Why Don't These Cowards....

[Diogenes]

You cannot be that misguided about the old laws, which were written to produce a successful people. Other peoples around and about were much weaker and less successful because they did not follow a similar set of laws.

It was more about setting the Israelites apart from the other nations and as being devoted to God.

Men and women needed to couple to produce offspring, and newly marrieds got a year off duties to enjoy each other to that end.

I'm not aware of any special year off for being newlywed. The man could still work as the woman tended to the child.

Today we don't need a fast growing people, we really don't, and so mixed marriage is no harm.

That is not a biblical justification for same-sex unions. Homosexual relations are still considered under the umbrella of sexual immorality. As far as "harm" goes, I'm not going to derail the thread anymore than it has been already to delve into the history of diseases as they relate to both sex in general (which avoiding premarital sex and adultery would reduced STDs) and the high risk of HIV and Monkeypox coincidentally in one specific demographic.

Again you show your prejudice.

I have shown no prevalence. All sexual sin is equally sinful.

[Sparko]

In context!!!! How I do love that 'get out'.

as opposed to the way you do it, cut and paste what you want to shoehorn what is said out of context to fit your claims.

Nah! How did you figure that out?
Jesus and the Baptist both were hard set against much of the law and showed it with their actions. So you don't take 'it'.

Jesus fulfilled the law. He was only against the legalistically wooden literal ism that the Pharisees used. Jesus did not sin.

And you think that all the old laws still apply today? YES/NO?

The moral law yes. There were some laws that were ceremonial that only applied to ancient Israel. Like what to eat and wear.

Oh dear! You make such a fuss about sex and sexuality, but ignore so many other laws..........

Is this you trying to deflect? We are talking about sex and homosexuality. What else would I mention?

You just cannot help trying to tie one act to another, can you?
The only thing that SIN could lead to was various kinds of SICKNESS. Sadly that sometimes can occur today, but your ideas about what is or is not moral seem very strange to me.

um...what? Sin leads to a lot of stuff in this life, and to death in the next. We are discussing whether Jesus was against homosexuality. I have shown it to be so using logic based on what he believed as a Jew and what he said regarding marriage and why God created men and women.

Total and absolute rubbish........ how ignorant. You say that you know your bible, but you don't.
There is no Mark 7:71

A typo.

Mark 7:21
For it is from within, out of a person's heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.

[rogue06]

I notice you just handwaved away rogue's post that destroyed your previous claims.

I'm really hoping he returns to try to back his other claims he made in his post.

But I fear even Little jimmy isn't that dumb.

[Cow Poke]

Silence is golden............. hate folks (or their love) all you want, but it's best to keep your silence, maybe?

I have a hard time believing that you are unaware that an "argument from silence" is actually a logical fallacy.

You should review how many galaxies are known about (trillions) and how many stars in each one (trillions) and how many planets (countless) .................. and then you can wonder why any god would take special interest in a recently evolved lifeform................. here!

What makes you think I haven't considered that, and marveled all the more at God's Grace?

Nope......... that is the Jesus that I think existed. And I think he liked his meat and drink. And I think he liked to sit with, eat with, people who you wouldn't like.

You are certainly free to make uniformed assumptions of who I wouldn't like, but I'm in the business of redemption, so to speak, and I sit and eat with all kinds of people even YOU might not like.
Do you REALLY want to play that silly game?

I don't think you have a true picture of Jesus at all.

He is the Master and Creator of the Universe as God's Agent of Creation, Judgement and Redemption - and far far more.
He is not some some lame sissy boy peace activist who sat around all day petting sheep.

[Cow Poke]

In context!!!! How I do love that 'get out'.

It is only a "get out" in the sense that one gets a proper understanding of what is being taught.

Kinda like when people will try to "get out" of going to Hell because they don't believe a Loving God would ever send anybody there.
He doesn't "send" - He offered His Son as a way of escape, and an entry into His Heaven.

[JimL]

C.S. Lewis never considered the New Testament included "myths" in the sense that it included false narratives, but that's not going to stop you from peddling nonsense.

Well, of course, Lewis didn't want or mean to say that they were false narratives, like any true believer he wanted to in some way confirm his biases. An example would be the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus in Bethlehem. He would probably have known about the Egyption myth of The resurrection of El Lazar (Lazar-us) by Horus in Bethlahu. (Not sure I'm spelling that right, but you get the point) He could obviously see the comparison between the Egyption myth of Horus and the supposed historical event of Jesus, which he could not deny, so he just granted that they were both real in a sense, but only one, the Jesus story was real in the historical sense.
You can't expect the claimed historic events to be exact representations of the myths, to understand that they were derived of myths.

[Diogenes]

Well, of course, Lewis didn't want or mean to say that they were false narratives, like any true believer he wanted to in some way confirm his biases. An example would be the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus in Bethlehem. He would probably have known about the Egyption myth of The resurrection of El Lazar (Lazar-us) by Horus in Bethlahu. (Not sure I'm spelling that right, but you get the point) He could obviously see the comparison between the Egyption myth of Horus and the supposed historical event of Jesus, which he could not deny, so he just granted that they were both real in a sense, but only one, the Jesus story was real in the historical sense.
You can't expect the claimed historic events to be exact representations of the myths, to understand that they were derived of myths.

I will note that you have yet to produce any government funded anti-Islamic art or anything as remotely offensive as Mohammad in urine.

First, you have the name of the alleged basis incorrect. Second, you have yet to cited any work for your allegations like the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (perhaps Hypatia has a copy or is currently staying with a friend who has a copy). Third, the alleged city, which you seem to misspell (as well as the associated figure in your alleged myth), does not refer to Horus but rather Anu, a Sumerian deity. Fourth, Bethany is mentioned in the other gospels and is associated with generally with Ananiah. Fifth, the main source I could find for your nonsense does not seem to be a credible one.

[Gondwanaland]

Well, of course, Lewis didn't want or mean to say that they were false narratives, like any true believer he wanted to in some way confirm his biases. An example would be the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus in Bethlehem. He would probably have known about the Egyption myth of The resurrection of El Lazar (Lazar-us) by Horus in Bethlahu. (Not sure I'm spelling that right, but you get the point) He could obviously see the comparison between the Egyption myth of Horus and the supposed historical event of Jesus, which he could not deny, so he just granted that they were both real in a sense, but only one, the Jesus story was real in the historical sense.
You can't expect the claimed historic events to be exact representations of the myths, to understand that they were derived of myths.

That would be impossible, as he would not know any such myth as such a myth does not exist.

Horus did not resurrect anyone, let alone anyone named "El Lazar" (or "asar" as some other people using a different version of the ignorant and lying meme spell it).

Indeed, the name "Asar" is nothing but the Egyptian name for the God that Greeks transliterated into Osiris. And Horus played NO role in the 'resurection' of Osiris (despite what your idiotic Zeitgeist told you - that or whoever you got it from got it from said film). Indeed, Horus was not even alive at the time of the resurrection of Osiris. You know how I know that? Because Osiris was brought back to life by Isis who retrieved Osiris' body parts except for his schlong, and she resurrected him with a giant gold schlong with which she had intercourse in order to then go on to give birth to Horus, well after said resurrection.

The name Lazarus comes from the Hebrew "Eleazar" (God has helped), and has no etymylogical connection to the word "Azar"

Thank you, though, for the direct confirmation that you are either obtaining your false information from either Zeitgeist, or from some moron who is knowingly or unknowingly spewing the lies that Zeitgeist has spread amongst atheists who don't bother to do any damn research for their damn selves (instead, atheists like you act just like Christians and unthinkingly regurgitate what is told you)

[Gondwanaland]

I will note that you have yet to produce any government funded anti-Islamic art or anything as remotely offensive as Mohammad in urine.

First, you have the name of the alleged basis incorrect. Second, you have yet to cited any work for your allegations like the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (perhaps Hypatia has a copy or is currently staying with a friend who has a copy). Third, the alleged city, which you seem to misspell (as well as the associated figure in your alleged myth), does not refer to Horus but rather Anu, a Sumerian deity. Fourth, Bethany is mentioned in the other gospels and is associated with generally with Ananiah. Fifth, the main source I could find for your nonsense does not seem to be a credible one.

That's because Lazar is a misspelling of Asar, who is literally Osiris, the father of Horus, who was resurrected by Isis well before Horus was even born in the myths. It's more misinformation that gullible atheists like JimL (who give the rest of us a bad name) got from Zeitgeist and its legion of ignorant followers.

[Diogenes]

That's because Lazar is a misspelling of Asar, who is literally Osiris, the father of Horus, who was resurrected by Isis well before Horus was even born in the myths. It's more misinformation that gullible atheists like JimL (who give the rest of us a bad name) got from Zeitgeist and its legion of ignorant followers.

Jim couldn't even get the name of the city right as it would just be called Anu, not Bethanu or Bethlanu. It's interesting to do the research anyway, not that it takes long.

[rogue06]

Well, of course, Lewis didn't want or mean to say that they were false narratives, like any true believer he wanted to in some way confirm his biases. An example would be the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus in Bethlehem. He would probably have known about the Egyption myth of The resurrection of El Lazar (Lazar-us) by Horus in Bethlahu. (Not sure I'm spelling that right, but you get the point) He could obviously see the comparison between the Egyption myth of Horus and the supposed historical event of Jesus, which he could not deny, so he just granted that they were both real in a sense, but only one, the Jesus story was real in the historical sense.
You can't expect the claimed historic events to be exact representations of the myths, to understand that they were derived of myths.

For one thing those who concocted that claim have to go through so many linguistic gymnastics to try to shoehorn the story of Horus resurrecting Osiris into being the same as the account of Jesus raising Lazarus that it crashes and burns before it even gets out of the gate.

Next, those making the claim act like Lazarus was a unique name (because it really is Osiris) but the fact is that name appears elsewhere in the New Testament (Luke 16:19-31) which shoots down that theory. Moreover, the very fact that in this other instance the name “Lazarus” was used in a story where a resurrection was explicitly denied, which tears a massive hole in the notion that the name was created to illustrate the fabled resurrection of Osiris.

You have the same issue with Bethany.

Third, I'm not aware of an actual Egyptologist who doesn't think this claim is complete bollocks.

Shall I continue?

[eider]

Context is everything, otherwise we could end up with something like

Scripture Verse: Psalm 14:1

There is no God

© Copyright Original Source

See? The Bible itself supports atheism!!!1!elevent-one!

With context we discover that is not what is meant but rather

Scripture Verse: Psalm 14:1

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.

© Copyright Original Source

Yeah..... but you ignore what Jesus said, and play the context card when you wish............ all a deception, imo.

Mark {10:23} And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! {10:24} And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

..... now how are you going to body-swerve past such as that........ playing your context card, eh?

[Terraceth]

That would be impossible, as he would not know any such myth as such a myth does not exist.

Horus did not resurrect anyone, let alone anyone named "El Lazar" (or "asar" as some other people using a different version of the ignorant and lying meme spell it).

Indeed, the name "Asar" is nothing but the Egyptian name for the God that Greeks transliterated into Osiris. And Horus played NO role in the 'resurection' of Osiris (despite what your idiotic Zeitgeist told you - that or whoever you got it from got it from said film). Indeed, Horus was not even alive at the time of the resurrection of Osiris. You know how I know that? Because Osiris was brought back to life by Isis who retrieved Osiris' body parts except for his schlong, and she resurrected him with a giant gold schlong with which she had intercourse in order to then go on to give birth to Horus, well after said resurrection.

The name Lazarus comes from the Hebrew "Eleazar" (God has helped), and has no etymylogical connection to the word "Azar"

Thank you, though, for the direct confirmation that you are either obtaining your false information from either Zeitgeist, or from some moron who is knowingly or unknowingly spewing the lies that Zeitgeist has spread amongst atheists who don't bother to do any damn research for their damn selves (instead, atheists like you act just like Christians and unthinkingly regurgitate what is told you)

I've only seen a few bits of Zeitgeist so perhaps the claims are in there also, but JimL's claim seems to actually be taken from Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ (a highly unreliable work; a fairly detailed critique of it can be found at http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.php). Or rather, JimL's claim is a distortion of what The Pagan Christ said. It would be bad enough to copy The Pagan Christ uncritically, but JimL's claim goes even further than that work does.

I figured this out because when searching to try to find where this information was coming from, I stumbled across this page:
https://www.stephenjbedard.com/2008/...of-el-asar-us/

This one discusses a similar claim to the one JimL made which Harpur made. That's how I realized it went back to The Pagan Christ.

Now, I looked up Harpur's claim in his book. Harpur's contention is that Horus resurrected Osiris (Asar in Egyptian) in Anu (more commonly written as Annu, I believe), which ended up being copied in Jesus raising Lazarus in Bethany. According to his speculations (or rather Alvin Boyd Kuhn's speculations, as Harpur took the whole idea from him), the Hebrews added El in front of Asar, then when it came to Latin they added -us, and the E dropped off, giving us Lazarus. And Bethany comes from attaching Beth to the start of Anu, giving us Beth-Anu, which became Bethany.

Harpur offers no real evidence of this outside of his speculations (well, his "evidence" is to cite other people who are just as speculative and without evidence for their claims as he is). Indeed, as you point out, Lazarus actually comes from the Hebrew word Eleazar, which means "God has helped", not anything related to Osiris. But what I want to emphasize is what Harpur's claim actually was. It was that Horus raised Osiris in Anu, and then the name Lazarus came from Osiris and Bethany came from Anu and so the story is just a copy of that. However, Harpur did not claim that Horus ever actually resurrected anyone named El Asar in Beth-Anu in Egyptian mythology.

With that in mind, let's take a look at what JimL claimed:
"He would probably have known about the Egyption myth of The resurrection of El Lazar (Lazar-us) by Horus in Bethlahu. (Not sure I'm spelling that right, but you get the point)"."

So this is a distortion of what Harpur claimed (and for that matter, changes "El Asar" to "El Lazar"). Instead of what Harpur actually claimed, it is being claimed that Horus actually did resurrect an "El Lazar" in "Bethlahu" (presumably a misspelling for Beth-Anu). I mean, I think Harpur was wrong to begin with, but the claim posted by JimL was even more wrong.

It's not good when someone is using The Pagan Christ as a source, but it's even worse to take its speculations and add further inaccuracies to it.

[eider]

It was more about setting the Israelites apart from the other nations and as being devoted to God.

No it wasn't! God tells the Israelites EXACTLY why he imposed those laws.
Other nations failed because they did not keep to such laws.

LEVITCUS {20:22} Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. {20:23} And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. {20:24} But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I [am] the LORD your God, which have separated you from [other] people.

I'm not aware of any special year off for being newlywed. The man could still work as the woman tended to the child.

What rubbish. You just don't know the laws.
Deuteronomy {24:5} When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: [but] he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up
his wife which he hath taken.

........ and to break a law is sinful........ yet you pick and choose your laws to be shocked about.

That is not a biblical justification for same-sex unions. Homosexual relations are still considered under the umbrella of sexual immorality.

No they are not...... in Tehran and Texas maybe........ but most European countries are free of that muck.

I have shown no prevalence. All sexual sin is equally sinful.

In Tehran........... and Texas!

[eider]

.

as opposed to the way you do it, cut and paste what you want to shoehorn what is said out of context to fit your claims.

I didn't think that you would like everything that Jesus said and did.......... the above shows that, I think.

Jesus fulfilled the law. .

Jesus wanted the old laws returned but without the ceremonial and sacrificial laws that the Priesthood had corrupted....... his actions show what I have written.

He was only against the legalistically wooden literal ism that the Pharisees used.

Ceremonial and sacrificial laws........He said so. So that's a whole list of laws for you to keep, including commands to pay for the welfare and subsistence of the poor. Not for your feel-good-factor, but because it is a law.

Jesus did not sin

He broke a few laws in the Temple during that last week.

The moral law yes. There were some laws that were ceremonial that only applied to ancient Israel. Like what to eat and wear.

And now you will cherry pick your version of what a moral law is, I guess?

And no....... not what to eat and wear, but the temple ceremonial and sacrificial laws.

Is this you trying to deflect? We are talking about sex and homosexuality. What else would I mention?

I think that you are just in a short circuit about sex and homosexuality.

You'll ignore the laws that you don't like and play the 'moral card' to support the laws that you do.
Cherry picking.....

um...what? Sin leads to a lot of stuff in this life, and to death in the next. We are discussing whether Jesus was against homosexuality. I have shown it to be so using logic based on what he believed as a Jew and what he said regarding marriage and why God created men and women.

Again! Sin leads to sickness, and so homosexuality was as dangerous as busting a food law........ that's it.

A typo.

Mark 7:21
For it is from within, out of a person's heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.

Keep 'em all, do you?

John {8:6} This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not. ]{8:7} So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. {8:8} And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. {8:9} And they which heard [it,] being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

.............. maybe you should just walk away?