An Atheist Myth of Historical Evidences

Michael
I suggest you do a study on phenomology, and then reassess why the Christian claims are different than any old claim, such as the existence of Santa Claus or the disappearance of God.

ConsequentAtheist
I did cite the reference: Philo, vol. 2, p.699. The words "meaning of course in the person of Christ" seems to be his. (http://www.1john57.com/threeletters2.htm - see footnote 5).

At any rate, the qualities he attributes to the Logos match those of the Christ (the Jewish "anointed messiah", not necessarily Jesus - as a Jew, Philo might have thought Jesus just another pretender) very clearly:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jenyar of the 70-Books - Duped again

No, you simply want them to be from the Philo's hand, and uncritically offer them as such.

I seem to recall you referring in the past to Kirby's Early Christian Writings. Fortunately, he has now begun work on Early Jewish Writings as well. Kirby has kindly referred me to the following:

He then adds:

Jenyar, the lack of extra-biblical reference to Jesus has been repeatedly debated by those with far more relevant scholarship than either of us. Had Philo actually written those words, he would have replaced Josephus as the cornerstone of fundamentalist debate. Even you should have been skeptical, though I'm sure that no one is surprised by your gullibility.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have my apology (although I doubt you will take it). I looked for the relevant section on Kirby's site but could not find it. Who would have thought it would be under his Allegories.

But do you deny that it fits the profile of the suffering messiah or Christ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see no apology warranted, nor do I understand what it means to apologize for one's own gullibility in the absence of a commitment to change it. Jenyar, you were apparently duped by a relatively recent gloss/interpolation. You are the same person that informed us that Septuagint was a reference to "70 Books" I have no doubt as to your sincerety, but you simply don't know what you don't know. Your satisfaction with this state is simply unfortunate, but to stand on such a flawed foundation and presume to instruct others is pretentious and absurd.

What the hell are you talking about? I see absolute nothing in the variant offered by Kirby which fits any profile whatsoever.

 

[1) phenomology - "the study of the development of human consciousness and self-awareness as a preface to philosophy or a part of philosophy"

Jenyar, Please explain why this is important. To me it seems I just saw a red herring.

2) It's interesting that you said "Christian claims are different than any old claim". I'm going to make the assumption then that these same claims are no more or less inherently true then say a Buddhist’s claims or a Hindi’s claims or a Muslim’s claims?

Would you agree to that?

If not explain the difference between Christian claims and these other religions claims.

Why are the Christians more valid (true).

Now that, that is settled (along with the dust the red herring kicked up) - I think we can now agree with one another that my claim fits said criteria as truth equally as well and therefore is equally as valid as the Christian claims.

A such god left the universe in 1437CE.

 

God left the universe

Michael, please explain this meaning.

 

in response to: "The cross is where He nailed our suffering and inequities to." I replied that the nice thing about religion is one can make up absolutely anything. And therefore anything can mean anything to anyone. Which is why many of us think it is all a bunch of bull shit.
Example: God left the universe in 1437CE. That's why there are no more "supernatural" events occuring.

 

Does this year have any significance or is it just to make a point?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's absolutely true!

And just a point.

 

Phenomenology is concerned with the study of phenomena - or "things" - and how we perceive them to be what they are by the coherence of meaning we attribute to them, and their "reality".

Phenomena can be of the "first" kind - I.e, a chair. It is an objective description of "what" something is, without trying to read anything else into it. Phenomena of the "second" kind is the parts that make up "chair" - a surface, four legs, a backrest - but none of them are "chair". It is only by studying the meaning generally attributed to those parts that we can conclude that together they can be called a "chair".

What I meant with the difference between Christian claims and any other claim, is that they are already of the "second" kind. You can't objectify them as you would a claim that Santa Claus exists - it is already objectified knowledge. Santa Claus is known by everything known about him - including the fact the he doesn't exist. You can make no such claims about God, so you have to make them about the information about God.

The result is, that if God remains everything He is said to be in the Bible you will never "catch up" with the experience of Him as a reality. Knowledge about God is not "God". As a consistent phenomenon, He is not explained away by any claim that contradicts everything that is known about Him.

This of course doen't just hold for the Christian claims. All religions have a corpus of knowledge about their gods that are of this kind. But most do not claim to have any historical grounding. They never come to earth, so to speak. Their gods are different than the Muslim/Jewish/Christian God.

As I have attempted to show - your claim does in fact not fit the criteria of truth. It is a fabricated claim that contradicts the corpus of knowledge about the Christian God. The god you are talking about might exist on its own right, along with various other data you might add to the belief that he left the universe in 1427CE. That would be another study. But it would not be a study of the same god.

 

to jenyar, (this is long, get a cup of hot chocolate or go to the toilet if you need to now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

hmm, i don’t know, the wording of your reply maybe?

why do you have to assign things significance? can you not accept nature for what it is?

once again with the words “your limits” (you don’t know how much these words annoy me). i believe in the universe and what happens in it is all explainable because if it happens (and it is within the observed laws of this universe) then it is natural, no matter how few times this occurrence happens. BUT, miracles DON’T fall into the laws of the universe- therefore, why even assume they exist? i have not seen one ounce of evidence in favor of miracles actually occurring, or any convincing arguments- i perhaps should pick up that book by cs lewis you told me about.

you just don’t get me do you? or what i’m saying. i’m saying the human experience is an unreliable judge of what constitutes a miracle or anything in this universe. you do realize humans are very capable of making themselves believe in events and things that never occurred. and i don’t assign significance to anything, YOU do. the process of evolution isn’t miraculous, what people believe to be miracles are nothing more than self induced beliefs.

are you being serious? i told you i haven’t seen anything supernatural because i haven’t seen anything supernatural. i have no bias. i have no basis for bias. you on the other hand are extremely biased. significance, the supernatural, you all believe these things because you have to (and you willingly believe in them). you therefore will assign these ideas to many things un-objectively. i don’t see how you can call my point of view biased when i don’t have an active disbelief in those things- i’m just skeptical of them.

whatever, but if you’re basing your argument off what he said i don’t see how it’s going to change my mind seeing you’re both coming from a biased point of view.

when did i say it was for his education? you said god did it because he didn’t know what death was like then changed tack to this argument.

yeah, by showing a select few (and i really mean about three) people that he was alive again. besides, death is a natural occurrence, not something to be saved from. as well, humans have strived to live forever almost as long as we have existed in this form- gods “power” (with which you refer to then downplay) would then seem relevant to us because it is our want, not his, to live forever.

and you know this all how? how do you even know you believe in what he did? if you believed in what jesus believed in you would be jewish.

do i need to? you yourself posted a reply that showed that most (if not all) biblical scholars believe that the day in the bible was most definitely the day we experience today. who exactly are you to disagree with them? Or the word of your god? indeed why would it say a day if it didn’t mean a day? it sure isn’t for the benefit of your god as he exists outside of our universe (he wrote it, why would he say day other than to clarify to us?). i’m not being pedantic about the hours of the day or sunlight hours in a day, nor am i seeing it as the “flat-earthers” did (you presume so much, it must be part of your nature seeing you manage to do it with abandon). so i ask back to you, what is your interpretation? is it an indefinite time? i am interested to see how you interpret the account in genesis as i don’t see any other way you can.

because they have ripped each other off over the centuries.

yup, it’s all about us. god is all about us.

you or anyone else can’t have any possible idea. what is written in the bible is no more valid than any other religious books. besides, you yourself manage to question what is a pretty clear message about the time it took for god to create earth, you question your living god.

it was actually a paganistic ritual that celebrated the end of harvest and appealed to spirits (not god) for a good coming harvest/year. the english church had to assimilate the holiday because it couldn’t abolish it, even though it supported rituals against the churches belief. it therefore became christmas day- i KNOW this. do you know what you’re talking? about or is this another one of your assumptions (i think it is because i know i’m right about this one).

show me the differences, the jazzed up christianity that we see today has changed to keep up with the times, but go back to when christianity was actually christianity and i bet you the differences are few to none.

what they want to see. what they want to change.

you have an excellent way of misunderstanding me and putting words in my mouth (your assumptions again). you have to do things for them to become a reality, lack of self control doesn’t have much to do with your will. I don’t even know why i have to say this to you, perhaps it is so you will stop putting words in my mouth and stop coming up with these stupid ideas- “That if you just willed something it would happen?” for example.

well, it’s here i will clarify myself as to my idea of what a persons “will” is. if you want to do something, and you have resolved to do it, it is your will that enforces your action or non-action. i was addicted to chewing my nails (like a maniac) and sucking my thumb (when i was younger of course). i resolved not to do it any more and through strength of will i stopped. i don’t really see the difference between resolve and will, i think they’re synomous.

most smokers i know can read and therefore know it’s bad and can kill them (you know, the labels on the packs?). they either don’t care or haven’t been able to give up.

sometimes i wonder if you read what i write? i said that’s not what jesus would do if his was king, he would be nice. but then again, you’ll probably find some way to misread this as well.

i echo no one, it’s just your unique way of reading what i write that makes you think i do. and AGAIN, when did christ EVER admit to being god?

as far as i’m concerned he established no kingdom- it was those after him that erected HIS temple.

he could’ve been nicer as a king. don’t you see- he could’ve stopped the suffering and the pain, but of course, that doesn’t make sense as it would’ve been the nice thing to do- as well as inspiring hope.

that is no message. that doesn’t even make sense. a real message would’ve been, “here, i’ve stopped all your suffering and all injustice”, but again, your all powerful god is incapable of doing this.

lol, i don’t know how you know what god wants or thinks but whatever. see, suffering and inequity hasn’t been nailed anywhere, it’s happening all over this world as i speak, every day since jesus was supposedly nailed to that cross. god didn’t do a very good job did he? you obviously don’t know anything about history either if you don’t think a king would’ve been killed. you contradict yourself as much as the book you believe in. the point in me replying is practically naught as you obviously give no thought to what i’m saying.

lol, i only reject the bs found in the bible. it contains some good ideas (like anything) but if god is that stupid, that juvenile, and essentially contradictive of himself, tell me, what’s not to reject? there might be a god, but it’s definitely not the one found in the bible. and i don’t care where god finds me (if there is one), as he’ll know i’m a good person, one that doesn’t need to hide behind walls.

do you want me to explain myself again? i said if god came down to earth i’d eat humble pie, i didn’t say i’d stop being who i am. besides, if i was found guilty by your god then Carmen electra is a man.

WOW, a god in his infinite wisdom and power uses one man to do that, sounds like something any god with infinite wisdom and power could do.
Once again you COMPLELETY miss my point and what i was replying to. i was saying..... you know what? it’s not actually worth it. you won’t get the point either way.

it’s nice that you are so completely brainwashed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m:

atheory

 

Firstly, there is just as much evidence that any gods came to Earth as their is any other gods came to Earth and therefore all Gods are equally as credible as the Muslim/Jewish/Christian God. AKA no evidence for any of it - it's all made up.

1) According to your convoluted Phenomenology statement then no two people share the same religion because no two people have identical beliefs – even within the “identical” religion.

2) As such, my claim does in fact fit the criteria of truth. It is not any more or any less of a fabricated claim that contradicts the corpus of knowledge about the Christian God than say this statement: “The cross is where He nailed our suffering and inequities to.". As a matter of fact I’m doing nothing out of the ordinary

A) Unless, you think you are the one to identify what is and what is not truth written about the “Christian god”. Just ask yourself: Are the Mormons Christians? If the answer is yes then I am correct in adding my writings to the pile of BS already gathered. If you are going to say no then please refer to #1 – no two people share completely identical belief systems of god even within the same religion.

B) And what originated this train of thought? Looking at Iasion’s posts we can see that the “corpus of knowledge” was gathered centuries after the myth was supposedly to have taken place (and even at that time there was no agreement on the developing of the BS!). So again, my adding to it at this stage is no different. That is unless you have a definite exact time when “corpus of knowledge” of god became known as “corpus of knowledge” of god. Please indicate when and why you think this is true? What would a Jehovah Witness think or Baptist, or Methodists, or Sunni or Shiite or Charley Mansonite or Catholic or or or or . . . .

3) This is really neither here nor there. The point I was making is that religions just make up their beliefs as they go along. The example I gave was this and I quote:
“The cross is where He nailed our suffering and inequities to."
You see - you just made that up out of thin air – and I might add many Christians would not agree with you. So are you the only true Christian? What makes you think you can make it up and I can’t? Why not me!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh and who is “He”? the Roman guards? Or is it God nailing himself as Jesus? Or Jesus nailing Himself as Jesus? Or or or or or . . . go on . . . make it up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

4) And finally, you have no problem believing that the Greeks made up their religious BS aka the Greek Parthenon of Greek Gods (or Romans, or Buddhists, or Muslims, or Egyptian Pharos or Charlie Manson’s etcetera.) If I were to say to you – But Jenyar, “Phenomenology is concerned with the study of phenomena - or "things" - and how we perceive them to be what they are by the coherence of meaning we attribute to them, and their "reality".” You would not be convinced that they didn’t make it up. Which is why I said this “Phenomenology” is a Red Herring. Unless, that is, you think that “Phenomenology” has somehow convinced that they didn’t make it up? Do you think Athena was a real God? If not then again we agree – religions just make it up as they go along. And there is no more or less evidence that the Christians are in any shape or form different then any of the others.

So in summary – we’re in agreement that all of the religions are equally as truthful (Phenomenologically speaking . .. lol) and that people just make up their beliefs as they go along loosely (very loosely) following the script (ie: Bible for Christians).

See simple - and as that is the case – god left the universe in 1437CE.

 

I am not aware of anybody or any other writings proposing real gods by claiming evidence from history or life itself. Even if other claims were equally credible, did they hold? Do they claim to provide hope or justice? Which alternatives do you suggest?

No people share the same perspective on God or religion. But since the religion and laws are already contained in the Bible, it is possible to compare whether they believe in the same God.

Colossians 2
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

While your statement bears no resemblence to the God of the Bible. Besides the fact that God created the universe, and there is nothing for Him to "leave" except from our perspective, your statement "god left the universe in 1437CE" contradicts some of God's names (which identify him to us): Elohay Mikarov - God Who Is Near (Jer. 23:23), ImmanuEl - God Is With Us (Is. 7:14), El Olam - The God Of Eternity (Gen. 21:33). "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth." (Is. 40:28)

Your date cannot be substantiated, and from your general attitude towards God it is obviously not trustworthy or honest.

We don't have Mormons in my country as far as I know, but from what I hear they have twisted the very tenets that are supposed to designate someone as "Christian" - i.e the Bible. You may also refer to my answer to #1. Joseph Smith has been exposed as a fraud - as far as I can see, his theology is based on a combination of "new revelations", corrupted scripture, and his own "translation" of the Egyptian book of the dead. Besides, one man cannot own the truth. They are "Mormons", not Christians.

That is if you believe Iaison, which you have no reason to. The dating of the earliest extant manuscripts have no relation to the dates of origination of their content. Clement of Rome already writes at the end of the 1st century:

Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. [this doesn't describe just a few years]
...
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.

What was supposed to remain intact was the integrity and message of Scripture, which concludes with Jesus - we can be sure that those people in charge of maintaing it took it seriously. The canon was formed on the basis of authority and proximity, and you are not a priest, prophet, apostle or disciple.

How would you know if I made that up if you don't read the Bible? Read Colossians 2:14 above. I would really like to speak to the Christian who does not believe that. The "He" is of course Jesus, by the authority of God. And our suffering is the symptom of death, the wages of sin, which is exposed by the law and which represents our debt to God, which Jesus paid off by dying in our place. That is why we owe God a debt of thanksgiving, which is paid in kind by unselfish love. This is understood from Romans, Hebrews, Colossians and Corinthians.

It's not so simple. Their beliefs might also have come from certain myths and beliefs that are not exclusively Roman, Buddhist, etc. Muslims certainly assume an Israelite history similar to the Jewish one. Truth - especially spiritual truth - cannot be "confined" to a religion or a person. There is nothing to say that everybody cannot have some kind of grasp on it. Compare the connections between psychology and Greek mythology, for example. And John the Baptist, who was predecessor to Jesus' teaching, wasn't a mainstream Jew or a "Christian" while he was preaching a "baptism of repentance". As phenomena, all gods start out on equal footing. That does not imply they remain that way, relative to what they propose to be. When Jesus said: "everyone on the side of truth listens to me", Pilate asked "what is truth?" It is a question that can lead anybody to the right God. Was Athena a real god? What is "real"? She had a very real statue. But did that statue represent the true God - or was she more a patron god of "wisdom, war and crafts"? For whom did she die? Why would you suggest her as an alternative, taken that you assume she has the same claim to credibility as the Biblical God?

Evidently we are not in agreement. Phenomenology does not make declarations about truth - that is left of the "phenomena" themselves. You should not listen to any Christian who follow the Bible loosely. The question is whether you know enough to judge how close someone is following the Bible.

 

Buddhism? Julius Caesar was a “real” person and worshipped as a God. There are really to many to count. I can tell you one thing though. No one has ever converted to Christianity without coming in contact with Christians. Coincidence or human nature?

And yes there are many many many past and present religions that prove to be equally as convoluted as Christianity and in some cases less so (ex: Islam).

Of course “Hope” and “Justice” are relative.

On the topic of History – a real fact is that many pre-Christendom religions are so unbelievably similar to Christianity that the “official” line is Diabolical Imitation. Of course, I personally prefer to call a spade a spade – plagiarism! (could you imagine if I copied someone’s work and tried to pass it off as my own research and when it was found I plagiarized something that was published 50 years previously, I then just said – Hey that’s Diabolical Imitation – The Devil must have went back in time and written that paper, knowing I would write it now! Too funny! Come on Jenyar.

Taoism is my suggestion.

(although I personally am a non believer)

This is true. I wanted to pick something that was far removed from the Bible as an example. But of course, and typical of almost any personal belief, if you naysay another religion (ie Mormons) you are suggesting to me that you know the god better than they and in some way have biblical authority over them. I can guarantee the Christian Mormons see no contradiction in their beliefs and the Bible.

Jenyar, now I’m seriously curious. Can we agree to this – that they (the Mormon “Christians”) just made it up? If so, then good, at least we’re (you and I) are getting some common ground between us.

I haven’t seen anyone make an argument against him that I find is more convincing. Simply put there are no contemporary writings so until there are some found then I wouldn’t be convinced Jesus even existed (little own a God). As I said before, if it were Alexander or Brutus’s Linage – well that I can forgive. But when God makes a pit stop by your puny little planet then I’d expect she’d leave something behind!

Unless your Muslim then the message concludes with Mohammad. (or Jewish then Mosses or Mandeans then its John the Baptist, or Mormon then John Smith or or - you get the idea here) Anyway, your statement above suggests that Mohammad wasn’t a messenger of god. Then, I must presume you believe he (Mohammad) was just making it all up? I really want to know what it is you think about this - is that, do you think Mohammad just made it all up?? If it is true that Islam is all made up - then why is it, do you think, that the Islamic think differently? I wonder if you would have been born in the early 1100’s in Arabia if you’d think the same of Mohammad? I somehow doubt it. As a matter of fact, I think we can agree that you’d be Muslim and not believe that Jesus was god at all. Or if you were born in Japan in the early 700’s then you’d believe something all together different. What a coincidence you happen to be born in the time and place to receive the “real message” and not be swayed by these false ones!

The same is said for Jewish, Christian, etcetera.

Certainly not much different than psychology and Christianity.

With this line of reasoning then the Mandeans, having a drastically different view than both Christians and Muslims on Jesus, well then they must be correct and Jesus is a false prophet, almost depicted as evil!

Come on Jenyar.

??
DO you mean as BS?!?! Oh my god I may start to believe in God because I think you’re coming around here!

I know I know – wishful thinking!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let’s compare:
Was Jehovah a real god? What is "real"? He had a very real statue. But did that statue represent the true God?

Their equally as probable. That is, there’s no evidence for either. It just happens that yesterday it was Athena, today it’s Jehovah and tomorrow it’s who knows who maybe Bin Laden.

?? There’s nothing that says someone or something or some god or some kind of animal or some idea or anything has to die for a religion to be truth. If that were the case Buddhists and Muslims would be converting. And they are not, to we can assume that death is really a rather bizarre and maybe sadistic aspect of only a few modern religions.

As to Athena’s credibility – hers is the same as any Gods claims to being credible.

As to why did I suggest her as an alternative? That point should be clear by now. They made her up - she isn’t real. There is no evidence she ever was real. Athena is the same as all of the many thousands of deities who have been made up. Jesus/Jehovah being just one of the many. People believe in Jesus/Jehovah because they have come in contact with another who believes in Jesus/Jehovah; if they hadn’t, then they wouldn’t believe in Jesus or Jehovah.

Can we agree to that statement?

 

Or God's work? By the way, you don't know that for a fact, it's speculation. I have heard of a few people who have "found" their faith (that they already had) in the Bible. It's a way of living while believing in God first, a doctrinal religion second.

By "convoluted" I take it you mean you don't understand them?

Oh, really? Relative to what? Don't say interpretation, because that is exactly what defeats the purpose of justice and the expectation in hope.

Similarity does not imply plagiarism. But it does turn the idea of exclusivity on its head. And you don't take into account the nature of knowledge. As I said before: the truth can't be owned. Everybody has equal access to it, but not everybody walks the road all the way. And you completely disregard prophecy.

Please distinguish between "made up" and "corrupted". The heresy of Mormonism is well documented, because they do not propose to be a "new" religion. They lean on teachings that they propose to have "restored" from the original (which was apparently lost or corrupted). But they are not Christians, and they do not recognize its Jewish roots. Joseph Smith "corrected" the Bible on his own authority. Taken from the CARM website:

'Christianity teaches that there is only one God. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods. Christianity teaches you cannot become a god. Mormonism says you can. In fact, Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another planet who became a god and brought one of his wives with him to this world." Have a look at CARM on Mormonism.

Again you disregard the position Jesus had in the whole course of history. He was not just a flash in the pan - catch it or miss it. God chose a people, gave them promises, laws, prophesies and a king. These weren't just to keep them happy, they kept them faithful. The faith matured until the destruction of the second temple and the coming of the king (Zech. 9: See, your king comes to you,
righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.)

Gates do not exist without walls on either side. When a gate swings open you do not stand there and wonder why the opening looks just like any other empty space. And history doesn't stand still to wait for you.

You just made it clear why the "real message" cannot stand separate from everything else. For it to be real it has to fit into a greater scheme of events, because that is how we distinguish "reality". Why do you think people deny the reality of miracles? Not because they are impossible (they're not), but because they do not fit into what we expect to happen.

Anyone who brings someone to God fulfils the function of a prophet. But if they deny the very foundations they stand on, it's a problem. Then they pretend to be unique and special. Even Jesus did not claim to be significant - that claim was made by God himself. Jesus own credibility was established to those near him by iracles and teaching. We don't have the advantage of witnessing his miracles, but we do know his teaching. And we know that because we believe in the God of the Covenant. The Christian Bible includes the Hebrew Bible because it is our foundation. We do not propose to have received anything other but what God already promised - His salvation.

The Christian message isn't what we can do to attain salvation, it is what God did to let us have it. Not ourselves, nor any one man, can ensure our salvation.

John's teaching did not come out of nowhere. He was a Jew and a Nazarite. But he assumed a role that nobody would have presumed without clear instruction from God. He was the fulfilment of the prophecies of Isaiah (700 years earlier) and Malachi. He did not preach anything different than what would be expected. The truth of his view comes from "advancement by acceptance" (fulfillment), just like Jesus' ministry.

While Mohammed certainly did bring people to God, he did not bring salvation. I don't know why he would not accept the truth of his foundations - maybe he did, but nobody took any notice.

Excuse me? God never had a statue, since it was forbidden to make any representation of Him. He also has no shrine or grave.

But the Creator existed before Athena. And Judaism long before any Roman cults. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion (Was the New Testament influenced by pagan religions?).

It's the weight of history which straightens the leadline of truth. The concept of sacrifice is central to Jewish (and most religious) thought. It does not make anything true, but it does provide a guide by which we can judge any claim that is supposed to be based on the principles of Judaism. Since injustice spilled blood, blood must be spilled to redeem the guilt of injustice. "Justice" means "letting a person have what he deserves". When Adam and Eve took the life God gave into their own hands and away from Him, they brought death upon themselves and their descendents, but he was merciful and let them live, so we owe God a debt of life. This debt was payed of by Christ, and now we owe God a debt of thanks. That's the basic principle.

Have you even read any claims by Athena? At this point it might be relevant to include Paul's encounter with the Romans in Athens (named after Athena):

Acts 17
22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

The rest makes for some interesting reading. But even those people who believed in Athena and knew more about her than you do, admitted the possibility of an "unknown god".

But the things she represent are very real. She was never supposed to be based on a real person. She was an idea of God - an idol. People believe in God because they can bring some desire of their own into contact with some part of God. But only the desire to know a real God can bring you into contact with the real God. If you want money, anything that can supply you with wealth could become your "god" - whether you put a name or a face to him or not. But there is only one living God - and you must bring your whole life into play if you want to know Him.

 

To be a Christian is to believe in Christ. People have never just started believing in Christ. It’s called indoctrination – which must occur prior to being a Christian. Surely you can see the logic in that? What you think someone was just walking around the Alaskan tundra and suddenly tought – Hey I love you Jesus thank you so much for dieing a bloody death to save me!
Too Funny!

ie: “contradictory”. Of course when one “makes it up” anything can “make sense”.

Similarity does not imply plagiarism? Then what does imply plagerism! LOL Too Funny!!
Christianity it so utterly similar that even the Church Fathers acknowledged it was either 1) copied from previous religions, that is PLAGERIZED or (2) Diabolical Imitation.

They opt for “2” I personally am going to say “1”.

Of course this is an excellent example of the ”Make it up as I go along and when I don’t like it rational” In the “Real World” if you see that my book is Just like JRR Tokens Lorad of the Rings in Chrarater, Story line, and Premise complete with the title Lord of the Ring (minus the “s”), a Bilibo and Ganderoff you’d agree I was plagiarizing. However, when your own religion does the same what do I here:
1) Similarity does not imply plagiarism. LOL
2) And you don't take into account the nature of knowledge. As I said before: the truth can't be owned. (Super Herring – up up and away!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
3) Everybody has equal access to it, but not everybody walks the road all the way. (Faster then a speding RED bullet)
4) And you completely disregard prophecy. (Oh come on Jenyar, your making this too easy – I already said Diabolical Imitation that was the second choice)

Heresy to one is belief in another. Again, unless you are the almighty authority on God then the Moromosn are equally correct. I mean come on Jenyar, I point out the same flaws in your argument and you’re all “Similarity does not imply plagiarism … And you completely disregard prophecy”. However, J Smithy does the same and you’re: “The heresy of Mormonism is well documented . . . .. . . . . “
Too Funny!

Maybe . . . or maybe he was a prophet of god and you may burn in eternal hell for not recognizing that fact and speaking “Heresy”

Yeah, been to a catholic church lately? Anyway, I just made one so there he has one.

Did I just here you say that the pharos are gods?

Don’t be deceitful Jenyar, you haven’t thus far and there is no need to begin now. If I plagiarized a paper from the 1980’s then I could say (assuming no one recently plagiarized the same paper) about my paper:

“The writing of my paper happened to occur at a particular time and place that has absolutely no parallel in any Journal. Of course if you look back a few years – Oh yeah maybe you will find one JUST LIKE MINE. Must have been Diabolical Imitation (DI)!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Take out the time and place and the Jesus story is pretty much completely comprised of poorly savaged ideas from many mystery cults and past religions. Even you should admit this. I mean, your own church fathers were more than willing to.

And of course that’s to be expected, especially when the people building a Jewish mystery cult / Christianity use Jewish history and they themselves happen to be Jewish.

Come on.

Lastly, I’d prefer an Athenian hotty to a bloody crucifix any day

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!