Religious

[lsbets]

According to Barbara G. Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets:

“Of all savior-gods worshipped at the beginning of the Christian era, Osiris may have contributed more details to the evolving Christ figure than any other. Already very old in Egypt, Osiris was identified with nearly every other Egyptian god and was on the way to absorbing them all. He had well over 200 divine names. He was called Lord of lords, King of kings, God of gods. He was the Resurrection and the Life, the Good Shepherd, the God who made men and women to be born again. From First to Last, Osiris was to the Egyptians “the god-man” who suffered, and died, and rose again, and reigned eternally in heaven. They believed that they would inherit eternal life, just as he had done.”

[lsbets]

Life events shared by Osiris, Dionysus and Jesus
The following stories appear both in the Gospels and in the myths of many of the god-men:

Conception:

• God was his father. This was believed to be literally true in the case of Osiris-Dionysus; their God came to earth and engaged in sexual intercourse with a human. The father of Jesus is God in the form of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).
• A human woman, a virgin, was his mother.

Birth:

• He was born in a cave or cowshed. Luke 2:7 mentions that Jesus was placed in a manger - an eating trough for animals. One early Christian tradition said that the manger was in a cave.
• His birth was prophesized by a star in the heavens.

Ministry:

• At a marriage ceremony, he performed the miracle of converting water into wine.
• He was powerless to perform miracles in his home town.
• His followers were born-again through baptism in water.
• He rode triumphantly into a city on a donkey. Tradition records that the inhabitants waved palm leaves.
• He had 12 disciples.
• He was accused of licentious behavior.

Execution, resurrection, etc:

• He was killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox, about MAR-21.
• He died "as a sacrifice for the sins of the world." 1
• He was hung on a tree, stake, or cross.
• After death, he descended into hell.
• On the third day after his death, he returned to life.
• The cave where he was laid was visited by three of his female followers
• He later ascended to heaven.

His titles:

• God made flesh.
• Savior of the world.
• Son of God.

Beliefs about the God-man:

• He is "God made man," and equal to the Father.
• He will return in the last days.
• He will judge the human race at that time.
• Humans are separated from God by original sin. The god-man's sacrificial death reunites the believer with God and atones for the original sin.

All of the Pagan myths had been circulating for centuries before Jesus birth (circa 4 to 7 BCE). It is obvious that if any copying occurred, it was the followers of Jesus incorporating into his biography the myths and legends of Osiris-Dionysus, not vice-versa.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa2.htm

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

1.) HOW DID JUDAS DIE?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

Okay...let's tackle the first one you gave, Mr. Thaskalos, which is also very convenient because this is the simplest one of them all. So, we'll get the light stuff immediately behind us. And I will make every effort to keep these posts as brief as possible, lest I incur another gratuitous criticism from PA, such as the one that he hurled at me on the "Interesting Find" thread when I soundly refuted Al's interpretation of a Job passage. But I love the Law of Parsimony, and certainly for this simple problem I shoud have no difficulty adhereing to it.

First, neither passage explicitly tells us that the cause of Judas' death is actually the one stated therein. However, the assumption by skeptics is that both passages are doing that very thing! This is a very typical error of interepretation by those who employ the hermeneutical method of eisegesis. However, I employ the exact opposite method of interpretation -- that of exegesis.

Secondly, an awful lot of details are missing about Judas' death. When did he die? Specifically, how did he die? And where did he die? In fact, when we interepret any passage of scriputre, the first hermeneutical order of business for all honest truth-seeking interpreters is to ask the usual questions: Who, Whom, What, When, Where, Why and How? I call these the "Suspect" Questions. We can learn an awful lot just by asking these questions, and depending upon the answers it came make the job of interepretation appreciably easier.

Thirdly, as mentioned earlier, the passages are very short and succinct accounts of something that Judas did, written not only by two different people but from two very different perspectives. Matthew was a Jew and his gospel account is loaded with OT references, prophecies and even typology. Matthew seemed to have a vast knowledge of the OT. But Luke quotes Peter's words in Acts, and Peter's focus is different from Matthew's.


So, since so many details are omitted about the last hours of Judas, I am at liberty to construct a feasible theory on how Judas died. After all, the Skeptic is at liberty (apparanetly) to read his presuppositions into these passages and come away thiking that both texts are teaching two different causes of death. However, my exegetical method of interepretation says that only one of the passages is actually stating the cause of death. The other passage is describing something that happened after death.

We do know from Mat 27:3 that on the very day that Jesus was condemened to die by Pilate, he suffered from an acute case of "Seller's Remorse". This lover of money sold his innocent Lord out for 30 pieces of silver. He was obviously overcome by guilt and grief afterward because he didn't even want to keep his blood money. He knew he did wrong and he also knew there was nothing he could do to undo it. When people are overcome by grief, guilt and remorse, they ususally want to be themselves. I suspect that Judas had some knowledge of the spots Jesus used to often go and pray in the mountains. After all, Judas was one of the 12. And Jesus would have chosen lonely, isolated spots to pray.

I submit to you that Judas chose such a spot high up on some mountain. He was alone and isolated -- away from people. He hanged himself from a tree, but his body wasn't discovered until days later. We don't know how long his body swung from that tree. But the longer he was up there, the heavier it became because his body was filling out with gas and liquids, and each passing day his body became more swollen from the besetting decay. At some point either the rope or the limb gave way. Scripture says he "fell headlong". Don't know how anyone knew that unless they were an eyewitness. Or it could have been that on the way down he struck another big branch or perhaps even some protuberance from the mountain side and turned him upside down where his head stuck hard on either the ground or some other obstruction on the mountain; but in either case, he eventually hit the ground so hard (possibly on rocks, to boot) that his swollen, gaseous body "exploded". Finally, someone discovered this wretch's body with his bloody guts splattered all over the place and that's how the entire community came to know.

Matthew's focus is entirely on the cause of Juda's death -- hanging. This makes sense because Matthew might have been drawing an analogy in his mind between accursed Judas' hanging and with what happened to Ahitophel in 2Sam 17:23 and/or Moses' words in Deut 21:23 -- this text also loosely quoted by Paul in Gal 3:13 and applied to Christ, since He, too, died on a tree.

Peter's focus in Acts, however, is very different. His focus was mainly on different scriptures that Judas fulfilled, mamely Ps 69:25; 109:8. The Jews at that time called the place where Judas' body was found -- the "field of blood", aptly named,considering the circumstances under which Judas was found.

In concluding, therefore, there is no contradiction between the two passages. We have no idea of the exact location of where Judas hanged himself. Or neither do we know when his body was found. Just how long was Judas dead before he was discovered? We don't know these things. The assumption among skeptics seems to be that Judas killed himself (one way or the other) and then his body was discovered very shortly thereafter. But I think it's logical to infer from these passages that Judas committed suicide by hanging himself in a lonely, isolated spot on a mountain and then after a few days or so, his decaying, swollen body fell from the tree and "exploded" when it hit the hard ground. This seems to me to be the simplest and most straightforward theory and would accord nicely with Occam's Razor.

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

that would make an outstanding Mythbusters episode.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by lsbets

Life events shared by Osiris, Dionysus and Jesus
The following stories appear both in the Gospels and in the myths of many of the god-men:

Oh, no...another wanna-be religious scholar- even more clueless than Hcap, if that were possible.

A few big problems that need to be addressed before we can accept any of the above as gospel truth . Maybe someone can fill poor LS in.

1. Where is the scholarly verification of these claims from an historical perspective?

2, The historical portrayals of these gods need to be carefully compared to the historical Jesus.

3. Search carefully for the logical fallacies behind these stupendous claims.

4. Compare all historical claims against the historical accuracy of the NT.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay...let's tackle the first one you gave, Mr. Thaskalos, which is also very convenient because this is the simplest one of them all. So, we'll get the light stuff immediately behind us. And I will make every effort to keep these posts as brief as possible, lest I incur another gratuitous criticism from PA, such as the one that he hurled at me on the "Interesting Find" thread when I soundly refuted Al's interpretation of a Job passage. But I love the Law of Parsimony, and certainly for this simple problem I shoud have no difficulty adhereing to it.

First, neither passage explicitly tells us that the cause of Judas' death is actually the one stated therein. However, the assumption by skeptics is that both passages are doing that very thing! This is a very typical error of interepretation by those who employ the hermeneutical method of eisegesis. However, I employ the exact opposite method of interpretation -- that of exegesis.

Secondly, an awful lot of details are missing about Judas' death. When did he die? Specifically, how did he die? And where did he die? In fact, when we interepret any passage of scriputre, the first hermeneutical order of business for all honest truth-seeking interpreters is to ask the usual questions: Who, Whom, What, When, Where, Why and How? I call these the "Suspect" Questions. We can learn an awful lot just by asking these questions, and depending upon the answers it came make the job of interepretation appreciably easier.

Thirdly, as mentioned earlier, the passages are very short and succinct accounts of something that Judas did, written not only by two different people but from two very different perspectives. Matthew was a Jew and his gospel account is loaded with OT references, prophecies and even typology. Matthew seemed to have a vast knowledge of the OT. But Luke quotes Peter's words in Acts, and Peter's focus is different from Matthew's.


So, since so many details are omitted about the last hours of Judas, I am at liberty to construct a feasible theory on how Judas died. After all, the Skeptic is at liberty (apparanetly) to read his presuppositions into these passages and come away thiking that both texts are teaching two different causes of death. However, my exegetical method of interepretation says that only one of the passages is actually stating the cause of death. The other passage is describing something that happened after death.

We do know from Mat 27:3 that on the very day that Jesus was condemened to die by Pilate, he suffered from an acute case of "Seller's Remorse". This lover of money sold his innocent Lord out for 30 pieces of silver. He was obviously overcome by guilt and grief afterward because he didn't even want to keep his blood money. He knew he did wrong and he also knew there was nothing he could do to undo it. When people are overcome by grief, guilt and remorse, they ususally want to be themselves. I suspect that Judas had some knowledge of the spots Jesus used to often go and pray in the mountains. After all, Judas was one of the 12. And Jesus would have chosen lonely, isolated spots to pray.

I submit to you that Judas chose such a spot high up on some mountain. He was alone and isolated -- away from people. He hanged himself from a tree, but his body wasn't discovered until days later. We don't know how long his body swung from that tree. But the longer he was up there, the heavier it became because his body was filling out with gas and liquids, and each passing day his body became more swollen from the besetting decay. At some point either the rope or the limb gave way. Scripture says he "fell headlong". Don't know how anyone knew that unless they were an eyewitness. Or it could have been that on the way down he struck another big branch or perhaps even some protuberance from the mountain side and turned him upside down where his head stuck hard on either the ground or some other obstruction on the mountain; but in either case, he eventually hit the ground so hard (possibly on rocks, to boot) that his swollen, gaseous body "exploded". Finally, someone discovered this wretch's body with his bloody guts splattered all over the place and that's how the entire community came to know.

Matthew's focus is entirely on the cause of Juda's death -- hanging. This makes sense because Matthew might have been drawing an analogy in his mind between accursed Judas' hanging and with what happened to Ahitophel in 2Sam 17:23 and/or Moses' words in Deut 21:23 -- this text also loosely quoted by Paul in Gal 3:13 and applied to Christ, since He, too, died on a tree.

Peter's focus in Acts, however, is very different. His focus was mainly on different scriptures that Judas fulfilled, mamely Ps 69:25; 109:8. The Jews at that time called the place where Judas' body was found -- the "field of blood", aptly named,considering the circumstances under which Judas was found.

In concluding, therefore, there is no contradiction between the two passages. We have no idea of the exact location of where Judas hanged himself. Or neither do we know when his body was found. Just how long was Judas dead before he was discovered? We don't know these things. The assumption among skeptics seems to be that Judas killed himself (one way or the other) and then his body was discovered very shortly thereafter. But I think it's logical to infer from these passages that Judas committed suicide by hanging himself in a lonely, isolated spot on a mountain and then after a few days or so, his decaying, swollen body fell from the tree and "exploded" when it hit the hard ground. This seems to me to be the simplest and most straightforward theory and would accord nicely with Occam's Razor.

Boxcar

How did OTM Al know that you would say that?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How did OTM Al know that you would say that?

The same way I know how Skeptics like you two come up with these "contradictions".

When one employs the interpretive method of eisegesis, one is going to come with a ton of "contradictions". But when one critically employs the exegetical method, these kinds of problems don't present themselves to such an interpreter.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Mr Physicist

I submit to you that Judas chose such a spot high up on some mountain. He was alone and isolated -- away from people. He hanged himself from a tree, but his body wasn't discovered until days later. We don't know how long his body swung from that tree. But the longer he was up there, the heavier it became because his body was filling out with gas and liquids, and each passing day his body became more swollen from the besetting decay. At some point either the rope or the limb gave way. Scripture says he "fell headlong".

Bodies do not gain weight through decomposition.
After death swelling and bloating is simply the transformation of solid tissue into other forms.

Until later stages of decomposition not a very large change in weight occurs. And then the body loses weight. According to your theory Judas would have had to gain 2 or 3 times body weight to break the rope. That is impossible.

Most third parties reading your response so far would give you a "F"

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

1. Where is the scholarly verification of these claims from an historical perspective?

Wait... I showed you what scholars think when I brought up the documentary hypothesis which you immediately rejected as nonsense. So scholars are great when they support you but not when they don't?.... quaint...

Originally Posted by Boxcar

It's ignorant nonsense. Just another lame excuse the ungodly use to justify their unbelief.

Do you ever feel depressed that you missed the Inquisition by about 500 years?

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by lsbets

According to Barbara G. Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets:

“Of all savior-gods worshipped at the beginning of the Christian era, Osiris may have contributed more details to the evolving Christ figure than any other. Already very old in Egypt, Osiris was identified with nearly every other Egyptian god and was on the way to absorbing them all. He had well over 200 divine names. He was called Lord of lords, King of kings, God of gods. He was the Resurrection and the Life, the Good Shepherd, the God who made men and women to be born again. From First to Last, Osiris was to the Egyptians “the god-man” who suffered, and died, and rose again, and reigned eternally in heaven. They believed that they would inherit eternal life, just as he had done.”

It's much more than this. Divinity/kingship had rules. Miraculous birth, miraculous acts in life. Miraculous events around the death. Of course there are similarities as they all had to follow the rules, from Ba'al to Zeus to Jesus. It's not that people fabricated things in the sense we would think of it today. To them at the time, if they accept that Jesus was divine, then these sorts of things must have happened. Modern man would require this to work in reverse, but that's not how these people thought about such things back then. All the back story is fluff required by the rules. Where the really interesting part is is with what was said. There were some really radical and different ideas there.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This seems to me to be the simplest and most straightforward theory and would accord nicely with Occam's Razor.

Boxcar

No it doesn't. Occam's Razor says exactly what you just did is completely wrong. Multiple convoluted explanations needed to explain something.

Here's an explanation that satisfies this criteria

Two different guys wrote the two passages. One or both didn't know what actually happened.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

No it doesn't. Occam's Razor says exactly what you just did is completely wrong. Multiple convoluted explanations needed to explain something.

Here's an explanation that satisfies this criteria

Two different guys wrote the two passages. One or both didn't know what actually happened.

But your "explanation" is simple-minded based on a faulty assumption; therefore, it's not a real explanation. My explanation, however, does not assume that both passages are referring to cause of death. What we have here is a classic case of someone reporting something from different (but not necessarily contradictory) perspectives -- just as multiple witnesses could report what happened in a car accident, and their reports could differ in some details. In such a scenario, we don't wax simple-minded and say that that neither of them or one of them were clueless because of the differences in their accounts.

I don't believe the Law of Parsimony's intent was to invite simple-minded "explanations". Furthermore, using the criteria you just did should make you an ardent and faithful believer in the Creator. What is easier to say: That "in the beginning God created the heavens and earth", or once upon a time Nothing somehow went BANG in a very big way in a perfect vacuum and voila!!! -- Something magically or miraculously appeared?

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

According to you though, God is the author of the Bible. Therefore, how can there be differing witness accounts when there was only one true witness? The only way there can be different accounts is if different people wrote the different books and that they made the purely human mistakes in their recounting of the event as in the example you yourself have given. Thus, the further explanation you are giving has explained nothing. This still does and nothing in it has been shown to be faulty:

Two different guys wrote the two passages. One or both didn't know what actually happened.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Wait... I showed you what scholars think when I brought up the documentary hypothesis which you immediately rejected as nonsense. So scholars are great when they support you but not when they don't?.... quaint...

Scholars are great when they act like objective, unbiased students, researchers and teachers. But far too many of them, because of their anti-God bias, are simply masquerading as professors, scientists, etc.

Do you ever feel depressed that you missed the Inquisition by about 500 years?

Christ has paid it forward for me. So, I'm never depressed because my hope is in the great salvation he will bring with him at his appearing.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

According to you though, God is the author of the Bible. Therefore, how can there be differing witness accounts when there was only one true witness? The only way there can be different accounts is if different people wrote the different books and that they made the purely human mistakes in their recounting of the event as in the example you yourself have given. Thus, the further explanation you are giving has explained nothing. This still does and nothing in it has been shown to be faulty:

Two different guys wrote the two passages. One or both didn't know what actually happened.

Are you this simple-minded? Why couldn't God inspire different writers? After all, we are dealing with progressive revelation over thousands of years. So, this is how we can have different inspired writers give different inspired accounts. The term "different" isn't even synonymous with "contradiction". So...eat little skeptical heart out.

Therefore, two different guys wrote the two different accounts, and they both knew what happened and neither one contradicted the other.

Boxcar