Douglas J. Bender

Biff (may I overlook reminding you that you are "Unclean"?):

I suppose.

Never heard of her. When did she come along?

Mary Magdalene was repentant long before she stood at the foot of the cross. And I don't know that any of the Mary's there would qualify as a "wise woman".

Basically, I'd say.

When did the "Dionysian religion", and their false "trinity", arise?

"Christianity" is based on, and consistent with, the Old Testament, especially the Torah. It would seem that the Torah was written probably 1500 years or more before the time of Christ, if my rough estimate is somewhere near to being halfway accurate. But regardless of timing, if Satan exists, and the Bible's description of him is accurate, then Satan would have known all about the Trinity from his experiences in Heaven. Thus, his attempt to corrupt the idea of the Trinity, via various false religions and false "trinities".


In Christ,

Douglas

Biff the unclean

Douglas (the Galatian Goddess Mary) Never heard of her. When did she come along?
What did you think Mary was a Jewish name?
The Galatians were the Eastern most tribe of the Celts. They arrived in 279 BCE the year after they sacked Delphi. Mary was a pan-Celtic goddess, whose name changed as you go across Europe, though she herself remains the same. In Ireland she was known as Brigit or Brig. As Mary she had major temples built to her (by 55 BCE) in Alexandria and Tarsus. The ruins are still there.

Mary Magdalene was repentant long before she stood at the foot of the cross. And I don't know that any of the Mary's there would qualify as a "wise woman".
Magdalene was the "nymph" aspect of the goddess. The "crone" was Mary, sister of Lazarus. You might not think the 3 Mary's were important but the Galatians would have made a very big deal over it.

When did the "Dionysian religion", and their false "trinity", arise?
False trinity?! The Hellenists have exactly the same amount of evidence to back up their claim of trinity as you do of yours. And they got there first.
Dionysus is one of the oldest European Gods and his roots go back to pre-history. At one time he and Shiva were the same proto-god. His myths, and his name, would have reached a recognizable level in the early Minoan period. That would be some where between 2600 & 2300 BCE

"Christianity" is based on, and consistent with, the Old Testament, especially the Torah.
Not any Torah I've ever read. Christianity has very little to do with Judaism at all. Different laws, different morality, different rituals, different sabbath, different after life, different god. It's more of a blending of Mithraism and the Dionysian religion.

But regardless of timing, if Satan exists, and the Bible's description of him is accurate, then Satan would have known all about the Trinity from his experiences in Heaven. Thus, his attempt to corrupt the idea of the Trinity, via various false religions and false "trinities".
If Satan is such a deceiver then how do you know that he isn't deceiving you?
Since people knew about the Dionysian trinity twenty six hundred years before they heard of the Jesus trinity wouldn't you expect a loving God to have gotten the word out first, and not let people suffer a deception for thousands of years?
Wouldn't the second version of the story be the devils copycat and not the first?

For instance when you look at Acts of the Apostles you find this story about Saul on the road to Damascus intent on doing Christians harm when Jesus appears to him and changes his heart. However more than 500 years before Luke wrote Acts Euripides wrote The Bacchae in which Pentheus is on the road near Damascus intent on doing the Bacchae (Dionysians) harm when Dionysos (the God who turned water into wine) appears to him and changes his heart.
Now here's the strange part--Dionysos changes his heart by speaking the same dialogue that Jesus does half a millennium later. The famous "kicking at pricks" speech is over 500 years older than Acts
So tell me which is the copycat, they both have the same scene, they both share the same dialogue? One was written in 70CE and the other in classical Greece. The one from Greece was a popular play that is even today sometimes produced, so there was no way for an educated person- like Dr Luke- in Rome to not know about it.

Fiach

Amos says:

"Hi Hinduwoamn, Christ came down "to" earth but never was "on" earth.

Fiach: That makes no bloody sense in those terms. He came to earth and was on it or he didn't come and wasn't on earth.

"Christ never died but Jesus died to end his world here on earth. This dying of Jesus is what set Christ free which could only be since he was not "on" earth."

Fiach: It is the old typical grade D Sci-Fi movie plot. The alien comes down on a beam of some sort, enters the body of some poor dumb sap, and takes over his body. The Alien then manipuates the body to carry out his mission. When the cops kill the host body of the poor sap, the Alien safely zaps back to Orion while the body he "used" dies.

"To make this easier to understand I should add that Christ was born unto Jesus (and therefore down to earth) and when Jesus died to his world Christ was set free (because the world of Jesus was gone)."

Fiach: Christ was born into Jesus? You are saying that he entered Jesus by way of a vagina and womb. After all that is how one is born, eh? Jesus had to be a female to have a uterus in which Christ could be born. I always thought the womb was the mythical virgin Mary. You say it was Jesus who then had to be a woman. Maybe that explains why Jesus never married a women but seemed to be rather chummy with the local hookers.

Then Jesus the host body for the alien parasite Christ, died, and the parasite escaped back to outer space but left a threat to come back perhaps in a different host body.

Seriously, the idea of a God shagging a Palestinian girl to produce a god-man hybrid for the sole purpose of a blood sacrifice is entirely a load of bollocks. That this hybrid supposedly died, his brain turning to acellular mush in a few hours, actually arose from the dead 36 hours later moving and talking. It is so highly improbable as to be laughable. It would be laughable if not for the fact that some 30 million people have died over this insane story.

Fiach

Answerer

Relax Fiach, Amos' viewpoint is very different from other christians if you ever bother to ask him about it.

Amos

Probably, and soon another bunch is going to die. Yet the story will continue to be told and people will continue to die.

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

hinduwoman

In other words the Christian God is not a logical but a mystical entity, with three people being one.
Unfortunately Hinduism already had the concept of One God being many --- Xians argue they ripped it off christianity while Hindu zealots argue Christianity ripped it off hinduism.

BTW, the Hindu trinity of Creator, Preserver, Destroyer makes sense. Three different aspects to handle three different jobs.
The Christian one is confusing. What is the function of Holy Ghost? And if the Ghost impregnated Mary then where did the father come from? How can the son be equal to the father if he is the Son? And what does the father do?
Unless of course you claim that Christianity is true because it is more illogical, I do not see hoiw you can prove Christianity's superiority to polytheism.

Douglas J. Bender

Biff,

Well, given all the debate that goes on here at Infidels regarding the authenticity and accuracy of the Bible, perhaps you would like to provide some support for your claim? What is the oldest manuscript evidence that we have for that ancient "speech" you claim was then basically copied into the Book of Acts? References, please.

References and evidence, please.

What is the name of the play, where are there references to it, what is the evidence of its antiquity, just how "antiquated" was it, and how strong is the evidence in the eyes of the "experts"? Now, it seems to me that you are overlooking something which seemingly very obviously overthrows your whole argument, if one of your claims is correct - care to guess what that would be, and why it would do so?

In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

No. Have you not read any of my posts here in this thread that deal with the Trinity?


In Christ,

Douglas

Biff the unclean

Douglas I already gave you the reference. It was witten by Euripides in the 5th Cent BCE and was called The Bacchae. The part I'm talking about happens somewhere around line 936.

Euripides is one of the most famous authors in the history of the world. He's up there with Shakespeare, surely you have heard of him. He wrote almost six centuries before Acts was written and nine centuries before the oldest copy of Acts that we have.

Douglas J. Bender

Biff,


Here's what I found about "The Bacchae" on the Internet - the following is a copy/paste of a translation of the relevant section, the one which contains the reference to "kick against the pricks":

Now, the relevant quote from Dionysus, in full, is:
That is the extent of the similarity of this description to the account of Paul's encounter with Jesus in the Book of Acts - a similar expression, "kick against the pricks". On the basis of this, you claim that account in the Book of Acts was a "copycat" that passage from Euripedes' "The Bacchae"?? Seriously? If so, that's about like claiming that because a passage in a book contains the question, "What time is it?", it must have been a copycat of the earliest known book to contain that question.

In any case, you haven't answered my question about whether you have a guess as to why your whole argument falls to pieces if one of your claims is correct. I would appreciate it if you would take a stab at answering that question.


In Christ,

Douglas

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>