Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?


Lyra

Recommended Posts

 

It is always learning and changing.

 

Once again, of course science is learning. Religion, on the other hand, hasn't learned a damn thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

@Stranger, this has nothing to do with you being honest. I absolutely 100% believe you are being honest with us and that you really, truly believe what you're telling us. I really do. I know this because I was the same way. I wanted to be where God was, I was "after his own heart" as taught by the bible. Up until 8 months ago, I had never "not believed in god" either. I think you want us to believe you and even "come back to Christ." But you did not acknowledge any of what I said. I said the way you were raised has a lot do with it, but what you believe is ultimately up to you. @Stranger, there is soooo much evidence that you believe what you believe now because of what you are taught growing up. That's why so many religions can be traced to certain regions of the world, why you parent like your parents, and many hold similar political beliefs as your parents. What you think about yourself is taught to you, when you are taught to "tell the truth, value honesty, sit up straight, don't pick your nose in public," etc translates into what you believe about the world. Muslims "feel Allah and want to be where Allah is," pantheists "feel the universe god's divine energy," it's so psychological. You yourself gave the example that so many who were raised that way ultimately reject Christianity, this is because they look critically at what they believe with honest eyes. We are asked, as atheists and agnostics, "What if you are wrong?" 

 

I ask you, sincerely, what if you are wrong? I'm not saying, "Admit, right here and now, that you are wrong." I want you to consider the alternative to your current beliefs for the sake of a hypothetical. I know you don't think you are, but what if you are ultimately wrong? What if the bible is myth, god is not real, creation is explained by science and your "experiences with god" are explained psychologically? (I will refrain from sarcastically making mention that there is already evidence for this.) What if you live your entire life and it's a lie? What if your life, the only one you have, passes you by and there is no afterlife? You will have missed it.

 

I do acknowledge what you have said.  I believe I explained earlier about how a Christian is raised.   That too is part of God's hand.  He places His people among His people.  So that they are schooled in His ways.  It is only natural.   So, before the Church, His people were found mostly in Israel.  When the Church began His people were found mostly in Western Civilization which was Christianized.     So, just because one is born among believers doesn't prove they are only believers because they were taught that.   In most cases they were taught that because they were believers.   

 

Of course, once one or a people reject God, they will turn to other forms of worship.  It is natural with man.  Thus you have other religions.

 

I would say the honest eyes of those that reject Christ are as honest as I who believe in Christ.   Well, you tell me.  What if I am wrong?  What would I miss?

 

Stranger

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

god cannot be omnipotent if, by your own admission, he cannot change his nature.  god cannot be omniscient if, by your own admission, he cannot change the plan of salvation and deal with sin by some other means.  god is not omnipotent, by your own admission; and saying it ain't so don't mean it ain't so.  You can claim that your god is omnipotent; but you've already demonstrated, through your own description of him, that he is not.  Have a good day.

 

I never said God was not omnipotent.   And I haven't demonstrated any such thing.

 

Stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I do acknowledge what you have said.  I believe I explained earlier about how a Christian is raised.   That too is part of God's hand.  He places His people among His people.  So that they are schooled in His ways.  It is only natural.   So, before the Church, His people were found mostly in Israel.  When the Church began His people were found mostly in Western Civilization which was Christianized.     So, just because one is born among believers doesn't prove they are only believers because they were taught that.   In most cases they were taught that because they were believers.   

 

Of course, once one or a people reject God, they will turn to other forms of worship.  It is natural with man.  Thus you have other religions.

 

I would say the honest eyes of those that reject Christ are as honest as I who believe in Christ.   Well, you tell me.  What if I am wrong?  What would I miss?

 

Stranger

 

 

 

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I have a greater sense of wonder at the universe, I have a much deeper sense of appreciation for life, I feel so much more gratitude for family. I'm nice to people with no expectations of god brownie points. I am free from the chains of christianity, from the shackles of "sin," which is ironic since I never felt that as a Christian. You appreciate other people, animals, cultures, the earth and you smell the roses more often. Best of all, no threat of hell (or heaven) and don't feel shame just for existing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But doesn't the holy spirit guide you into all truth regarding what science you should deny and what you should accept?

 

Remember our disagreement with knowledge.   You wanted to make knowledge speak to physical knowledge alone.   The knowledge the Christian has concerns 'truth' and  comes from God.  Now, science can definitely  learn the truths of God's creation.   As they are supposed to do.   And Christians are not against that.    But science cannot disagree with the Bible and still be correct.   

 

So, my point.  If science tells me that the core of the earth is a certain temperature.  That's fine.   I cannot deny it.  I trust they are doing the best they can.   They haven't said anything to take away from the Bible that I am aware of.    God hasn't told me what it is.   

 

Stranger

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I do acknowledge what you have said.  I believe I explained earlier about how a Christian is raised.   That too is part of God's hand.  He places His people among His people.  So that they are schooled in His ways.  It is only natural.   So, before the Church, His people were found mostly in Israel.  When the Church began His people were found mostly in Western Civilization which was Christianized.     So, just because one is born among believers doesn't prove they are only believers because they were taught that.   In most cases they were taught that because they were believers.   

 

Of course, once one or a people reject God, they will turn to other forms of worship.  It is natural with man.  Thus you have other religions.

 

I would say the honest eyes of those that reject Christ are as honest as I who believe in Christ.   Well, you tell me.  What if I am wrong?  What would I miss?

 

Stranger

 

 

 Also, I wasn't trying to ignore you at all. I just completely disagree with your logic and explanation of how christianity spread. I think there were a lot more fear tactics that you'd like to admit that caused the spread of christianity and I think you are forgetting how many of us were raised to be believers as well. Your post makes it seem like you were born into the right family, when those of us were born into the "right "family too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You've given us your fear-based message. Now, why don't you let the Omnipotent speak for himself? Can he?

 

Sure.

 

Stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
 

 

I never said God was not omnipotent.   And I haven't demonstrated any such thing.

 

Stranger

Did you say:

 

"Well, as I mentioned above, no.  Because God's nature will not change.   It is either be saved through the process He has created, because that places the individual in a 'righteous' condition, or be separated from God."

 

If you admit you said this, then you admit that god cannot change his nature; and therefore, god is not omnipotent.  If you deny saying it, then you are a liar*.

 

Did you say it, or not?

 

*Reference post 271, page 11.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 Also, I wasn't trying to ignore you at all. I just completely disagree with your logic and explanation of how christianity spread. I think there were a lot more fear tactics that you'd like to admit that caused the spread of christianity and I think you are forgetting how many of us were raised to be believers as well. Your post makes it seem like you were born into the right family, when those of us were born into the "right "family too.

 

There are some believers born into the families of muslims.  Not many, percentage wise, but they are.  So, they were not in the 'right' family.  But, God has His own reason and purpose for them being there.  Quite possibly to be martyrs as many are.   And like wise there are those born in Christian families that are not God's people.   The biggest example is Cain of course.   First born of Adam and Eve.   

 

I'm glad you are happy with your life.  I certainly see the end game as different than you do.  But I know if one does not see themselves as a sinner, then they don't need a Saviouir.  But, just keep these things in mind.  We never know what the future here holds.  

 

Stranger

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did you say:

 

"Well, as I mentioned above, no.  Because God's nature will not change.   It is either be saved through the process He has created, because that places the individual in a 'righteous' condition, or be separated from God."

 

If you admit you said this, then you admit that god cannot change his nature; and therefore, god is not omnipotent.  If you deny saying it, then you are a liar*.

 

Did you say it, or not?

 

*Reference post 271, page 11.

 

 

 

God cannot quit being God.   That means He cannot quit being omnipotent.   It's the old story.  Can God make a rock that He Himself cannot lift?   It is trying to make God against Himself.   It's ridiculous.  The answer is, God can make a rock as big as He wants.  And God can lift any rock He makes.   

 

Yes, I said it and admit it.  You are just wrong in your conclusion.

 

Stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There are some believers born into the families of muslims.  Not many, percentage wise, but they are.  So, they were not in the 'right' family.  But, God has His own reason and purpose for them being there.  Quite possibly to be martyrs as many are.   And like wise there are those born in Christian families that are not God's people.   The biggest example is Cain of course.   First born of Adam and Eve.   

 

I'm glad you are happy with your life.  I certainly see the end game as different than you do.  But I know if one does not see themselves as a sinner, then they don't need a Saviouir.  But, just keep these things in mind.  We never know what the future here holds.  

 

Stranger

 

 

 

You should keep what I said in mind too. I used to think the end game was different too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stranger, you stated:

You shouldn't accept my answer over what God has said.    But I believe what I am saying is what God has said. 

 

What you are reiterating is not what God has said, it is your interpretation of what the Bible has said. God has not spoken directly to you. You feel led to believe certain things based on one book. I feel led to believe other things based on many books. Why should we trust what you feel based on one book written thousands of years ago, particularly when the author was not God, not even Jesus? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
 

 

God cannot quit being God.   That means He cannot quit being omnipotent.   It's the old story.  Can God make a rock that He Himself cannot lift?   It is trying to make God against Himself.   It's ridiculous.  The answer is, God can make a rock as big as He wants.  And God can lift any rock He makes.   

 

Yes, I said it and admit it.  You are just wrong in your conclusion.

 

Stranger

No.  You are wrong in your definition of omnipotent.  You are trying to say that god can do anything except the things he can't do; but he's still omnipotent.  But omnipotent is an all-inclusive word.  Omni- means "all".  god cannot be omnipotent if he can't quit being omnipotent; because that demonstrates something he cannot do.  The very idea of an omnipotent being is self-contradictory, just like your god.  Your continued belief in such a self-contradictory paradox renders itself ridiculous even as you try to defend it.  You have proven your got to not be all-loving.  You have proven your god to be a liar.  You have proven your god to be a respecter of persons.  And now you have proven you god not to be omnipotent.  You actually have less reason to believe in him than I; but you're too bound by your own intentional ignorance to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Stranger, you stated:

You shouldn't accept my answer over what God has said.    But I believe what I am saying is what God has said. 

 

What you are reiterating is not what God has said, it is your interpretation of what the Bible has said. God has not spoken directly to you. You feel led to believe certain things based on one book. I feel led to believe other things based on many books. Why should we trust what you feel based on one book written thousands of years ago, particularly when the author was not God, not even Jesus? 

 

My reply was you shouldn't accept my answer over what God has said.   So, what are you saying God has said that is contrary to what I have said?  

 

God speaks 'directly' through the Bible.   

 

I don't operate on feelings.  I know the Bible is the Word of God, because I know.   Feelings exempt.

 

You don't need to trust me.   You don't need to believe anything.   I am simply telling you what I believe as a Christian.  

 

Stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
 

 

I do acknowledge what you have said.  I believe I explained earlier about how a Christian is raised.   That too is part of God's hand.  He places His people among His people.  So that they are schooled in His ways.  It is only natural.   So, before the Church, His people were found mostly in Israel.  When the Church began His people were found mostly in Western Civilization which was Christianized.     So, just because one is born among believers doesn't prove they are only believers because they were taught that.   In most cases they were taught that because they were believers.   

 

So certain members of the human race are condemned simply because they are not of a Western nationality?

 

First you god picks favourites (Jews), then he dumps them for a "gentile bride", but ensures that only the western nations and those they conquered received the "good truth". Thus we can whole sale cut out India, much of Asia, native tribes all over the world.

 

I have a more likely and demonstrable proposal: The early Christians gained dominance when Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion. Then for the next 1900 years the religion was spread with the sword - native peoples were forced to convert or die. That's what happened, and that can be proven with history. On the other hand you have nothing but assertion to back up your 'gods hand' proposal.

 

Reverend Turmoil likes to point at the horror that is Islamic terrorism currently, but in doing so forgets the horror of what Christianity was. You want to read what some of the dominant Christian nations did to those they conquered. If it was gods hand, then his hands are dripping with the blood of humanity!

 

Finally to understand this whole process its important to understand how the brain works, especially regarding childhood indoctrination. Once taught to believe something as true as children, people have a hard time rejecting it as adults which is why you have a massive expanding population base, and few able to break out of it. And that's been going on for millennia. It doesn't make your message true, it simply shows humanity are slaves to their own mental processes.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No.  You are wrong in your definition of omnipotent.  You are trying to say that god can do anything except the things he can't do; but he's still omnipotent.  But omnipotent is an all-inclusive word.  Omni- means "all".  god cannot be omnipotent if he can't quit being omnipotent; because that demonstrates something he cannot do.  The very idea of an omnipotent being is self-contradictory, just like your god.  Your continued belief in such a self-contradictory paradox renders itself ridiculous even as you try to defend it.  You have proven your got to not be all-loving.  You have proven your god to be a liar.  You have proven your god to be a respecter of persons.  And now you have proven you god not to be omnipotent.  You actually have less reason to believe in him than I; but you're too bound by your own intentional ignorance to see it.

 

No, you are wrong in trying to make God out not to be God by pitting Himself against Himself.  God cannot cease to be God.   Forget it.    That makes Him omnipotent.   That makes Him unchanging.   

 

Stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
 

I know the Bible is the Word of God, because I know.  

 

Ok Stranger, look we have explained to you about circular reasoning. What you just said is circular reasoning. You know because you know? Does this not sound off to you? Ring hollow? Make you think 'hang on that can't make sense'?

 

I know dragons exist because I know. I mean come on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So certain members of the human race are condemned simply because they are not of a Western nationality?

 

First you god picks favourites (Jews), then he dumps them for a "gentile bride", but ensures that only the western nations and those they conquered received the "good truth". Thus we can whole sale cut out India, much of Asia, native tribes all over the world.

 

I have a more likely and demonstrable proposal: The early Christians gained dominance when Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion. Then for the next 1900 years the religion was spread with the sword - native peoples were forced to convert or die. That's what happened, and that can be proven with history. On the other hand you have nothing but assertion to back up your 'gods hand' proposal.

 

Reverend Turmoil likes to point at the horror that is Islamic terrorism currently, but in doing so forgets the horror of what Christianity was. You want to read what some of the dominant Christian nations did to those they conquered. If it was gods hand, then his hands are dripping with the blood of humanity!

 

Finally to understand this whole process its important to understand how the brain works, especially regarding childhood indoctrination. Once taught to believe something as true as children, people have a hard time rejecting it as adults which is why you have a massive expanding population base, and few able to break out of it. And that's been going on for millennia. It doesn't make your message true, it simply shows humanity are slaves to their own mental processes.

 

No one is condemned except for their rejection of Jesus Christ. 

 

Yes, God did create a nation of His own, the Jews.   And later, the Gentiles were offered the same salvation due to Israel's rejection of God.  Yes, Israel and Europe has been the focus of God's attention.   The other nations have been turned over to their false beliefs and idols.

 

I see.  Because people believe differently than you, they are slaves.    There is some truth to what you say.  I am a 'slave' of God and Christ.     I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ok Stranger, look we have explained to you about circular reasoning. What you just said is circular reasoning. You know because you know? Does this not sound off to you? Ring hollow? Make you think 'hang on that can't make sense'?

 

I know dragons exist because I know. I mean come on.

 

I think I have said before, the Christian believes and knows.  It is not believing and not knowing.  It is believing and knowing.     It doesn't ring hollow to me.   Because I know.  It rings hollow to you because you don't know.  And, don't want to know.

 

Stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appreciate all the conversations.  I am gone till next week sometime.  I will try and catch up then.

 

Stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

  I know the Bible is the Word of God, because I know.  

 

   I am simply telling you what I believe as a Christian.  

 

Stranger

 

Do you Know it or do you Believe it? Knowing and believing mean different things.

 

I KNOW that Spiderman is as real as Jesus. I KNOW because I KNOW. That's all I need, right? As I SAY so shall it BE. As you say, so shall it be. Correct? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No, you are wrong in trying to make God out not to be God by pitting Himself against Himself.  God cannot cease to be God.   Forget it.    That makes Him omnipotent.   That makes Him unchanging.   

 

Stranger

 

The basis for Christianity is original sin where people are supposed to be saved by God from the curse that this same God put on everyone. He is pitting himself against himself without our help.

 

He gives us the original curse us then later on wants to save us? LoL. But it requires this convoluted process of killing some guy on a cross cuz he can't just wave  his magic wand and fix the original screw up. That ridiculous. And he changed his mind about that curse. He is not unchanging.

 

Unchanging does not mean omnipotent. Omnipotent does not mean unchanging. But an INABILITY to do something, like change one's mind, for instance means one is not omnipotent. If God is without the ability to change, he's not omnipotent. Is your God missing the ability to change?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Remember our disagreement with knowledge.   You wanted to make knowledge speak to physical knowledge alone.   The knowledge the Christian has concerns 'truth' and  comes from God.  Now, science can definitely  learn the truths of God's creation.   As they are supposed to do.   And Christians are not against that.    But science cannot disagree with the Bible and still be correct.   

 

So, my point.  If science tells me that the core of the earth is a certain temperature.  That's fine.   I cannot deny it.  I trust they are doing the best they can.   They haven't said anything to take away from the Bible that I am aware of.    God hasn't told me what it is.   

 

Stranger

 

 

Yet, when you write here Stranger, all we can see are your words.

 

If you don't know whether to believe if General Relativity contradicts the Bible or not and I ask you to declare for or against, what will we see in your reply?

 

Will we see the words of a man who believes he is bring guided by God on this question?

 

or...

 

Will we see the words of a man who is being guided by God on this question?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
 

 

No, you are wrong in trying to make God out not to be God by pitting Himself against Himself.  God cannot cease to be God.   Forget it.    That makes Him omnipotent.   That makes Him unchanging.   

 

Stranger

god is omnipotent because god can't not be omnipotent.  That is, essentially, what you are saying.  How can you not see the obvious contradiction here?  How can you not see the obvious circular reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You shouldn't accept my answer over what God has said.    But I believe what I am saying is what God has said. 

     Great.  Then the answer is, according to the words of god himself, sin is something that a person can master themselves.  Nothing else it required.

 

 

I believe Eve was mistaken in thinking Cain was the seed line spoken of by God when He said in (3:15) that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpents head.  What she didn't know was that another seed line would be born also.  The seed of the serpent.   I don't throw anything Eve's way then should be thrown.  I actually throw more Adams way.

     So Eve made another error.  She's really bad at understanding things, poor gal.

 

     However, "seed" lines make no sense whatsoever.  It simply says "seed" which is tantamount to offspring.  What a "seed line" is I have no idea.  That is anachronistic.  It would mean projecting backwards.  For Eve, looking forward, all her kids were "seed lines" weren't they?  She had a kid and it was going to also have kids and so on, therefore, a "seed line."  It makes no sense to say anything more about her lack of ability to know that another kid would be born and that would be the actual "seed line."

 

     Your use of this term has an expectation within it.  That Eve should have an offspring knowing that their lineage would eventually culminate, at some point, with someone or something.  But nowhere is that established.  She had no knowledge of such a thing so no expectation can be imposed upon her.

 

     Your argument that she knew that something was up because of v3:15 doesn't hold up.  The verse simple states that her offspring and the serpents offspring, both sets of offspring...not just a single person from her offspring against the serpent but her offspring and the offspring of the serpent, will be at odds.  And the offspring of Eve will hit them in the head while the offspring of the serpent will bite them on the heal.  You have to jump through some hoops to make this mean what you'd like it to mean and for Eve to understand it as you'd understand it.  Where does Eve gain this information as it is not in Genesis?

 

 

Well, God made coats of skins.  Skins come from animals.  When you skin an animal, you first kill it.  When you kill it and skin it there is blood.  Blood is required as a covering for man.  The life of the flesh is in the blood.  (Lev. 17:11)  A life for a life.

 

As I said, I don't read the Midrash.

     Skins do come from animals.  People also come from people.  But in Genesis we're told that both people and animals can be magically spoken into existence.  We're also told people can also come from the ribs of other people.  So when god makes clothes does this actual mean god has to make them like you or I would have to make them?  Because I cannot speak animals or people into existing or make rib women.  I suppose I could reduce god to my level when it comes to making clothing but I don't see why I should after he literally made every single solitary thing that exists in some other way.

 

     But we went down your path.  We did reduce your omnipotent god to our level.  And you ignored what it would actually take to complete the task at hand.  Do you think god did all those things?  Built a proper alter?  Mined ore or found the proper tools to create a knife?  Made a fire from hand?  Tanned the hides?  Made the string to sew the clothes?  All that stuff?  Did god do all those things?  Not using any special powers or angelic assistants, because the text said god did it, but like a human did it because you're saying that he had to go that route to come up with bloody skins to perform his sacerdotal duties.

 

     I said you were resorting to your own form of midrash.  Basically, you're clarifying something in the text (usually using some other text or what have you).  At this point you're using a lot of new testament understanding to try to clarify this Genesis tale.  I understood you didn't read the Midrash and you're not performing actual Midrash.

 

 

Whether Even knew she was dealing with a serpent, or Satan behind the serpent,  is really immaterial.  She knew the commandment God had given not to eat.  If all you had was the book of Genesis then yes, that is all we would know.  But there are sixty five more books.  

     It's very material.  We're talking about Adam and Eve.  What they knew or at least could know.  And they didn't know one book much less sixty-five books (depending on your time, date and place).

 

     So when the punishment was handed out it was given to Adam, Eve and the serpent.  None, meaning null and/or void, was given to a Satan.  So Eve could not know she was dealing with anything more than a serpent given the whole time all references are made to a serpent and nothing else.

 

 

Actually much of the condemnation and judgement went to Satan.   Most especially that the seed of the woman would destroy the seed of the serpent.   But, the seed of the serpent would wound the seed of the woman.   That speaks to Jesus Christ.  He was wounded.  But not destroyed.  Satan was destroyed.  

 

     If Satan *was* the serpent then he'd have the curse of the serpent.  He'd crawl on his belly and eat dust.  Does this sound correct?  Or are you only willing to attribute only a portion of the curse to Satan while attributing another portion of the curse to something else like a literal serpent?  If so, where is the evidence in Genesis?  Because that is what Eve would need in order to understand the situation when those words literally left gods mouth.  When god spoke the curse he didn't pause, he didn't say that one part was for a literal serpent while the other part was for the metaphorical serpent.  So how could Eve know?  I addressed this last part above.  You mention all this about jesus.  That somehow Eve should know, somehow, that eventually things would lead to a point where ultimately an offspring of hers would do something.  But nowhere in Genesis is this apparent.

 

     In Genesis it is apparent it is apparent she is dealing with a literal serpent.  The curse is given to a singular serpent.  If this serpent is something more it needs to be explained how this would be made clear to those present how this might be.  It's also unclear as to why god would be reduced to killing animals in a human fashion.  This requires as much Midrashic explanation as the marital explanation I offered.  It also has been shown that god literally contradicts the very concept of "original sin" and states that humans can overcome sin on their own.  Meaning there absolutely no imperative for Eve, or anyone else, to have any special line of "seed" or a belief in any form of salvation present or future.  Doing good is enough for god.  He says so himself.

 

     And, just to finish this off.  Satan was not destroyed at the crucifixion.  None of the gospels say this and if you accept The Revelation then you'd see Satan is around and hangs around for some time.  Now, on the other hand, jesus was very much killed at the crucifixion.  The gospels are quite clear on this.  That's really the whole point of the story.  He dies.  As in dead.  All the way dead.  The point of being dead is so he can be magically resurrected.  This is the opposite of what you're saying.  Nothing happened to Satan and jesus died.  Jesus just got rebooted after a few days.  But so did a bunch of Greeks.  It was how Greeks tended to become gods (ie. demi-gods, heroes, etc.).  I won't say it was common but it wasn't entirely uncommon.  The general pattern was you'd die, you couldn't have bodily decay, then you'd be resurrected with a physical translation (ie. you'd come back to life and appear somewhere else), and if you had certain bodily wounds they stay with you while others could heal or be healed.  Xianity just added the idea of a general resurrection which was largely opposed by other dominant religions of the time.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.