Question

[Gotch]

Below you will find the very well researched and very detailed response to all those claims. What you will find documented here are answers to every possible comparison as well as the information that debunks many if not all of these claims.

This page is one of the few that I find extremely reliable and so thoroughly well researched and documented that it's hard to ever find a mistake.

Still roofing my house, not enough time to respond in my own words.

copycat

[Gotch]

There are four pages in total on the subject at the link I provided. Every connection is discussed and every historical angle addressed.

Sorry I can't try to do it myself right now though.

[Biggin]

OK, Ive read the first quarter, Im gonna write out my notes;

First note; I understand that different rituals are often applied to the same name. That does matter, and I read up on that.

There are however, certain terms that condescend all definition. Terms like birth, virginity, death, are not vague terms left open to interpretation.
The birth of a mythical figure is usually not up for debate; there are almost always clear stories on the births of mythological figures, is that not true?

Emmaculate conception is not vague either. Someone was impregnated by someone other than a human, a God's seed being transplanted into a human.

whoa whoa, just came across something;
so when Paul's teachings are brought forth, about death and rebirth (terms that are vague and do have many different connotations), the article stated that the common use of this was not decided until later in the Christian ideology, correct?
Then how in the world can we say for sure what Paul's teachings meant?
Do you use the Bible? How? In historical study, taking the Bible at face value is a practice that is not looked well upon. You know that.
We know the Bible was transcribed by man, how can we come to the conclusion that Paul's teachings are different from those of ancient mythology? Because the rituals do not match up? Well, who decided the rituals? Christians.

Gotch I see lots of words that do not lead me to take all this as fact; may have, possiblity, more plausible,etc..

Take baptism. That is a word that has NUMEROUS meanings, although Christians have their own specific definition, but in ancient times, people being cleansed of evil and reborn is very prevalant. Correct?
So how can we be assured what was REALLY meant in Christian ideology? There is no possible way, correct?

My point here is, that religion takes FAITH, blind, unwaivering faith. We do not disagree on that, true?
So how is it even remotely fair to take someone's faith as fact? How can it be possibly 'right' to take myths from thousands of years ago and proclaim them as fact, without no shred of evidence? Its not, correct? Then why should we use teachings and morals, no matter if they are good, when there is no way to prove its the true meaning of life? Its blind faith.

Then how can it be justified to let blind faith interwind with facts, in the setting of governing a set of people? Thats my whole point is that letting religion seep so far into our government has took a huge chunk out of our credibility as a country of religious freedoms and ideals.

[Biggin]

OK, another point. The article always backs up the religion by saying the rituals are all from Judiasm.
OK, thats understandable, but then, without going back and researching Judiasm, how do we know that Judiasm did not borrow from the other religions of the time? There is no proof that Judiasm, the religion, was the first to mention any of these terms, nor is their proof that other religions 'borrowed' from Judiasm, is there?

All these myths are so far entangled in the same basis, its not possible to say that, 'OK, there are similarities in all the myths, but one set of beliefs has their own definitions for everything, the terms used, no matter how similar, are different and have different meanings, but those have not been plagiarized because they are not exact replicas of other stories".

No matter if the myths are exactly alike, we all know how facts get smudged over time. So how can we be definite about anything? When we know all the corruption that has occurred over time, the facts that have been distorted, the myths that were told and told and retold, the basis of the story is usually the same, but the details are different.

Its impossible to use those small differences to distinguish anything, because of all the truths and such that is open to interpretation, therefore we cannot ever be sure of the true meaning of a lot of things, because of conflicting definitions and such.

[Biggin]

Alright, more worldplay.

With the virgin birth, its process of eliminating all other virgin births is that Mary is the only supposed birth without sexual connotations.
but, as the article points out, the Bible does not specify anything at all, other than Mary became pregnant.
So because there is no writings in the Bible that suggest anything other than emmaculate conception, we are to assume that the Bible "meant" that Mary was impregnated from a God, without any of the other factors used to discredit the other births.
thats another case of taking the Bible as the literal word of God, instead of using evidence, evidence that the tale is a passed on myth. Although we have all these other stories about conception of saviors, we assume that because the Bible does not flat out say any of these, the story is not plagiarized? How?

It goes back to the myths themselves, the fact they have went thru years and years of manipulation. Do you not acknowledge that the Bible was put together by man, omitting many many different 'gospels'??
Sine we know it to be true that the Bible was a very specificly put together book, how can we know the other factors about things, such as the virgin birth, were simply omitted to give Christianity a more individual feel?

[Biggin]

OK, here is some more;

Joseph and Mary were married for a year, and Mary got pregnant inside that year, correct? The article says that in ancient times, the first year is like a trial period, without the sex. That was common practice back then, so it says.

But, its not possible Joseph and Mary got a lil hasty? We all know humans have desires and hormones, why is so far out of the realm of possibility that Joseph and Mary had sex, therefore knocking the virgin birth down the other myths like Krishna and Horus.

Another example of words mysteriously changing definition, with the 'Holy Spirit coming upon you'. The article references the eariler passages, saying the phrase is just a stock phrase, with no set definition.

So the definition for all these ancient sayings were set in stone? That its not possible they used a statement that had been used before, but changed the connotations? Because the statement meant one thing in an earlier passage, it HAS to mean the same thing in the later passages? What sense does that make, when we talk about all the interpretations that can be found from ancient mythological text.

[Biggin]

My biggest problem in this is assuming everything that made it into the NT is factual basis. Interpretation of some things is such a tricky issue, how in the world can ANYONE say anything for sure? Like Paul being so against borrowing from other myths.
The statements made in the Bible we know have been edited and interpretated by numerous people, so how can we assume what made it in the Bible as fact of how Paul felt? Its not possible

[Gotch]

Certainly have to give you credit for taking the time to study the subject rather than reading two paragraphs and snapping to a conclusion.

That's all either side in a debate, internet or otherwise, can ask.

I obviously come to different conclusions from some of the material than you do, that's not a surprise due to our differing positions from the start.

Really appreciate you taking the time to consider a different opinion though.

[Biggin]

I love this stuff, the ancient world is our gateway to the beginning, not enough people spend the time to find out how the ancient Earth really was.

My whole point in this is doubt; there is doubt when it comes to things like ancient interpretations and myths, and the myths that have been passed down are so up for debate, its impossible to find any true conclusions IMO

I brought this up to show people how intertwined all this is, and to come out and say one thing is for sure true is foolish on my side, and the other side.
Ive learned enough to know that when it comes to ancient writings, theres so much that has to be factored in, I feel its impossible to 100% really know what anything means.

Like I said earlier, I am not trying to get people to denounce their religion, not in the least. I only want equality for all, and maybe if some people see that all this religion is so interpretative and open for discussion, to govern by it is a grave mistake.

[centennialdawg]

The point is, most countries have survived for centuries with religion intertwined in their government. Our problem with it is we have a piece of paper, signed by our founding fathers, garanteeing the separation of any "official" religion from our government.

Another problem is that, being christian, I am sorely afraid that our country's failure to recognize an official religion has sent us down a winding road of decline which will ultimately end with our country's destruction.

This is just my opinion and I am IN NO WAY trying to force it upon anyone.