other Christians.

Unfortunately, all of these will still fall under hearsay.

www.dictionary.com...

hear·say /ˈhɪərˌseɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[heer-sey] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
–adjective
3. of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.

Hiya,

Originally posted by adigregorio
So you are saying the the "carpenter" is the X to his mothers Y? Or, the person who had intercourse with his mother to conceive Jesus?

There are two possibilities for Jesus' "father" :
1. The Holy Spirit
2. Joseph.

Neither was a King.

And I was taught for many years that "God" was indeed a king.

You were taught wrong.
A God is not a King.
They are different concepts.

Again, are you saying that these gospels are in many of the churches? If not, how many people actually know of these gospels? And omitting those gospels, one "tale" about a 12 year old is hardly an entire childhood.

You claimed we were told nothing about his childhood.
But we ARE told some stories of his childhood.
Your claim is false.

Originally posted by adigregorioAgain, he is referred to as "King of the Jews" many times. Pilot tells the Jews, here is your king (or something to that effect)

So what?
Being CALLED a "King" does not make you a King.
Is Elvis a King?
No.

The Jews did NOT recognise Jesus as their King.
Not then, not since, not now.
Jesus was NOT King of the Jews.

Really? Then how is it that he prescribed laws for the people to follow?

This is nonsense. He prescribed no laws. He did not reign.
You are playing silly word games to stretch words far beyond theior meaning.

If he was not in a "ruling" position he would have been laughed at.

He was not in a ruling position. He ruled no one.
He WAS laughed at and rejected by the Jews.

Mate - do you actually KNOW the story of Jesus?
It doesn't look like it.

No, he never had a physical throne. But he was driven from his "seat of power" which would imply a throne metaphorically, at least in my interpretation.

Your interpretaion is nothing more than silly words games. He never reigned. He never sat on any throne.

If a "seat of power" is a throne, then almost ANY person can be said to have reigned.

Ahhh, so he was buried, as in covered up, in a tomb? I always thought he was wrapped up and placed in a tomb. Of course the dictionary.com definition says being in a tomb signifies burial. So I will give you this one, he is down to 18/22.

So, you didn't bother to, like, CHECK the facts first?

So far by my count only one is incorrect, and that is because of a semantics issue. Which is how you attempted to discount the others I mentioned.

Semantics? Nonsense.
It's YOU playing silly word games to try and make words mean something OTHER than what they really mean.

JC was not born on that date according to what I have looked into. It was the pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice, and was adopted by the church as the date of their saviors birth. If you would like I can hunt down some research on this, but I do not think it is on topic so I would send it via u2u.

You missed the point. I am not talking about when Jesus was allegedly born.

I am referring to the many false claims in Zeitgeist, including the false claims about Mithra and Krishna (and more) being born on Dec. 25th.



[edit] Upon further reflection I take back that point, he was called into heaven after rising from the dead! So there goes his burial! (19/22)

What nonsense.
He WAS buried (according to the Christian story) - Christian writers specifically use the word "buried".

Whatever happened later (according to the Christian story) doesn't change that he WAS buried (according to the Christian story.)


Your "interpretation" is full of holes. You are making stuff up to make it fit.


Iasion

Hiya,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
If Jesus was a myth. Why would so many men lay down their lives for him?

People die for false beliefs all the time.
Suicide bombers do.
Heaven's Gate cult did.
Jehovah's Witnesses did.

So what?
It means nothing about the truth of their BELIEFS.

Men who were his contemporaries.

False.
According to modern NT scholars, NOT ONE single book of the NT was written by anyone who ever met any Jesus.

Not one.
Of course, faithful believers are the last to know the facts about the NT.

A man might give his life for the truth but seldom for a lie.

No-one said they died for a lie.
Please pay attention.

People may have died for false beliefs.
So what?
It happens all the time.

And most were tortured and never recanted.

Nonsense.
The martyr stories are legends from long afterwards.
But, there is no actual EVIDENCE.

Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethopia, killed by a sword wound.

These are merely the faithful beliefs that faithful believers faithfully believe. There is no actual EVIDENCE.

Peter,was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross, according to Church tradition, because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die the same way that Jesus Christ had died.

According to "church tradition".
What exactly is "church tradition"?
It means stories with no basis in fact.

So,
where exactly is this story of Peter recorded, hmm?

In the Gospel of Peter !
A book REJECTED by the church!

Here we see the hypocrisy of believers.
They are happy to accept a story from a book they claim is FALSE - if it supports their beliefs !

Iasion

[edit on 24-2-2008 by Iasion]

To get back on your topic per your request. Here is a following breakdown.

Originally posted by adigregorio
1: The Hero's mother is a royal virgin

We believe Mary was a virgin and of royal lineage. But she was not royalty, as in part of Herod's dynasty. She was only a commoner. In order to find a similarity we would also need to take it upon the loosest correlation possible which would make the whole thing almost worthless. And can you cite me some specific examples preceding Jesus who claim to be born of a virgin? A virgin in the literal sense of the word: A woman who is explicitly described as never having sexual relations with a man and who conceived immaculately without her heyman being broken?

2: His father is a king, and
3: Often a near relative of his mother, but

This one makes no sense. If we are considering it to be Joseph as the stepfather/father, then he was not a king although he was a near distant (not near) relative of Mary. If we are considering God as His father, then He would be seen as a king but not of any physical relation. If we are considering David, then he is an earthly king but of very distant relation.

4: The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5: He is also reputed to be the son of a god.

"Unusual" is too loose to be an amazing coincidence. Many conceptions could be described as "unusual" for literally millions of reasons.

6: At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but

Well, Herod was not his father, grandfather, or of any relation at all. Herod wasn't even fully (if at all) Jewish. Again, we're left taking the loosest correlation possible and left with "he was in danger at birth."

7: He his spirited away, and
8: Reared by foster-parents in a far country.

Neither Joseph or Mary were his 'foster parents.' Mary was His biological mother and Joseph was his stepfather.

9: We are told nothing of his childhood

We're told a little bit about Jesus' childhood in the canonical Gospels and quite a bit in apocryphal, pseudographical, and spurious texts. We just don't consider the sources inspired.

10: On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11: After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast

Jesus kingdom was 'not of this earth' and he achieved a spiritual 'victory over death." Nothing really of the two above except by the loosest definitions once again.

12: He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor, and
13: Becomes king.

We know #12 if false on both accounts and He was never a king of any kingdom. His kingdom and kingship has not yet occurred on earth.

14: For a time he reigns uneventfully

Jesus never reigned. Why do you think the Jews rejected Him? Because He came as a suffering servant.

15: Prescribes laws, but
16: Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17: Is driven from the throne and city, after which

1) Jesus fulfilled the law- he did not create new ones.
2) Jesus never had a thrown to be driven from.

18: He meets with a mysterious death,
19: Often at the top of a hill.
20: His children, if any, do not succeed him.
21: His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22: He has one or more holy sepulchres.

His death in itself was not mysterious, descendants do not apply, His body was buried, and we don't know if the sepulcher is the actual site.

And now I am exhausted. Hopefully someone will bother reading all of that. For comparison, see THIS comment from me to see just how easy it is to find similarities between anything.

So, we have historical documents from Christian, Jewish, and secular sources showing Jesus existed. We have historical sites that are associated with His existence. We have dissected the "hero" pattern to show many such things are without merit. We can look at the lives of the apostles how they died defending what they claimed about Jesus. Comparisons to other figures. Breaking down the myths of others for accuracy/inaccuracy.

The end.

BUT... I want to say this is a good thread. You and I will not see eye to eye on this subject, obviously, but that is how the arguments break down. In my opinion, this objection will have been completely refuted and anyone who is not willing to acknowledge it is being purposely dense but as the header on the top of this forum states:

Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

In conclusion, I've enjoyed our discussion. Even though we may not agree, we kept it respectful and stayed the course.

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by adigregorio
So you are saying the the "carpenter" is the X to his mothers Y? Or, the person who had intercourse with his mother to conceive Jesus?

There are two possibilities for Jesus' "father" :
1. The Holy Spirit
2. Joseph.

Neither was a King.

As I was taught, "God" was the father of Jesus. Actually, Jesus referred to that god as his father on several occasions. In that one story of his schooling of the scholars he said "I am about my fathers business". And it is rather apparent he wasn't making anything out of wood.

Originally posted by Iasion

And I was taught for many years that "God" was indeed a king.

You were taught wrong.
A God is not a King.
They are different concepts.

In many cases a god is not a king. In this case however this "God" is referred to as a king. And the two concepts are not as different as you think. Ancient Egyptians viewed the Pharaoh as a god. (by the way, Pharaoh is the Egyptian equivalent to a king)

Originally posted by Iasion

Again, are you saying that these gospels are in many of the churches? If not, how many people actually know of these gospels? And omitting those gospels, one "tale" about a 12 year old is hardly an entire childhood.

You claimed we were told nothing about his childhood.
But we ARE told some stories of his childhood.
Your claim is false.

One story of one event is not a CHILDHOOD. I sprained my ankle when I was 10 years old. I guess you know all about my childhood now.

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by adigregorioAgain, he is referred to as "King of the Jews" many times. Pilot tells the Jews, here is your king (or something to that effect)

So what?
Being CALLED a "King" does not make you a King.
Is Elvis a King?
No.

The Jews did NOT recognise Jesus as their King.
Not then, not since, not now.
Jesus was NOT King of the Jews.

This reminds me of "Monty Python's Holy Grail"

"Who are the Britons?"
"You are, we are all Britons, and I am your king"
"Well I didn't vote for you"

Just because you do not think he was a king does not mean he wasn't referenced as a king.

Originally posted by Iasion

Really? Then how is it that he prescribed laws for the people to follow?

This is nonsense. He prescribed no laws. He did not reign.
You are playing silly word games to stretch words far beyond theior meaning.

He did prescribe laws. Have you even read the Bible? If this was a false statement the others that have been debating me would have said so.

Originally posted by Iasion

If he was not in a "ruling" position he would have been laughed at.

He was not in a ruling position. He ruled no one.
He WAS laughed at and rejected by the Jews.

Mate - do you actually KNOW the story of Jesus?
It doesn't look like it.

He was believed by far more than who laughed. And it would seem I know much more than you do about the story of Jesus. The only thing you have been doing in this thread is saying "You're wrong" and trying back handed insults at my intelligence.

Originally posted by Iasion

No, he never had a physical throne. But he was driven from his "seat of power" which would imply a throne metaphorically, at least in my interpretation.

Your interpretaion is nothing more than silly words games. He never reigned. He never sat on any throne.

If a "seat of power" is a throne, then almost ANY person can be said to have reigned.

You really want to make this about literal meaning! If that is the case, we can look over the Bible again literally. I am sure there will be MANY more holes in it than just the story of Jesus.

Originally posted by Iasion

Ahhh, so he was buried, as in covered up, in a tomb? I always thought he was wrapped up and placed in a tomb. Of course the dictionary.com definition says being in a tomb signifies burial. So I will give you this one, he is down to 18/22.

So, you didn't bother to, like, CHECK the facts first?

What exactly is "like checking the facts"? I checked the facts, but I didn't like check them. I knew he was put into a tomb, I just didn't realize that signified burial. My dog doesn't put bones in little tombs in my backyard. He covers them in dirt.

Originally posted by Iasion

So far by my count only one is incorrect, and that is because of a semantics issue. Which is how you attempted to discount the others I mentioned.

Semantics? Nonsense.
It's YOU playing silly word games to try and make words mean something OTHER than what they really mean.

I am not playing silly word games, and if you suggest that again I will have to call it an insult.

Originally posted by Iasion

[edit] Upon further reflection I take back that point, he was called into heaven after rising from the dead! So there goes his burial! (19/22)

What nonsense.
He WAS buried (according to the Christian story) - Christian writers specifically use the word "buried".

Whatever happened later (according to the Christian story) doesn't change that he WAS buried (according to the Christian story.)

So you are saying that he did not "rise from the dead"? Or that he did rise, but is still sitting inside a dank tomb somewhere? If he is not in the tomb he is NOT buried.

Originally posted by Iasion
Your "interpretation" is full of holes. You are making stuff up to make it fit.

I disagree with this statement, but you are free to your opinions.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by adigregorio
1: The Hero's mother is a royal virgin

...And can you cite me some specific examples preceding Jesus who claim to be born of a virgin? A virgin in the literal sense of the word: A woman who is explicitly described as never having sexual relations with a man and who conceived immaculately without her heyman being broken?

Hercales, that is the first one that comes to mind. Of course his mother might have had intercourse with Zeus, I do not remember the story all to well. In any case, Jesus is the one I am debating here. I will look for some linkage, but I am not going to put too much time into it. This thread is on if Jesus could be fake, not who is like Jesus.

2: His father is a king, and
3: Often a near relative of his mother, but

This one makes no sense. If we are considering it to be Joseph as the stepfather/father, then he was not a king although he was a near distant (not near) relative of Mary. If we are considering God as His father, then He would be seen as a king but not of any physical relation. If we are considering David, then he is an earthly king but of very distant relation.


"God" is who Jesus' father was. Joseph is who raised Jesus. Another poster said above that "God" was not a king. It was not what I was taught at every church I attended.

And again I say Jesus said he was about his fathers business. And since he wasn't whittling, I would assume he was talking about "God" and not Joseph. So Jesus saw that "God" was a physical relation.

Originally posted by AshleyD

4: The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5: He is also reputed to be the son of a god.

"Unusual" is too loose to be an amazing coincidence. Many conceptions could be described as "unusual" for literally millions of reasons.

So because it was "amazing" that makes it not unusual? I would think it would become both. Unusual because it was amazing.

Originally posted by AshleyD

6: At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but

Well, Herod was not his father, grandfather, or of any relation at all. Herod wasn't even fully (if at all) Jewish. Again, we're left taking the loosest correlation possible and left with "he was in danger at birth."

6: At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but

Doesn't have to be a father or grandfather. Just usually is.

Originally posted by AshleyD

7: He his spirited away, and
8: Reared by foster-parents in a far country.

Neither Joseph or Mary were his 'foster parents.' Mary was His biological mother and Joseph was his stepfather.

He was spirited away from being killed by Herod. And I never gave Jesus #8 so we are in agreement there.

Originally posted by AshleyD

9: We are told nothing of his childhood

We're told a little bit about Jesus' childhood in the canonical Gospels and quite a bit in apocryphal, pseudographical, and spurious texts. We just don't consider the sources inspired.

Well I am not sure what you mean by inspired. But again, every church I have been to knows none of these other texts. At least not the general mass. "We" would imply the general public. "We" don't know if UFO's are real. Someone at NASA might, so now my statement is false?

Originally posted by AshleyD

10: On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11: After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast

Jesus kingdom was 'not of this earth' and he achieved a spiritual 'victory over death." Nothing really of the two above except by the loosest definitions once again.

10: So he never went to Jerusalem, where he lived until he died? It did not say he went to the kingdom he ruled.
11: Satan did not tempt him, to which he won over those temptaitions? Defeating Satan.

Originally posted by AshleyD

12: He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor, and
13: Becomes king.

We know #12 if false on both accounts and He was never a king of any kingdom. His kingdom and kingship has not yet occurred on earth.

Again I never gave Jesus #12, did you read his hero pattern? Second post in the thread, at the bottom.
And he was never referred to as king of the Jews?

Originally posted by AshleyD

14: For a time he reigns uneventfully

Jesus never reigned. Why do you think the Jews rejected Him? Because He came as a suffering servant.

How does one have apostles that follow and believe in everything ones says, and not consider that reigning. No, he never sat on a throne with many servants and subjects. Well unless you count all the people that followed him.

Originally posted by AshleyD

15: Prescribes laws, but
16: Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17: Is driven from the throne and city, after which

1) Jesus fulfilled the law- he did not create new ones.
2) Jesus never had a thrown to be driven from.

So then I can still get into heaven if I do not accept him as my Savior? (That seems like a new law to me)
And as I stated in an above post, he was driven from his seat of power. His metaphorical throne.

Originally posted by AshleyD

18: He meets with a mysterious death,
19: Often at the top of a hill.
20: His children, if any, do not succeed him.
21: His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22: He has one or more holy sepulchres.

His death in itself was not mysterious, descendants do not apply, His body was buried, and we don't know if the sepulcher is the actual site.

How was his death not mysterious, he didn't die! He rose into heaven. His children, if any, do not succeed him. His body rose into heaven, so it is NOT BURIED. And 22 says nothing about the actual site, just that he has one or more.

So, we have historical documents from Christian, Jewish, and secular sources showing Jesus existed.

What non-hearsay documents do "we" have? I have yet to see one.

Originally posted by adigregorio
This thread is on if Jesus could be fake, not who is like Jesus.

But you see, if you want to establish the theory Jesus was taken from a pattern then you also need to prove a pattern even exists. This would mean showing there were indeed other hero figures born of a technical virgin who fit the pattern.

"God" is who Jesus' father was. Joseph is who raised Jesus. Another poster said above that "God" was not a king. It was not what I was taught at every church I attended.

Then my previous answer still stands because I covered all bases of Joseph, God, and David. None fit the pattern very well.

So because it was "amazing" that makes it not unusual? I would think it would become both. Unusual because it was amazing.

No, I'm saying we could make just about every human's birth seem "unusual" if you tried hard enough. Now, if the hero pattern was saying two dozen other mythical heroes would be born in Bethlehem, in a manger, during a national census, of a virgin, seeded by God, etc., then I would be tongue tied.

Well I am not sure what you mean by inspired. But again, every church I have been to knows none of these other texts. At least not the general mass. "We" would imply the general public. "We" don't know if UFO's are real. Someone at NASA might, so now my statement is false?

Inspired as being guided by the Holy Spirit, written by eye witnesses to the events, accepted as cannon, etc. They do exist but we consider them bumpkus.

10: So he never went to Jerusalem, where he lived until he died? It did not say he went to the kingdom he ruled.
11: Satan did not tempt him, to which he won over those temptaitions? Defeating Satan.

That is what I am getting at: the loosest definitions possible. He did not 'rule a kingdom' or 'battle a beast.' We have to really make some wiggle room for the pattern to fit.

So then I can still get into heaven if I do not accept him as my Savior? (That seems like a new law to me)
And as I stated in an above post, he was driven from his seat of power. His metaphorical throne.

But was it still anything new technically? No. The Jews knew their Messiah was coming and through Him all things would be made right. He only confirmed it.

How was his death not mysterious, he didn't die! He rose into heaven.

He rose into Heaven after He died. Died, is the word of focus.

What non-hearsay documents do "we" have? I have yet to see one.

The Gospels.

Originally posted by AshleyD
But you see, if you want to establish the theory Jesus was taken from a pattern then you also need to prove a pattern even exists. This would mean showing there were indeed other hero figures born of a technical virgin who fit the pattern.

Fair enough, I will start my research on the other "heroes" listed in the book. It does not go into great detail on any specific hero so this one may take some time.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Then my previous answer still stands because I covered all bases of Joseph, God, and David. None fit the pattern very well.

So Jesus never referred to "God" as his father? And "God" was also never referred to as a king?

Originally posted by AshleyD
No, I'm saying we could make just about every human's birth seem "unusual" if you tried hard enough.

True, but every human was not born of a virgin. That in and of itself is "unusual". Hardly a stretch of the word.

Originally posted by AshleyD
That is what I am getting at: the loosest definitions possible. He did not 'rule a kingdom' or 'battle a beast.' We have to really make some wiggle room for the pattern to fit.

The pattern did not say he had to rule the kingdom he returned to. And the devil/Satan has never been referred to as a "beast"? Also note, humans are beasts as well. So are any other animal.

Originally posted by AshleyD

So then I can still get into heaven if I do not accept him as my Savior? (That seems like a new law to me)
And as I stated in an above post, he was driven from his seat of power. His metaphorical throne.

But was it still anything new technically? No. The Jews knew their Messiah was coming and through Him all things would be made right. He only confirmed it.

Can you find in the OT, or Torah, where it says that they may only enter heaven upon acceptance of their Messiah? It was a new law, to my knowledge.

Originally posted by AshleyD
He rose into Heaven after He died. Died, is the word of focus.

So he was dead when he rose into heaven? To sit at the right hand of his father. Which, by the way, was not Joseph. Unless Joseph has the main seat in heaven.

Originally posted by AshleyD

What non-hearsay documents do "we" have? I have yet to see one.

The Gospels.

Those were written after his death, the human memory is not something that gets better with age. And I have yet to see any "proof" that the writers of the gospels were present for any of Jesus' life. They were not even listed in your signatures link. The link that was supposed to contain non-hearsay evidence. And remember allegorical literature was a big fad during the days of the gospels, it is quite possible that the gospels are a form of allegory.

Also, about Jesus being a king. Why was he crucified with a crown of thorns on his head? Perhaps a mockery of his kingly status? If it was a mockery, why would they mock someone who was not considered a king?

It really seems that straws are being grasped. Saying that the points are sketchy, why are they not as sketchy for the other "heroes"? I still have yet to see anything that would show that Jesus was not another hero. All I see is others trying to dispute the point scale.

"Dictionary of Classical Mythology"

...In order to thwart the prediction, Acrisius had an underground room built of bronze, where he kept Danae under guard, but this did not prevent Danae from being seduced. Some think that Proetus was the culprit, but most say that Zeus seduced her in the form of a shower of gold which fell through a crack in the roof of her womb.

She was not impregnated by intercourse. I will look around for more instances of this.

[edit] forgot to preview the post, bad bb code

[edit on 2/25/2008 by adigregorio]

I'm just going to briefly touch on this since I think we're just nit picking each other at this point and I don't want to frustrate each other:

Originally posted by adigregorio
So Jesus never referred to "God" as his father? And "God" was also never referred to as a king?

Of course He did. But it wasn't specific to the pattern of an earthly king-god who was a close relative (or whatever the pattern stated but I'm too lazy to go back and reread).

True, but every human was not born of a virgin. That in and of itself is "unusual". Hardly a stretch of the word.

But the virgin birth was used for another point. And again, and as you agree, it needs to be shown this is a definite pattern of technical, literal virgin births. Divine conceptions did occur but only know of one or two literal virgin births in mythology.

So he was dead when he rose into heaven? To sit at the right hand of his father. Which, by the way, was not Joseph. Unless Joseph has the main seat in heaven.

Yes. He was physically dead for three days but was of course alive and well in the afterlife before His resurrection.

Those were written after his death, the human memory is not something that gets better with age.

This is always my favorite argument. No one can write about someone's death before it happens or write a full biography on someone whose life is not yet over. If they were written during His lifetime the Gospels would have left out the best part!

And I have yet to see any "proof" that the writers of the gospels were present for any of Jesus' life.

Actually, yes there is in the extrabiblical writings of the early eye witnesses. Look into the writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.

And with that I will leave you alone. As we are told, this forum is about conspiracies and we have been able to refute everything to our satisfaction if not your. Hope we have been of some help.

(Agdistis)
Zeus split some semen on the Earth which begot Agdistis, a hermaphrodite. The other gods castrated Agdistis and from his/her penis sprang an almond tree. Nana, the daughter of Sangarius, picked an almond from the tree, placed it in her lap, became pregnant, and gave birth to ATTIS...

In another version Zeus, having tried in vain to marry Cybele, let some of his semen fall on a nearby rock. This begot the hermaphrodite Agdistis. Dionysus made Agdistis drunk and castrated him/her. From the blood grew a pomegranate tree. Nana became pregnant by inserting one of the fruits in her womb, and gave birth to Attis.

(aphrodite)
There are two accounts of her birth: sometimes she is the daughter of Zeus and Dione, and sometimes she is a daughter of Uranus, whose sexual organs, cut off by Cronos, fell in the sea and begot the goddess.

(Caeculus)
There lived in this country two brothers called the Depidii, who were shepherds. One day when their sister was sitting near the hearth, a spark flew out of the fire and jumped into her bosom. She conceived a child who was regarded as a son of Vulcan...

All excerpts from "Dictionary of Classical Mythology"

I have only made it through C, I will do more later.

More than one or two virgin births so far.

[edit]Spelling errors.

[edit on 2/25/2008 by adigregorio]

Hiya,

Originally posted by adigregorio
As I was taught, "God" was the father of Jesus. Actually, Jesus referred to that god as his father on several occasions. In that one story of his schooling of the scholars he said "I am about my fathers business". And it is rather apparent he wasn't making anything out of wood.

God is not a king.

Originally posted by adigregorioIn many cases a god is not a king. In this case however this "God" is referred to as a king. And the two concepts are not as different as you think. Ancient Egyptians viewed the Pharaoh as a god. (by the way, Pharaoh is the Egyptian equivalent to a king)

God is not a king.
Being called a king does not make one a king.

Originally posted by adigregorioOne story of one event is not a CHILDHOOD. I sprained my ankle when I was 10 years old. I guess you know all about my childhood now.

The claim was "nothing" is known about his childhood.
But we DO know something about his childhood.
Thus the claim is proven false.

Now you are trying to change the claim from "nothing" to "not everything". You seem unable to admit the claim was wrong.

Originally posted by adigregorio
This reminds me of "Monty Python's Holy Grail"
"Who are the Britons?"
"You are, we are all Britons, and I am your king"
"Well I didn't vote for you"
Just because you do not think he was a king does not mean he wasn't referenced as a king.

Being called a king does NOT make you a king.
Can you please explain why you think it does?

Originally posted by adigregorioHe did prescribe laws.

No he didn't.
He (allegedly) taught religious beliefs.
They are NOT laws.
You are bending words to mean what they don't.
Please give an example of a LAW prescribed by Jesus.

Originally posted by adigregorio
Have you even read the Bible? If this was a false statement the others that have been debating me would have said so.

It IS a false statement. Jesus prescribed no laws.
If YOU think he did, then please give an example of a LAW prescribed by Jesus.
Not a religious belief.
A LAW.

Originally posted by adigregorioHe was believed by far more than who laughed. And it would seem I know much more than you do about the story of Jesus. The only thing you have been doing in this thread is saying "You're wrong" and trying back handed insults at my intelligence.

Because you ARE wrong.
You have made false claims, I have showed they are false.
You have not supported any of your claims with facts.
You have failed to give any examples of a LAW prescribed by Jesus.

Originally posted by adigregorioYou really want to make this about literal meaning! If that is the case, we can look over the Bible again literally. I am sure there will be MANY more holes in it than just the story of Jesus.

Yup, it IS full of holes. Like your argument.
You are using words to pretend they mean what they do NOT.
We are talking about the meaning of words.

Now you try and pretend that any word can mean what you WANT it to mean, and when shown wrong you waffle about not being a "literal meaning". It's just plain silly.

Originally posted by adigregorioWhat exactly is "like checking the facts"? I checked the facts, but I didn't like check them. I knew he was put into a tomb, I just didn't realize that signified burial. My dog doesn't put bones in little tombs in my backyard. He covers them in dirt.

The Christian story says Jesus was buried. They use the word "buried". You ignore this fact because it shows you are wrong.

Originally posted by adigregorioI am not playing silly word games, and if you suggest that again I will have to call it an insult.

More silly word games. Your argument is [Mod Edit] . But you cannot admit to your errors. Pathetic.

Originally posted by adigregorioSo you are saying that he did not "rise from the dead"? Or that he did rise, but is still sitting inside a dank tomb somewhere? If he is not in the tomb he is NOT buried.

What is wrong with your English comprehension?
He WAS buried.
After he was buried, he rose to heaven (according to the story.)
That does NOT change the fact that he WAS buried.

This is more silly word games - now you seem to be pretending that "buried" means bured and stayed buried for ever. It doesn't.

Mate,
many of your claims are demonstrably wrong.
But you can't admit it.

It's just silly word games where you make a word mean something totally different to it's real meaning.


Iasion




[Mod Edit: Profanity removed. Please see Terms and Conditions of Use 1b. Also Courtesy Is Mandatory and ...A Word About Politeness. Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 25/2/08 by JAK]

Originally posted by Iasion
God is not a king.

Alright, can you show me how you came to this conclusion? He is referred to as the king of kings, yet you keep saying he is not a king. Where is your proof, or is this just your opinion? Also, that paragraph you quoted, was stating that "God" was his father. Nice way to twist words I have to say!

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by adigregorioIn many cases a god is not a king. In this case however this "God" is referred to as a king. And the two concepts are not as different as you think. Ancient Egyptians viewed the Pharaoh as a god. (by the way, Pharaoh is the Egyptian equivalent to a king)

God is not a king.
Being called a king does not make one a king.

Again, twisting of words. I was showing that the difference between a god/king was not as distant as you wanted others to believe. And yes, being called a king does make one a king. Assuming that enough people call you king, and treat you as such. I am sure you will find a way to twist this paragraph too.

Originally posted by Iasion
The claim was "nothing" is known about his childhood.
But we DO know something about his childhood.
Thus the claim is proven false.

Now you are trying to change the claim from "nothing" to "not everything". You seem unable to admit the claim was wrong.

Prove that the passage is real, and I will admit failure. And I believe he was 12 at this time, what about his childhood? 12 seems to be the start of the teenage years, aka puberty. (see I can play the semantics card too)

Originally posted by Iasion
Just because you do not think he was a king does not mean he wasn't referenced as a king.

Being called a king does NOT make you a king.
Can you please explain why you think it does?


I have done this the last 3 times you asked me to, and I will not again. Instead, you tell me why he is not a king. What about that crown of thorns? Why mock someone with a crown, if they were not considered to be a king?

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by adigregorioHe did prescribe laws.

No he didn't.
He (allegedly) taught religious beliefs.
They are NOT laws.
You are bending words to mean what they don't.
Please give an example of a LAW prescribed by Jesus.

If you look to my post to AshleyD you will see an example of a law. Look up the definition of law before you tell me he didn't make any.

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by adigregorio
Have you even read the Bible? If this was a false statement the others that have been debating me would have said so.

It IS a false statement. Jesus prescribed no laws.
If YOU think he did, then please give an example of a LAW prescribed by Jesus.
Not a religious belief.
A LAW.

Again look up the definition of law, before you tell me what they are.

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by adigregorioHe was believed by far more than who laughed. And it would seem I know much more than you do about the story of Jesus. The only thing you have been doing in this thread is saying "You're wrong" and trying back handed insults at my intelligence.

Because you ARE wrong.
You have made false claims, I have showed they are false.
You have not supported any of your claims with facts.
You have failed to give any examples of a LAW prescribed by Jesus.

So you admit to insulting me? You have shown nothing to be false. And I have not supported my claims with facts?? Have you even read this thread?

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by adigregorioYou really want to make this about literal meaning! If that is the case, we can look over the Bible again literally. I am sure there will be MANY more holes in it than just the story of Jesus.

Yup, it IS full of holes. Like your argument.
You are using words to pretend they mean what they do NOT.
We are talking about the meaning of words.

Now you try and pretend that any word can mean what you WANT it to mean, and when shown wrong you waffle about not being a "literal meaning". It's just plain silly.

Can you show me an example of me making a word mean what I want it to? If anything I have been on the side of literal meaning, if you had read the thread you would have seen that.

Originally posted by Iasion
The Christian story says Jesus was buried. They use the word "buried". You ignore this fact because it shows you are wrong.

Now this is a flat out lie. I gave you the point at first, and then upon reflection I took it back because he rose to heaven.

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by adigregorioI am not playing silly word games, and if you suggest that again I will have to call it an insult.

More silly word games. Your argument is [Mod Edit] . But you cannot admit to your errors. Pathetic.

So insults again, I do not understand why you insist on insulting me. Also, another lie, I admitted to errors at least 2 times in this thread.

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by adigregorioSo you are saying that he did not "rise from the dead"? Or that he did rise, but is still sitting inside a dank tomb somewhere? If he is not in the tomb he is NOT buried.

What is wrong with your English comprehension?
He WAS buried.
After he was buried, he rose to heaven (according to the story.)
That does NOT change the fact that he WAS buried.

This is more silly word games - now you seem to be pretending that "buried" means bured and stayed buried for ever. It doesn't.

He is not buried! 21 His body is NOT buried. You just admited he rose from the dead, so HE IS NOT BURIED!

Some links for debating I think you should check out:

www.nizkor.org...
www.nizkor.org...
www.nizkor.org...
www.nizkor.org...
www.nizkor.org...

You have shown qualities of each of those types of debating. The burden of proof is on you, not I.

[edit] bb code

[edit on 2/25/2008 by adigregorio]


[Mod Edit: Profanity quote removed - Jak]

[edit on 25/2/08 by JAK]

Moderator-Note:

The last two posters are kindly asked to review this link before this discussion gets too heated. Attack the message, not the messenger.

ATS General Discussion Etiquette

Not king of the Jews?

Matthew 2:2 - "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him."

Matthew 27:11 - Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so."

Matthew 27:29 - and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!"

Matthew 27:37 - And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews."

Mark 15:2 - And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so."

Mark 15:9 - And he answered them, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?"

Mark 15:12 - And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?"

Mark 15:18 - And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!"

Mark 15:26 - And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."

Luke 23:3 - And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so."

Luke 23:37 - and saying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!"

Luke 23:38 - There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews."

John 18:33 - Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?"

John 18:39 - But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover; will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?"

John 19:3 - they came up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and struck him with their hands.

John 19:19 - Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

John 19:21 - The chief priests of the Jews then said to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'This man said, I am King of the Jews.'"

Source

I bet we only pay attention to that last one

As I have clearly shown, he was referenced as King of the Jews in the Bible. Next up, "God/king"...

[edit] Forgot to add source

[edit on 2/25/2008 by adigregorio]

So "God" was not a king?

1 Samuel 12:12 But when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites was moving against you, you said to me, 'No, we want a king to rule over us'-even though the LORD your God was your king.

Psalm 5:2 Listen to my cry for help, my King and my God, for to you I pray.

Psalm 44:4 You are my King and my God, who decrees victories for Jacob.

Psalm 47:6 Sing praises to God, sing praises; sing praises to our King, sing praises.

Psalm 47:7 For God is the King of all the earth; sing to him a psalm of praise.

Psalm 68:24 Your procession has come into view, O God, the procession of my God and King into the sanctuary.

Psalm 74:12 But you, O God, are my king from of old; you bring salvation upon the earth.

Psalm 84:3 Even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young— a place near your altar, O LORD Almighty, my King and my God.

Psalm 95:3 For the LORD is the great God, the great King above all gods.

Psalm 145:1 I will exalt you, my God the King; I will praise your name for ever and ever.

Isaiah 44:6 This is what the LORD says— Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Jeremiah 10:10 But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath.

1 Timothy 6:15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

Revelation 15:3 and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: "Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the ages.

Source

I think that solidifies my position. "God" was a king! Or at least thought of as one.

[edit] Fixing the source link (or trying to)

[edit on 2/25/2008 by adigregorio]

reply to post by adigregorio


And for some more "unusual" births...

From the "Dictionary of Classical Mythology"

Flora/Juno

Flora gave her (Juno) a flower which would make a woman pregnant by touching it. Juno then gave birth to Mars without prior sexual relations with Jupiter.

Gaia

Without the aid of any male, she gave birth to URANUS, the mountains, and PONTUS.

Himalia

The miller's wife, a Nymph fo Rhodeswith whom Zeus had intercourse, coming upon her as a shower of rain...

At least two more virgin births there, depending on how you look at Himalia that could be a third. I am through "L" in the dictionary, will have more as I come across them, or have I provided enough to prove my point?

What I'm trying to get at is how can the 'universe' be a virgin. How can the 'ocean' be a virgin. How can a 'rock' be a virgin. How can a 'tree' be a virgin. Etc.

reply to post by AshleyD


I don't think he meant the goddesses were oceans, trees, or mountains, but that they gave birth to some of these things, or were impregnated by them.

reply to post by Clearskies


Oh, I know, Hon! Thanks for the help. As I said in a previous comment, there are about two or three accounts of a literal virgin birth in ancient mythology. But the majority are things like 'the universe giving birth to the planets' (and then the universe will be labeled a virgin) or 'the rock brought forth the king (and then the rock will be labeled a virgin).

Example: Mithras was born of a solid rock so Christ Mythers refer to the rock as a virgin. How can a virgin be a rock?
Example: Zoroaster was born of the Homas plant so Christ Mythers refer to the plant as a virgin. How can a plant be a virgin?
Example: The ocean brought forth Aphrodite. How can the ocean be a virgin?

That is what I'm getting at. It's all word play except for two or three actual actual virgin conceptions.