The Myth of Osiris'...

[thestoat]

Actually when Sean says that Lo is a good advert for Atheism I think he is spot on. Thanks to Lo's clearly incorrect postings, statements and conclusions I have found the following, which has certainly helped me clarify things a bit (emphasis mine)

Various strategies and techniques employed in Christianization campaigns from Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages: Ancient holy sites were destroyed or converted to Christian churches, indigenous pagan gods were demonized, and traditional religious practices were condemned as witchcraft and even criminalized — sometimes upon penalty of death.[1]

... no wonder Christianity has survived at the expense of the others. It doesn't seem like the "truth will out"

conversions were easier if people were allowed to retain the outward forms of their traditions, while claiming that the traditions were in honour of the Christian God, "to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God". In essence, it was intended that the traditions and practices still existed, but that the reasoning behind them was altered.

Are you getting this, lo?

in his Vita of Martin of Tours, a dedicated destroyer of temples and sacred trees, remarks "wherever he destroyed heathen temples, there he used immediately to build either churches or monasteries"

The British Isles and other areas of northern Europe that were formerly druidic are still densely punctuated by holy wells and holy springs that are now attributed to some saint, often a highly local saint unknown elsewhere;

... busy, weren't they ...

The similarity of Christian depictions of demons to several pre-Christian deities, and deity-related figures such as Satyrs, has led several scholars to argue that the stereotypical Christian depiction of Satan, and of demons in general, was deliberate demonisation of benign figures from rival religions

What? Christians lying to convert the people? Surely not!

Several Christian feasts occupy moments in the year that were formerly devoted to pagan celebrations. Familiar examples are the Roman Saturnalia, converted to Christmas, the festivities of Yule in northern Europe, the name of Eostre converted to English "Easter" to identify the Paschal festival, the celebration of Midsummer Day as the birthday feast of John the Baptist, and the celebrations of the Feast of the Lemures and of Celtic Samhain combined and transferred to the eve of All Saints' Day a.k.a. Halloween.

Lo, I hope you are concentrating hard here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... nturies.29

[Sean]

The British Isles and other areas of northern Europe that were formerly druidic are still densely punctuated by holy wells and holy springs that are now attributed to some saint, often a highly local saint unknown elsewhere;

So true. There are so many pre-Christian sites in Ireland which are now known as St Patrick's or St Brigid's this, that or the other.

[Crackpot]

Sean
(from last page)

Not really there are alot of claims on Chritianity coming form pagan sources where the Origin is obviously Jewish and a noted sign of the Messiah. That is the Claim of Jesus being the Messiah would fall flat on it's face If Jesus didn't possess that attribute. On the other hand there are stories like St. Christopher that are obvious (if you look into them at least) adptaions of local stories/minor dieties (it was a quite common practice among the early Saints)

[Sean]

All I meant was that the two aren't mutually exclusive CP.

Speaking of Jesus being the Messiah...
I would be interested to hear your take on something I posted in another thread CP:

I do however believe that Jesus may well have been the Messiah. I mean of course, what the word ‘Messiah’ meant in Jesus’ time as opposed to what it means now. The Messiah was foretold as the one who would unite the two Houses of Aaron and David. Contemporary accounts tell of Mary being of the House of Aaron and Joseph of the House of David. Jesus, as the first-born, would thus have been the Messiah. Nothing to do with being the son of God you will notice... In fact the two are mutually exclusive. If Jesus was the Messiah then he was the son of Joseph and not God. You can’t have it both ways...

It was something that occured to me as I was writing that post... although I doubt that I'm the first to see it...

[Crackpot]

Actiually the Messiah was supposed to resore the Monarchy and a whole host of other things many of which Jesus didn't do (hence the need for the second coming). In short as Messiah Jesus underfilled the position not overstated it.

[Sean]

Yes but what about the prophecy that the Messiah would be born of and unite the Houses of David and Aaron?

Surely that means that either Jesus was not the Messiah or he was not the son of God.

[Crackpot]

Could that not mean he fulfulls but priestly and kingly roles?

[Sean]

I don't believe so.

It seems pretty clear to me. He was either the son of Joseph (Messiah) or of God (not the Messiah*). Not both.


*The bible is unclear as to whether or not he was a very naughty boy.

[thestoat]

*The bible is unclear as to whether or not he was a very naughty boy.

Well, the bible is unclear on a lot of things, but I think there is scholastically evidence that he was a very naughty boy - but only if said in a mock female voice

[Crackpot]

As being the Son of God he was fulfilling the priestly role. As far as eing of the Davidic line it is therorized that is why there are 2 different Davidic geneologies in the NT one for Joseph one for Mary.

[Sean]

And then of course there was this...



I hope it's the right vid. My connection is too slow to watch it at the mo...

[Sean]

As being the Son of God he was fulfilling the priestly role. As far as eing of the Davidic line it is therorized that is why there are 2 Davidic geneologies in the NT one for Joseph one for Mary.

So who do you believe was his father CP? God or Joseph?

LMAO - This is turning into a Springer episode...

[Crackpot]

My bad I added "defferent" to my prior post after you responded.

AS for the VId I have no Idea I can't see it at work.

How exactly Jesus was concieved is a bit of a mystery. it could Be a Angel or God via the holy spirit depending how you read it.

Mind you Jehovas Witnesses believe Joseph was the father.

AS for what I believe Divine parentage born of Mary is pretty much the basis of the faith so outside contradictory evidence that is what I have to go with.

It's one of those things you just have to accept on faith.

[Sean]

It's funny that he was named after the Mexican gardener though...

[Sue U]

The Eastern Mediterranean was for millennia a fertile region for cross-breeding and evolution of religious traditions. The period from about the 3d Century BCE to the 2d Century CE saw the rise of Hellenistic Judaism and the adoption of Greek language, philosophy, cultural norms and religious customs that set the stage for, and ultimately became, early Christianity. But more than a thousand years before that, West Semitic cultures were developing the literary themes and memes that formed a common architecture for religious theory and practice -- recognized even from an explicitly Christian point of view.

Egypt was probably less directly influential in the development of Semitic cosmologies than Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite and other Mesopotomian cultures, but with the Alexandrian conquests and the attempt to foster a universal culture under a Greek umbrella there was a whole lot more mashing of previously discrete traditions and beliefs.

[loCAtek]

Leaving out the rest of the world...

Like:

India
India is the birth place of four of the world's major religious traditions; namely Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism

...

Hinduism is often regarded as the oldest religion in the world,[11] with roots tracing back to prehistoric times,[12] or 5000 years.