A simple---but serious---question

[Athetotheist]

There are numerous god-men who died and rose from death in stories predating the time of Jesus. Considering the notable differences between the gospel accounts, and particularly the differences between the accounts of Jesus's supposed resurrection, here's a question for gospel apologists to think seriously about:

There are four resurrection accounts about Jesus in the Christian gospels. If the exact same accounts, with the exact same differences, were written about Osiris, Tammuz, Attis or any such god-man other than Jesus, would Christian apologists find all of those accounts believable?

And if they wouldn't find all of them believable, would they find any of them believable?

[TRANSPONDER]

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]

No, because none of those other men were really god-men. Some were actual children of gods. Many of those gods themselves are children of two godparents. This is much more like aliens than divinity.
Also, documentaries like Zeitgeist make up a lot of things.

They might quote a story that is dated to after Jesus about Buddha, and even in that story, it is nothing like the Jesus story. But also, they do not account for the fact that Christianity probably influenced it and not the other way around.

When they can actually show a story that predates Jesus, it is totally different, like the Horus story where Isis steals Osiris' penis in order to get pregnant.

But suppose there did exists a story that was just like Jesus and all evidence shows, uncontested that this story pre-existed the birth of Jesus, then yes that would be damaging to the faith. Many wold still believe, I am sure. It was a trick of Satan because he predicted God's plan, or perhaps he already knew it in heaven.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #162

No, because none of those other men were really god-men. Some were actual children of gods. Many of those gods themselves are children of two godparents. This is much more like aliens than divinity.

Jesus is said to have had a divine parent and a mortal parent----like demigods such as Heracles.

They might quote a story that is dated to after Jesus about Buddha, and even in that story, it is nothing like the Jesus story.

All of the gospel accounts are stories dated after Jesus about Jesus, and some of the details of the gospel stories are nothing like each other.

When they can actually show a story that predates Jesus, it is totally different, like the Horus story where Isis steals Osiris' penis in order to get pregnant.

What we see in the Jesus story seems to be a conglomeration of details from earlier god myths: Krishna's divine conception, Osiris's death and resurrection etc.

It was a trick of Satan because he predicted God's plan, or perhaps he already knew it in heaven.

If Satan knew----or even suspected----a plan for salvation through Jesus, why would he facilitate the plan by making Judas betray Jesus to death so the plan could succeed?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #163]

Reminds of of aesops fable where the frog asks the scorpion why it stung the frog and now both will die in the river.

The scorpion replied because I am a scorpion.

--

Now personally I don't think Satan knew God's plan and was simply trying to stop it. I think when Satan had Jesus on the cross Satan thought he was winning.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #163]

Zues wasn't really a god. He was born from Kronos and Rhea. Zues later kills his father Kronos and cast him into tartarus. Zues took on the form of Amphitryon in order to sleep with Alcmene, from which Heracles was born.

THis is nothing like Jesus. And Zues is nothing like God. He is far more like an alien.

If there were other stories like Jesus, which there are not, then Satan could have known about how God would incarnate and so try to create something like it. If so, he would want Jesus to die to match said story to give power to atheists saying, "this is just like Horus"

[brunumb]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #165]

Of course Zeus was a god. Far more worthy of being a deity than the muddle-headed Yahweh who mucked up just about every time he intervened in human affairs. Zeus also personally fathered numerous offspring, unlike Yahweh with only one alleged son and that required a substitute to affect the actual impregnation.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #165]

Of course Zeus was a god. Far more worthy of being a deity than the muddle-headed Yahweh who mucked up just about every time he intervened in human affairs. Zeus also personally fathered numerous offspring, unlike Yahweh with only one alleged son and that required a substitute to affect the actual impregnation.

We have very different views of God then. You think God can be something that comes into existence. I do not.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #165]

Of course Zeus was a god. Far more worthy of being a deity than the muddle-headed Yahweh who mucked up just about every time he intervened in human affairs. Zeus also personally fathered numerous offspring, unlike Yahweh with only one alleged son and that required a substitute to affect the actual impregnation.

We have very different views of God then. You think God can be something that comes into existence. I do not.

You are falling into the trap of theist - think; humans can imagine a perfect version of what is seen as imperfect; a flawed world with poverty, war and disease is imagined as one without that. A king with many flaws and problems is replaced with an idealised version. A god that acts, as you say, like an ET species being, is recast as perfect, without form, without flaw, without origin and utterly different from what the Bible says, and as the rebuttal of the Ontological argument goes, it is NOT true that anything supreme and perfect that humans can imagine, has to exist. And as the 'Santa' atheist apologetic has it, (though God -believers are incapable of seeing it) Santa is just as logically likely as Biblegod, Shiva or Zeus. The anthropomorphic represetations? Human limitations; the humanlike stories? As you said yourself, metaphorical.

Biblegod is in no way any more logically probable or evidentially supported than Zeus. It only requires Zeus to have the apologetics of Anselm applied to Him and he makes as much or as little sense as Biblegod. The flawed logic of Theistthink of a priori God as the ONLY version of god on offer is the flaw in everything from Kalam, 'odds against', Pascal's wager and all appeals to unknowns, and they can never see it as they are blinded by Godfaith.

First cause? Different argument entirely and always was, and that is another logical flaw that Theists never ever seem able to comprehend; first Cause does Nothing to validate the god of the Bible. You may as well use it to argue for Shiva Santa or Zeus.

I can hear the protests already; I have seen them before, and I have also seen them logically refuted and the believers storm off in a huff swearing that 'I just don't understand'. What I don't is have denialist -level Godfaith.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #165]

Of course Zeus was a god. Far more worthy of being a deity than the muddle-headed Yahweh who mucked up just about every time he intervened in human affairs. Zeus also personally fathered numerous offspring, unlike Yahweh with only one alleged son and that required a substitute to affect the actual impregnation.

We have very different views of God then. You think God can be something that comes into existence. I do not.

You are falling into the trap of theist - think; humans can imagine a perfect version of what is seen as imperfect; a flawed world with poverty, war and disease is imagined as one without that. A king with many flaws and problems is replaced with an idealised version. A god that acts, as you say, like an ET species being, is recast as perfect, without form, without flaw, without origin and utterly different from what the Bible says, and as the rebuttal of the Ontological argument goes, it is NOT true that anything supreme and perfect that humans can imagine, has to exist. And as the 'Santa' atheist apologetic has it, (though God -believers are incapable of seeing it) Santa is just as logically likely as Biblegod, Shiva or Zeus. The anthropomorphic represetations? Human limitations; the humanlike stories? As you said yourself, metaphorical.

Biblegod is in no way any more logically probable or evidentially supported than Zeus. It only requires Zeus to have the apologetics of Anselm applied to Him and he makes as much or as little sense as Biblegod. The flawed logic of Theistthink of a priori God as the ONLY version of god on offer is the flaw in everything from Kalam, 'odds against', Pascal's wager and all appeals to unknowns, and they can never see it as they are blinded by Godfaith.

First cause? Different argument entirely and always was, and that is another logical flaw that Theists never ever seem able to comprehend; first Cause does Nothing to validate the god of the Bible. You may as well use it to argue for Shiva Santa or Zeus.

I can hear the protests already; I have seen them before, and I have also seen them logically refuted and the believers storm off in a huff swearing that 'I just don't understand'. What I don't is have denialist -level Godfaith.

.
Some of this doesn't work out, though. The first cause cannot in principle apply to Zeus, because Zeus has a cause, which was Kronos and Rhea. And all those so-called gods came from Chaos. Their idea in the Theogony was that there was a primeval void out of which things came to be. This was a commonly held belief, a kind of spontaneous existence.

That is not the same as the first cause. Spontaneous existence would be a no-cause beginning.

When you claim the ontological arguments fail, do you mean because of reverse ontological arguments?

Also, even if we consider a good ontological argument that seems to run in reverse, then this means it can be used that God is equally likely than not likely. In other words, belief in God is rational.

This is because the model ontological argument argues for a non-contingent necessary being.

It is possible that that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists. (See Malcolm 1960, Hartshorne 1965, and Plantinga 1974 for closely related arguments.)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... arguments/

We cannot do that for silly ideas like Santa or Unicorns, because although they are possible in a world, they are not possible in all worlds. There are possible worlds in which Santa or Unicorns do not exist. They are not in principle necessary beings, where as God is, especially classical theism because God is existence itself and without existence itself nothing is.

So even if ontological arguments do not persuade atheists, they do show that God can be necessarily possible, whereas Satan, Zeus, etc cannot be.

And another thing that I think about is, with the model ontological argument God is necessarily possible, which means it is possible God exist in all possible worlds, but what would the asymmeetry version mean?

What would be the necessity for NOT God? In any conceivable world, why would the non-existence of God be necessary? In other words, the world could not exist in any other way unless God did not exist. Can you conceive of a world that could only exist if God did not?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #165]

If there were other stories like Jesus, which there are not, then Satan could have known about how God would incarnate and so try to create something like it. If so, he would want Jesus to die to match said story to give power to atheists saying, "this is just like Horus"

If Jesus dying would bring about salvation for humankind, why would Satan have wanted that? If he left Jesus to die of old age and not as a sacrifice for sin, it wouldn't matter what atheists----or anyone else----said.

Besides, it doesn't take an atheist to recognize the conspicuous similarity of details between earlier pagan stories and the Christian narrative.