Replies

Of course, Jesus Christ was real. So was Krishna. And Mohammed. Confusing these historical people with the myths they claimed credence for, or the myths later ascribed to them, is still wrong-headed.

Does some minor similarities between the mystery religions and Christianity somehow invalidate Christianity? How does that logic work? Elaborate. There are more differences than similarities. I can name several major ones.

Mohammed is still dead. There are no credible historical accounts that Krishna was the Son of God. The NT blows them all away in its credibility and accuracy. Two points: (1) The NT was written very early (not enough time for legend to develop)- the gospel creed in 1st Cor. 15 was written in 51 AD, and accounting for Paul's travels, the gospel creed is easily traced back to the mid 30s AD; (2) The eyewitness accounts are quite credibly written in a chronological eyewitness manner, (3) The disciples banked their lives on the fact of the bodily Resurrection and died for it believing it was true - the best explanation for this sudden change from coward to lion of faith is best explained by an encounter with the risen Christ - name a better one! (4) Simon Greenleaf (co-founder of Harvard Law School studied the accounts and concluded that the evidence would stand up in a court of law.

Of course, Jesus Christ was real. So was Krishna. And Mohammed. Confusing these historical people with the myths they claimed credence for, or the myths later ascribed to them, is still wrong-headed.
Does some minor similarities between the mystery religions and Christianity somehow invalidate Christianity? How does that logic work? Elaborate.
Well, it doesn't invalidate Christianity if you happen to believe Christianity. Equally (and this is the key), the minor similairites between this glorified Juadaic death-cult and some other religions don't invalidate any of those other religions. As I'm sure you'll agree.

No, it's their basic nature as religions that invalidates them. Their obvious place in global mythic traditions. There is precious little in the NT that can not be found elsewhere - mostly in the OT (itself cobbled together from various sources with certain peculiar additions) or in the cult that grew up around Alexander the Great (and Alexander was probably the most important single figure, outside of Christ, in the construction of this myth - the effect he had on Judaism, and on the nations that border the Med, was stagerring, and very clearly paved the way for the Christian myth - similarly, he had massive influence on the early Hinduistic cults, and Islam echoed his memory as well). So, either it's progressive revelation, alien visits, or utter fiction.

There are more differences than similarities. I can name several major ones.

So can I. So?

Mohammed is still dead.

And so is Christ. I see no more reason to believe Christ was the son of God than to believe Mohammed was the prophet of God.

There are no credible historical accounts that Krishna was the Son of God.

I didn't think he claimed he was. So?

The NT blows them all away in its credibility and accuracy.

Yes, and the books that Scientology is based on blow the NT away, in terms of their credibility and accuracy. Or, rather - and in both cases - in terms of how credible they seem.

Two points: (1) The NT was written very early (not enough time for legend to develop)- the gospel creed in 1st Cor. 15 was written in 51 AD, and accounting for Paul's travels, the gospel creed is easily traced back to the mid 30s AD;

Nonsense, it takes hardly any time at all for a legend to develop. The NT merely had to: a) show how Christ had fulfilled prophecy; b) show that he had performed deeds beyond human understanding; c) show that even the most unlikely individual could follow him. Besides which, the whole thing was conceived during his life time - he set out to fulfill prophecy, he set out to be the messiah (as did several other people who had rival accounts building up). Christ set out to stage a revolution, and he did.

(2) The eyewitness accounts are quite credibly written in a chronological eyewitness manner,

They'd have to be. There are dozens, even hundreds, of very credible eyewitness accounts of UFO encounters on the internet. Chronological, corrobative, extremely difficult to fault; so must we all accept that little grey men are real and here? Again, I don't doubt many events recounted in the Bible happened - not least because they are recorded by sources outside of the Bible.

(3) The disciples banked their lives on the fact of the bodily Resurrection and died for it believing it was true - the best explanation for this sudden change from coward to lion of faith is best explained by an encounter with the risen Christ - name a better one!

An encounter with someone they thought was a man risen from the dead is certainly a very good explanation. But people rise from the dead every day. My sons a Doctor, he's broguht a dozen people back from beyond the point of the death. I suspect he won't inspire a world religion. (4) Simon Greenleaf (co-founder of Harvard Law School studied the accounts and concluded that the evidence would stand up in a court of law.
I'd say that says more about the American legal system than the veracity of the Bible. I imagine the Gospels might stand up - but so what? Just because a testimony stands up in a court of law doesn't mean it is the truth. I find it very unlikely that Paul would stand up in a court of law.

But there's the rub: Assume the Gospels is an accurate account of the things the four men witnessed, the things they heard Christ say and saw him do. Fine. What does that prove? That he did extrordinary things - most of which seem perfectly explanable to us now (go to Haiti and tell me that it's a miracle for someone to rise from the dead after being buried for three days - it's a regular occurence there, thanks to the puffer fish and some ingenious chemists). That he thought (or, at least, claimed) he was the son of God - as others did at the time, as other do now (David Icke being the last prominent one I remember). That other people believed him. It does not, in any way, prove the existence of God, prove the OT, prove Christ's claims to be fully accurate, honest and true. And beyond the Bible, I see no reason to give credence to these things as anything but myth. The very nature of the world disproves the existence of a Christian God, and of most of the world's religions - only the ones which profess a lack of designer, an absence of Gods and Devils, and merely a universe that has certain mystical and universal laws, like Buddhism and Wicca, seem to hold any truth, and I don't believe them either.