Atheism-o-Phobia Part 3

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1001

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually it isn’t even that. Atia wakes and washes, having the feeling of having been with her husband…The story, if anything, suggests some kind of sexual congress.
[/quote]

Yes, she wakes and washes to purify herself - because the ‘serpent’ (divine) impregnated her. The text says ‘as if’, not that she had sex with her husband (or the serpent).

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Again, my argument is that Christianity is similar to Pagan religions, not that it was a direct copy.

Yeah, they both have non-mortal characters and miraculous stuff happening. Not exactly ground-breaking material. [/quote]

I’m not saying that what I’m putting forth is anything new - I’m simply agreeing with the ancient apologists.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Throw away the virgin part and you might as well compare Zeus’ ability for speech to the Christian God’s. Ok, they both talk, and? I bet both were considerd gods, too! [/quote]

This is nonsense, of course. The similarity is not simply a ‘miracle’. It is that the child is 1/2 God. You are attempting to trivialize this. Which is, of course, absurd.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nit-picking? Wow. I haven’t seen this level of backing off from specifics to meaningless generalizations, the changing of the parameters of claims being made, badly read excerpts (such as Atia’s), ommisions, and unashamedely clinging to a now defunct argument, since the last time I stopped in on a 9-11 troofer thread. [/quote]

This run on is a simple rhetoric trick. You attempt to marginalize my position by suggesting a strawman, when the reality is that my position has been consistent. Notice that you haven’t dealt with the substantial bulk of my posts. You haven’t dealt with the ancients themselves using the term ‘virgin’ or the ancients themselves citing the similarities between Christianity and Pagan religions.

Instead all you’ve done is say that a miracle story of God impregnating Mary is not sufficiently similar to a miracle story of God impregnating Perseus’ mother simply because Perseus’ mother was not ‘pure’.

And you have the unmitigated gall to try to say that I’m backing off? You haven’t even stepped up to the plate!

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m still waiting on Mithraic literature containing one mention of a virging birth. You did imply alternative tellings, which included such.[/quote]

And I would produce this…because?

Oh, that’s right, you are pretending I’m claiming this. I haven’t claimed this at all. All I’ve claimed is that there are alternative tellings of the mystery religions. You are the one who is tacking on that strawman of a virgin birth, which is why you are now trying to say that I’m implying it.

That’s very weak.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll check back in a few hours, but I know I’ll be dissapointed. [/quote]

Frankly, I’m disappointed in your utter ignoring of what I have posted in favor of stuff that I haven’t. I’m disappointed with your running away from the claims that I have made.

Please deal with Justin the Martyr. Please deal with my position that Christianity was similar to Pagan religions.

Stop sticking me with strawmen.

1002

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

It’s not a major detail. It’s not even important in the scope of the story - the important point is that a “GOD” was the father.

[/quote]

But before I head out…Yeah, you might as well have just said “They both have gods and miracles” and saved us both some time.

1003

BTW - notice that I’m the one posting the primary source material - you are posting wikipedia stuff (and you have the pretentiousness to demand primary sources of Mithrialism!).

1004

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I haven’t seen this level of backing off from specifics to meaningless generalizations.[/quote]

Just to further drive my point home - notice how this entire time I’ve been claiming that Christianity and ancient Pagan religions are similar. I’ve been repeatedly saying that they are not one to one copies.

What point does Sloth make? He attempts to say that I am backing off of specifics.

Nice Sloth, have you been paying attention?

Again, similarities: Gods impregnating moral women to produce semi-divine offspring.

Not specific copying, such as God impregnating a woman named Mary to produce a child named Jesus.

Please pay attention Sloth.

1005

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

It’s not a major detail. It’s not even important in the scope of the story - the important point is that a “GOD” was the father.

[/quote]

But before I head out…Yeah, you might as well have just said “They both have gods and miracles” and saved us both some time. [/quote]

sigh

So because the miracles were not direct copies, they aren’t similar at all.

This is your line in the sand?

This isn’t simply ancient sources having miracle stories - this is ancient sources having similar miracle stories!

But unless they are direct one to one copies, Sloth isn’t buying it. Your standard is ridiculous.

1006

So, here’s what I have demonstrated:

Christianity and other ancient religions/beliefs have similar ‘birth’ narratives.

Mary was impregnated by a God and this produced a divine human.

Pagan sources indicate that various pagan ‘people’ (whether religious or ruling) were impregnated by various Gods and produced divine humans.

Another thing that was similar was baptism. Mithrialism had the famous blood baptism, where initiates would stand under a bull that was slit open. Tertullian also confirms that Pagans used baptism (Tertullian (Roberts-Donaldson)):

“For washing is the channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites–of some notorious Isis or Mithras. The gods themselves likewise they honour by washings. Moreover, by carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients, again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest of purifying waters.”

Now, is this the exact same as Christian baptism? No, again, I’m not arguing that Christianity directly lifted things from Pagans.

My position is that Christianity is simply a Hellanization of Judaism. It takes the prophecies in the Old Testament and adds some clearly Hellanistic beliefs. One being a 1/2 human Godman - which would have been detestable to the ancient Hebrews writing the Old Testament.

In short, nothing (or at least *not very much) of Christianity is either new or unique. I take a position close to Dr. Price’s: (From here:Robert Price Fiction » Internet Infidels )

"1) In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero’s birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.

These features are found world wide in heroic myths and epics. The more closely a supposed biography, say that of Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, corresponds to this plot formula, the more likely the historian is to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth.

And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no “secular,” biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that’s all the historian can deal with: probabilities.

There may have been an original King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so. There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too, but, unlike most of my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, I don’t think we can simply assume there was.

  1. Specifically, the passion stories of the gospels strike me as altogether too close to contemporary myths of dying and rising savior gods including Osiris, Tammuz, Baal, Attis, Adonis, Hercules, and Asclepius. Like Jesus, these figures were believed to have once lived a life upon the earth, been killed, and risen shortly thereafter. Their deaths and resurrections were in most cases ritually celebrated each spring to herald the return of the life to vegetation. In many myths, the savior’s body is anointed for burial, searched out by holy women and then reappear alive a few days later.

  2. Similarly, the details of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection accounts are astonishingly similar to the events of several surviving popular novels from the same period in which two lovers are separated when one seems to have died and is unwittingly entombed alive. Grave robbers discover her reviving and kidnap her. Her lover finds the tomb empty, graveclothes still in place, and first concludes she has been raised up from death and taken to heaven.

Then, realizing what must have happened, he goes in search of her. During his adventures, he is sooner or later condemned to the cross or actually crucified, but manages to escape. When at length the couple is reunited, neither, having long imagined the other dead, can quite believe the lover is alive and not a ghost come to say farewell.

There have been two responses to such evidence by apologists. First, they have contended that all these myths are plagiarized from the gospels by pagan imitators, pointing out that some of the evidence is post-Christian 2E But much is in fact preChristian. And it is significant that the early Christian apologists argued that these parallels to the gospels were counterfeits in advance, by Satan, who knew the real thing would be coming along later and wanted to throw people off the track.

This is like the desperate Nineteenth-Century attempts of fundamentalists to claim that Satan had created fake dinosaur bones to tempt the faithful not to believe in Genesis! At any rate, and this is my point, no one would have argued this way had the pagan myths of dead and resurrected gods been more recent than the Christian.

Second, in a variation on the theme, C.S. Lewis suggested that in Jesus’ case “myth became fact.” He admitted the whole business about the Mythic Hero archetype and the similarity to the pagan saviors, only he made them a kind of prophetic charade, creations of the yearning human heart, dim adumbrations of the incarnation of Christ before it actually happened. The others were myths, but this one actually happened."

Here’s some helpful websites for people who are truly interested:

  1. Pagan Origins of Christ: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth and Christianity
  2. Christ as a fiction: Robert Price Fiction » Internet Infidels
  3. The Virgin Birth: James Still Virgin Birth » Internet Infidels
  4. Early Christian writings: Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

It should be noted that Christianity, much like other ancient religions, didn’t have one distinct narrative. It is true that today it (pretty much) does, but that was not the case in ancient times. I point to the Nag Hammadi Library (Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia) and to Gnostic Christianity for examples.

So that is my position - Christianity is not new or unique, that it is similar - but not a direct copy - to other religions at the time.

Then you have Sloth’s position that since the miracles are not completely the same therefore they are not similar at all.

I’ll leave it to the reader to determine who’s position is more rational.

1007

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Then you have Sloth’s position that since the miracles are not completely the same therefore they are not similar at all.
[/quote]

Nope. Where’ve I denied births, gods, miracles. You’re right, there’s gods, miracles, and “stuff.” THAT’s similar. You know, the kind of things every Christian already knew from watching or reading hercules. What was blown out of the water was HOW similar, in any meangingful way, these stories were. We’ve watched stories of gods literally coming into existence being compared to an eternal Christ, non-virgin virgin births, lustful gods getting it on, phalluses of gold, molested sleeping women, the birthdays of gods being compared to the non-birthday of Christ, etc.

You’re left with Christianity being a hellenzied jewish faith based on “Births, gods, miracles, stuff.” Truly groundbreaking research. Generalize something enough, from here, there, and everywere, leave out pertinent details and suddenly you have shocking comparisons. Add the detail back in, bring in the ommissions, correct the flatly false, and it becomes a yawner.

1008

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nope. Where’ve I denied births, gods, miracles. You’re right, there’s gods, miracles, and “stuff.” THAT’s similar. You know, the kind of things every Christian already knew from watching or reading hercules. [/quote]

I’ve quoted the ancient Christian apologists on these issues - my entire stance has been that the early christians knew of these similarities and explained them as being forgeries of the devil.

Have you been paying attention? Seriously, this is a completely baffling thing to post, that ‘every Christian already knew’ - that’s what I’ve been saying!

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What was blown out of the water was HOW similar, in any meangingful way, these stories were. [/quote]

That is subjective. The birth miracles are very similar, as I’ve detailed, and as the EARLY CHRISTIANS STATED. You’ve attempted to nit pick them, without explaining the ancient apologists. As though the only similarity that could count is a direct copy.

If that’s not your stance, then how can you deny that the birth narratives are similar in a meaningful way? They all involve Gods impregnating mortal women and producing divine offspring. This isn’t simply any old miracle claim. You do realize that, don’t you?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We’ve watched stories of gods literally coming into existence being compared to an eternal Christ, non-virgin virgin births, lustful gods getting it on, phalluses of gold, molested sleeping women, the birthdays of gods being compared to the non-birthday of Christ, etc. [/quote]

First: you are equivocating on how the ancients used the term ‘virgin’. You are using it in the modern standard; ie, an untouched woman. This is not necessarily how the ancients saw things. I’ve pointed this out by pointing to Christian apologists who used the term virgin in talking about divine births. You haven’t rebutted this.

You’ve pretty much ignored this whole line of evidence.

Second: What you are doing is saying that because other people on the forum have made specific detailed claims (such as shared birthdays), therefore I am doing the same.

Third: You are saying that because some of the women in the pagan narratives had had sex before, therefore there is no similarity with Christ’s birth - which over looks the fact that both the pagan sources and the Christian source has a woman who gets pregnant by a God and has a divine offspring without sexual congress (not in all cases, mind you). You act as though THAT similarity does not count, for some bizarre reason (probably because you follow Holding’s writings).

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re left with Christianity being a hellenzied jewish faith based on “Births, gods, miracles, stuff.” Truly groundbreaking research.[/quote]

?

You are the one who is trying to claim that I have to have groundbreaking research. Which is NOT at all what I have presented since NONE of the stuff is new! In fact, as I keep pointing out, my position is similar to the position of the ancient christian apologists (whom you attempted to handwave away).

So now you expect me to have some paradigm shifting research? You are shifting the goal posts. My position has stayed the same.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Generalize something enough, from here, there, and everywere, leave out pertinent details and suddenly you have shocking comparisons.[/quote]

Or, ignore the parallels and claim that everything is some vague generalization. I’m sorry, but yours is the position that requires substantial evidence now, since I’ve posted the sources. Remember, I’m still calling on you to answer Justin Martyr and the other evidence I’ve presented. You just keep handwaving as though they don’t exist.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Add the detail back in, bring in the ommissions, correct the flatly false, and it becomes a yawner. [/quote]

I could care less what interests you - you have consistently distorted what I’ve written and consistently ignored the source material.

Who cares what your ill-researched position is? You can’t even defend it!

In short, put up or shut up. Until then, you are done here it seems.

1009

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nope. Where’ve I denied births, gods, miracles. You’re right, there’s gods, miracles, and “stuff.” THAT’s similar. You know, the kind of things every Christian already knew from watching or reading hercules. [/quote]

TWISTED forgeries. Similar in “Gods, births, miracles, stuff.” The virgin birth of Christ is not compared to the virgin birth of Perseus, but to his miraculous birth period. You do realize Justin was defending against charges of Atheism during the persecution of christians, no?

“Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), [1776] and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.”

Just before your excerpt, how were the sons of jupiter concieved?

“But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated[/b] and that his sons did like actions…”

And later;

…or some one or other of those who are called gods have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede,

He’s defending a charge of atheism ("we believe in divine miracle stuff!) with Christian examples of the divine and the miraculous (gods, miracles, deaths, stuff), yet also noting their very twisted differences (Jupiter actually knocking up his women-on-the-side).

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What was blown out of the water was HOW similar, in any meangingful way, these stories were.

Pangloss wrote:
The birth miracles are very similar…[/quote]

Cool, maybe you’ll actually get around to sharing one. So far we’ve got multiple bastards sired through intercourse by a god stepping out on the missus.

Actually, Christ the eternal, wasn’t conceived, merely the flesh. It’s not the soap opera of “that god is the father of my baby, Jerry!” Nor, is there any coming into existence from rocks, coming into existence through a birth, or sprouting from a thigh or forehead.

No, I haven’t. They were born. See, similar? After that we get non-virgins, golden phalluses, transformation from rocks, and lustful gods getting it on behind their Goddesses’ back.

Um, it has been. Pulling together multiple accounts of multiple gods, generalizing the heck out of them…yeah, vague generalization.

1010

[quote]Sloth wrote:
TWISTED forgeries. Similar in “Gods, births, miracles, stuff.” The virgin birth of Christ is not compared to the virgin birth of Perseus, but to his miraculous birth period. You do realize Justin was defending against charges of Atheism during the persecution of christians, no? [/quote]

As to the virgin birth, they are comparable since they share several elements. Look how weak the claim is that you are making - the only difference would be whether the mothers had sex prior to God’s impregnation. Further, you are ignoring how the ancients used the term (virgin).

As to Justin’s claims - that is not the only thing he was defending against. Have you read his letters? I’ve posted links to them.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), [1776] and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.”

Just before your excerpt, how were the sons of jupiter concieved?[/quote]

First, this is not from the Dialogue, this is from the apology. Justin had several letters.

Christians were considered ‘atheists’ because they didn’t believe in the same God’s the Romans did. Socrates got a similar charge for a similar reason (paradoxically he was also charged with perverting the faith). I am aware of this. This doesn’t get you off the hook - it just sinks the hook deeper.

What this is, is NOT refuting what I’ve written.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions.”

He’s defending a charge of atheism (when christians were having a hard time of it) with Christian examples of the divine and the miraculous (gods, miracles, deaths, stuff), yet also noting their twisted differences (Jupiter actually knocking up his women-on-the-side.). [/quote]

Again, this is not from the same letter as the Dialogue. You also left off this little gem (little wonder why)

“But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things.”

"CHAPTER XXII – ANALOGIES TO THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST.

And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior–or rather have already proved Him to be so–for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Ferseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by AEsculapius. "

He’s saying they are similar, but Christianity is superior.

In regard to Trypho, let’s keep in mind that Trypho was a jew.

Trypho says:

"“The Scripture has not, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,’ and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men.”

Does this look familiar to you?

Justin charges Trypho with not acting fairly with him and argues basically that God has a new covenant (jesus).

In short, Justin is arguing for the divinity of a man. He is not arguing against atheism or anything of the sort. He is arguing against Trypho who is saying that Jesus could not have been divine (it’s dirty) and that it’s ridiculous and all that. When Trypho brings up the fact that the Romans also had ‘virgin’ births and that Christianity’s assertions are similar, Justin says this:

""that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this. "

You are confusing the letters.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cool, maybe you’ll actually get around to sharing one. So far we’ve got multiple bastards sired through intercourse by a god stepping out on the missus. [/quote]

Already did share them - you’ve handwave them away. This is your failing, not mine.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, Christ the eternal, wasn’t conceived, merely the flesh. It’s not the soap opera of “that god is the father of my baby, Jerry!” Nor, is there any coming into existence from rocks, coming into existence through a birth, or sprouting from a thigh or forehead. [/quote]

No one is arguing that Christianity is the same as the pagan religions. It’s a conglomeration of Old Testament stories and pagan religions.

Shit, the whole motif of Jesus running away and the slaughtering of the first borns is from the Old Testament (Moses).

I’m curious - do you acknowledge this similarity??

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, I haven’t. They were born. See, similar? After that we get non-virgins, golden phalluses, transformation from rocks, and lustful gods getting it on behind their Goddesses’ back. [/quote]

Let’s do this slowly:

The impregnation did not involve sexual union in all cases - do you agree?
They were born - you agree?
They had God’s as fathers - do you agree?
They were divine figures - do you agree?

If you agree with all of those, which are significant, then you can’t try to pass them off as trivial.

You missed this bit:

"?

You are the one who is trying to claim that I have to have groundbreaking research. Which is NOT at all what I have presented since NONE of the stuff is new! In fact, as I keep pointing out, my position is similar to the position of the ancient christian apologists (whom you attempted to handwave away).

So now you expect me to have some paradigm shifting research? You are shifting the goal posts. My position has stayed the same. "

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Um, it has been. Pulling together multiple accounts of multiple gods, generalizing the heck out of them…yeah, vague generalization. [/quote]

Nonsense, the shared elements are not vague, despite what you’d wish them to be. Further, as even you cannot refute, the early christian apologists thought so as well.

You are attempting to refute what no one is arguing - that Christianity directly copied pagan sources.

Please deal with what is actually being argued: That the ideas behind Christianity were not new and were not unique.

One such item is the birth narrative, where a God impregnates a woman and gives birth to a semi-divine being.

Also, you’ve ignored this a few times now: Is your stance from JP Holding?

1011

In fact, the ironic thing is that Trypho is arguing that Christians should not believe in a virgin birth, that it’s a pagan invention. (From the dialogue):

(Justin writes, from Trypho’s position): ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ and say it ought to be read, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive.’ And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof."

Here Trypho remarked, “We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.”

To reiterate, in the dialogue with Trypho, Justin is trying to argue for Christianity through the old testament. Trypho tries to show Justin that Christianity is a gross form of paganism and Justin responds that paganism is simply forgeries created by the devil.

So, to be charitable, your synopsis of Justin’s work was incomplete (at best) and ignored the point I was making. I suspect you haven’t read Justin’s works, have you?

1012

I’d also like to point out that in both apologies, Justin is not simply arguing against the charge of atheism - he’s arguing for Christianity.

So I’m not entirely sure what you are attempting to argue, Sloth, when you write:

"He’s defending a charge of atheism (when christians were having a hard time of it) with Christian examples of the divine and the miraculous (gods, miracles, deaths, stuff), yet also noting their twisted differences (Jupiter actually knocking up his women-on-the-side.). "

With regard to pagan similarities.

You seem to be arguing that Justin was arguing for the similarities (yet highlighting their differences), in an effort to dispel the notion that Justin was arguing for the similarities…?

1013

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

First, this is not from the Dialogue, this is from the apology.[/quote]

…Which makes it appropiate in response too:

" Here’s more from Justin Martyr (Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)):

“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”

I’ve said nothing about the PRIOR virginity of Danae. She’d been locked into a chamber (read the story), Zeus ‘pours’ himself into her chamber and knocks her up.

1014

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Also, you’ve ignored this a few times now: Is your stance from JP Holding?[/quote]

It’s not a matter of ignoring. It’s a matter of not having the time you do at the moment. Never read a thing by him.

1015

Okay… now this thread is getting better

1016
1017

[quote]Sloth wrote:
…Which makes it appropiate in response too:

" Here’s more from Justin Martyr (Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)):

“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.” [/quote]

Which wasn’t the only thing I quoted. Further, your rebuttal doesn’t dismiss the fact that he’s making a comparison to the Romans. It doesn’t even really address it.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve said nothing about the PRIOR virginity of Danae. She’d been locked into a chamber (read the story), Zeus ‘pours’ himself into her chamber and knocks her up. [/quote]

?

Relevance?

Again, I’m not stating they are direct copies. Shit, I’m not even stating that the specific story about Zeus knocking up Danae was where Christianity took their idea from.

What I am saying is that these sorts of miraculous births were common during this time period. They share several points and it is from this well that Christianity drew from.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s not a matter of ignoring. It’s a matter of not having the time you do at the moment. Never read a thing by him. [/quote]

Dude, that took all of about two seconds. Fair enough. Your stance sounds like Holdings, hence my interest. You say that you haven’t heard of him, that’s good enough for me.

1018

Can I get a summary JoabSonofZeruiah, or specific issues? I can’t view this video where I’m at.

1019

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

Actually, this is pretty darn good. It does what I tried to, and takes the time to do it. It places Justin–and what he was trying to do–within the enviroment he and other Christians suffered under. Note that he feels the need to state the vaguest of similarities; gods, miracles, births, deaths. Why? Because the hostile population sees them as something very alien. NOT something familiar.

No. Through naming a number of dieties and heroes, calling to mind numerous stories, he has to step back and look for the most basic and generalized ‘similarities.’ to even begin making a case for at least some understanding among a hostile people. He feels the need to do this because of ongoing persecution. We are not atheists. We believe in the divine, in miracles, etc. And then he turns it around on them. Now, if both aren’t atheists, which one of us should be condemned? What of the followers of Jupiter? Jupiter, whose sons are born from violation of woman after woman. Not my God, who has never lusted for, nor violated, a woman. It is a piece not of similarites–outside of the most gutted and generalized sense, made for nothing less than their very lives–but of vast and deep differences.

Yes, it’s a pretty good video. And by actually filling in the often ommitted (inexecusably), you realize that Justin knows he has stretched thin these ‘similarities’ to the breaking point. This is, before he proceeds to brazenly call out the pagan gods for how twisted, demonic, and dissimiliar they are. But try he must. And why must he do so? Justin the Martyr…Sort of speaks for itself, no?

1020

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, this is pretty darn good. It does what I tried to, and takes the time to do it. It places Justin–and what he was trying to do–within the enviroment he and other Christians suffered under. Note that he feels the need to state the vaguest of similarities; gods, miracles, births, deaths. Why? Because the hostile population sees them as something very alien. NOT something familiar.
[/quote]

I still haven’t been able to watch it.

Your response, that he’s trying to show them to be similar, yet not similar is odd. The fact is, they are similar. Justin’s various letters do serve different purposes. In all of them, it seems his feeling is that the other miraculous stories are demonic copies. Which makes the interpretation that they are not similar, frankly, completely odd.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No. Through naming a number of dieties and heroes, calling to mind numerous stories, he has to step back and look for the most basic and generalized ‘similarities.’ to even begin making a case for at least some understanding among a hostile people. He feels the need to do this because of ongoing persecution. We are not atheists. We believe in the divine, in miracles, etc. And then he turns it around on them. Now, if both aren’t atheists, which one of us should be condemned? What of the followers of Jupiter? Jupiter, whose sons are born from violation of woman after woman. Not my God, who has never lusted for, nor violated, a woman. It is a piece not of similarites–outside of the most gutted and generalized sense, made for nothing less than their very lives–but of vast and deep differences. [/quote]

Justin notes the similarities - again, what I’ve been doing. I would obviously say they are ‘basic’, although general isn’t actually fair since, as I pointed out, they are not just ‘miracles’ happened. They are of a similar idea, birth narratives. Downplaying that is dishonest.

Justin’s point is that while they are similar, Christianity is superior, as I’ve said. The others are demonic forgeries.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yes, it’s a pretty good video. And by actually filling in the often ommitted (inexecusably), you realize that Justin knows he has stretched thin these ‘similarities’ to the breaking point.
[/quote]

I can’t comment on the video - I haven’t seen it. Perhaps if you list specific examples it would be more helpful.

Right now, nothing you’ve said - other the generalized handwaving - disputes my position (which is ironic, since you are arguing that the miracles are vague and generalizable).

Again, I get the feeling that you - and possibly the video - are missing the point I’ve been making. The ideas are what are similar, the specific claims contain numerous differences. So the overarching ‘god impregnates a moral woman and produces a divine offspring’ is the idea that all these various religions share. The specific story that God impregnated mary and gave birth to Jesus is not shared.

Further, I asked you before: Do you feel that the ‘escape from the census to avoid the death of the first born’ in the Gospels is similar to the narrative in the old testament involving Moses?

My guess is that, if you were consistent, you’d have to say no.

At which point, I’d have to ask, what would make any story similar to another one? Your stance that they have to be direct copies is ludicrous and if that’s not your stance, then please be specific what would count as similar.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is, before he proceeds to brazenly call out the pagan gods for how twisted, demonic, and dissimiliar they are. [/quote]

So now you are stating that Justin Martyr intentionally made contradictory claims? I’ve asked this before, have you read Justin’s letters?

How does that work? Also, what of his arguments with Trypho?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
But try he must. And why must he do so? Justin the Martyr…Sort of speaks for itself, no?
[/quote]

Are you saying he was intentionally being deceptive to save his own skin?

Seriously, if you read Justin, you’ll realize that your position doesn’t make sense. If the stories aren’t similar, then what sense does it make to state (over and over) that the Pagan’s stories are demonic forgeries?

He says that the mysteries of Mithra were distorted from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah - but according to your point of view, this is absurd, since they aren’t similar.

But if they aren’t similar, then what sense does it make to say the are ‘distorted’ from the prophecies?

Again, read Justin’s work (does the video only deal with the apologies?). Your position (or the position of the video) doesn’t make sense.

"that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this. "

Here’s the entire passage, read what he’s arguing:

"“And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah’s words? For they contrived that the words of righteousness be quoted also by them. But I must repeat to you the words of Isaiah referred to, in order that from them you may know that these things are so. They are these: ‘Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; those that are near shall know my might. The sinners in Zion are removed; trembling shall seize the impious. Who shall announce to you the everlasting place? The man who walks in righteousness, speaks in the right way, hates sin and unrighteousness, and keeps his hands pure from bribes, stops the ears from hearing the unjust judgment of blood closes the eyes from seeing unrighteousness: he shall dwell in the lofty cave of the strong rock. Bread shall be given to him, and his water[shall be] sure. Ye shall see the King with glory, and your eyes shall look far off. Your soul shall pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Where is the scribe? where are the counsellors? where is he that numbers those who are nourished,–the small and great people? with whom they did not take counsel, nor knew the depth of the voices, so that they heard not. The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory; and the very terms of the prophecy declare loudly, that the people foreknown to believe in Him were fore-known to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding. And when I hear, Trypho,” said I, "that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this. "

Later on, he links another direct ‘demonic forgery’ with Mithras:

"I continued, “what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage.” Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. "

If the stories weren’t similar, why would Justin have bothered to blame the devil?