aa5874

I will not relax until I have exposed the flaws of HJ position.

But, I feel a lot better when I show HJers that the writer called Paul, a supposed comtemporary of Jesus only wrote that he saw Jesus in a resurrected form.

The writer called Paul confirmed the resurrected myth.

LogicandReason

Let's quote some bias Christians who woud like to dispel any claim to dying/rising gods...

This if from Gary Habermas/Michael Licona's The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

(pg 91)

They go on to explain that this is not a resurrection or similar to Jesus. But he does die/rise. This form of Isis/Osiris cult come from 300 BCE (Ronald Nash/Christian apologist from The Greeks and the Gospels). (pg 126) The cult is much older.

GakuseiDon

What makes Osiris, Attis or Adonis spiritual beings? Christ was in the flesh originally, and then arguably became a spiritual being. When were Osiris, Attis or Adonis spiritual beings?

aa5874

It is just the opposite.

There is no historical information anywhere to support such a statement that Jesus was human and then became spiritual.

The only information found about Jesus in the NT, and the church writings clearly shows that Jesus was regarded as, first the son of a God who later became man but still remain Divine.

See Matthew 1.18, John 1 and De Principiis by Origen.

Your statement that Jesus was first man is just mere speculation.

Roger Pearse

If you believe the subject is unverifiable, I would recommend not making positive assertions on it. I don't share your belief that history can't be done.

I am not doing so.

This comment seems to have no connection to mine. The geocentric theory is rebutted by the data, not by ignoring it.

I have no chosen speculation; you seem to be putting words in my mouth.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

The same argument would appear to prove that no-one referred to by Tacitus can be shown to exist. I remarked earlier about the quantity of excuses to ignore data; any argument based on this must be invalid.

Someone wanted to shout SPECULATE a lot, but doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

LogicandReason

Nobody is arguing that Jesus is simply the Jewish version of Osiris, Attis or Adontis. This is the typical Christian argument that tries to reason that since Jesus is not an exact replica of any of the antecedent gods that the concept of him is absolutely original...it's not. He is just a further development.

Man invents various gods to answer questions about life. As you pointed out above, Osiris, Attis and Adontis (Tammuz) represent the vegetation life-cycle, death in winter, rebirth in spring. By the 1st century CE, these were Hellene ideas with older cultural antecedents. I don't think anyone can argue that any of these gods or the combination of them equals the more highly developed theology of Christianity. That said, the unique theology to Christianity (sacrifice for sin, eternal life through faith/belief) are Jewish while the dying/rising aspect is non-Jewish. It is syncretism.

I think Paul's repetition of the savior formula in 1 Cor 15 shows us that is was not highly developed at that time. The Christianity that Paul found at his conversion was teaching 'Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and He rose on the third day.' This was all according to a madrash of OT and some Hellene influence. I suspect brilliant Paul took the 'Cross' iconography, as crucifixions were common and would be the fate of any messiah claimant, and added it to the Christology. He was also the first to exegete the flesh/spirit duality (this goes right back to Plato).

I don't read any skeptic arguing that Christianity is a direct copy of other religions...the argument is that there are similarities and influences. In a mixed culture, like the Diaspora, this would be unavoidable. Christians just can't bare the idea that there are historical predecessors.

LogicandReason

You do it every time you reference a non-natural, mythological event. You further speculate a historical Jesus.

But that did not stop the church enforcing it on people until that data finally proved them ignorant.

LogicandReason

You manufacture a syllogism that does not exist. The argument for Tacitus making a historical statement about the Gospel Jesus is an inference. All Tacitus' statement proves is that there were early Christians and Nero. He also tells us what the Christian's believe. The argument against this being a historical reference are:

1. Christ is a title, not a name,
2. Tacitus never suggests or infers that he knows 'Christ' is also Jesus of Nazareth,
3. Tacitus never gives an ambiguous time period,
4. Tacitus uses the wrong title for Pilate (inferring that he is not using a record)
5. There are no known Roman crucifixion records or extant referral documents,
6. His statement is hearsay,
7. He never cites a source
8. Christ is the root word of Christian, so his reference is inferred by the name of the group he was discussing, and
9. Tacitus gives us no evidence that he researched this claim to be true (as opposed to parroting Christian claims).

aa5874

Total rubbish. I am surprised that a person with your knowledge would make such a ridiculous statement.

Many of the characters of antiquity mentioned by Tacitus are mentioned by other writers. There are archaeological findings and artifacts to corroborate some of the characters found in the writings of Tacitus.