To Debunk or Not to Debunk

To debunk or not to debunk . That is the question.

James White barely squeezes out to unbunk Rob Bells Jesus copycat of conspiracy theories.

Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell?

YouTube

@sonship said
To debunk or not to debunk . That is the question.

James White barely squeezes out to unbunk Rob Bells Jesus copycat of conspiracy theories.

Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsVkeMZCkOg

Anyone who studies ancient religions know that Mithras is not a savior god.
Read up on the Zalmoxis cult, 500 years older than Christianity but rather similar.

@sonship said
To debunk or not to debunk . That is the question.

James White barely squeezes out to unbunk Rob Bells Jesus copycat of conspiracy theories.

Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsVkeMZCkOg

Is James White a "pop historian"?

@fmf said
Is James White a "pop historian"?

Didn't listen to the video? James White is a reform Baptist.

With a single post, six words, you've gone off topic and derailed the thread.

@secondson said
Didn't listen to the video? James White is a reform Baptist.

With a single post, six words, you've gone off topic and derailed the thread.

Who is and isn't a "pop" commentator is a much-visited theme with sonship.

If the commentator is a highly qualified historian with longstanding teaching experience and a demonstrated expertise that is widely admired by both believers and non-believers, he is, of course, a "pop" commentator if sonship doesn't like what he says.

But if sonship does like what someone says on matters of history, it doesn't matter if the speaker has scarcely a proper portfolio of academic work to his name and - like James White - has a few 'online diplomas' - or in the case of Mike Licona - he has a degree in playing the saxophone [I kid you not] - then, sonship assures us they are not "pop" historians.

You obviously didn't follow the recent thread. This consideration - "pop" or not "pop" - is clearly, if we see sonship's views on this matter, not a derailment.

@secondson said
James White is a reform Baptist.

White is a weak preach-to-the-choir type "debater" - I am not surprised sonship likes him - whose most prominent riff is about how "naive" people who disagree with him are.

He is in complete denial about how Christianity clearly links back to previous religions ~ in a quite calculated and pragmatic way, I'd say ~ and him being a Reform Baptist is undoubtedly the cause of this denial rather than a thing that somehow qualifies him to make such denials about the history in question.

@caissad4

Never heard of him. But obviously some have.
Leave it to Richard (Anybody But Jesus) Carrier.

Jesus vs Zlmoxis ( I ignore the artwork and only listen to )
YouTube

Another good reply to Richard ( Anybody But Jesus! ) Carrier.

Jesus vs. Romulus
YouTube

@fmf said
Who is and isn't a "pop" commentator is a much-visited theme with sonship.

If the commentator is a highly qualified historian with longstanding teaching experience and a demonstrated expertise that is widely admired by both believers and non-believers, he is, of course, a "pop" commentator if sonship doesn't like what he says.

But if sonship does like what someone says on ...[text shortened]... ation - "pop" or not "pop" - is clearly, if we see sonship's views on this matter, not a derailment.

Well, I personally, have never been a follower of anything "pop", nor do I do YouTube, so it's no wonder I'm behind the curve, and there I'll remain.

"a proper portfolio of academic work", and "a highly qualified historian with longstanding teaching experience and a demonstrated expertise". Can't argue with that.

@fmf said
White is a weak preach-to-the-choir type "debater" - I am not surprised sonship likes him - whose most prominent riff is about how "naive" people who disagree with him are.

He is in complete denial about how Christianity clearly links back to previous religions ~ in a quite calculated and pragmatic way, I'd say ~ and him being a Reform Baptist is undoubtedly the cause of this ...[text shortened]... l rather than a thing that somehow qualifies him to make such denials about the history in question.

"...Christianity clearly links back to previous religions..."

Superficially maybe, if one massages the information enough, but in reality that ain't possible.

To debunk or not to debunk. That is the question. Whether is noblier .... etc. etc. well.

To be fair.

The Roman Catholic Church incorporated all kinds of pagan beliefs in to the Christian religion in order to make it palatable to the masses.

"You can still worship the suns birthday. Just lets call it Jesus birthday - Christmas."

" You can still worship the centuries old portrait of the mother and child (probably Nimrod and his mother). But let's make it Mary and the baby Jesus. Okay?

" You can keep the Babylonian religious garb and clothing. Lets make it that of the cardinals, priests, bishops, and Pope though."

"We have conquered the world. You can still have your superstitions. Lets just make it all related to Jesus for a big mixture."

Some amalgamation of pagan myths and superstitions with with the things of the Gospel is certainly true. They are not things found in the document of the New Testament. They are the leaven added in traditions that corrupted the fine flour of the pure teaching of the New Testament.

This was predicted by Christ in a couple of parables. One is the parable of the woman who HID leaven in three measures of meal until the whole lump was leavened.

Another parable He spoke to them. The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened. (Matt. 13:33)

And another like it - the parable of the mustard seed that grew out of proportion into a huge tree with demonic things roosting in its branches.

Another parable He set before them, saying, The kingdom of the heavens is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field.

Which is indeed smaller than all the seeds, but when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the brids of heaven come and roost in its branches. (Matt. 13:31,32)

Both these parable should be understood negatively as the corruption and bloating of the Christian church into a huge world wide mixture of superstition, hypocrisy, and corruption.

This is the abnormal degradation of the church He founded into a huge evil organization of truth MIXED with error, deceit, superstition, and hypocrisy.

Another parable He spoke to them. The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened. (Matt. 13:33)

Footnote of the Recovery Version New Testament reads:

Leaven

Leaven in the Scripture signifies evil things (1 Cor. 5:6,8) and evil doctrine (Matt. 16:6, 11-12)

The church as the practical kingdom of the heavens, with Christ - the unleavened fine flour - as its content, must be the unleavened bread (1 Cor. 5:7-8). However, the Catholic CHurch, which was fully and officially formed in the sixth century and which is signified by the "woman" here, took many pagan practices, heretical doctrines, and evil matters, and mixed them with the teachings concerning Christ to leaven the whole content of Christianity. This fourth parable corresponds to the fourth of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3, the church in Thyatira (2:18-29 - see note 20(1) there). This became the inward corrupted content of the outward appearance of the kingdom of the heavens.

Meal

"Meal," for making the meal offering (Lev. 2:1) signifies Christ as food to God and man. "Three measures" is the quantity needed to make a full meal (Gen. 18:6). Hence, to hide leaven "in three measures of meal" signifies that the Catholic Church has fully leavened in a hidden way all the teachings concerning Christ. This is the actual situation in the Roman Catholic Church. It is absolutely against the Scriptures, which strongly forbids putting any leaven into the meal offering (Lev. 2:4-5,11).

@sonship said
To debunk or not to debunk. That is the question. Whether is noblier .... etc. etc. well.

To be fair.

The Roman Catholic Church incorporated all kinds of pagan beliefs in to the Christian religion in order to make it palatable to the masses.

It is amazing how much derided the Roman Catholic Church is by Christians of other sects.
For over 1500 years, 3/4 of its' total existence, the Roman Catholic Church was the one and only Christian Church. Other small sects were considered heresy.
Almost all of your "Christian heritage" is Catholic in origin.
Starting 500 years ago, hundreds of "variations" of Catholicism are created , each proclaiming divine inspiration and thus, "the true church".
If E.T showed up you would find a way to incorporate him into your belief system.

@sonship said
Some amalgamation of pagan myths and superstitions with with the things of the Gospel is certainly true. They are not things found in the document of the New Testament.

Things like virgin births, a mortal being divine, people rising from the dead, a God being killed and then raised from the dead, the idea that people have immortal souls, the concept of going to heaven, the whole blood sacrifice thing, the establishment of a cross as a religious symbol [Jesus was probably nailed to a pole, I've read] etc. etc. Are these things [and more] not found in the document of the New Testament?