Let's go gang -- Why can't you find those pagan myths that inspired the Jesus miracle stories? Will you have to invent your own?
I welcome the evidence of early witnesses such as Justin Martyr, who saw parallels between the mythology of Christians and the mythology of the Roman gods.
But you can't give one example of such a parallel. You can't find any text giving the story of the Roman god and showing any similarity. You ignore Justin Martyr's real point.
Distorting Justin Martyr is not the way to prove a parallel of Jesus to the pagan gods. You have to provide an early text, from the pagan sources, saying what the pagan god did and show the parallel. You're unable to do this, because there is no parallel, so all you can do is dig up this one quote which also gives no real example of a parallel, and doesn't even claim there are parallels. This is the best you can offer. You believe there are these parallels because you've been indoctrinated to believe it and you want to believe it.
Lumpenproletariat's response to that was "Justin Martyr was wrong about this." I'm not sure what there is to be wrong about, he was simply expressing an opinion based on observation.
He said the hero Bellerophon ascended into heaven on the horse Pegasus, according to the myth. Which is false. That's not in the myth. He obviously did not know the myths he referred to.
You have to go back to pre-Christian sources for this, to determine what the beliefs were about the pagan gods. All your "parallels" are really just projection of Christian beliefs back onto the pagan gods. All these "parallels" were discovered much later, in the Christian era, long after the Jesus events, and are just misinterpretations of the pagan gods according to some Christian themes which are projected back onto those earlier myths.
You can't give any example that is not such a projection, in the Christian era, back onto the earlier myths. You have no early pre-Christian text for any of this.
I also welcome the evidence of Wilford Woodruff, who testifies about Joseph Smith's miracles. Lumpenproletariat denies that evidence exists.
No, the stories exist, which are 90% of all the J.S. miracle claims, and all of it is from a direct disciple of the Prophet who had been under the spell of his charisma for several years. We already know that there are MILLIONS of such miracle stories from direct devotees of a guru who claim to have witnessed his miracles. For the claims to be credible, there must be some attestation to them which originates from a source other than the direct devotees of the guru who were inspired by his charisma over many years.
I welcome the common knowledge of the ancient Greek myths, which once again Lumpenproletariat denies exists and insists on primary written sources.
No, just any source prior to the 1st century AD. If your only source is AFTER 50 or 100 AD, that is no evidence of what people believed in 50 BC and earlier.
Nevermind the "primary sources" rhetoric. For claims about what the pagan myths were, and claims that the Jesus events were invented as copies of those earlier myths, we need some source prior to the Christian writings.
This is also an interesting thing upon which to insist since he cannot produce a primary source for the Jesus miracles (e.g., someone who actually saw any of them and reported that they happened).
We don't have such sources for virtually any events back then. If such a source is necessary to establish the historical events, then virtually all our ancient history has to be discarded.
You don't need to produce such a source to make your point about the pagan myths. Just your source to show that the belief existed. All we need is any text before 20 or 30 AD which relates the stories of the gods who did something similar to what Jesus did. It's pathetic that you can't do this. Those sources exist. There are easily hundreds.
But when you find them, such as in Homer and Hesiod, they refute your claim. There is no parallel to Jesus in any of those pre-Christian sources.
I welcome the evidence of the silence of contemporary historians such as Philo of Alexandria, . . .
Who was also silent about John the Baptist, Herod Antipas, and the Zealots, who had more impact than Jesus and the early Christ cults before 50 AD. There's no reason for Philo to have mentioned Jesus before 50 AD. He mentions virtually no one else from the period, other than the extreme elite rich and powerful.
Justus of Tiberius, . . .
He wrote only about wars and about all the kings and official rulers going back to Moses. He wrote nothing about people who had no recognized political office or status or power. The mainline historians were silent on everyone who was not rich and powerful.
Seneca the Younger and Pliny the Elder. Each of these writers had an excellent opportunity to notice the incredible man who was drawing crowds of thousands (GMark specifies "5000 men" being fed in the first miracle of the loaves and fish, which leave the question of whether there were also women (+5000) and children.
Sources like these wrote about the elite rich and powerful only. What you're saying might make sense if your premise is that no one other than the rich and powerful existed.
These writers themselves were part of the top 1% of 1% of the population, and they totally ignored anyone not in that elite class with themselves. Only high-level political and military leaders had any standing with them, except possibly some of their personal relatives in a few cases. If they heard anything about a miracle-worker, they just dismissed it as idle gossip. Of course there was such gossip about this or that nutcase or goofy cult, and they did not waste their time on it. Obviously they had none of the gospel accounts or documents of any kind about those events.
Regardless, the canonical gospels make it clear that this individual garnered the attention of vast numbers of people and even had rulers asking about him.
We don't know if that's correct. All we know is that Herod Antipas executed John the Baptist, and Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus. And maybe Herod had some fear of Jesus, but most of this is very doubtful. It's reasonable to assume Luke exaggerated the notion that H. Antipas asked about Jesus or sought to have him killed. And the story about the banquet where Herod's stepdaughter demanded the "head of John the Baptist on a platter" is not to be taken seriously.
Philo of Alexandria was aware of what was going on in Jerusalem at the very least . . .
He says nothing about any of it except the controversy over placing Roman statues in the temple. Except for that he says nothing about events in Judea during his time. Virtually all his interest focused on events in Alexandria.
. . . and some sources place him in Jerusalem as a resident during the time in question.
That's incorrect. He mentions one visit to the temple, and that's the only record of him ever being there.
He definitely had a great deal to say about Jewish sects such as the Essenes . . .
But nothing about any contemporary events in Judea. Everything he says about them is just their general practices going far back beyond 100 years.
. . . and Theraputae, . . .
But nothing about this sect in Judea, but only in Alexandria where they were centered. Philo's interest in these 2 Jewish sects shows no interest with any current events happening in Judea.
. . . much smaller sects than the Pharisees and Sadducees. Philo could easily have written about this person. He didn't.
But he also wrote nothing about Hillel or Shammai, the two most famous rabbis of the time, and nothing about John the Baptist or about Judas the Galilean or about the Zealots, most of whom had more recognition at the time than Jesus had.
None of these people (who also could easily have written about this movement) did.
Why should they write about Jesus or the Christians any more than about John the Baptist or Hillel or Shammai or the Zealots? or even the Pharisees and Sadducees, which they also did not write about?
I welcome the evidence of all the many religious beliefs that have sprouted over the years (and even in our own lifetimes) and see how easy it is for someone of charisma to sell their beliefs no matter how outlandish.
No, it's very difficult. Hardly anyone believes any of them. And those who are successful require many years, even decades, to recruit their miserably small following. Jesus did not sell anything with his charisma, because he did not have a long public career, which is necessary in order to win a large following using one's charisma. No charismatic who ever won a large following did it in less than 10 years.
L. Ron Hubbard, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, J.Z. Knight and Joseph Smith all stand as excellent examples of how commonplace this sort of thing is, . . .
Only after many years, or even decades, to win a following using their charisma and making use of modern media technology which did not exist 2000 years ago. Without a long career and modern technology, none of these charismatics could have won a following. And even today you could add up all their disciples (the first 4 in the above list) and they are less than .00001% of the population, because such charismatics are so unpopular and universally rejected. (OK, maybe only .0001%)
. . . and they are only the tip of the iceberg. This sort of thing goes on all the time in less successful venues.
Of course there are millions of would-be gurus, today and going back thousands of years, but 99% of them were rejected entirely and are totally forgotten because they had no credibility. The ones who got remembered required a long career of preaching to be able to win their following, having the necessary talent and other factors which brought them celebrity status and made them famous/notorious during their lifetime.
So we can explain how a few of these, the less than 1% of would-be messiahs, were successful in selling themselves and winning a following, even a cult which outlived them. But we can't explain how Jesus in 30 AD, whose career was short and who had no publishing or media industry to promote him, got made into a god in less than 50 years. Nothing like this "goes on all the time" or was going on 2000 years ago. For all the examples you can cite, a long career and/or a widespread publishing/media industry was necessary for such gurus to establish their wide reputation and gain a place in the written record.
I welcome the evidence of pagan religions that were in competition with Christianity during the formative years, . . .
What are these pagan religions evidence of?
. . . and which were outlawed by Constantine in the 4th century.
No, the only religion outlawed was Arianism, which was a variant of Christ belief, not a pagan religion.
Why can't you present the real history instead of continuing to invent your own fictional version, or continuing to uncritically slurp up whatever your Bible-basher "peer-reviewed" scholar-celebrity-pundit keeps preaching at you?
To live in delusion one must deny that which would harm the delusion.
So you're protecting your delusion about pagan religions being outlawed by Constantine? Why do you need delusions like this? You can't kick this habit?
