"case For Christ" And "evidence That Demands A Verdict"

[dagnarus]

You can see, hear, and interact with a video game and therefore that validates the experience of gaming as real. You won't dispute that. But how is that different from someone seeing, interacting with, and walking away from the experience of religious beliefs with tangible, measurable effects in their lives, and just calling the whole experience and interaction with that spirituality?

 

Is it because you touch the hard-shell case of the game? Would you say that this is evidence that Mario is real, or would you say this is evidence that someone created the character of Mario to express the experience of 'fun' for the sake of entertainment and that the experience of 'fun' is real and the creation of Mario is evidence of that?

 

A religious person may turn to the Bible and say it is evidence of a creator God, and in sense they may be correct, but not in the literalistic sense like saying the hard-shell case of your video game is proof that Mario is a real person. Where they would be correct is in saying that the creation of such sacred texts are expressions of that sense of what is called 'spirituality', and that in that sense they are evidence that spirituality is a tangible, legitimate reality in humans.

 

A different, less charged example would be recognizing that our socially constructed realities become in fact objective realities that directly interact with the material world. Our ideas, our values, our beliefs materialize in the physical world where our tools of science and measurements can examine its effects, even though it can't directly touch it, say as in gravity.

 

The question is not whether spirituality exists or not, but what is spirituality in people's lives? And from there, you can ask its value. Just because dominant groups of pre-adolencent gamers took the mythical world of Mario as evidence of an actual realm of magic mushrooms and beat to death with rocks those who tried to tell them it's about that world in themselves instead of some world 'out there', doesn't now mean that that reality that created the game in the first place doesn't exist.

 

When I read your posts I often think about how, if I were to think of Aesop's fable about the tortoise and the hare, and that, while I can say without any real doubt that no such race between land turtle and jackrabbit ever actually took place, this has no bearing on the deeper truth which it was designed to convey, that slow and steady wins the race. Is this a reasonable representation of what your attempting to convey?

 

EDIT:

 

I'd also just like to add that my problem with those who take this tack with the bible is quite simply that, in the end, it seems like most of the deeper truths which lie within the biblical text are, well, horrible.

[dagnarus]

Yes, there is no 'evidence that God does not exist'. However, it is important to point out, that there's no evidence that anything does not exist. There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence.

I'd like the point out that, to my mind, this is in fact the wrong question. I am very willing to say that their is no real evidence that some form of God does not exist. I would however state there is a great deal of evidence that the one described in the bible does not exist/the bible is not the representative of whatever divine agent is out their. This evidence ranges from failed prophecies, to shoddy history. You give some of this evidence at the end of your post in fact.

 

follow, yet intentionally gives the appearance that he is not there to enforce these rules?

 

No, sorry. It's just poor a rationalization. It's a rather lame attempt to explain away the actual evidence and support beliefs that are contradicted by not only the evidence, but the scripture the beliefs are based on.

 

There's just no way the God of Abraham would act in such a manner. For lack of a better term, he's far too much of an attention whore, he's much too demanding, and far too arrogant to 'make it appear as if he does not exist'.

 

It can be said that those traits are not the negative ones they would be in a mere human because he's God. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that he does clearly have those traits, and it's not just in the OT either.

 

Jesus might be considered humble and meek, but his Dad is clearly not. He doesn't toss about his power the way he does in the OT and the miracles are indeed smaller in scale, but he makes his presence known, and shows off far too much to even consider the idea that he might be trying to hide his existence.

 

Feeding a crowd of thousands, making rays of light and birds descend upon Jesus in front of a crowd, healing the sick, making water into wine at a wedding reception. [interestingly enough, Jesus was acting like he was the Groom at that wedding.], and lets not forget the earthquakes, raising of the dead, blackening out of the sun, and ascension into the heavens.

 

It's really beyond any reasonable measure to even consider. That the God of the Bible would willfully plant false evidence or even not leave any of his presence.

 

Regardless of the fact that there are verses to that effect in the book, it's still completely out of character for the God of Abraham to do such things. Especially how given how he reacts to doubt and disloyalty.

 

Remember what happened to the Isrialites when they made their Golden Calf and doubted him? There are numerous examples of such things in the Bible.

 

I mean seriously? How can anyone think that?

 

The first two Commandments are evidence enough that isn't true. 1. Don't worship anyone but me. 2. Don't you dare make fun of me or use my name when you don't mean it.

 

Does that really sound like the sort of thing a God who is willing to hide his presence or even intentionally plant misleading evidence of his own existence would put at the top of his Top 10 things I'll fuck you up for list?

 

Yes, there are a few scattered [and in all honesty, weak] verses that try to explain away the fact that he appears to not exist, and explain that faith is important.

 

There is another possible explanation for all this of course. YWHW is crazy. Stalin for example made a point of manufacturing evidence that his most loyal lieutenants were traitors and then proceed to execute them, just to keep everyone on their toes. Could YWHW's switching between flashy miracles and then hiding all evidence (then proceeding to condemn anyone who doesn't believe) be seen as evidence that YWHW mega ultimate power went to his head and drove him crazy.

[Antlerman]

When I read your posts I often think about how, if I were to think of Aesop's fable about the tortoise and the hare, and that, while I can say without any real doubt that no such race between land turtle and jackrabbit ever actually took place, this has no bearing on the deeper truth which it was designed to convey, that slow and steady wins the race. Is this a reasonable representation of what your attempting to convey?

Yes, you could say that. Except instead of the stories being intentionally manufactured such as imagining an actual tortoise and hare who talk to each other, myths are stories of human reality expressed in imagined realms of existence. But behind the imaginings, is truth. And moreover, a type of truth that expresses both a reaching and a sense of ineffable quality to existence. But it should also be added that that vehicle of myth is not just about the spiritual aspirations, but the social order. I just said this over in another thread that religion is the creation of a sacred canopy that is suspended over our created social structures to grant it validity and authority as a system of truth and values.

 

I hardly find reducing sacred myth down to nothing more than expressions of ignorant superstitions to be an adequate explanation for it, not only in its creation, but in its continued value and the great resistance to changes in understanding we see, demonstrated by books such as those by Strobel trying to validate it on a post-Enlightenment playing field. It needs to be authoritative to them in order to continue to function as that sacred canopy of society within which framework for reality they find their means of understanding their places.

 

That fact alone, that you see such spastic, reactionary responses to challenges to that fabric, to me alone proves it is far more, far deeper than just superstition. These people are not unintelligent, uneducated peasants. In fact, I'd say that their resistance to abandoning their beliefs in totality has a reasonable basis, even though I see that expressed in irrational ways. It's like yelling and screaming about something that has nothing to with what you are being irrational about. It's my view they don't feel that we have an adequate alternative to faith, because all too often, science is presented as a replacement for it. There are great many philosophers who agree, both religious and atheistic.

 

I'd also just like to add that my problem with those who take this tack with the bible is quite simply that, in the end, it seems like most of the deeper truths which lie within the biblical text are, well, horrible.

Most wouldn't agree those are 'deeper truths', in the sense that they have any relevant spiritual value. The deeper truths of things like stories of genocide and blood sacrifices have to do with the evolution of our species using myths to create an image of social order and identity, and that those systems of myth are purely reflective of cultural times, not absolutes. If you've ever wondered at the inconsistency of those who claim to believe the Bible is authoritative and absolute in 'cherry picking' the good bits they like and discarded the rest, this is again a demonstration of how they are really approaching it. They are approaching that inherited myth-system to support their social world order.

 

As part of that system of belief, they need to say it is authoritative, but since the made-up tales of genocide in that inherited myth don't work with their current social order and culture that has evolved since then and informs of current values, they have a conflict to resolve between that premise of authority and the nature of myth. They are the true cherry pickers, and how they resolve that conflict creates irrational solutions, replete with fallacies of logic and factual errors. Strobel's book is an example of that.

[Guest ephymeris]

I can see that added right on the back cover of it,

 

"

I was excited to see if there was objective proof for what I held dear. It was right after I was having the first inklings of doubt... This book was so bad it actually helped point me down the road of deconversion

."

 

Ephymeris, Ex-Christian.net

 

I can say the same thing about Josh McDowell. It's my bet these people have done more to destroy people's faith than any skeptic could ever imagine doing.

 

LOL! I would LOVE to see that listed on the back of this book. He'd probably sell at least a few copies to ex-c's!

[Shyone]

I can see that added right on the back cover of it,

 

"

I was excited to see if there was objective proof for what I held dear. It was right after I was having the first inklings of doubt... This book was so bad it actually helped point me down the road of deconversion

."

 

Ephymeris, Ex-Christian.net

 

I can say the same thing about Josh McDowell. It's my bet these people have done more to destroy people's faith than any skeptic could ever imagine doing.

 

LOL! I would LOVE to see that listed on the back of this book. He'd probably sell at least a few copies to ex-c's!

I'd buy one.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Okay everyone....this is my first real post as a christian on these forums, so don't eat me too fast.

 

I have been wondering lately, and I know its going to sound mighty dumb, but its just my own 2 thoughts, that maybe there never will be any evidence for or against God that you are all so heavily trying to defend?

 

Maybe there isnt any clear evidence....on purpose? So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

 

I know there is that verse in the Bible that says nature is enough to point to God's evidence and existence. I know you will all blow that one out of the water.

 

Well I have come to this conclusion myself, that those who believe in God do so on faith. I guess you cant argue with that, and as someone has put so nicely to me, my brain has fallen out of my backside, lol. I have just found some things aint worth sweating over.

 

Okay, sigh....bring in the lions.

 

I wish I could remeber the exact quote but it is from Francis Collins but it is something to effect of

 

God, then would be one of the most duplictious beings around, and a liar.

[Brakeman]

I strongly suggest reading critiques of these apologetic books -

"Caseagainstfaith's" is one

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/therealjesus.htm

 

and "Evangelical Realism's"

http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/09/18/xfiles-friday-yes-and-no/

 

This link is actually in the middle of the series, I didn't take the time to find the start.

 

One big thing to remember is, while we may never be able to prove that there is some form of "god" out there, we can and have proven the christian god basis to be of lies and trusted ignorance. So I can only wonder what in the world you "reconverted" to.

 

Do your really believe in the story of the tower of Babel, the noah's ark, adam & eve, promised lands and favorite children? Do you believe in the basis of a god that can answer prayers but doesn't? Do you believe in the moral basis of lot's treatment of his daughters, or god's treatment of women in general? Do you condone god's treatment of slaves and concubines(sex slaves)?

[lunaticheathen]

I hardly find reducing sacred myth down to nothing more than expressions of ignorant superstitions to be an adequate explanation for it, not only in its creation, but in its continued value and the great resistance to changes in understanding we see, demonstrated by books such as those by Strobel trying to validate it on a post-Enlightenment playing field. It needs to be authoritative to them in order to continue to function as that sacred canopy of society within which framework for reality they find their means of understanding their places.

 

That fact alone, that you see such spastic, reactionary responses to challenges to that fabric, to me alone proves it is far more, far deeper than just superstition. These people are not unintelligent, uneducated peasants. In fact, I'd say that their resistance to abandoning their beliefs in totality has a reasonable basis, even though I see that expressed in irrational ways. It's like yelling and screaming about something that has nothing to with what you are being irrational about. It's my view they don't feel that we have an adequate alternative to faith, because all too often, science is presented as a replacement for it. There are great many philosophers who agree, both religious and atheistic.

 

I fully agree with this view on mythic realities, as opposed to the popular idea of equating "myth" with "lie." They aren't lies, they're a different kind of thought/reality. And that is indeed what is wrong with modern evangelicals, and most modern christians - they think to have their beliefs relevant, they have to be empirically true, which, in my view, completely destroys the relevance of their spiritual reality. Myth is true without being literally true, empirically true, but since they have lost people to the empirical, Enlightenment view of the world, they have tried to adapt it, thereby wrecking their religion even further.

Not that I like the christian faith, even as a myth - I still found it wanting for various personal reasons. But I understand that my own spiritual beliefs are not part of the "Enlightened" empirical world, but part of the mythic, experiential one. And if all my spiritual experiences are simply all "in my head", that still doesn't take away from their special reality, or their validity in my life.

Basically, the criticism of the two apologetic books here stem from a very basic conflict of two modes of thinking about the world, and an attempt to reconcile them, by denying that the first ever really existed - that the Jesus myth is, in fact, a Jesus history - and that is cutting off your nose to claim smell doesn't exist, and sight is enough.

[Antlerman]

 

I fully agree with this view on mythic realities, as opposed to the popular idea of equating "myth" with "lie." They aren't lies, they're a different kind of thought/reality. And that is indeed what is wrong with modern evangelicals, and most modern christians - they think to have their beliefs relevant, they have to be empirically true, which, in my view, completely destroys the relevance of their spiritual reality. Myth is true without being literally true, empirically true, but since they have lost people to the empirical, Enlightenment view of the world, they have tried to adapt it, thereby wrecking their religion even further.

Not that I like the christian faith, even as a myth - I still found it wanting for various personal reasons. But I understand that my own spiritual beliefs are not part of the "Enlightened" empirical world, but part of the mythic, experiential one. And if all my spiritual experiences are simply all "in my head", that still doesn't take away from their special reality, or their validity in my life.

Basically, the criticism of the two apologetic books here stem from a very basic conflict of two modes of thinking about the world, and an attempt to reconcile them, by denying that the first ever really existed - that the Jesus myth is, in fact, a Jesus history - and that is cutting off your nose to claim smell doesn't exist, and sight is enough.

That is pretty spot-on to how I see it. Well said.

[StPedro]

So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

 

I personally see faith as a liability and a cop out not a value. What makes belief without evidence noble or even desirable? Faith makes anything possible, including belief in Allah, Vishnu and invisible pink elephants.

[StPedro]

So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

 

I personally see faith as a liability and a cop out not a value. What makes belief without evidence noble or even desirable? Faith makes anything possible, including belief in Allah, Vishnu and invisible pink elephants.

 

 

You hit this one on the nail. Christianity has a core , that core is the actual resurrection and rising from the dead by Jesus Christ. There is no proof of this, so everything is blind faith without the actual proof!

[StPedro]

So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

 

I personally see faith as a liability and a cop out not a value. What makes belief without evidence noble or even desirable? Faith makes anything possible, including belief in Allah, Vishnu and invisible pink elephants.

 

 

You hit this one on the nail. Christianity has a core , that core is the actual resurrection and rising from the dead by Jesus Christ. There is no proof of this, so everything is blind faith without the actual proof!

Coming to any God by faith is whimsical. There must be reckless abandonment to common sense to go for such radical ideas. We keep evading the initial motivation for Christianity and that goes with other religions, is to MAKE disciples and control the world, or else. I see nothing but divisiveness and hatred in religion. We can get so coy about these things, but believe me they are dangerous, manipulative, and conditional always!

[StPedro]

So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

 

I personally see faith as a liability and a cop out not a value. What makes belief without evidence noble or even desirable? Faith makes anything possible, including belief in Allah, Vishnu and invisible pink elephants.

 

 

You hit this one on the nail. Christianity has a core , that core is the actual resurrection and rising from the dead by Jesus Christ. There is no proof of this, so everything is blind faith without the actual proof!

Coming to any God by faith is whimsical. There must be reckless abandonment to common sense to go for such radical ideas. We keep evading the initial motivation for Christianity and that goes with other religions, is to MAKE disciples and control the world, or else. I see nothing but divisiveness and hatred in religion. We can get so coy about these things, but believe me they are dangerous, manipulative, and conditional always!

I truly believe, true spirituality has no label, and draws on the wisdom and teachings of all folk law/creeds/dogma/doctrine/myth.......

[★ Citsonga ★]

I see nothing but divisiveness and hatred in religion.

 

Not all religious people are hateful.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Thankyou all for your responses. Very insightful all of them.

 

My initial observation was that perhaps there was no evidence either for, or against God. It seems science can't disprove there is no God, and christians cant prove there is.

 

 

I don't know how you could have evidence AGAINST god if there is no evidence FOR a god!

 

Anyway, we do know that the Christian god/Jehovah/Yahweh, was almost certainly an invention of the Hebrews/Canaanites. They had many gods but chose to just keep Yahweh(their god of war, and nasty with it). So how did the Christian god grow from an invented mythical being worshiped by sub-intelligent goat herders? Ask the Romans and Greeks. They could see the advantages of just having one god. It didn't make the god real, just handy for power and wealth.

 

Jesus the Christ, on the other hand, was a recycled Mithra. Just compare the stories of Mithra and the Christian Jesus.

 

Jesus was Mithra

 

Jesus never existed

 

Food for thought, indeed!

[dB-Paradox]

I've got Evidence That Demands A Verdict (one and two) and Josh does not point out any proof for the biblical Jesus. He mainly sets out to prove how strict the romans were in guarding a station. He uses ligitimate info on procedures they employed if a guard was caught sleeping while on duty. And this is supposed to prove Jesus rose from the dead how? Other evidences Josh uses come right from the bible...lets's use the bible to prove the bible!

[Abiyoyo]

I have been wondering lately, and I know its going to sound mighty dumb, but its just my own 2 thoughts, that maybe there never will be any evidence for or against God that you are all so heavily trying to defend?

 

Maybe there isnt any clear evidence....on purpose? So that those who come to God do so entirely on faith.

What would be the point of all this?

 

I mean the bible is technically evidence for a certain "god" is it not? So that evidence is not destroyed. Word of mouth is a type of evidence. So that evidence exists too. In the broadest sense even just whatever things that simply are may well be taken as some sort of evidence of a "god" so at what point are we to draw the line? We can only imagine that anyone that has directly contacted this "god" or his son "jesus" are condemned as a result of direct knowledge as opposed to "faith." So Adam and Eve. Abraham, Jacob and Moses. Pretty much all the Israelites at Sinai. The apostles. Anyone "jesus" may have been in contact with. The numbers start to add up. It seems ironic considering these encounters appear geared towards giving people the evidence that people need in order to really understand and believe as opposed to something called "faith" (of the blind variety).

 

Further, if it is simply by faith that we are supposed to go to this "god" then would it not be the easiest thing to condemn people for the "devil" to simply appear in all its supernatural goodness (evilness?) and let the cat out of the bag? By it and its minions appearing from nowhere and acknowledging this otherworldly realm then "faith" is destroyed by knowledge. This would be the deathblow to any plan involving faith. Yet, these days, both good and evil forces remove themselves to act in the shadows leaving no traces or evidence. Both work on "faith" it seems.

 

mwc

 

Well, that didn't make any sense

 

If what you say is true, ...then you would believe in 'this god' you are saying has been believed on by evidence for so many thousands of years, instead of faith. But, it is faith that causes one to believe over direct evidence in the current time because not everyone believes the testimonies of evidence from the Biblical characters you stated, ..where evidence of this god.

 

So, faith plays a huge part of the belief as Kathlene said.

[Abiyoyo]

Thankyou all for your responses. Very insightful all of them.

 

My initial observation was that perhaps there was no evidence either for, or against God. It seems science can't disprove there is no God, and christians cant prove there is.

 

 

I don't know how you could have evidence AGAINST god if there is no evidence FOR a god!

 

Anyway, we do know that the Christian god/Jehovah/Yahweh, was almost certainly an invention of the Hebrews/Canaanites.

 

How can you know if he is not real and can't have any evidence for Him?

 

Isn't that what you just said?

[Shyone]

Thankyou all for your responses. Very insightful all of them.

 

My initial observation was that perhaps there was no evidence either for, or against God. It seems science can't disprove there is no God, and christians cant prove there is.

 

 

I don't know how you could have evidence AGAINST god if there is no evidence FOR a god!

 

Anyway, we do know that the Christian god/Jehovah/Yahweh, was almost certainly an invention of the Hebrews/Canaanites.

 

How can you know if he is not real and can't have any evidence for Him?

 

Isn't that what you just said?

You are confusing the existence of god with the idea of a god.

 

Gods don't exist, but the concept of Yahweh, Jehovah, was "almost certainly an invention of the Hebrews/Canaanites."

 

I would add they they didn't invent the concept either. Gods existed The concepts of gods existed prior to Yahweh, and were the inventions of other cultures.

[Abiyoyo]

Thankyou all for your responses. Very insightful all of them.

 

My initial observation was that perhaps there was no evidence either for, or against God. It seems science can't disprove there is no God, and christians cant prove there is.

 

 

I don't know how you could have evidence AGAINST god if there is no evidence FOR a god!

 

Anyway, we do know that the Christian god/Jehovah/Yahweh, was almost certainly an invention of the Hebrews/Canaanites. They had many gods but chose to just keep Yahweh(their god of war, and nasty with it). So how did the Christian god grow from an invented mythical being worshiped by sub-intelligent goat herders? Ask the Romans and Greeks. They could see the advantages of just having one god. It didn't make the god real, just handy for power and wealth.

 

Jesus the Christ, on the other hand, was a recycled Mithra. Just compare the stories of Mithra and the Christian Jesus.

 

Jesus was Mithra

 

Jesus never existed

 

Food for thought, indeed!

 

I am going to print this out and hang it on my wall to look at every morning when I am having doubts about God. Your post has inspired me.

 

This is how it has inspired me. It helps me to realize just how gullible, naive, and easily convinced people can be. You post this like it is the Absolute^TM truth of the matter, no variables involved.

 

Just to let you know. Jesus being a recycled Mirtha is also a creation of Skeptics and the notion has been refuted in many of places by many of people, even skeptics themselves. If Jesus is a recycled Mirtha, then all of ancient Greek Mythology would be recycled!!

 

 

Anyway, thanks for the inspirational post.

[ContraBardus]

Thankyou all for your responses. Very insightful all of them.

 

My initial observation was that perhaps there was no evidence either for, or against God. It seems science can't disprove there is no God, and christians cant prove there is.

 

 

I don't know how you could have evidence AGAINST god if there is no evidence FOR a god!

 

Anyway, we do know that the Christian god/Jehovah/Yahweh, was almost certainly an invention of the Hebrews/Canaanites. They had many gods but chose to just keep Yahweh(their god of war, and nasty with it). So how did the Christian god grow from an invented mythical being worshiped by sub-intelligent goat herders? Ask the Romans and Greeks. They could see the advantages of just having one god. It didn't make the god real, just handy for power and wealth.

 

Jesus the Christ, on the other hand, was a recycled Mithra. Just compare the stories of Mithra and the Christian Jesus.

 

Jesus was Mithra

 

Jesus never existed

 

Food for thought, indeed!

 

I am going to print this out and hang it on my wall to look at every morning when I am having doubts about God. Your post has inspired me.

 

This is how it has inspired me. It helps me to realize just how gullible, naive, and easily convinced people can be. You post this like it is the Absolute^TM truth of the matter, no variables involved.

 

Just to let you know. Jesus being a recycled Mirtha is also a creation of Skeptics and the notion has been refuted in many of places by many of people, even skeptics themselves. If Jesus is a recycled Mirtha, then all of ancient Greek Mythology would be recycled!!

 

 

Anyway, thanks for the inspirational post.

 

 

They are recycled. That's part of the major point here.

 

It's not just that Jesus is a 'recycled Mithra'. It's that he's a recycling of ideas about God or Gods that had been going around in different forms for thousands of years before he ever showed up.

 

Occasionally an older idea that's been out of use for a while is dusted off and put back, but Christianity does not have a single idea that's not been used for thousands of years by other religions.

 

Perhaps the particular mixture of mythology and beliefs is different from the others, but every single belief and story can be traced back to an earlier source. Usually one who was taken from yet another earlier source and so on.

 

The same can be said of any religion. Including ancient ones such as Greek and Roman polytheism, as well as modern religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc...

 

None of it is new or original, and that includes Christianity.

 

The problems with the books mentioned is that they presuppose their answers.

 

They aren't really asking questions, but are rather looking to support a predetermined answer.

 

The answer must be Christ, it must lead to their God being correct. It was decided before the pen ever hit the paper, before the first key was ever pressed, and was always the intention of the books.

 

They were intended to support the idea that their particular view on faith and God is the correct one, and no other angle or answer is ever considered.

 

They try to give the appearance that this is not the case, but both books fail miserably in doing so.

 

Most apologetic literature is like that. It presupposes Jesus, and the God of Abraham as a given. It's just assumed that God must be the Holy Trinity of Christianity.

 

No other Gods or deities are ever really considered.

 

None of them actually prove the existence of a God, much less their particular God.

 

Even if they did somehow manage to prove the existence of a God. They still have no case that it's their God they've proven to exist.

 

Their arguments don't even prove the existence of any God to begin with, but -if- they did. The nature of their arguments for such a beings existence would still not identify him as their particular God.

 

It would just prove a deistic idea of God, with no indication of it's nature or origins. Apologetic arguments, even if taken as true, usually are as much evidence for Allah, Vishnu, or Zeus as they are for Jesus.

 

It's just taken as a given that Jesus is the default for some reason.

[Dagan]

If Jesus is a recycled Mirtha, then all of ancient Greek Mythology would be recycled!!

 

It was.

 

Try reading up on mythological studies sometime. Nutshell version -- they all can be traced back to primitive tribal beliefs which develop independently among human societies everywhere.

 

You think the Jesus story is special and unique? It's about as special and unique as Shakespeare's plays, which ripped off other, older sources but made them better. Just because the Jesus story makes for a ripping good yarn doesn't mean it's true.

 

CS Lewis' apology about the elements of ancient stories found in Christianity as "good dreams" worked for me for a while, but not anymore.

[Antlerman]

They are recycled. That's part of the major point here.

 

It's not just that Jesus is a 'recycled Mithra'. It's that he's a recycling of ideas about God or Gods that had been going around in different forms for thousands of years before he ever showed up.

 

Occasionally an older idea that's been out of use for a while is dusted off and put back, but Christianity does not have a single idea that's not been used for thousands of years by other religions.

This is actually incorrect. Of course it has unique ideas, just as all religions do, otherwise you'd just go join that established religion instead of creating a new one. That's pretty much common sense, but there are also identifiable things which are in fact unique.

 

However, I certainly do accept that ideas from other religions influence how things are conceived of within a new religion. People are products of their cultures, and religions usually begin as social movements, which ideas of God support in how they wish to change their societies. As far as Mythra goes, it has never been established which influenced which, whether Christianity created their crucified savior by "ripping off" Mythraism, or if Mythraism incorporated the crucified savior being influenced by Christianity. So it is overstating things to say it was a direct copycat.

 

You can refer to Richard Carrier's debunking of Kersey Graves and the World's 16 Crucified Saviors here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html BTW, Richard Carrier is a major contributor at Infidels.org and is himself not religious. He is no Christian trying to protect the religion from criticism. I will also add that the movie "The God Who Wasn't There", repeats a lot of these error which are exposed in the link above.

 

So what then about similarities? Again, of course they are present because no religion is born in a vacuum. But they become new religions because they in fact introduce novelty that appeals to people in the first place. They are created myths that are used to address situations and circumstances through the use of symbolic languages and stories. The crucified savior motif was actually more an adoption of the Greek ideal of the noble death, the death of a hero, the noble martyr.

 

It is far, far more likely that the group of early Jesus communities, up in Asia Minor to be specific, took the story of his death and turned into a martyr's death. That then evolved to fit the idea of his death being to bring about the inclusion of Gentiles into Israel without the need to undergo the strictures of Levitical law - his noble death was to abolish the need, and so on and so forth until all these early developments of the myth because what you see portrayed in the much later narrative stories of the Gospel of Mark, and then in Matthew, etc.

 

To say it simply can be reduced to them looking at Mythraism and saying "Hey, lets start our own religion that looks like that!" is frankly, a fantasy. Social development is far more complex than that.

 

I'm all for understanding the human orgins of these things, but I agree with Abi that this stuff about 16 crucified saviors, Horus, and Krishna and what have you, is not a good way to understand it. Carrier himself recognizes this.

 

The problems with the books mentioned is that they presuppose their answers.

Now with that statement I agree. Strobel is not interested in looking at possible explanations, he is interested in one thing - finding evidence to support a belief. That's not a real case of weighing evidence. In reality it's more a book of religious devotion, really.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

They are recycled. That's part of the major point here.

 

It's not just that Jesus is a 'recycled Mithra'. It's that he's a recycling of ideas about God or Gods that had been going around in different forms for thousands of years before he ever showed up.

 

Occasionally an older idea that's been out of use for a while is dusted off and put back, but Christianity does not have a single idea that's not been used for thousands of years by other religions.

 

Perhaps the particular mixture of mythology and beliefs is different from the others, but every single belief and story can be traced back to an earlier source. Usually one who was taken from yet another earlier source and so on.

 

The same can be said of any religion. Including ancient ones such as Greek and Roman polytheism, as well as modern religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc...

 

None of it is new or original, and that includes Christianity.

 

 

 

 

I highly recommend watching Joseph Campbell's The Power Of Myth if you haven't watched it yet which addresses this issue of why do themes in mythology repeat themselves.

[Abiyoyo]

If Jesus is a recycled Mirtha, then all of ancient Greek Mythology would be recycled!!

 

It was.

 

Try reading up on mythological studies sometime. Nutshell version -- they all can be traced back to primitive tribal beliefs which develop independently among human societies everywhere.

 

You think the Jesus story is special and unique? It's about as special and unique as Shakespeare's plays, which ripped off other, older sources but made them better. Just because the Jesus story makes for a ripping good yarn doesn't mean it's true.

 

CS Lewis' apology about the elements of ancient stories found in Christianity as "good dreams" worked for me for a while, but not anymore.

 

I was referring to the fact that one could say Jesus was copied from any one of the Greek gods making it not exclusive to the cop out Mirtha claim. Try rereading the post next time.