By: Hector Plasmic To: Michael Hardy Re: Re: ASKING SILLY QUESTIO HP Isn't it _odd_ (and _

By: Hector Plasmic
To: Michael Hardy
Re: Re: ASKING SILLY QUESTIO

 HP>>>>> Isn't it _odd_ (and _convenient_) that miracles quit occurring when
 HP>>>>> xtianity began getting noticed?  :-)

 RB>>>> Isn't it odd that Paul (who was Jesus' supposed contemporary) didn't
 RB>>>> say a word about miracles, but the gospels (which came 70 to 120
 RB>>>> years later) were full of em?

 MH>>> Actually, Paul's entire theology was centered on the most important
 MH>>> miracle, the resurrection.

 HP>> A "miracle" which he didn't observe, and a "miracle" which just
 HP>> happened to be commonplace in the theologies of those to whom Paul made
 HP>> himself a self- appointed missionary.  How _odd_ (and _convenient_),
 HP>> eh?  :-)

 MH> Common?

Yep.

 MH> I don't think so.

Of course not -- you view the world through xtian filters.

 MH> And neither do historians who know the subject.

I've already quoted you historians who _do_ agree and mythologies in
which resurrected savior gods figure, Mikey.  The Greeks, Romans and
Egyptians all had gods who died and returned to some semblance of life.
In the case of the Egyptians, the god in question died and returned as
the lord of the underworld with the ability to bestow a happy afterlife
to those who met his criteria.  The differences between that and the
Jess myth (Jess died, returned as the lord of heaven with the ability to
bestow a happy afterlife to those who met his criteria) are superficial
at best.  A holy mother/wife figure often appeared in such myths; Mary
was elevated to such a status in the early church (remember, at the
time, Isis worship was all the rage in Rome).  Other resurrected gods
were Adonis, Baal, and even Quetzalcoatl in the new world -- it's hardly
an original theme.  "Common?"  Yeah, it looks that way.

Your denials remind me of my daughter's recent attempt at writing an
original story.  In it, four wolves sit down to eat some baby buffalo
stew, but it's too hot, so they take a walk to wait for it to cool.
When they get back, a little boy has come into their house, sampled
their stews and fallen asleep on the couch of the littlest wolf.  She
denies that it is in any way based on "The Three Bears," and sites
examples of the obvious differences in the stories (wolves instead of
bears, three instead of four, stew instead of porridge, couches instead
of beds, a male intruder instead of female).  She's right that there are
differences, but it's also true that the basis for the story is still
the old Goldilocks story, right, Mikey?  :-)