Good debate/

">> that you read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy.
>
> This is exactly what I mean! "The Jesus Mysteries" represents a fringe
> position. We're talking about serious scholarship, and you put forth
> some popular conspiracy theory book. Why not cite this "Pagan origins"
> position from recent peer reviewed journals on NT studies and/or
> Christian history?

I think that the book is not a fringe position.
It is fairly well documented and even some ancient Christian literature 
gives good grounds for this belief.
The NT was certainly not written by Jews or even any one who was familiar 
with Jewish law of that time.
That is besides all the changes that have been made to it through the years.
>
>> > Your credentials as a historian are in serious doubt. You simply  make
>> > assertions about Pagan origins or Christ being a myth,
>>
>> I made no such assertion.

I stated my belief and offered evidence to show what I based my belief on.
I can make no assertions on something which is stricktly a matter of opinion 
and we have no definitive evidence of one way or the other.
I will bet you will next grab on my statement that the NT was not written by 
knowledgeable Jews or even Jews at all.

>
> You asserted just that! On December 23rd you wrote the following:
>
> "I will cut this short and say  Christianity is now Judiasm rephrased
> but it
> origonally came from Pagentry".
>
> By "pagentry" it is obvious that you mean Paganism. So yes, you did
> positively assert the pagan origins conspiracy theory.

Yes I did, but that was my opinion and it is contravertable,
But I do back my opinion up with some good scholarship.\


>
>> You would have seen this list of similarities to the pagan gd
>> Osiris-Dionysus
>>
>> Osiris-Dionysus is God made flesh, the savior and Son of God.
>> . His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin.
>> . He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three
>> shepherds.
>> . He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the
> rites of
>> baptism.
>> . He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony.
>> . He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm
> leaves
>> to honor him.
>> . He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
>> . After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises
> from
>> the dead and  ascends to heaven in glory.
>> . His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.
>> . His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread
> and
>> wine, which symbolize his body and blood.
>
> Well, interesting claims. I would like to investigate this further, and
> since *YOU* are the one who has positively asserted that the above is
> the fact of the matter, I would like you to cite some evidence.

That was a citation taken from the aforemention book.
They, in the book, give their sources for these bubba meinsers.


Which
> pre-Christian sources make these claims about Osiris-Dionysus? [And in
> case you're wondering, "The Jesus Mysteries" is not a pre-Christian
> source.]

It comes from many ages, by that I mean the citations in the book are taken 
from many different ages, some preceding Christianity some not.
Obviously Dec 25 is taken from pagan sources and that is post Christianity.
>
 The names you gave were Bar Kokhba,
> Rav Shammai, & Rav Akiva. All you offer now is the following:
>
>> If you do not know enough about ancient Israelite history
>> to know who these people were, I am sorry.
>
> A convenient attempt to poison the well. I know exactly who they are.
> See the following post (to the same thread!) from December 11
>
> http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?p=45927#45927

I am not familiar with your post of that date and will have to check it.
But as you state, you, a Christian, I assume,  are well aware of the three 
of them, then they must be reasonable well attested to or you would not know 
who they were.
So you really did not need my proof of who they were or what they wrote or 
did.

>
> It is there that I note that "two of them are well known Rabbis in the
> Talmud who are often compared to one another, and the other was a man
> who led a revolt against Rome". Admittedly I made a mistake (when I
> said Akiva and Shamai were often compared to one another, I actually
> had Hillel in mind, as per the many Talmudic passages that compared
> Hillel's patience to Shamai's short temper), as Akiva is apparently one
> of the Rabbis (according to the Talmud) who proclaimed Bar Kokhba
> (later disdainfully called "Bar Kozeeba") to be Mashiach.


It would seem you are quite familiar with the lot of them.
You are familiar with them because their writings exist to this day.
Yes Shammi is supposed to have been, let us say curt?, But some of the 
findings and laws if you will that his school promilgated are still in 
effect.  He and Hillel did not always disagree.
Actually both taught schools.
>
> Regardless I know of these people. The question was why you consider
> them well attested, and the fact remains that you continue to skirt the
> issue.

I have answered that by publishing their names here.
If they were not well attested to, then we would not know of them now.
So I did answer your question and apparently you were aware of them already 
so why did you ask who they were and for proof of their existance. (Or did 
you look it up since to check me out.)

Akeva paid for his beliefs with his life.
He was skinned alive by the Romans and reportedly in his dying breath 
proclaimed the Unity of Gd.

> Case in point. *YOU* positively asserted that Jesus was not a well
> attested first century figure, and so I asked you to list a first
> century figure you *do* consider well attested, and *why*. You have
> given the names, but presented no evidence.

I gave the names and considered you a well educated person in this line of 
reasoning and assumed you would know who they were.
They are all, certainly better attested to, in their time, than Jesus was.

I could have given you Tabatha.
She lived in that time and we have an autographic copy of her last will and 
testament.
That would make her better attested to than Jesus.

We also have an autograpic  letter from Bar Kochba to one his generals, (and 
the reply I believe) w hich certainly makes him better attested to than 
Jesus.



Your only response is the
> tired bit about you not being here to do my homework for me. So you can
> make positive assertions, but the rule that "he who asserts must
prove"
> apparently does not apply to you.

I can not do your homework for you.
I gave the names.
Evidently you knew of them or you did your homework to find out who t hey 
were.
I will not bother to prove or give references for every thing I write.
You do not give references for all your writing either so I am not sure why 
you would demand it of me.


 This is a very common trend among
> people who push the Jesus-myth polemic (which is one of the main
> reasons my support for the polemic was severely weakened to the point
> that I am no longer a proponent of it).

Denis, I have read a lot of Church literature, and I find some pretty high 
up ecclasstic priests and bishops also  have their doubts.
You have only to read Schweitzer's book on the subject to see that this is 
not a new trend but goes back at least 5 or 600 years.

I think O Connor put it well when he said, it is not the man who is 
important but the message he carried.
Life mag issue on Jesus.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/7/05 10:41:30 AM