jcr4runner wrote:
As an atheist, what do you do with your guilt?

I don't do anything with it. As an atheist, I don't believe in a deity who will forgive my sins. When I do something wrong, I have to live with it. In a way, it's harder for us. But, then again, maybe it encourages us to be better people. Christianity is a quick fix religion. Place your problems in God's hands. That's partly why it's the *dark side of the Force*.

AMbomb wrote:

jcr4runner wrote:
As an atheist, what do you do with your guilt?

I don't do anything with it. As an atheist, I don't believe in a deity who will forgive my sins. When I do something wrong, I have to live with it. In a way, it's harder for us.

That's an amazing and honest answer. I'll give you credit for being truthful on that one. I thought you would say: "I am not guilty of anything."

But you admit that you are guilty.

So here's the next question:

Where does your sense of guilt come from?

AMbomb wrote:You're wrong, Jay.

You know, I am enjoying this exchange in part because you provide the exact antithesis to my beliefs and it forces me to "show myself approved" as the scripture says.

The one thing though that I find objectionable is that you think you can argue by writing: "You're wrong ... Click on this link."

You use again the either/or fallacy: "This leaves us (only?) with the following explanations. No, it doesn't leave us with only these explanations. And especially not number 4. Since you are a champion of links, there are thorough refutation of the POCM's contention that the there was a "simple retelling of pagan myths" in the Gospel stories.

If you haven't found it yet, http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html is my friend J.P. Holding's series on "pagan godmen."

AM said, "_OK, Jay, I have one for you. Let's assume for a moment that there was such a thing as God. Why would he cause the propogation of the story thousands of years before it occured? All that would do is make people think that the story was just a retelling of the earlier story and that it didn't really happen. According to Christian belief, Jesus wants people to believe in him so badly that he sends them to Hell if they don't. Causing the propogation of this story thousands of years before it occured would be counterproductive to what he wants. So, even assuming the existence of an omniscient god, you're assertion is illogical_."

The answer simply is so man can learn. Which obviously does not occur with everyone in class...

If man is learning it follows then that he learns empirically within a chronological context (he learns over time). It IS logical that God would start the teaching process from man's earliest days and SLOWLY progress man through the ages of man's own blindness and ignorance until the race was ready for college and the full manifestation of God's salvation of man in the form of Jesus the Christ. Science Domain: Education

But just like in school, some do not keep up with the lessons nor do the homework and still most do not glean the higher cognitive constructs that basic information (myths) point toward. Science Domain: Education / Cognitive Thinking

In all of the arguments I have read from atheists, they abandon reason and logic espoused by the sciences and the universe in one way or another. I have never heard a scientifically sound argument by an atheist. Their arguments sound true to the unlearned mind, but in fact they rip up the fabric of scientific empiricism and reasoning when making them. Its not enough to know science - you must understand science. That's where the difference is had. We may know science but we do not think the science. So in essence we become jugglers of scientific thoughts and concepts, but we do not possess inherently the constructs of the sciences cognitively. This is the crux of man's problem and an atheist's shining glory. They juggle arguments to our amusement: yet to many and themselves - amazment. The court jester juggled oft. (I do not infer that anyone is, rather to the way reasoning is manifested).

So though I partake also with others in throwing out views about this matter, some may catch them only to keep up their momentum and rythym. ...............Can anyone sing and dance? I fear I shall grow weary of that too!

Instead of relying on what your friend says about The Jesus Mysteries, why don't you read it yourself? By the way, your second link is a joke. The author of that site claims to refute Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth but produces not one shred of evidence supporting his arguments.

So man can learn what? The followers of the pagan mystery religions knew their godmen didn't really exist. These people didn't take the story literally. It was just an allegory that was supposed to reveal mystical teachings of the mystery religions. Are you saying God wanted people to learn the mystical teachings of pagan mystery religions?
Atheists abandon reason and logic? Yeah right. It's totally logical to believe in an omnipotent being who created the entire Universe who hasn't furnished one shred of evidence of his existence. *There are no Christians on Vulcan.*

There is only Truth and Error. These two comprise the whole of the universe. What you are not realizing along with your mystical religions is that of your own faith! There have always been unbelievers since before creation. Your religion is as old as the old serpent himself who denied God and indeed desired to enthrone himself in His stead. Nothing new then nor now. In fact - your religion is older than all the rest! So since your religion (ATHEISM) is the oldest of all the pagan (non-Christian) myths - why then do you defend a myth?

Science has not discovered how the stuff of the universe became. But science itself alludes to the reality than things are "constructed" from smaller and lesser elements and energies. There must have been an origin to the structure of the universe. Some say that we see structure only because we ourselves are part of that structure and classify or identify with it. Yet is a square not a square? Do we ride in squares, live in squares, learn in squares, etc? Are not ourselves circles, and move in circles, relate in circles, live on a circle, rotate in circles, procreate to circles, etc? Definite building structures to some may be proof.

But science agrees that the original energy of the universe is eternal. There is an eternal force that is the engine of the universe. Can you see it? Does it make itself known dramatically? Not to you but it cannot be denied.

There is only one proof required for Atheism - that Atheist prove that the universe started from and by absolutely nothing. Science has disproven Atheistic theory and belief - Eternity is real and the spark of the universe is eternal - that is not religion or opinion, it is science!

But the battle is not against religious though, but between light and darkness.

I am not criticizing your belief system. Just pointing out that Truth is truth and Error is Error as Light is light and darkness is darkness.

The simple reality is that darkness is not a thing - but is only lack of light. Science therefore shows that TRUTH exists and is Eternal - error is the denial of truth.

revrosado wrote:There is only Truth and Error. These two comprise the whole of the universe. What you are not realizing along with your mystical religions is that of your own faith! There have always been unbelievers since before creation. Your religion is as old as the old serpent himself who denied God and indeed desired to enthrone himself in His stead. Nothing new then nor now. In fact - your religion is older than all the rest! So since your religion (ATHEISM) is the oldest of all the pagan (non-Christian) myths - why then do you defend a myth?

Science has not discovered how the stuff of the universe became. But science itself alludes to the reality than things are "constructed" from smaller and lesser elements and energies. There must have been an origin to the structure of the universe. Some say that we see structure only because we ourselves are part of that structure and classify or identify with it. Yet is a square not a square? Do we ride in squares, live in squares, learn in squares, etc? Are not ourselves circles, and move in circles, relate in circles, live on a circle, rotate in circles, procreate to circles, etc? Definite building structures to some may be proof.

But science agrees that the original energy of the universe is eternal. There is an eternal force that is the engine of the universe. Can you see it? Does it make itself known dramatically? Not to you but it cannot be denied.

There is only one proof required for Atheism - that Atheist prove that the universe started from and by absolutely nothing. Science has disproven Atheistic theory and belief - Eternity is real and the spark of the universe is eternal - that is not religion or opinion, it is science!

But the battle is not against religious though, but between light and darkness.

I am not criticizing your belief system. Just pointing out that Truth is truth and Error is Error as Light is light and darkness is darkness.

The simple reality is that darkness is not a thing - but is only lack of light. Science therefore shows that TRUTH exists and is Eternal - error is the denial of truth.

This message has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed. It looks like it's more appropriate for my "Question" thread on the Christian Reconstructionism board.

*So man can learn what? The followers of the pagan mystery religions knew their godmen didn't really exist. These people didn't take the story literally. It was just an allegory that was supposed to reveal mystical teachings of the mystery religions. Are you saying God wanted people to learn the mystical teachings of pagan mystery religions?*

*
Atheists abandon reason and logic? Yeah right. It's totally logical to believe in an omnipotent being who created the entire Universe who hasn't furnished one shred of evidence of his existence. There are no Christians on Vulcan.*

All throughout this thread you keep repeating the same mantra, there were earlier pagan accounts of Godmen.

Christians borrowing from these mystery religions was a very popular argument at the beginning of the last century, but it generally died off because it was so discredited. jc has done an excellent job at dealing with these false assertions but allow me to elaborate some more.

Lets use the story that is most similiar to Jesus shall we? It has been said that Christians stole the story of the god apollonius of Tyana. Of course there is no merit in comparing Jesus to these false pagan gods. You know the story as well as I do. Here is someone from the 1st century who was said to have healed people and to have exorcised demons; who may have raised a young girl from the dead; and who appeared to some of his followers after he died. Now, if you do the historical work calmly and objectively, you find the alleged parallels just don't stand up. First, his biographer, Philostratus, was writing a century and a half after apollonius lived, whereas the gospels were written within a generation of Jesus. The closer the proximity to the event, the less chance there is for legendary development, for error, or for memories to get confused.

Another thing is we have four gospels, corroborated with Paul, that can be crossed-checked to some degree with nonbiblical authors like Josephus and others. With apollonius and these others, we're dealing with one source. Plus the gospels pass the standards tests used to assess historical reliability, but we can't say the same for these other stories.

On top of that, Philostratus was commissioned by an empress to write a biography in order to dedicate a temple to apollonius. She was a follower of apollonius, so Philostratus would have had a financial motive to embellish the story and give the empress what she wanted. On the other hand, the writers of the gospels had nothing to gain--and much to lose--by writing Jesus' story, and they didn't have ulterior motives such as financial gain.

Also, the way Philostratus and these other false god stories writes is very different than the gospels. The gospels have a very confident eyewitness perspective, as if they had a camera there. But Philostratus and these others include a lot of tentative statements, like "It is reported that..." or "Some say this young girl had died; others say she was just ill." To their credit, they back off and treat stories like stories.

Also, the mystery religions were do-your-own-thing religions that freely borrowed ideas from various places. However, the Jews carefully guarded their beliefs from outside influences. They saw themselves as a separate people and strongly resisted pagan ideas and rituals.

While it is true that some mystery religions had stories of gods dying and rising, these stories always revolved around the natural life cycle of death and rebirth. Crops die in the fall and come to life in the spring. People express the wonder of this ongoing phenomenon through mythological stories about gods dying and rising. These stories were always cast in a legendary form. They depicted events that happened "once upon a time."

Contrast that with depiction of Jesus Christ in the gospels. They talk about someone who actually lived a few decades earlier, and they name names--crucified under Pontius Pilate, when Caiaphas was high priest, and the father of Alexander and Rufus carried his cross, etc., for example. That's concrete historical stuff. It has nothing in common with stories about what supposedly happened "once upon a time."

And Christianity has nothing to do with the life cycles or the harvest. It has to do with a very Jewish belief--which is absent from the mystery religions--about the resurrection of the dead and about life eternal and reconciliation with God.

The story of Jesus is the pagan godman myth, as is the story of Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus and many others. It's the same myth told over and over again with different names. Mind you, the myths I'm talking about aren't the myths of the state religions. They're the myths of the mystery religions, which is what Christianity started out as. If you think the story of Jesus doesn't revolve around the seasons, would you care to explain to me why Easter's in early spring? As for the argument that the story of Jesus takes place in an actual period of history with actual historical figures, see the third message from the top of page 5.

First things first. Were you plugging your ears while reading my posts? It is apparent that you are encountering cognitive dissonance. I've noticed this about you while reading through this entire thread. You don't address the central issues one brings up and keep repeating the same thing, "The story of Jesus is the pagan godman myth." Perhaps this is why JC has stopped corresponding with you on this?

Now then, Jesus was not just a "god man." He was much more than that.

Some of my information is from Kyle Butt, M.A. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. just as yours is from The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.

History is filled with examples of those whose lives—real or imagined—share certain traits with the *well-documented* life of Jesus of Nazareth. Lets go with one you mentioned, Dionysus.

The usual story of Dionysus' birth relates that he was the offspring of Zeus, the immortal leader of the Greek gods who impregnated a human female by the name of Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, King of Thebes. Dionysus is said to have descended to the underworld and conquered death, ultimately bringing his dead mother back to the land of the living. He also is said to have died and been raised again. His followers called him Lysios or Redeemer, and grape juice commonly was used to symbolize his blood.

Of course, contemporary skeptics like Freke and who use the argument that it's the same myth told over and over again with different names in attempts to debunk the uniqueness and deity of Christ cannot take credit as its originators. History records that almost two thousand years ago the early Christian apologists were busily engaged in responding to the exact same argument. For example, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-426) stated in his Christian Doctrine:

_"The readers and admirers of Plato dared calumniously to assert that our Lord Jesus Christ learnt all those sayings of His, which they are compelled to admire and praise, from the books of Plato—because (they urged) it cannot be denied that Plato lived long before the coming of our Lord."_

Augustine refuted the argument by suggesting that Plato had read the prophet Jeremiah and then conveniently incorporated Jeremiah’s teachings into his own. The point, however, is clear: as early as A.D. 400, skeptics and enemies of the Cross were launching fiery darts of alleged plagiarism at both Christ and His followers.

Further investigation into the history of Christian apologetics manifests something even more startling. The earliest apologists not only recognized that the story and teachings of Jesus bore striking similarities to ancient mythological accounts, but even emphasized these similarities in an attempt to get pagans to understand more about Jesus and His mission. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) set forth an argument in his First Apology that was intended to put Christ at least on an equal playing field with earlier mythological gods.

_"And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours.... And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Ferseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Æsculapius" _(Chapter 22).

Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-220) observed that the story of Romulus, another character from ancient Greek mythology who was seen after his death, was quite similar to the story of Christ being seen after His death. However, Tertullian went on to note that the stories of Christ were much more certain because they were documented by historical evidence (Apology, 21).

While ancient pagans saw, and modern skeptics still see, such similarities as militating against the originality and uniqueness of Christ, the writings of such men as Augustine, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others document the fact that early Christians could see obvious—yes, even welcome—similarities between the story of Jesus and the accounts of mythological, pagan gods. Furthermore, some of those early Christians even seized upon those very similarities to defend Jesus’ position as the unique Son of God. The apologists’ point, of course, was two-fold: (1) men of the past *had* searched for a unique savior-god and, finding none, resorted to inventing him and bestowing upon him certain distinct characteristics; and (2) that Savior—who, although in the past had been endowed with unique traits of their own feeble creation—actually *had come!*

So you see AM, early apologists acknowledged these facts because they were, and are, quite indisputable. And that leads us back to the issue of this thread, how, in light of such facts, can we affirm that Jesus Christ is the unique, authentic Son of God—when stories similar to His circulated decades or millennia before He ever came to Earth?

The truth of the matter is that many stories over the course of history resemble that of Jesus of Nazareth in one way or another. And why should this surprise us? After Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man became keenly aware of both the presence and the consequences of sin. From the time of Cain and Abel, God had established sacrifices and decreed specific rules regarding those sacrifices. Since that time, all humans have had at least some perception—however slight or flawed—that they needed to “do something” to stand justified once again before their Creator. One way to do that was to invent a “stand-in”—someone who could take their place—as the epitome of sinless perfection to plead their case before the Righteous Judge of all the Earth.

Additionally, however, it can be argued that the similarities are *only similarities*, not exact parallels. It further can be argued that Jesus’ story, even though it seems similar to some others, is not exactly the same and, in fact, differs substantially in the minute details. For example, Krishna allegedly was crucified via an arrow through his arms, while Jesus was nailed to the cross. Confucius offered the negative form of the so-called “golden rule” (“Do not do to others”), while Jesus stated the positive (“Do unto others”). Dionysus’ mother, Persophone, reportedly had intercourse with Zeus, while Mary was a virgin. This line of reasoning possesses some merit, because it certainly is true that none of the ancient stories sounds *exactly* like Christ’s.

A closer look at the Egyptian legend of Osiris provides a good example of the many important differences between the account of Jesus and other stories. Legend says that Osiris was killed by his evil brother Seth, who tore Osiris’ body into fourteen pieces and scattered them throughout Egypt. Isis, the goddess-consort of Osiris, collected the pieces and buried them, thus giving life to Osiris in the underworld. Afterward, she used magical arts to revive Osiris and to conceive a child (Horus) by him. After fathering Horus, Osiris remained in the underworld, not really ever rising from the dead (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1997, 8:1026-1027). This legend, taken as a whole, provides few (if any) real parallels to the story of Jesus. Furthermore, when all the stories about characters who supposedly were similar to Christ are told in their entirety, it is obvious that each of them contains only a *few* characteristics that come anywhere close to resembling those contained in the life story of Jesus. Additionally, some of the alleged parallels rest upon *tenuous* documentation and may even be fabricated.

In the early part of the twentieth century, Joseph McCabe, one of the most outspoken atheists of his day, published several works, including The Myth of the Resurrection (1925), Did Jesus Ever Live? (1926), and How Christianity “Triumphed” (1926). McCabe painstakingly documented the similarities between the story of Jesus and pagan stories such as those of Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, and Attis, yet specifically noted: “It is a most important feature of our story that this legend of a slain and resurrected god *arose in quite different parts of the old civilized world.* Tammuz, Attis, and Osiris are three *separate and independent* creations of the myth-making imagination”

Hmm...here is where it gets interesting AM, are you paying attention? JC already pointed where we are going with this out to you and it seemed to go right over your head. Now then, McCabe thus acknowledged that these pagan stories with similar themes did not copy either one another or some earlier, predominant story. Rather, they arose separately—and even independently—of each other. McCabe admitted: “For some reason...the mind of man came in most parts of the world to conceive a legend of death and resurrection.... In fact, in one form or other there was almost a worldwide belief that the god, or a representative [king, prisoner, effigy, etc.] of the god, died, or had to die every year” (pp. 52,53, emp. added; bracketed material in orig.). In his conclusion, McCabe wrote: “In sum, I should say that the universal belief in a slain and resurrected god throws light upon the Christian belief by showing us a universal frame of mind which quite easily, in many places, made a resurrection myth” (p. 63, emp. added). McCabe—even as an infidel—willingly acknowledged that numerous (but different) resurrection myths arose from various regions around the globe, each similar in its facts yet original in its derivation. These stories apparently arose because of what he referred to as a “universal frame of mind.”

This is very interesting and we are getting warmer...People around the world—due to a “universal frame of mind”—independently concocted stories that revolved around a god dying and then rising again. These stories span both time barriers and geographical limits; they are—in a very literal sense—“worldwide” and “universal.” In truth, man *does* have a religious instinct—one that is keener than even many theologians would like to admit. In speaking of God, the writer of Ecclesiastes remarked: “He hath made everything beautiful in its time: he *hath set eternity in their heart”* (3:11). Paul said that mankind always has been able to understand God’s “everlasting power and divinity” (Romans 1:20). God did not place man on Earth to abandon him. Instead:

He made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons and bounds of their habitation; that they should *seek* God, if haply they might feel after him and find him though he is not far from each one of us; for in him we live, and move and have our being; as certain of your own poets have said, for we are his offspring (Acts 17:26-28).

God has indeed “set eternity” in the hearts of men and given them a universal instinct that is intended to cause them to seek Him. How, then, did the instinct to worship God lead to the concoction of numerous stories about a virgin-born savior-god who dies as a sacrifice for mankind’s wrongdoings? First, it started with the idea of sacrifice. From the moment Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden, man was acutely aware that he was a sinful being in need of redemption. Humans also understood that some type of atoning sacrifice was required to absolve them of sin. Oddly, skeptics seem to understand this point quite well. In the late eighteenth century, T.W. Doane caustically attacked the doctrines of Christ and the Bible. His work, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882), gnawed at every mooring of Christian doctrine. Yet even he understood that mankind always has realized its own sinfulness and its need for an atoning sacrifice. He wrote: “The doctrine of atonement for sin had been preached long before the doctrine was deduced from the Christian Scriptures, long before these Scriptures are pretended to have been written” (p. 181).

Those who might wish to challenge this assessment can examine any book on world history or world religions and see that it is correct. Abel offered the first of his flock, and from that day forward, humanity began offering live sacrifices to a deity in the hope of absolving anger and forgiving sin. In fact, mankind has sacrificed living things to a deity from the beginning of time. But which *particular* sacrifices did humanity think had the power to forgive sins? The general rule for the atonement value of a sacrifice was: *the more costly and perfect the sacrifice, the more sins it would absolve.*

When God initiated the ritual sacrifice of animals for the religious ceremonies of His chosen people, He laid down strict rules. In Leviticus 22:19-20, God told the Jews: “You shall offer of your own free will a male without blemish from the cattle, from the sheep, or from the goats. But whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable on your behalf ” (NKJV). The Lord *always* has demanded that blood be shed for the remission of sins. Hebrews 9:22 reiterates that point: “And according to the law...all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.” This should not be at all surprising, since “the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11).

*Men and women of ages past knew all too well God’s commandments regarding atonement by blood. It began with Cain and Abel, was reaffirmed by Noah (Genesis 9:1-6), was regulated by Old Testament law, and was carried through to fulfillment by Jesus. When God instituted the Law of Moses, He did not introduce animal sacrifices as an innovation never before seen by the Israelites. Rather, He showed the Israelites the proper manner in which to sacrifice such animals, until the time that the fulfilling sacrifice of His Son would bring to a halt the need for any further blood atonement via animal sacrifices. In showing them the proper way, God made strict provisions to keep the children of Israel from turning from God-approved sacrifices to sacrificing their own innocent children like the pagans around them. In Leviticus 18:21, God told the children of Israel: “And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech; neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am Jehovah.” God went to great lengths to warn the Israelites against offering their children as sacrifices because it was well known that the nations around them took part in such infanticide. The question arises, “What in this world could convince a mother or father to offer their children to a god?”* Let us investigate this matter further.

Wendy Davis writes for Widdershins, a self-proclaimed journal of unadulterated paganism. In an article on the World Wide Web, As Old as the Moon: Sacrifice in History, she stated: “The act of ritual murder is probably as old as we [humans—KB/BT] are. Throughout the ages, people sacrificed when they needed something. Our ancestors often *gave the best they had*, their first-born, to save themselves” (1995, emp. added). The most precious possession of a mother or father would be their first-born child. That child, however, would be not only precious, but also sinless. Sacrifice of anything less than that which is spotless and pure diminishes the inherent value of the sacrifice. Thus, it was believed that a sinless and pure sacrifice of such magnitude could wash away the sins of the parents (or, for that matter, the sins of an entire village!). Therefore, corrupt, perverse religions sprang up around the sacrifice of children, one of the most famous of which was that of Molech (see 2 Kings 23:10).

Yet even though the sacrifice of infants fulfilled the *sinless* aspect of a perfect sacrifice, it was lacking in other areas. For example, an “ordinary” infant born of peasant parents was not the most costly sacrifice available; a royal child of a king would be even better. Thus, as Davis went on to observe, kings ultimately sacrificed their own children to appease “the gods.”

But the sacrifice of a king’s child still did not represent the perfect sacrifice, because the child did not go of his (or her) own free will. A free-will sacrifice of royal blood would come closest to the perfect offering. In an article titled No Greater Sacrifice, which appeared in Widdershins, one writer suggested: “Willing sacrifice is more interesting. Why does someone want to sacrifice himself or herself for what they believe in? Historically speaking, we must consider the sacred kings who sacrificed themselves for the Land” (see Andy, 1998). Yes, a king who offered himself of his own free will would be almost the perfect sacrifice. The only problem with such a concept was the fact that no king ever had lived a perfect life. As the Widdershins writer correctly observed, in an attempt to solve this, “Finally someone came up with the idea of one final sacrifice. One sacrifice to count for all the rest for all time. But who could be offered? It had to be someone very important; even kings were not good enough. Clearly, only a god was important enough to count as the last one” (Andy, 1998). Thus, it becomes clear why even the pagan world demanded a sacrifice that was sinless, royal, and higher in stature than other humans. Doane stated: “The belief of redemption from sin by the sufferings of a Divine Incarnation, whether by death on the cross or otherwise, was general and popular among the heathen, centuries before the time of Jesus of Nazareth” (1882, pp. 183-185).

Once we comprehend the need for the death of the savior-god, it is not difficult to see why humanity would want (and need) to see him defeat death. The writer of the book of Hebrews addressed this very point when he wrote that Christ allowed Himself to be sacrificed so that He “might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (2:15). Death holds more terror for man than perhaps anything else on Earth. It was for this reason that the Greeks invented Hercules—half man and half god—to conquer the Underworld, and the Egyptians formulated Osiris. Surely a savior-god who offered himself voluntarily as the sacrifice for all humanity could defeat mankind’s dreaded enemy—Death. So, the idea of a sacrificial savior-god who victoriously defeats death through his resurrection came easily to the minds of people who knew that they needed forgiveness, and who desperately wanted to live past the grave.

And so, from a “universal frame of mind” different tribes and religions—spanning thousands of years—formulated their personal versions of what they thought a resurrected savior-god should be and do. Some said he was torn into fourteen pieces and scattered throughout the land of Egypt (e.g., Osiris). Others said he would look like a man but would possess superhuman physical strength and descend to the underworld to conquer Hades (e.g., Hercules). Yet one thing is certain: tales about a hero who saved mankind were on the lips of almost every storyteller. Trench stated correctly:

No thoughtful student of the past records of mankind can refuse to acknowledge that through all its history there has run the hope of a redemption from the evil which oppresses it; and as little can deny that this hope has continually attached itself to some single man (n.d., p. 149).

But how can it be maintained, then, that the one savior for whom all humanity waited was, and is, Jesus?

One important fact that cannot be ignored is that Jesus is the only historical figure Who fulfills the criteria necessary to justify, sanctify, and redeem mankind. No human’s creative mind concocted the narrative of Jesus of Nazareth. Human eyes saw Him, and human ears heard Him. He walked and talked—lived and loved—on the streets of real cities and in the houses of real people. His life is the only life of any “savior-god” that can be (and has been) thoroughly documented. As Stephen Franklin remarked: “[T]he specific character of Biblical religion and, thus, of Christianity stems from the priority given to the historical-factual dimension of the Bible’s basic teachings and doctrines”

Therefore, the story of Jesus Christ does not occupy a place amidst the pages of Greek mythology or ancient religious legend. Indeed, skeptics would delight in being able to place the story of Jesus on the same playing field as the stories of other legendary savior-gods, because then the parallel stories easily could be relegated to myth, due to the fact that the stories cannot be verified historically. Trench wrote of such skeptics:

"Proving, as it is not hard to prove, those parallels to be groundless and mythical, to rest on no true historic basis, they hope that the great facts of the Christian’s belief will be concluded to be as weak, will be involved in a common discredit."

If infidels were able to create a straw man that could not stand up to the test of historical verifiability (like, for example, pagan legends and myths), and if they could place the story of Jesus in the same category as their tenuous straw man, then both supposedly would fall together. However, the story of Jesus of Nazareth refuses to fall. The stories of other savior-gods are admitted to be—even by those who invented them—nothing but fables (e.g., the Greeks realized that their fictitious stories were merely untrue legends that were totally unverifiable; see McCabe, 1993, p. 59 *and you AM have also admitted as such*). But the story of Jesus demands its rightful place in the annals of human history. Osiris, Krishna, Hercules, Dionysus, and the other mythological savior-gods stumble back into the shadows of fiction when compared to the documented life of Jesus of Nazareth. If the skeptic wishes to challenge the uniqueness of Jesus by comparing Him with other alleged savior-gods, he first must produce evidence that one of these savior-gods truly walked on the Earth, commingled with humanity, and impacted people’s lives via both a sinless existence and incomparable teachings. Humanity always has desired a real-life savior-god; but can any of the alleged savior-gods that have been invented boast of a historical existence any more thoroughly documented than that of Christ?

In addition, Jesus has a monopoly on being perfectly flawless. He lived life by the same moral rules that govern all humans, yet He never once made a mistake. The writer of Hebrews recorded: “For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (4:15; cf. also 1 Peter 2:21-22). Renowned religious historian Philip Schaff wrote:

In vain do we look through the entire biography of Jesus for a single stain or the slightest shadow of his moral character. There never lived a more harmless being on earth. He injured nobody, he took advantage of nobody. He never wrote an improper word. He never committed a wrong action (1913, pp. 32-33).
Bernard Ramm commented in a similar vein when he stated of Christ:

There He stands, sinless. Whatever men may claim for being great, this is one thing they cannot. They may be brilliant or strong, fast or clever, creative or inspired, but not sinless. Sinless perfection and perfect sinlessness is what we would expect of God incarnate. The hypothesis and the facts concur (1953, p. 169, emp. in orig.).
Examine the stories of other savior-gods. See if they subjected themselves to the same rules as humans. See if they learned human nature and suffered unjustly, all the while never sinning with either their lips or their hearts. Try to find a savior like Christ who lived 30+ years on the Earth and yet never committed one shameful act. Norman Geisler summarized the situation as follows: “All men are sinners; God knows it and so do we. If a man lives an impeccable life and offers as the truth about himself that he is God incarnate we must take his claim seriously” (1976, p. 344). Jesus did “offer as the truth about himself that he is God incarnate.” As John Stott noted:

The most striking feature of the teaching of Jesus is that He was constantly talking about Himself.... This self-centeredness of the teaching of Jesus immediately sets Him apart from the other great religious teachers of the world. They were self-effacing. He was self-advancing. They pointed men away from themselves, saying, “That is the truth, so far as I perceive it; follow that.” Jesus said, “I am the truth; follow me.” The founders of the ethnic religions never dared say such a thing (1971, p. 23).

More can be said of this but it really has already been said. I quote JC:

" Just because a fictional story existed prior to a similar historical event does not prove that the record of the historical event was copied from the fictional story.

What is more likely is that the theme of sacrifice and atonement for sin is a universal truth."

*I* don't address the central issue?! You gotta be kidding me! The central issue is the similarity of the Jesus story to earlier pagan godman myths. That's the reason for my conclusion that there was no Jesus. Getting *other people* to address it has been like pulling teeth! That's why I've had to repeat myself so damn many times! And if you think the life of Jesus is well documented, go look through the Roman archives and see if you can find any mention of him. And when you're finished, you can go through the writings of the 27 pagan writers who lived within a century of when Jesus is said to have lived and see if any of them mention him. That'll take you a while, though. Their writings could fill a library. I know you're a Christian. What you need to do is divorce yourself as much as possible from that and think about what I wrote in the third message from the top of page 5 if you actually read it. And if you didn't, read it.

In the message before this last one, you wrote about the similarities between the Jesus story and the pagan godman myth as if they supported your argument. Now you post a quote that says they were exaggerated. What happened? Did you figure out that the similarity between the stories means that I'm right? And you stated earlier that the life of Jesus is well documented. And now you admit that there aren't many surviving Roman records, implicitly admitting that there is, in fact, no mention of him in the Roman archives. You said I've already been informed of the Roman and pagan writers who mention Jesus. Then you ask why a Roman historian would give a hoot for him as if to offer an explanation why they don't mention him. Give it up, dude. Your godman's not real and never was.

In my message before this last one I indeed wrote about some *similarites.* I quote from that post:

_"This legend, taken as a whole, provides few (if any) real parallels to the story of Jesus. Furthermore, when all the stories about characters who supposedly were similar to Christ are told in their entirety, it is obvious that each of them contains only a few characteristics that come anywhere close to resembling those contained in the life story of Jesus. Additionally, some of the alleged parallels rest upon tenuous documentation and may even be fabricated. "_

Now then, what that post did, was demonstrate the fact that your assertions are not new. That the early church apologists dealt with them and used them. It went into detail that some of the few similarities that may exist should not surprise us. I showed that Mankind has a religious instinct and has always felt a need to sacrifice.

I stated in my next post, "Let me shed some additional light on this subject" (godman similarities). In other words, in my next post I expounded on the earlier post about the supposed "similarities" and went into greater detail on the fabrications.

I don't see where you find any confusion. It is still apparent that you aren't reading in a coherent manner. You said for me to give it up. How can I give up Christ when after my whole life of being an agnostic, He came to me and radically changed my life?

I notice you've chosen to ignore the part of my message about archives and writers. Religion is the primitive man's science. It's how people explained things before there was science. There is what you might call a religious instinct of sorts among some people. People who have cytosine in a particular locale in the vmat2 gene tend to be more spiritually oriented than those who don't. This raises the question if there's such a thing as a god who wants us to believe in him, why didn't he give everybody cytosine at that locale? But, that's not relevent to this thread. Anyway, I wouldn't trust anything I read from the Christian Research Institute as far as I could throw it. The Jesus Mysteries is a very thoroughly researched book (64 pages of notes and an 8 page bibliography) written by objective scholars who were raised Christians. They, unlike Christians, let the facts lead them to the conclusion, instead of starting with a conclusion and looking for facts to support it. Bottom line: I trust what Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy say, not what the Christian Research Institute says. You ask how you can give up Christ after he changed your life. The insidious thing about Christianity is that it preys on the vulnerable. People whose lives aren't going well often turn to it out of desperation. And their lives get better and they credit Jesus, when in reality it's the Dumbo Effect. Your belief in Jesus gave you the confidence to make your life better. But, it was you that did it. You don't need to believe in Jesus. Just believe in yourself.

Actually I didn't ignore your archives and writers comment If you'd read, you'd notice I stated: "You have already been informed of the Roman and pagan writers who mentioned Jesus in their writings. Not only Jesus but His brother James, John the Baptist, etc. As far as your demand for contemporaries: there aren't as many surviving Roman records as you claim. In addition, do you really think a Roman historian would give a hoot for Jesus? Jesus was a peasant, running around a dreadful Palestinian outpost, teaching other Jews in the desert about the *Jews'* God, and this peasant Jesus was on the scene for a mere 3 1/2 years?

Oh, the ‘God Gene' Dr. Dean Hamer spouts off about. You can put the god gene in the same sophistry category as Hamer's now proven false gay gene. So now you are resorting to pseudoscience are you. Hey, how about a rape gene? A murder gene? I know, I know....a stealing gene?

Btw, if the presence of this version of the gene makes the person who has it more religious and spiritual than people who do not, it is awfully strange that for 37 years I had no desire to do anything spiritual.

The Jesus mysteries are objective scholars eh? I really don't think so. The information from CRI is information that is readily available. It didn't exclusively come from CRI. As far as them being raised Christians, that is suppose to mean....? Countless numbers of prominent atheists have turned Christian when investigating the evidence objectively, i.e., Lee Strobel. Josh McDowell, Sir Willaim Ramsey, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Hugh Ross, etc. etc., the list could go on forever.

Your comment on Christianity preys on the vulnerable is absolutely baseless. Myself being a case in point. I had it all before Christ, $100,000+ a year salary, beautiful wife, children, home, two brand new vehicles, lots of friends, great health...I had it all (except for eternal life of course).

You ignored the part in my message before my last message, not my message before my message before my last message. Anyway, if you think you can find a reference to Jesus in the works of the 1st century pagan writers, go through them. As for vmat2, we're talking about tendencies here. People who have cytosine in the locale have are more prone to be spiritual than those who don't. People with or without cytosine in the locale can start out non-religious and become religious and vice versa. The gay gene hasn't been disproven though. Research supports the theory that homosexuality is genetic. If you don't believe that, do some research of your own using secular sources. The fact that Freke and Gandy were raised Christians proves their objectivity. They weren't looking to find evidence disproving the existence of Jesus. And if you had it all, that proves you don't need to believe in a deity. :D Besides, even if what I was talking about doesn't apply to you, there are a lot of people to whom it does apply. As for eternal life, you don't need Christianity for that, either. All you have to do to reverse the aging process is figure out how to activate the telomerase gene. By the way, have you read the third message from the top of page 5 yet?

Are my posts that much of a sockdolager for you? You almost had it right; since I had it all, I didn't feel I deeded a diety. But alas, Christ reached down and I responded because frankly, I have no problem with there being a creator. And I thank Him everyday for providing a way to Him.

Your god gene is only sophistry put on by Dr. Hamer, pseudoscience at its finest. I'm still waiting on that rape gene :lol: Besides resorting to psuedoscience, you are using a strawman, e.g., people who have the god gene are prone to be spiritual and people without the god gene can become spiritual and vice versa :lol:

We can have a theory for anything but the fact remains, there is no evidence for a gay gene. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. There being no evidence comes from secular sources although what this is suppose to mean is nonsense. The medical field is full of believers and nonbelievers, their beliefs in a diety is irrelevant. How about a murder gene?

Another strawman, "The fact that Freke and Gandy were raised Christians proves their objectivity." Very well then, the fact that countless numbers of prominent atheists have turned Christian when investigating the evidence *proves their objectivity*, i.e., Lee Strobel. Josh McDowell, Sir Willaim Ramsey, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Hugh Ross, etc. etc.

Strawman that it is, Christ spoke numerous times of people who thought they were His followers, i.e., Freke and Gandy. Of course I won't inform you of what Christ said since you are not able to discern clearly:

_"I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,

'I will destroy human wisdom
and discard their most brilliant ideas.'

So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe. God's way seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven to prove it is true. And it is foolish to the Greeks because they believe only what agrees with their own wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended, and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the mighty power of God and the wonderful wisdom of God. This "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God's weakness is far stronger than the greatest of human strength._ 1 Cor 1:18-25.

So, as you can see from the afformetioned scripture, it is a waste of time trying to reason with the close minded.

Anyway, this topic has turned into nothing more than badinage. And to that end, I will probably be finished bantering with you. I will leave my valuable free-time to those who want to explore the evidence without preconceived suppositions.

I'm close minded? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. There is nothing more close minded than a fundie. No matter how well reasoned an argument, no matter how much evidence is presented which contradicts your beliefs, you still continue to have them. Anyway, who we are is a result of a complex interaction between genes and environment. That much is clear. So, why is it so hard for you to believe that thing like spirituality and sexual orientation have genetic components? The difference between Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy and those other people you mentioned is that they present evidence supporting their argument. Christians can't present evidence supporting their arguments because they don't have any. Assuming they really did arrive at their conclusions objectively, they must have seen evidence where it didn't really exist.

You want someone to say that the story could not be true because it was based on an earlier myth?

You think this analogy proves that the resurrection stories were borrowed from eastern pagan cults called "mystery religions.” The people who wrote the Jesus story took an earlier story and passed it on via Jesus. You think that similarities among stories told among cults and mystery religions disprove the resurrection of Jesus.

The writers of the New Testament mention the “mystery religions” — most notably, the Apostles Peter, John and Paul. What is described in their writings is Gnosticism — an eastern cult that had followers the world over at the time of the Roman Empire. At the time of Jesus, even Judaism had succumbed to the effects of the ancient mystery religions. So it is at least _possible_ that the early Christians could have borrrowed stories from the Gnostics.

Let's say for the sake of argument that your thesis is correct. That the Gnostic stories were exactly the same in every detail as the story of Jesus -- (which I don't agree with because there are major diffferences between the Gospel and these myths).

But let's examine this thesis as if it were true.

Let's say that one or more of the Apostles may have borrowed a story from the Gnostics about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead in order to give themselves some credibility.

Here are a few problems with this thesis:

1. The Apostles were writing only a few years after the time of Jesus. Why would they have consciously borrowed from the Gnostics in order to invent a fictitious resurrection story while at the same time condemning the Gnostics' teachings?

2. In the first century, one or more of the Apostles may have invented a story about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. If the resurrection were a hoax, why would there be a growing Christian movement in the immediate years after Jesus’ death? Why would there even be an Apostle who would want to record a falsified history?

3. Many of the disciples who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection died as martyrs for their faith. Why would these people die for what they knew was a fraudulent claim?

While your thesis is possible, it is highly implausible. It simply doesn't make sense to say that Christians who were writing only a few years after the time of a falsified event were willing to go to such lengths in order to protect the integrity of the story of a man they knew never existed.

I know you will read all of my last post and you will have various objections.

However, I really wanted to get you take on this one vital point:

If the resurrection were a hoax, why would there even be a Christian movement in the years immediately after Jesus’ death?

If Christ’s life was fiction, why would there even be an Apostle who would want to record a falsified record of Jesus’ death and resurrection as though it were factual history?

Even if I were not a committed Christian with a personal experience of salvation in Christ, this would seem far fetched to me. Obviously, they must have known a person called Jesus. They must have seen something to convince them that He really rose from the dead. Even if I were a skeptic, it would be obvious to me that at least _they_ believed it.

Asking why there would be a Christian movement in the years immediately after Jesus's death assumes Jesus lived and died. The 4 gospels didn't necessarily intentionally falsify anything. It's entirely possible that they did, in fact, believe the story. But even if they did, that doesn't make it true.

First of all, one of the apostles you mention, Paul, *was* a gnostic. He wrote the earliest known Christian documents. He could've been the *founder* of Christianity! Secondly, the gnostics themselves borrowed the story from earlier mystery religions. The pagan godman myths, including the Jesus myth, are all different to a small degree. But they're all *basically* the same story. As it's put in Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, Jesus was a new god the way the first Honda Civic was a new car. For more information on the pagan godman myths, I suggest you buy a book called The Ancient Mysteries and compare for yourself. Early Christianity had a whole bunch of different factions. They were divided into two groups: gnostics and literalists. The literalists believed the story of Jesus was literally true. They condemned the gnostics because the gnostics didn't. Jesus supposedly died between 30 and 35. There is no evidence of the existence of Christianity before the letters of Paul, written around 50. The original Christians knew there was no Jesus. So, the movement didn't initially grow because people believed there really was a Jesus who died and rose from the dead. There is no evidence supporting the Biblical claim that anyone witnessed Jesus's resurrection. Furthermore, Christians were persecuted for a total of only 4 years in the whole history of the Roman Empire, from 257-259 and from 303-305. [/b]

How could Paul be a Gnostic when he refuted it as heresy -- in very strong terms?

You really don't know too much about the Bible except what you read in Freke's book.

Some of the writings attributed to Paul are forgeries.

It's difficult to take you seriously. Your whole tactic is to deny what historians have believed for centuries and cling to what some oddball skeptics have written in the last few years.

There are no less than seven New Testament passges condemning Gnosticism. The Apostles could not have been Gnostics.

Gnostic views of the Godhead were opposed by Paul in his writings, by Peter in his second epistle, by the Apostle John in his writings, and by the Church Fathers and apologists.

The Apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to Timothy:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20).

It’s worth noting here that the word translated as “science,” or as “knowledge” in some translations, is the Greek word gnosis. Paul is warning his young disciple Timothy against the error of Gnosticism. Likewise, the letter to the Colossians also deals with Gnosticism.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind (Colossians 2:18).

Peter’s second epistle also warns against heresies. Many scholars believe he is referring specifically to the teachings of Gnosticism.

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).

John’s writings were written in part to counter the Gnostic error that supposed that Christ came in spirit form only, but not in human flesh.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands (1 John 1:1).

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God (1 John 4:2).

John further condemns the “mystery religions” that had corrupted first century Jews represented by the harlot in the book of Revelation.

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (Revelation 17:3,4).

Around 180 A.D., the Christian apologist, Irenaeus, wrote his great polemic, Against Heresies: The Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called, dealing with Gnostic heresies. Irenaeus makes 1,819 references to New Testament scriptures.

At about the same time, Tertullian quoted the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, 1 John and the book of Revelation in arguing against Marcion the Gnostic heretic and quotes from the New Testament 7,258 times.

Your idea is that the Gnostics were a competing faction with Christians in the first and second centuries. This is true. I have read the writings of the Church fathers Irenaeus and Tertullian on this topic. Gnosticism was a world religion prior to Christ. The threat of Gnosticism was around from the beginning, but unlike the four Christian Gospels the Gnostic Gospels didn't begin to appear until one to three hundred years later.

The problem with your argument is that you claim that prior to 50 AD there is no evidence of Jesus in the form of written testimony. However, there is no evidence either for your claim that "the original Christians knew there was no Jesus." Using your own argument, if there are no extant Christian (or Gnostic/pseudo-Christian) writings prior to Paul, then how can you make this claim?

Paul in his Epistles refers to his "Gospel" and includes many points that are corroborated by the later written histories of the four Gospels.

If the original Christians were Gnostics, then you would expect to find wide disparities between the four Christian Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. But both agree with each other.

There are only two logical possibilities accepted by either liberals or conservatives. Here they are respectively:

1. (The liberal view) - Paul's Gospel and the later Gospel histories both came from an independent common source.

2. (The conservative view) - Paul took his Gospel from the orally preached Gospels of Peter (Mark was actually Peter's scribe) and Matthew. According to the first century Church fathers Papias and Polycarp (who was a student of the Apostle John) Paul's Gospel later became known as the Gospel of Luke, since Luke was Paul's scribe. The Gospel of John was written last.

This is also how we can know that the early pagan historians' references to Christ are based on independent records and research. If these were compiled solely from the written testimony of Christians, then we would expect to find only history that is found in the New Testament. If they were based on hearsay from Christians we would also expect to find some corruption or disagreeing accounts.

For instance, Nero's persecution is alluded to in the New Testament, but he is never named. So this is a pagan record, not a Christian invention.

Also, as I posted elsewhere, the basic facts about Jesus' life listed by Paul, the writers of the four Gospels, and the pagan testimony are in agreement.

Freke and Doherty's theory is based solely on conjecture not history. Even liberals who deny the deity of Christ, know that they are not credible historians.

Earl Doherty makes a huge assumption popular among the 19th century critics that the Gospels were not written in the first century. Most scholars now admit that they were.

He then goes on to state that none of the Gospel story appears in the Epistles.

Here is just a brief summary of the “non-narrative” evidence from Paul's Epistles that also appear the Gospel stories. Those points also attested to by non-Christian writers are marked with an asterisk.

The following is from Luke Timothy Johnson’s book, _The Real Jesus_:

1. Jesus was a real human person (Paul, Hebrews)*
2. Jesus was a Jew (Paul, Hebrews)*
3. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews)
4. Jesus was a descendant of David (Paul)
5. Jesus mission' was to the Jews (Paul)*
6. Jesus was a teacher (Paul, James)*
7. Jesus was tested (Hebrews)
8. Jesus prayed using the word ABBA (Paul)
9. Jesus prayed for deliverance from death (Hebrews)
10. Jesus Suffered (Paul, Hebrews, Peter)
11. Jesus interpreted his last meal with reference to his death
(Paul -- mentioned also in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus)*
12. Jesus underwent a trial (Paul)*
13. Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate (Paul)*
14. Jesus death involved the Jews (Paul)*
15. Jesus was crucified (Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter)*
16. Jesus was buried (Paul)
17. Jesus appeared to witesses after death (Paul)

So it is clear to see that the most vital elements of the Gospel story appear in the Epistles.

In “The Jesus Puzzle,” Doherty then goes on to write that:

The Gospel Jesus and his story is equally missing from the non-Christian record of the time.

Ironically, what follows is the list of pagan historians who do mention Jesus. He brushes this off by claiming that they must be forgeries.

The problem is that historians do not universally consider these passages to be forgeries. In addition, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian and Celsus refer to Christ and Christians sometimes in negative terms. This is hardly the strategy for a Christian forger who is trying to gain credibility for his movement.

It occurs to me that if Nero put Christians to death because they believed in a literal Jesus, the sovereign of the universe, then your entire argument falls apart.

There is no evidence that Tacitus has been interpolated.

Tacitus was so negative about Christians that not only is this passage credible, but he was not useful for contemporary Christian apologists. A Christian interpolation has positive things about Christians or Christ that the writer could not have said. So we do know what a Christian interpolation looks like and we know that it doesn't look like Tacitus.

What evidence (besides repeated denials) do you have to prove that Nero didn't persecute Christians?

Gaius Cornelius Tacitus described the event:

"And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Nero’s scapegoats were the perfect choice because it temporarily relieved pressure of the various rumors going around Rome. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for a moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Iudaea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome... Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed; then, on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as because of [their] hatred for the human race. Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clothed in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even towards men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual." - Tacitus, Annales, xv.44

The Roman Tertullian (in a fragment quoted in Eusebius) writes as follows: "Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence."

Eusebius, the 4th century historian, also tells us that Mark was Peter's interpreter and traveled with him to Rome in 60 A.D. During the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, the Roman authorities used a copy of Mark's Gospel as evidence to implicate the Christians as the cause of a large fire which had burned much of the city. On a papyrus scroll appeared the title: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." In the ensuing period, Christians were persecuted as scapegoats. Evidently the title of Mark's Gospel was construed as treasonous.