Freethought Nation

What? Oh so, NOW you're ready to stop bickering? I asked you to stop pages ago but you insisted on posting more of your BS.


You're still just attempting to LIE your way out of the fact that those are ACHARYA'S OWN LISTS THAT SHE CREATED IN HER OWN WORDS in Christ Conspiracy, which you've had posted on your website and have been criticizing for 8 years while REFUSING to read the book. You are attempting to implement a hypocritical double-standard; You want to criticize books you've never read for years and years on your website but, cry and whine and moan when you get a very small taste of your own medicine. There's just no way around it KD8, you've lost this one too so, it's time for you to drop it.

Now you're claiming that none of the ideas in Acharya's lists originated with her? If that's what you really believe then, go tell all your Xian apologist buddies who keep lying about Acharya's work that SHE DIDN'T MAKE THEM UP. And if you know that she didn't make up anything in these lists, then you should also know where the original claims come from, RIGHT? So then, why don't you have all the ORIGINALS posted up at your website instead of harassing Acharya S? The BS never ends with you so, I'm sure you'll invent more BS to skirt around that one too.

Apologize to Acharya for all the hatred you've spewed her way implying that she's a liar and just makes everything up. All this time, you've known where the information comes from, so why do you come here harassing everyone to spoon-feed it to you?

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

So instead of reading of the entire post you instead focus one thing and ignore the rest? The death in the tree eventually became the death on a tree as these ideas evolved. I even stated that Josephus refers to the baker in Joseph's story being crucified, even though it wasn't by your standards. And Justin Martyr refers to the goat that Abraham scarifices in place of Isaac as alluding to the crucifxion of Jesus. Of course I explain all of this in the rest of the post. So don't act like you've found some loop-hole when you haven't read the entire post. I don't think you'd like it much if I said that your book is complete hogwashand and haven't read it. Would you?

_________________
Y GWIR YN ERBYN BYD

Except Osiris didn't die in the tree. He was killed by Seth, and then his corpse was placed inside of the pillar made from a tree. To stretch this to being somehow being an inspiration for Jesus being nailed to a crucifix and dying it on is a huge stretch. I'm amazed you think this story is a more likely influence on the Jesus story than any one of the thousands of people who were crucified in the Roman empire in the preceding few centuries.



So do you take this to mean that you can stretch the definition of "crucifixion" until it covers whatever you need it to cover, even if it's something so far removed from anyone's idea of "crucifixion" that it's essentially meaningless?

KD8, you're only proving why it's so important to actually read the books first BEFORE you criticize (for 8 years so far). There's a few thousand pages worth of material you need to study in order to understand the origins, evolution and history of these ancient religious CONCEPTS. The utter ignorance you display on this subject is the only way you can deny and dismiss credible evidence that actually exists.

Christians have tried to re-define several terms. For example, you try to define crucifixion as the way the NT claims Jesus was crucified by being nailed to a cross. That way even if a god was attached to a cross but without nails then, you can deny and dismiss the entire parallel. It's just Christian bigotry at play.

Crucify: to treat with gross injustice; persecute; torment; torture.

What you still don't understand is that we're not claiming carbon copy or copy-cat - that's another derogatory and bigoted attack on the facts.

Here's another perfect example:


Godless: "wicked; evil; sinful."

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

I'm sorry, but the evidence for only 11 claims wouldn't take thousands of pages of material.



I do? Can you show me where on my site (which you so carefully examined) I've limited it to being nailed to the cross? I've never limited it that way.



Again, if you're expanding the definition of "crucifixion" to mean anyone who has been persecuted or treated unjustly, then you're expanding the definition in such a way as to make it meaningless as a point of comparison, since it now covers millions, probably billions, of people throughout history. If you're suggesting that Jesus' story is fictional because he was persecuted just like many, many people before and after His time, then that won't be a very convincing argument.



I agree, but I do expect your basic claims to stand up. For example, if you can show that Horus was crucified, I'm not going to say that it doesn't count because, in Horus' case, it wasn't between two thieves. But I do expect your claim that Horus was crucified to be accurate in the first place, even if the specific details aren't a carbon copy. If you can just show that he was affixed to a cross or tree, and then died on that cross or tree, then, yes, Horus was crucified.



Again, your goal here seems to be taking the points of comparison and expanding them to the point where they lose all relevance. Basically, making the net so big that it's bound to catch a lot of comparisons.

You've been criticizing the lists from a book on your website for at least 8 years now all while REFUSING to read the book. We've established that and there's no way for you to squirm your way out of it and I will NEVER let you forget it.


Again, You've been criticizing the lists from a specific a book on your website for at least 8 years now all while REFUSING to read the book. We've established that and there's no way for you to squirm your way out of it.


Tat is spot on.


Actually, I do and I've explained it throughout this thread starting with the very first page.


Mythicists have provided the evidence throughout the thousands of pages of material - material that you've been REFUSING to read for at least 8 years now.


Another LIE from KD8.


No, you're the one making a complete ass of yourself by refusing the read the books you've been criticizing for 8 years now. That's more intellectual dishonesty on your part.


Then, why are you charging for your book; shouldn't it be FREE? You are proving yourself to be a hypocrite once again here.


They've been doing it all along but, you've been refusing to read the books all along. How many times must we go over this before it finally all sinks into your melon, KD8? Do you suffer from learning disabilities? If so, just say so and we'll take it easier on you or your lack of comprehension abilities.


Again, for the umpteenth time, the evidence has been presented across thousands of pages of material that you've been refusing to read for at least 8 years now.

Again, The ONLY way you can make that claim is by REFUSING to read the books by mythicists. You're expecting authors who've written several books with hundreds of pages of material, and readers of the books, to cater to your every demand by telling them that they need to re-do all that work and condense it down to bite size portions so that it can be SPOON-FEED to you because you're sooo juvenile that you've been refusing to read the book for at least 8 years now. So, for the umpteenth time, the evidence has been presented before you ever created your challenge. You are merely making everybody else perform a huge amount of work to "present it to you" because you're too damn lazy to read the books for yourself. And you hold that stupid carrot in front them i.e. your $1,000 challenge for which you have zero intention of ever paying up, which is why you created that fallacious criteria. So, it's YOU who has spent the last 8 years avoiding the books that you and your website criticize.


You've already proven how utterly intellectually dishonest you've been by criticizing the lists from a book on your website that you've REFUSED to read for at least 8 years now. Then, you use your utter ignorance of the subject against us by claiming we need to "present it to you" and if we don't, then, you must be right. That's your Christian bigotry talking again. Could KD8 be any more arrogant and conceited as well?

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Actually, FOR YOU, it requires far more than just about anybody else because you're so ignorant of the subject, plus, all your Christian bigotry and your denial that it would force us to spoon-feed you nearly an entire book, which you could just read for yourself but, you've been refusing to do so for at least 8 years.



LOL, more of your Christian bigotry, nobody is expanding anything we simply use proper definitions rather than narrow Christian revisionist definitions for a change. Shocker isn't it?

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

I don't know that I would go so far as to liken any ol' persecution to Christ's curcifixion.

But the tree thing I think is valid, and because the New Testament itself makes such parallels.

David, you do not agree that the crucifixion element was introduced into the story as a parallel to a staple pagan motif. Okay, that's fine. But even believing that Jesus was literally historically nailed to a Roman cross, in your belief system, you still believe that was an orchestrated event done in 'emulation'(so to speak) of previous stories, no?
By that I mean, you still accept prophetic typology in the Old Testament, correct?

Even if you do not, it is clear that Paul and Jesus himself did.

Paul likened the crucifixion of Christ to the custom in the Mosaic law of post-humously hanging the corpse of a stoned criminal upon a tree until sunset. "For cursed is that which hangeth upon a tree".

Osiris was post-humously hung on a tree(the djed was not always a part of every variant of the story. But as far as I have ever read, a tree was). Is that really any more or less different from the crucifixion of Christ than the Old Testament custom quoted by Paul?

Jesus himself likens his crucifixion to Moses hanging the bronze serpent on the staff. That, to me, seems even less like Christ's crucifixion than Paul's example, or the hanging of Osiris.

You point out how Osiris didn't die on his tree, well, the serpent didn't die on that staff either. It never died at all, and the stoned criminals didn't die on their tree either. Nevertheless, Paul and Jesus saw enough of a parallel in these things to liken them to Christ's own crucifixion. And as per the doctrine of prophetic typology, such a parallel occurred deliberately. By God's divine intervention, of course.
We propound something similar. We simply don't chalk it up to divine intervention, but rather to human intervention and/or coincidence.

Nor do we limit the observation of parallels to just the Old Testament alone. Though we most certainly do acknowledge those as well.

Now, if your challenge in particular demands that the parallel have a more close resemblance than the things mentioned here, that's fine. But I'm just trying to let you know where we're coming from, and that I don't see the line of reasoning employed by D & FTL here as being any less reasonable than the doctrine of prophetic typology, a doctrine evidently endorsed by the New Testament itself.

Even outside of the New Testament, just a quick word search at CCEL.org will show that many of the early church fathers viewed the outstretched arms of Moses at the battle with Amalek as a foreshadowing of Christ's crucifixion.

If they see a parallel there, is it so unreasonable for Dr. Price to see the same parallel with the cruciform pose of Horus and other gods?

I don't think it is.

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I've never criticized the book itself. Yes, the lists come from the book, but I'm only focusing on the lists themselves, which I obviously HAVE read, not the entire book.





Presenting the evidence for only a dozen or so claims wouldn't take thousands of pages of material. It would take you far less time than you've spent responding to me even in the last few days. You have to realize that when people ask mythicists to back up their claims, telling them to go sift through thousands of pages of material is a dodge, not an answer. If you're trying to tell me that Horus was crucified, all you'd have to do is show me the part of the Horus story in which he's crucified. Or present one other single piece of evidence for Horus being crucified, like an image where he's being crucified, or a university-level egyptologist who agrees that Horus was crucified. You're trying to make it sound like a much more difficult task than it would be if the evidence existed. I recognize it for what it is - confirmation that the evidence is so unconvincing that you don't want to share it. You don't WANT me to post the evidence to my site, because there isn't any evidence to post to my site. If the evidence really does exist, then feel free to prove me wrong by presenting the evidence. Telling me to go on a wild goose chase looking for evidence that its YOUR job to provide as the one making the claim is not a rational response.


Then, why are you charging for your book; shouldn't it be FREE? You are proving yourself to be a hypocrite once again here.[/quote]

Huh? No one has to buy any books to see my evidence.



No, they've never done it. When someone asks a mythicist for evidence for the claims they make, what they should do is offer the evidence for those claims. Not tell them to go sift through thousands of pages of material and spend their own money trying to find the evidence for themselves. If you tell someone that Attis was born on December 25th and they ask you for the evidence that Attis was born on December 25th, what you should do is show them the evidence that Attis was born on December 25th, not tell them to go spend their own money and sift through thousands of pages of material in an effort to find the evidence themselves.



Better yet, why not just present the evidence and get it over with?



We both know if that if the books HAD convincing evidence, getting the people who have read the books to present that evidence wouldn't be this difficult. I'm so sure the books don't have the evidence that I'm wagering $1000 on it.



Again, presenting the evidence for a dozen or so claims isn't a huge amount of work. Doing everything you can to avoid presenting the evidence takes far, far more work.



Then what logical reason SHOULD I believe for your refusal to present it? It can't be that much work to present the evidence for a dozen or so claims. Why is trying to get mythicists to back up their claims, exactly as they should have been doing all along, so impossible? Why do they tell people to go spend money and sift through thousands of pages of material, when backing up only a dozen or so claims should be a piece of cake?

You do know why so many skeptic sites, even non-religious ones, consider the mythicist claims to be such nonsense? Because the reactions of the mythicists when asked to present evidence makes absolutely no sense to any rational person. You treat it like presenting the evidence is some monumental task, when we all know that, if the evidence existed, you'd be dying to share it with the world.

No, I believe he was hung on the cross because that's how Romans often treated people they viewed as criminals. They weren't doing it to match up to anything from the Old Testament or pre-Christian mythology.



But now we're just talking about drawing parallels between two things after the fact, which we can do with just about anything. And of course I agree that there are parallels between Jesus and pre-Christian deities, just as there are parallels between Napoleon Bonaparte and pre-Christian deities (especially considering that there were hundreds of pre-Christian deities, often with multiple versions of their story apiece - a huge net is being casted). But the argument for the Jesus story being a work of fiction inspired by pre-Christian deities requires a lot of significant parallels in order to be convincing. And if, hypothetically, the "parallels" lists that mythicists provide were all accurate, those would be significant enough parallels to be convincing to most rational people. So all we need to know now is whether the parallels lists are accurate. For that, we need to see the evidence for the parallels being true. My problem here is that FTL and, to some extent, you, are expanding the definition of "crucified" beyond what most people think of when they hear "crucified", and past the point where it becomes a significant parallel. You're basically expanding the commonly-understood definition of something in order to make it cover something else, thus bringing apparent significance where none really exists.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he buried inside the tree, not affixed to its outside? And even if he was affixed to the outside when dead, that's not what people would think of when they hear "crucifixion", so why don't mythicists just admit up front that while there's somewhat of a similarity, it's not a crucifixion? It seems that calling it a "crucifixion" is an attempt to mislead people into thinking it's something that it's really not.



But, unlike mythicists, he didn't call it a "crucifixion". If you want to draw parallels between what happened to Osiris' dead body and what happened to Jesus on the cross, you're free to do so. But when you say that Osiris was "crucified" in an attempt to make people think he was affixed to a tree or cross and then died on it (what most people think of as crucifixion) then that's being misleading. It's this kind of misleading that makes people so skeptical of mythicists.



The difference is that neither God, nor the Bible's authors, made the parallel seem much more significant than it really was in an attempt to mislead people.



Here's the thing - if mythicists were willing to just tell us what the real parallels were (say "tree-related event having to do with death" instead of "crucifixion") and also present the evidence for those parallels when asked for it, the skepticism mythicists get from pretty much everyone wouldn't be such an issue. When you say such-and-such deity was crucified, and then people find out afterwards that the deity just got stuck inside a wooden pillar after his death, it makes skeptics wonder what else you're misleading them about, thus increasing their skepticism. Mythicists need to be far more up-front about what the parallels really are, and what the evidence for the parallels is, if they want to convince anyone other than themselves.



All I care about is whether the claimed parallel is accurate, and can be met without expanding the definitions involved to the point where the parallel is no longer significant. Why DO mythicists say Osiris was crucified, which puts an image of Osiris being affixed to a cross and dying on it, when they know darned well that when people find out he just died and got stuck inside a tree, they're going to feel like they were misled? I'm guessing this type of thing is a lot of the reason that mythicists are so unwilling to share the evidence for the claims - they know that once they do, those who believe the claims to be true are going to feel like they were lied to.

I already know that mythicists tend to expand the definitions of "virgin-born", "baptized" and "resurrected" past what most people would think of when they hear those terms, the reason I felt the need to clarify those terms in my challenge. If mythicists weren't being so misleading about these terms in their claims, using them to describe things that clearly are not what people typically think of as virgin-births, baptisms, and resurrections, I wouldn't have had to do so.



Sure. But they didn't claim that Moses was crucified. Had they done that, it would have made people think that Moses got affixed to a tree or cross and then died on it. They're admitting that the real parallel is just that they stretched their arms out, which is not what mythicists do - they tell people it was a crucifixion.



If all he means is that they just had their arms outstretched, then why doesn't he say "had their arms outstretched" as the supposed parallel? I think we both know why - because no one who is even remotely skeptical would find it very convincing. But if you say "crucified", something which is far more rare, suddenly gullible people might think it's significant.

All I'm asking is for mythicists to be far more upfront about what the real parallels are. And also to provide the evidence for the real parallels, of course, instead of just offering excuses why they won't do so.

And again, as this thread is itself is evidence, for you it requires far more than just about anybody else because you're so ignorant of the subject, plus, all your Christian bigotry and your denial that it would require us to spoon-feed you nearly the entire book, which you could just read for yourself but, you've been refusing to do so for at least 8 years. The evidence for that exists right here throughout this very thread proved by your very own comments.


Actually, it's not always that easy and if you'd read the books you criticize you'd understand that. This is just more proof of what I was just explaining above. There can at times be a lot of information that goes with and you're demanding someone have to type all that out because YOU refuse to read the books because you're not really interested in this subject and you're too lazy to read the books.


Again, you're only demonstrating your own utter ignorance of the subject. What you utterly fail to understand as for just one example is that we're dealing with a very ancient past where the language no longer exists and hasn't for millennia. You're expecting evidence from 5,000 years ago to be in pristine condition and in English so that even you could understand it.

What's really funny about all this is that you prove your own Christian bigotry because you can't supply a shred of CREDIBLE evidence to substantiate your beloved Jesus. Anything will do as evidence for you to support your Christian beliefs but, all of the sudden you get overly critical at anything else. It's a blatantly obviously hypocritical double-standard that's as transparent as glass for all to see. Now, did you or did you not read the bible? What was so convincing about it?


You just said above that you have no evidence above, remember?:

KD8: "You don't WANT me to post the evidence to my site, because there isn't any evidence to post to my site."


They've been doing it all along but, you've been refusing to read the books all along.[/quote]

Another lie from KD8. Is that another criticism of the books you've been refusing to read for 8 years? A person who is honestly and sincerely interested in the subject would certainly read the books that they're supposedly interested in. Of course, you have zero interest in the subject and are only out to shore up your faith at all costs - even if it means lying and smearing those who are interested in the subject.


LOL, another lie from KD8, again, for the umpteenth time, the evidence has been presented across thousands of pages of material that you've been refusing to read for at least 8 years now.


Again, The ONLY way you can make that claim is by REFUSING to read the books by mythicists. You're expecting authors who've written several books with hundreds of pages of material, and readers of the books, to cater to your every demand by telling them that they need to re-do all that work and condense it down to bite size portions so that it can be SPOON-FEED to you because you're sooo juvenile that you've been refusing to read the book for at least 8 years now. So, for the umpteenth time, the evidence has been presented before you ever created your challenge. You are merely making everybody else perform a huge amount of work to "present it to you" because you're too damn lazy to read the books for yourself. And you hold that stupid carrot in front them i.e. your $1,000 challenge for which you have zero intention of ever paying up, which is why you created that fallacious criteria. So, it's YOU who has spent the last 8 years avoiding the books that you and your website criticize.

That's it, I've had it with your stupid bickering. Your lies have been exposed throughout this thread. You won't be posting any more bickering posts. You said you were going away until the evidence was posted, remember?

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Since Jesus is on the level of a god he should be compared to other gods and not people. And that's what this is. It's a study of comparison. That Osiris didn't die in the tree is irrelevant because he still becomes part of the tree. Hell, Attis becomes part of a tree himself, and he wasn't killed by a jealous brother, but you can still see the similarity. The point is that it doesn't have to be a mirror image. That's not what 'similar' means.

[/quote]

No I used it to point out that "crucifixion" and "crucified" can cover a broader area then what you're erroneously limiting it to. I even stated that when it's said that Osiris was crucified the word is being used colloquially to refer to motifs that are similar to Christian ideals. Hell, early Christian apologists mention gods as crucified, even though their descriptions doesn't indicate that they were nailed or tied to a cross/tree. Of course you would know this if you actually studied what you ignorantly attack.

_________________
Y GWIR YN ERBYN BYD

David, I was not talking about the Romans, and that should've been clear, when I even clarified my question with "By that I mean, you still accept prophetic typology in the Old Testament, correct?", which is the one sentence from that specific paragraph that is conspicuously omitted from your quotation of said paragraph.

It is obvious that I was referring to the crucifixion being orchestrated by God to fulfill Old Testament prophetic typology, and NOT the Romans trying to do so. I even went on in my post to explicitly state as much, so there is no excuse for misconstruing what I was asking you here.



No, that's not what I was "talking about", I was talking about the belief of pre-ordained prophetic typology BEFORE the fact. Again, I was unambiguously clear on that. Napoleon Bonaparte would only be relevant to the questions I asked of you if it is the case that you believe (and/or that Paul believed, etc.) that Napoleon Bonaparte was prophesied by way of these said parallels and thus the parallel was deliberately created in order to fulfill the typology. Deliberately created by GOD, mind you, NOT the Romans. NOT the French. By GOD- as I have been consistently clear about.

That is the jist of what I was asking and pointing out- is the belief that God, technically speaking, deliberately created parallels between Jesus & earlier stories any more or less logically justified than the belief that men, technically speaking, created parallels between Jesus and earlier stories.



What "most people" today think of when they hear the word "crucified" is irrelevant to what people at the time of the New Testament would have thought when they heard it. As D already pointed out to you, Josephus called the hanging of the Chief Baker on a tree in the Joseph story a "crucifixion", and yes, it was the same Greek word he used elsewhere for Roman crucifixion, so clearly the word was NOT exclusive to Roman crucifixion as far as people like Josephus were concerned.

Josephus was not "expanding" the definition of the word. And neither have I. Though you are trying to pigeon hole it's meaning into a parameter that is relatively modern and completely arbitrary.

However, this seems moot, as it is just a matter of semantics. If you wish for me to not refer to the hanging of Osiris on a tree as a "crucifixion" that is absolutely fine. I've never referred to the hanging of the serpent on the staff as a crucifixion either, and neither did Jesus. And yet we both have seen a parallel there to Christ's own crucifixion. So fine, I'll humor you. The word "crucifixion" will here-after be dropped when referring to something other than the Roman crucifixion.

Too bad Josephus and other such writers are no longer alive for us to correct them on the matter.



And so again, I ask you, do you think Paul and Jesus were bringing apparent significance where none really existed?



As I said in my previous post, there are variants on this detail. "Buried"? I suppose, though not in the sense of burial like when one is buried in a tomb, if that's what you mean. But yeah, he was I guess. In THAT version.

But that aside, yes, there are variants in which he was hung on the outside of the tree. I know of at least two. One at Denderah, written in hieroglyphs, as recorded by Auguste Mariette, and another depicted iconographically at Philae, though I haven't seen the depiction myself, only read it described by scholars.



Well, I just did that above. If it's a semantical issue, I can humor you on that. After all, Jesus & Paul never referred to their parallels as "crucifixions", nevertheless, they still likened them to Christ's crucifixion. And so from here on out I shall do the same, and follow their example, instead of following Josephus's example.



Well, as D indicated earlier, it is likely because they are following the example of ancient writers who were not so arbitrarily narrow with the definition of the word. But no matter, water under the bridge at this point, as I digress.



Well, again, Paul's parallel was post-humous as well, so obviously whether the hanging was pre- or post- death is not too big of a deal for him, so it isn't for me either. But it is still linked with death in both cases. And as I pointed out above, it was not always him being placed inside of the tree, there were variants in which he was placed ON the tree.

Or in the case of the Djed, there is iconography depicting him placed ON the Djed, rather than in it, and against his back, very much like crucifixion. Moreover, the Djed in these sculptures have a cross-like shape. Also, when Christianity spread to Ethipoia in the 4th century CE, a country which since ancient times has had a heavy influence from Egypt and also worshipped Osiris(as Herodotus relates), the earliest Christian crosses we have from that area look just like the Egyptian Djed. So obviously when the Ethiopians at large were introduced to the story of Christ's crucifixion, to them, it bore a resemblence to the Djed of Osiris. I don't think they considered themselves to be misleading when they emulated iconography of something in which they saw such a succinct parallel.

Jesus is also a man, though. Besides, my point is that you're stretching the definition of "crucifixion" in order to incorporate something that was clearly not a crucifixion by any stretch of the imagination.



No, but if you're trying to convince people there is a similarity, then the claims of similarity must be accurate. Saying that Osiris was crucified, when he clearly was not, makes it a false claim. If you instead said that Osiris' death was associated with a tree, just like Jesus' was, then this would be an accurate statement of a parallel. The problem is that it's not even going to convince the gullible. Which is why mythicists instead say Osiris was "crucified", even though he wasn't. Even though it's totally inaccurate, it sounds convincing.



Meaning you're using it to cover things that no rational person would call a "crucifixion", in an effort to convince gullible people that there's a significant parallel there. The problem is, it doesn't work if you end up telling them that by "crucified", you only meant that their dead body got stuck inside a tree, which meets no real definition of crucifixion, not even the "persecuted or unjustly suffered" one that FTL came up with. So you probably should have done what other mythicists do, and not revealed what your evidence was. Because once you do, you expose the fact that the evidence is too weak to be taken seriously by any rational person.

Are you really this obstanate?



His "human" qualities is not what's being talked about but his divine qualities, and that includs his death on the tree/cross. There's a supernatural air that surrounds it. As for stretching the definition; I'm not stretching it any further then Josephus did, or Justin Martyr, or Tertullian, or Minucius Felix did. Hell Justin Martyr even says that Plato's god, who imposed himself in the universe in the shape of the chi ( X ) was a type of crucifixon. No nails -- not even a god damn piece of wood -- and yet maintained it as a type of crucifxion.



And yet you flat out ignore what is actually being referred to. Even when you say it yourself.



How would you know what evidence is when you admit to studying the very thing that you attack?

_________________
Y GWIR YN ERBYN BYD