Dying Gods

[flitzerbiest]

The following deities* also died and were resurrected, according to the sacred texts associated with their religions:

Aesclepius
Adonis
Baldr
Dionysus
Mithras
Orpheus
Osiris
Persephone

Question for Christians: Do you believe these resurrection stories? Why or why not? Please note that their basis of support (i.e. sacred texts) is identical to that for Jesus.



* = partial list

[roger_pearse]

1) There were eye wittnesses that claim Jesus appeared to them after his resurection. These are for the most part the diciples. They all have the same story.

Name a single eyewitness account of the resurrected Jesus.

Matthew and John spring to mind, while the testimony of Peter -- who was certainly there -- is recorded in Mark's gospel.

But of course people who find such inconvenient have made up excuses to ignore their testimony.

Actually many of them were tortured and killed for claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Stories of "many" of the apostles and earliest disciples being "tortured and killed for claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead" is a matter of later Christian tradition and occurs mainly in the various second and third century Apocryphal accounts but is nowhere contained in the NT.

There's some fairly dodgy stuff in here, as it mixes together several different things. Let's see if we can disentangle it.

The persecution of the early Christians is not something any normal person would deny. Are you denying that they died for the Christian religion, believing in the risen Christ? If so, some evidence would be interesting to see.

"later tradition": there are certainly all sorts of apocryphal legends from the 4th century, of no historical value. Some of the stuff about apostles is of that nature, and so useless. But the information we have about Paul and Peter is not of that kind.

3) The first wittnesses of the empty tomb were women. In that time women had no social standing. ... if the deciples really were creating an elaborate hoax, then why not have somone who would be trusted find the empty tomb and spread the news? why try to sabotage their own plan?

If the tomb was empty then it was empty for all to see. The gender of those who first pointed this out is immaterial.

This does not seem to address the point made.

But it seems as if you have an urgent need not to believe this, since otherwise why are you posting? I can't imagine me getting on the web and posting "why Islam is -", even tho I think that -- why bother? But it is, of course, your right, if you feel so inclined.

But in which case it seems appropriate for you to disclose your own religious position at this point. After all, any idiot can throw stones so long as his own beliefs aren't on the table for rational examination by the other side! He can just make whatever demands he likes. Easy, but not rational. My guess would be that you're an atheist, and, like most people with no definite other views, you live in conformity to a convenient subset of the societal values of the period in which you happened to be born. If so, perhaps you'd outline, not why you disbelieve X, Y or even Z, but what rational argument convinced you that conformity was the way for you?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[roger_pearse]

The following deities* also died and were resurrected, according to the sacred texts associated with their religions:

Aesclepius
Adonis
Baldr
Dionysus
Mithras
Orpheus
Osiris
Persephone

Some rather curious claims there. No ancient text records resurrection of most of these, especially Mithras. Balder is a particularly unfortunate choice! But the bald idea "someone comes back from the dead" ... that doesn't particularly tell us much.

Question for Christians: Do you believe these resurrection stories? Why or why not? Please note that their basis of support (i.e. sacred texts) is identical to that for Jesus.

No it isn't.

You're an atheist, right? Did you check any of the claims made by this list, against the ancient sources, before you posted it? No....?

Can you offer any evidence, not that Christianity is true, but that conforming to societal values -- your own position, no? -- is true?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[roger_pearse]

Which NON CHRISTIAN scholars consider the 4 canonical Gospels to be authored by "EYE WITNESSES"?

Appeal to authority noted. Why not try reason?

Do you know what date they were recorded down in text?

* Mark: c. 68"73,[32] c 65-70[3]
* Matthew: c. 70"100.[32] c 80-85.[3]
* Luke: c. 80"100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[32] c 80-85[3]
* John: c 90-100,[3] c. 90"110,[33] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

No ancient text records any of this, so it is pure fiction. Luke finishes Acts in 61 AD with Paul in prison, so his gospel must be earlier than this. It is inconceivable that Luke would not have recorded in Acts: the release of Paul, the execution of Peter and Paul, the criminalisation of Christianity, and the destruction of the temple and Judaism -- unless, of course, none of them had happened.

Since Luke quotes Mark, the content of the latter must have existed in some form by then. The ancient testimony is that both were in Rome at the same time. John himself wrote his gospel ca. AD 90.

All of that is based on ancient evidence. You may, of course, prefer the imagination of people who owe their appointments to people very anxious that Christianity should not be true.

What about the editing & alteration of the canonical Gospels(Greek Manuscripts)?

More imagination.

The desperate attempts to dispose of all the evidence are amusing. But to any reasonably sceptical person, rational arguments are not made by trying to get rid of the evidence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Tired of the Nonsense]

From memory Papias didn't mention the gospel of John at all. He named presbyter John as one of his teachers (and the source for his information on the writings of Mark and Matthew), but is not known to have associated him with any written work.

The problem here is that none of the actual works of Papias survived the forth century. Which is to say, the origins of the Catholic Church. We only know of the works of Papias through the quotation of others.

"His (Papias) Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord (his word for "sayings" is logia) in five books, would have been a prime early authority in the exegesis of the sayings of Jesus, some of which are recorded in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, however the book has not survived and is known only through fragments quoted in later writers, with neutral approval in Irenaeus's Against Heresies and later by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, the earliest surviving history of the early Church." (Wikipedia, Papias).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

Criticism directed at identifying the author of Gospel John with the apostle John has continued into modern times.

"MODERN CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP"

"Currently, most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text, although some prominent scholars believe that the community that it was written in could have been founded or influenced by him."

"John was reportedly illiterate, virtually precluding him from having written the gospel. The Gospel of John is an account composed by an unknown writer who may have never met Jesus. Geza Vermes sees the claim of John's authorship as falsified and not backed by any solid historical evidence. Since the author was fluent in Hellenistic philosophy, he says it could hardly have been John, described in Acts as "unschooled and ordinary."[Ac. 4:13] Scholars like Bart Ehrman view the Gospel as a largely historically unreliable written account by an author posthumous to the Apostle who was not an eyewitness to the historical Jesus." (Wikipedia; Gospel of John).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

"Many modern critics belive that the tradition of the name and the composition of Ephisus around 100 are best preserved by attributing the Gospel not to the apostle but to John the Elder, mentioned by Papias."
(Dictionary of the Bible).

"A response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of May 29, 1907, denied that the arguments against the authorship of John are convincing and affirmed the historical character of the Gospel." (Dictionary of the Bible; John Gospel of, Pg.449, by Father John L. McKenzie; S.J.).

The Gospel of John itself, like all four of the canonic Gospels, was written anonymously. But that does not mean that the author has not identified himself.

2John.1
"[1] The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;"

3John.1
"[1] The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth."

The apostle John was described as being a simple illiterate man if you will recall. Yet in both 2 John and 3 John we find two beautifully written letters in Greek, and in both the author clearly identifies himself is "the elder," and NOT "the evangelist."

Modern criticism is nearly unanimous in the conclusion that 2 John and 3 John were written by the same hand that wrote The Gospel of John.

There's nothing to explicitly connect it to the name 'John,' before the time of Irenaeus (c. 180 CE). But there are explicit claims it was written by an eyewitness, and I haven't yet found convincing reasons to believe that's not the case. Identifying John as the 'beloved disciple' seems simply a product of him being the most likely candidate.

Paul considered himself to be a witness to the risen Jesus as well. This despite the fact that Paul entrance into the story was some years after Jesus was executed and Paul was not a personal witness to any of the events depicted in the Gospels. Making claims with exceed the scope of the literal truth is a part of human nature.

Acts also mentions the imprisonment of Peter, a whipping given to Peter and John, plus the imprisonment of numerous other believers by Paul, claiming that the crack-down was severe enough to cause "all but the apostles" to scatter from Jerusalem. Those two are the only recorded martyrs, agreed, though there's also a claim about a plot to kill Paul after his conversion.

The original contention, by prkrruns, was that many of the early disciples were "tortured and killed for claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead." No such examples exist in Acts, other than James and Stephen, which I mentioned.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Matthew and John spring to mind, while the testimony of Peter -- who was certainly there -- is recorded in Mark's gospel.

But of course people who find such inconvenient have made up excuses to ignore their testimony.

Please refer to Posts #9 and #14 in this thread.

But it seems as if you have an urgent need not to believe this, since otherwise why are you posting? I can't imagine me getting on the web and posting "why Islam is shit", even tho I think that -- why bother? But it is, of course, your right, if you feel so inclined.

But in which case it seems appropriate for you to disclose your own religious position at this point. After all, any idiot can throw stones so long as his own beliefs aren't on the table for rational examination by the other side! He can just make whatever demands he likes. Easy, but not rational. My guess would be that you're an atheist, and, like most people with no definite other views, you live in conformity to a convenient subset of the societal values of the period in which you happened to be born. If so, perhaps you'd outline, not why you disbelieve X, Y or even Z, but what rational argument convinced you that conformity was the way for you?

That I am an atheist is right there listed in my Usergroups. It's not a secret. ALL religions are uniformly based on ancient superstitious nonsense, although I have never referred to them as "shit." You will however note that the name of this particular website is DEBATING CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION.

[Mithrae]

Criticism directed at identifying the author of Gospel John with the apostle John has continued into modern times.

I hadn't intended to divert into a more detailed discussion of John's gospel - was just pointing out a couple of inaccuracies in what you'd said about Papias (presumably off the top of your head) Rather than getting off-topic, if you don't mind I'll reply to your comments in a more suitable thread.

[roger_pearse]

From memory Papias didn't mention the gospel of John at all. He named presbyter John as one of his teachers (and the source for his information on the writings of Mark and Matthew), but is not known to have associated him with any written work.

The problem here is that none of the actual works of Papias survived the forth century. Which is to say, the origins of the Catholic Church. We only know of the works of Papias through the quotation of others.

Insinuation that testimony should be ignored.

Criticism directed at identifying the author of Gospel John with the apostle John has continued into modern times.

Excuse for ignoring the testimony of John.

Criticism of this kind was invented during the 19th century and suffered an unfortunate accident in 1936, with the discovery of P52.

"MODERN CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP"

"Currently, most scholars dispute that ...

Appeal to authority, in order to ignore ancient evidence.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John"

Whether we regard Wikipedia as much of an authority, of course, depends on how critical we are.

"Many modern critics ...

Weasel-wording is the wiki term for this.

"Many modern critics belive that the tradition of the name and the composition of Ephisus around 100 are best preserved by attributing the Gospel not to the apostle but to John the Elder, mentioned by Papias."
(Dictionary of the Bible). (etc)

Appeal to authority as excuse to ignore evidence.

The Gospel of John itself, like all four of the canonic Gospels, was written anonymously.

This statement is contradicted by all of the evidence.

Modern criticism is nearly unanimous in the conclusion that ....

I notice no quote from a reliable source source that says so, tho. Claim rejected.

Modern criticism is nearly unanimous in the conclusion that ....2 John and 3 John were written by the same hand that wrote The Gospel of John.

Since no ancient evidence says so, if this were actually true, it would tell us only that "modern criticism" was unscholarly.

Acts also mentions the imprisonment of Peter, a whipping given to Peter and John, plus the imprisonment of numerous other believers by Paul, claiming that the crack-down was severe enough to cause "all but the apostles" to scatter from Jerusalem. Those two are the only recorded martyrs, agreed, though there's also a claim about a plot to kill Paul after his conversion.

The original contention, by prkrruns, was that many of the early disciples were "tortured and killed for claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead." No such examples exist in Acts, other than James and Stephen, which I mentioned.

The original contention did not specify that the claim must be present in Acts.

A rational person will argue from evidence, not find reasons to side-step it.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The problem here is that none of the actual works of Papias survived the fourth century. Which is to say, the origins of the Catholic Church. We only know of the works of Papias through the quotation of others.

roger_pearse wrote:
Insinuation that testimony should be ignored.

Eusebius, who died in 339 (the fourth century), agreed with this position, as did the fledgling Catholic Church, for the very reason that some of the things that Papius wrote in the second century had come to be at odds with what the Catholic Church was attempting to establish as Canon by the fourth century. Such as identifying someone OTHER than the apostle as the author of Gospel John, which the Catholic (or Universal) Church, newly formed in the fourth century, denied. In an interesting coincidence, all copies of Papias' writings disappeared about the time of the fourth century. Ironically, what we know of them are largely taken from quotes provided by Eusebius in an effort to discredit them. Unfortunately for church history, Papias stands as one of the EARLIEST of the so called "church fathers" and as such is one of the main sources of information on formation of early Christianity. Papias was the leader of his Christian community and a devoted Christian.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"MODERN CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP"

"Currently, most scholars dispute that ... (a quote taken from Wikipedia).

roger_pearse wrote:
Appeal to authority, in order to ignore ancient evidence.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John"

Whether we regard Wikipedia as much of an authority, of course, depends on how critical we are.

Wikipedia is a suspect source, I agree. I quoted it and provided the link to establish that I am not simply making this up as I go along. I also provided a quote from "Dictionary of the Bible, a book written by a Catholic priest, which says pretty much the same thing.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"Many modern critics ...

roger_pearse wrote:
Weasel-wording is the wiki term for this.

"Most modern adults deny the existence of flying reindeer"... is also an example of weasel-wording, yet few would deny that it is a true statement.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The Gospel of John itself, like all four of the canonic Gospels, was written anonymously.

roger_pearse wrote:
This statement is contradicted by all of the evidence.

100% of the Gospels were written anonymously. NONE of the authors of the canonic Gospels identify themselves.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Modern criticism is nearly unanimous in the conclusion that ....2 John and 3 John were written by the same hand that wrote The Gospel of John.

roger_pearse wrote:
Since no ancient evidence says so, if this were actually true, it would tell us only that "modern criticism" was unscholarly.

2John
"[1] The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;"

3John
"[1] The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth."

These ARE examples of the original ancient text, and in these the author clearly identifies himself as "the Elder" and NOT the apostle. Do you dispute that the canonical "Epistles of John" found in the NT were written by the same individual who wrote Gospel John?

[roger_pearse]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The problem here is that none of the actual works of Papias survived the fourth century. Which is to say, the origins of the Catholic Church. We only know of the works of Papias through the quotation of others.

roger_pearse wrote:
Insinuation that testimony should be ignored.

Eusebius, who died in 339 (the fourth century), agreed with this position, as did the fledgling Catholic Church, for the very reason that some of the things that Papius wrote in the second century had come to be at odds with ... <snip irrelevance>

Eusebius does not agree that testimony should be ignored, and, since he held a copy of Papias in his hands, he made use of what he had to say.

In an interesting coincidence, all copies of Papias' writings disappeared about the time of the fourth century.

You know this how?

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"MODERN CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP"

"Currently, most scholars dispute that ... (a quote taken from Wikipedia).

roger_pearse wrote:
Appeal to authority, in order to ignore ancient evidence.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John"

Whether we regard Wikipedia as much of an authority, of course, depends on how critical we are.

Wikipedia is a suspect source, I agree. I quoted it and provided the link to establish that I am not simply making this up as I go along...

Repeated attempt to argue from authority. Claim rejected.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"Many modern critics ...

roger_pearse wrote:
Weasel-wording is the wiki term for this.

"Most modern adults deny the existence of flying reindeer"... is also an example of weasel-wording, yet few would deny that it is a true statement.

You can certainly try to defend weasel-wording if you wish. It doesn't suggest your claims are well founded, tho!

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The Gospel of John itself, like all four of the canonic Gospels, was written anonymously.

roger_pearse wrote:
This statement is contradicted by all of the evidence.

100% of the Gospels were written anonymously. NONE of the authors of the canonic Gospels identify themselves.

Reiteration noted. Claim rejected, then. The evidence is otherwise. If the claim is that all works that don't include the name of the author in them are anonymous, nearly all works ever written are "anonymous."

I notice that you seem unable to deal with any reply, any query as to evidence, and just repeat your belief. I suspect you're just parroting stuff, therefore. Why not think about it? Think about what evidence there is, for and against, these absurd claims?

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Modern criticism is nearly unanimous in the conclusion that ....2 John and 3 John were written by the same hand that wrote The Gospel of John.

roger_pearse wrote:
Since no ancient evidence says so, if this were actually true, it would tell us only that "modern criticism" was unscholarly.

2John
"[1] The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;"

3John
"[1] The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth."

These ARE examples of the original ancient text, and in these the author clearly identifies himself as "the Elder" and NOT the apostle.

No, that is your interpretation of the text. We have no way of knowing whether John the apostle so addressed his letters or not.

Do you dispute that the canonical "Epistles of John" found in the NT were written by the same individual who wrote Gospel John?

You're making the claim. You produce ancient evidence for it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[roger_pearse]

Matthew and John spring to mind, while the testimony of Peter -- who was certainly there -- is recorded in Mark's gospel.

But of course people who find such inconvenient have made up excuses to ignore their testimony.

Please refer to Posts #9 and #14 in this thread.

Dodge noted. It's a standard troll tactic to try and get the other person to run around.

But it seems as if you have an urgent need not to believe this, since otherwise why are you posting? I can't imagine me getting on the web and posting "why Islam is shit", even tho I think that -- why bother? But it is, of course, your right, if you feel so inclined.

But in which case it seems appropriate for you to disclose your own religious position at this point. After all, any idiot can throw stones so long as his own beliefs aren't on the table for rational examination by the other side! He can just make whatever demands he likes. Easy, but not rational. My guess would be that you're an atheist, and, like most people with no definite other views, you live in conformity to a convenient subset of the societal values of the period in which you happened to be born. If so, perhaps you'd outline, not why you disbelieve X, Y or even Z, but what rational argument convinced you that conformity was the way for you?

That I am an atheist is right there listed in my Usergroups. It's not a secret.

My, you seem sensitive. All you had to say was "yes, I'm an atheist"!

ALL religions are ...<snip abuse of religious positions poster does not share>

Yes, we know what you hate. You were asked to justify your own position. Like nearly all atheists, you couldn't.

'Nuff said, I think.