Why Believe This Claim?

[POI]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #89]

I think there are two important senses to distinguish here.

On theism, morality does ultimately come down to choices by the moral dictator ("that's just the way it is"). But so do physical laws, what the planets are like, etc. If theism is true, Earth exists in the way it does, in one sense, because that's just the way God decided to do things.

But, there is a different sense of explanation concerning the process of natural history and how the chemicals were combined and all of that. In other words, the nature of reality (that was chosen to be that way) is what makes physical facts the way they are as well.

I think the same thing is going on with morality. God chose to make humans in a certain way to where certain things harm them. God then chose to give humans a specific purpose (including seeking the good of each other) that logically guides what is good and bad for humans. That is a why that goes beyond it's good because God says so.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #90]

I have not categorically denied it and just believed what I was "taught." I was allowed to explore it in class and deliver a talk on it at a conference, so you are way off and not listening.

Of course, I am listening. You’ve now presented two claims:

You initially you asked about doing something on this and your advisor said that you could not because this claim is no longer taken seriously in the academic world."
You now also say that you were able to explore it in class and even deliver a talk about it at a conference.
So, I acknowledge that you have now expanded on your original statement.

I understand that your position is that the resurrection itself is the cosmic intervention that answers my original question—why would an entity supposedly against pagan culture use such cultural mythologies to create Christianity? Unfortunately, your position appears circular.

We know that resurrections were already culturally understood as a divine sign in pre-Christian traditions—found within Greek, Roman, and other mythologies. My critique is this:

Why would YHVH, the supposed one true and original God, use a device so commonly found in existing mythology rather than introducing something entirely original?

Since you have given talks on this at a conference, how did you address that critique?

So far, you’ve only alluded to resolving the contradiction but have not explained how. This leads me to ask—if you have researched this in depth and given talks on it, why did you demand evidence of these parallels from me, when you must already be aware of them?

I suspect this has something to do with the framing of what you and your academic sources refer to as the "copycat myth." However, as I already pointed out:

The critical issue is not whether Christianity copied these myths word for word, but rather why an all-original, all-powerful God would communicate through symbols and motifs already ingrained in pre-Christian cultures instead of introducing wholly unique signs and wonders.

That is the real question at hand. Did your talk address that question directly? Because based on what you've shared so far, it appears your talk focused on critiquing an argument about Christianity being a direct “copy-paste” of prior traditions. That is not what I am arguing.

My observation is that while Christianity is not a direct copy of any single mythology, it is an adaptation—changing names and modifying useful fiction to weave together a new sect, which Rome later organized into an official religion. This can be examined historically in the way Christianity was shaped to suit the needs of those in power.

Which brings us back to the key question:

Why would YHVH—the supposed ultimate and original God—use this process rather than something wholly unique?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #91]

I think the same thing is going on with morality. God chose to make humans in a certain way to where certain things harm them. God then chose to give humans a specific purpose (including seeking the good of each other) that logically guides what is good and bad for humans. That is a why that goes beyond it's good because God says so.

Sure - but not initially. "God chose to make humans" and "in a certain way to where certain things harm them" and "God then chose to give humans a specific purpose " are all "because God say's so".

"that logically guides what is good and bad for humans" is the free will argument where after doing all the "God says so" stuff, God steps back and watches what happens when free will is granted after the fact.

A fascinating experiment in itself no doubt from a particular perspective but the significant mental health issues arising from such an experiment on those having no say in the initial part of said experiment and then having a particular environment thrust upon them without consent and THEN being "gifted" free will alongside instruction that involved temptation.

We can see the effects of said mental health issues in regards to human history.

If moral directives stem from divine will but are shaped to align with human flourishing, how do we reconcile the lack of initial agency or choice in this "design"?

Can free will be truly "free" if its exercise is conditioned by a predetermined environment and moral instructions, particularly under the threat of temptation and its consequences?

What ethical responsibility, if any, would such a deity bear in light of human suffering and the mental health consequences?

Being someone who is convinced we do indeed exist within a created reality my workaround to the problem is that before the environment was created, not only did we help create it, but we agreed to experience it even before it was completed to the point where we could enter into it and experience it.

That's why we helped build it.

This also opens up fascinating implications:

If we participated in creating this environment, it suggests that we may have embedded challenges and lessons as part of a greater developmental or experiential purpose.

By agreeing to enter this reality, it implies an underlying trust in the structure or intention behind the design, even if the "why" isn't immediately apparent from within the system.

It transforms the notion of suffering and struggle into something potentially meaningful, as part of a process we consented to perhaps for growth or understanding or perhaps just for something to do.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #92]

I demanded evidence from you because you claimed that Christianity’s God resorted “to using pagan-based mythology such as virgin births and sacrificed resurrected gods (which existed before the time of Jesus) rather than being original..” When you make a claim, it is your burden to support it.

I know you weren’t claiming that Christianity copy and pasted and wasn’t making an argument against that. But saying that resurrections were already culturally understood pre-Jesus is too vague as well. When you look at the supposed level of parallel, what these "resurrections" were (and virgin births and communion and everything else), you find that they aren't really parallel to Jesus' resurrection in any meaningful way. For instance, the dying and rising gods of myth were tied to the crop cycle, which would occur every year. Jesus doesn't die and resurrect every year. Osiris didn't rise from the dead at all; he reigned as king of the underworld. Attis' spirit enters a pine tree; that's not resurrection.

Not only that, but Christianity arose within a decidedly Jewish context of resurrection. But, even then, the Jewish belief was that all would resurrect at the last day, not that one individual would resurrect now and return to this life, so it is still something completely new in the context from which it came.

And, even more so, if there were any true parallels and borrowing, the textual evidence would say it goes the other way because the texts of these ancient traditions that we have are written after Christianity, except for Osiris, which we already saw explicitly didn't resurrect.

Your critical/real/key question assumes you are right about the parallel motifs and symbols and I’m questioning that. Without the parallels, your question isn't a valid question to ask. So, what is your evidence?

And, yes, those in power later took Christianity and messed with it, making it their own thing to serve their interests, but they didn't change the texts that I'm pointing to, which tell us what Christianity was from the beginning and which were not created to serve the interests of those in power.

[The Tanager]

Sure - but not initially. "God chose to make humans" and "in a certain way to where certain things harm them" and "God then chose to give humans a specific purpose " are all "because God say's so".

Which I explicitly already said.

"that logically guides what is good and bad for humans" is the free will argument where after doing all the "God says so" stuff, God steps back and watches what happens when free will is granted after the fact.

Free will is granted after what fact?

A fascinating experiment in itself no doubt from a particular perspective but the significant mental health issues arising from such an experiment on those having no say in the initial part of said experiment and then having a particular environment thrust upon them without consent and THEN being "gifted" free will alongside instruction that involved temptation.

We can see the effects of said mental health issues in regards to human history.

If moral directives stem from divine will but are shaped to align with human flourishing, how do we reconcile the lack of initial agency or choice in this "design"?

Because it is illogical for something to choose how it is created because it doesn’t exist before it exists. Now, I know you don’t believe we began to exist, but you are trying to show an absurdity exists within Christianity on the point about us having no say, so you can’t bring in a non-Christian belief in a different area. If you want to disagree with Christianity on that, then bring up that critique and support why we have always existed.

Can free will be truly "free" if its exercise is conditioned by a predetermined environment and moral instructions, particularly under the threat of temptation and its consequences?

Yes, absolutely. Now, it isn’t completely unlimited free will, but Christians have never said we have such a thing.

What ethical responsibility, if any, would such a deity bear in light of human suffering and the mental health consequences?

God has complete responsibility for how things are. But we have to judge based on actual options. And the option is free will plus the ability for true, loving relationship or no free will and no ability for true, loving relationship.

Being someone who is convinced we do indeed exist within a created reality my workaround to the problem is that before the environment was created, not only did we help create it, but we agreed to experience it even before it was completed to the point where we could enter into it and experience it.

That's why we helped build it.

This also opens up fascinating implications:

If we participated in creating this environment, it suggests that we may have embedded challenges and lessons as part of a greater developmental or experiential purpose.

By agreeing to enter this reality, it implies an underlying trust in the structure or intention behind the design, even if the "why" isn't immediately apparent from within the system.

It transforms the notion of suffering and struggle into something potentially meaningful, as part of a process we consented to perhaps for growth or understanding or perhaps just for something to do.

I’m always open to hearing a case for why your belief is true. But the traditional Christian worldview also suggests we have challenges and lessons as part of a greater development (just not by our own choice), speaks of a God that we can build trust in even if the why isn’t always immediately apparent, and speaks of a God who turns suffering, struggle, and even our evil actions into something potentially meaningful.

So, the only difference here seems to be that we choose it in your scenario and don’t in Christianity’s. Do you have an argument to support that we did actually have a choice in the matter?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #94]

I appreciate your clarification, and I want to ensure that we’re addressing the actual argument rather than a mischaracterization of either side.

First, let’s establish what we agree on:

Christianity did not copy and paste mythology verbatim.
The power structures of Rome and later institutions did shape Christianity to serve their interests.
Jewish resurrection beliefs differed from other ancient traditions.
Now, to the core issue: You are challenging whether meaningful parallels exist at all between Christianity and prior mythologies. However, this approach sidesteps my actual point—whether or not the motifs are exactly identical is irrelevant to my critique. My argument is not that Christianity borrowed wholesale, but rather that its motifs and symbolic structures bear significant precedent in other traditions.

Even if one were to argue that Jewish resurrection beliefs had a unique development, that does not erase the broader cultural landscape in which Christianity emerged. You argue that “Jesus doesn’t die and resurrect every year” in contrast to cyclical crop-cycle gods like Osiris and Attis. But this only holds weight if one assumes that a parallel must be an exact one-to-one copy in order to be valid. That’s not how cultural adaptation works.

The key motif is that a divine figure dies and is restored to life, signifying a greater cosmic truth for humanity—whether that is through Osiris reigning in the underworld, Attis being absorbed into nature, or the mystery religions’ depictions of rebirth. This archetype was already deeply embedded in the spiritual consciousness of the ancient world. Jesus’ resurrection, while framed within a Jewish context, still operates within this larger tradition of divine death and renewal, even if in a modified form.

Further, virgin birth narratives appear across various pre-Christian traditions (e.g., Romulus, Perseus, Horus), reinforcing the question of why an all-powerful, supposedly original God would choose a means of divine incarnation that had already been culturally employed by multiple religious systems.

Additionally, the argument that many of these texts were written after Christianity does not preclude the fact that these oral traditions and cult practices existed prior—our lack of older written records does not mean these motifs weren’t present in pre-Christian religious consciousness. We must recognize that written texts do not define the entirety of religious experience.

The real issue remains: Why would an all-original God use symbolic structures already present in pre-Christian belief systems instead of introducing wholly new, never-before-seen signs?

If Christianity’s motifs were entirely new and unprecedented, this would be a far stronger argument for divine intervention. Instead, we find a pattern where familiar religious elements are repackaged and reshaped within a different framework. This is what makes the argument compelling—not a claim that Christianity was a direct copy, but that its structure and core motifs fit within a broader mythological lineage.

So the real question isn’t whether every single detail lines up exactly—it’s whether there is enough precedent to warrant the question of why this was the chosen method of revelation if originality was the intent.

Additionally, we cannot ignore the significant loss of ancient texts due to historical events such as the burning of the Library of Alexandria and other instances of cultural erasure. The argument that most surviving texts mentioning these mythological motifs were written after Christianity assumes that what we currently possess represents the full spectrum of ancient religious thought. However, much of what was once written—especially about mystery religions, oral traditions, and lesser-documented cultic practices—has been lost to time.

This means that absence of earlier written sources does not equate to absence of these ideas in pre-Christian cultures. Many of these religious beliefs were likely transmitted orally for generations before being recorded in text, just as was the case with parts of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, using textual dating as the sole metric for determining influence is problematic.

Given this, it is reasonable to assume that mythological motifs surrounding divine births, sacrificial deities, and resurrection narratives were more widely discussed and developed than our surviving historical record can confirm. The real question remains: If the Christian God is truly original and opposed to paganism, why use motifs that were already deeply embedded in pre-Christian religious traditions?

This, ultimately, is the crux of my argument—not whether Christianity copied myths word for word, but why it so often aligns with pre-existing mythological structures instead of offering an entirely novel divine intervention.

If the argument is that because evidence no longer exists in written form, my argument doesn't count—then by that same logic, Christianity’s own claims about divine originality become just as unprovable. If absence of evidence is a justification for dismissing my position, then it is equally valid to question the assumption that Christianity’s God was the first to introduce concepts such as divine sacrifice, resurrection, or virgin births.

Furthermore, if the counter-argument suggests that because Christianity formalized these ideas into a distinct theological framework, it means Christianity’s God originated the concept of divine sacrifice—then what does that imply? It would mean that this deity, who supposedly condemns paganism, deliberately implemented a ritualistic human sacrifice as the cornerstone of its own religious structure.

This introduces a contradiction:

If human sacrifice was already present in pagan traditions (as it was in many forms across ancient cultures), and Christianity later centered its theology on the ultimate human sacrifice of Jesus, then is Christianity truly "original," or is it merely a refinement and rebranding of older sacrificial narratives?

If Christianity’s God was the originator of human sacrifice, then why was this practice condemned in other forms throughout history? Why did earlier Jewish texts reject child sacrifice (e.g., the story of Abraham and Isaac) if the ultimate plan was to validate it through Jesus?

This highlights a theological inconsistency: either Christianity’s God borrowed from existing sacrificial traditions (which contradicts claims of divine originality), or Christianity’s God actively introduced human sacrifice into theological history as an original concept, raising serious moral and philosophical implications.

Either way, the claim that Christianity is uniquely separate from prior mythological structures does not hold up. Instead, it appears that Christianity strategically adapted and recontextualized existing beliefs, which aligns with the argument that it is a Roman-era constructed theology rather than a purely divine revelation.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #95]

Love.
I would rather follow the understanding of the idea of a creator which gave its creations that type of option than to have to graphel with accepting Abrahamic say-so's - and by the way the option makes what you called "illogical" quite the logical thing in its framework and only illogical in christianity's framework.

My view offers a compelling alternative. By placing agency before creation, it reframes the question entirely. It shifts the debate from "Why would God impose suffering?" to "Why did we choose this experience?"

And that’s where the logic unfolds beautifully—because in my framework, free will is not just about making choices within a predetermined system, but about the choice to enter the system in the first place. That’s not just a more compassionate and ethically sound model—it’s one that allows for a truly participatory and meaningful experience of existence.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #96]

I appreciate your clarification, and I want to ensure that we’re addressing the actual argument rather than a mischaracterization of either side.

First, let’s establish what we agree on:

Christianity did not copy and paste mythology verbatim.
The power structures of Rome and later institutions did shape Christianity to serve their interests.

To make sure we are on the same page, while I believe institutions have shaped/used Christianity in that way, there have always been Christian groups that have resisted that shaping.

The key motif is that a divine figure dies and is restored to life, signifying a greater cosmic truth for humanity—whether that is through Osiris reigning in the underworld, Attis being absorbed into nature, or the mystery religions’ depictions of rebirth. This archetype was already deeply embedded in the spiritual consciousness of the ancient world. Jesus’ resurrection, while framed within a Jewish context, still operates within this larger tradition of divine death and renewal, even if in a modified form.

...

Further, virgin birth narratives appear across various pre-Christian traditions (e.g., Romulus, Perseus, Horus), reinforcing the question of why an all-powerful, supposedly original God would choose a means of divine incarnation that had already been culturally employed by multiple religious systems.

Okay, I agree Christianity isn't unique in those very, very broad senses (such as ruling over the realm of the dead counts as a resurrection and Horus' dad being dismembered and put back together to have sex with his mom counts as a virgin birth). This doesn't mean Christianity is just a repackaged and Roman constructed theology rather than God-initiated. Football (soccer) isn't just a repackaging and reconstruction of golf or pitz because a ball and a goal of some sort is used.

The real issue remains: Why would an all-original God use symbolic structures already present in pre-Christian belief systems instead of introducing wholly new, never-before-seen signs?

Who says God is "all-original" in that kind of sense? Or why should God be "all-original" in that kind of sense? Why isn't the not "all-original" divine intervention that is unique in specific ways strong enough?

If Christianity’s motifs were entirely new and unprecedented, this would be a far stronger argument for divine intervention. Instead, we find a pattern where familiar religious elements are repackaged and reshaped within a different framework. This is what makes the argument compelling—not a claim that Christianity was a direct copy, but that its structure and core motifs fit within a broader mythological lineage.

God was more concerned about changing our ability to live life abundantly than being considered "all-original" at every turn. In Jesus, God took on human nature and changed it for us in a way that is unique (but not your "all-original") from other systems of thought. Why isn't that enough?

Additionally, the argument that many of these texts were written after Christianity does not preclude the fact that these oral traditions and cult practices existed prior—our lack of older written records does not mean these motifs weren’t present in pre-Christian religious consciousness. We must recognize that written texts do not define the entirety of religious experience.

Correct, but if one wants to make an argument that they did pre-exist in more than a very vague parallel kind of way (which was the context I was speaking to, but you're making a different point, so this is irrelevant), then this is an important consideration since the most specific parallels to Christianity post-date Christianity.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #97]

The two options we are comparing seem to be God 'creating' [I put this in quote because I'm not using it to mean creation ex nihilo necessarily] (1) beings that have complete freedom (including having a say in what kind of existence they then get to experience) and (2) beings that have certain limitations that they don't get to have a say in.

Why, especially given how often we show we get things wrong, is giving us this complete freedom more loving then putting limitations on us chosen by an omniscient, omnibenevolent God?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #98]

If Christianity was originally an authentic, divine revelation, why was it so easily co-opted by power structures that have historically used it for control?
If Christian institutions, including Rome, messed with it early on, how can we confidently separate what was part of the "original" faith versus what was crafted to serve political ends?
What mechanisms within the Christian framework itself made it prone to institutional authority and useful fiction?
Yes, there have been resistant sects and reform movements, but they are ultimately reactions against a framework that was already shaped into a tool for control. This is why I remain skeptical that Christianity, in its widely accepted form, originated without institutional influence from the very beginning—especially given its early alignment with Rome through Paul.

The more relevant question here is: Are these resistant Christian groups actually resisting an external corruption, or are they simply rejecting an inherent characteristic of a religion that was always built to serve power?

You avoid the library issue because acknowledging it would force you to admit we don’t know the full scope of pre-Christian mythologies.
You imply that Rome had no mythological precedent for divine births and resurrection themes.

Your argument selectively applies skepticism to pre-Christian myths while uncritically accepting Jewish-Christian textual traditions.

The reality: Rome’s imperial, religious, and political structures were already steeped in mythological narratives that strongly resemble later Christian themes.

Even if we only had later written texts, we know that many pre-Christian cultures held beliefs about dying-and-rising gods, virgin births, divine incarnations, and sacrificial redemption.

Egyptian, Greek, and Roman religious festivals, rituals, and temple inscriptions provide ample evidence that these ideas were part of cultural consciousness before Christianity arose.

Argument for a "small resistant element of Christianity"—such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or other sects claiming to preserve the "true" version of Christianity—seems more like a desperate attempt to keep the useful fiction viable rather than an actual return to any hidden authenticity.

These groups still operate under the illusion that their version of Christianity is untouched by Rome’s hand, but in reality, they are simply an adaptation of the same foundational Roman religious construction, just with modified doctrines. Their persistence is fueled not by any tangible historical "truth" but by a desperate need to maintain their faith’s relevance in a world where religious authority is being challenged at every turn.

Ultimately, these resistant Christian sects are still prisoners of the useful fiction of the Roman framework they claim to resist. They hold onto their faith not because it withstands historical scrutiny, but because they are too deeply invested to let it go. In a world where fewer and fewer people are falling for religious control, these groups cling to what’s left of the illusion—desperate to make the fiction remain useful, even as it crumbles around them.

I think you have inadvertently conceded that Christianity shares so many parallels with pre-existing mythologies that it logically supports the notion of "Useful Fiction." However, rather than acknowledging this and allowing the historical implications to unfold, you instead shift the goalposts—essentially arguing that we should just accept Christianity as divine truth despite its mythological fingerprints.

This leads us to the crux of the matter:

If Christianity is indeed a Useful Fiction, then its ultimate test is how it "pans out" over time.
This aligns perfectly with the built-in mechanism of the Jesus narrative—his promised return.

Christianity was designed to be self-perpetuating.

The apocalyptic expectation of Jesus' return ensures that believers always remain invested, even when doubts arise.
Every era has believers who assume they are living in the final days, waiting for the fulfillment of the "ultimate proof."
The "wait-and-see" tactic sustains the Useful Fiction.

The "we shall see" argument allows Christianity to continue indefinitely as an unfalsifiable belief system.
If Jesus returns, Christianity is vindicated.
If Jesus never returns, the goalpost keeps moving—new interpretations, new prophecies, and new theological adjustments.
The cycle of delay has already been playing out for centuries.

Early Christians believed the return was imminent—yet it didn’t happen.
Rome adapted by institutionalizing Christianity, shifting focus from expecting the return to building a religious empire.
Protestant movements revived the expectation, yet again—without fulfillment.
Today, modern sects still cling to the hope of Jesus' return, despite the long history of failed expectations.
In summary, Christianity's useful fiction has a built-in failsafe—the promise of an unresolved ending.
We are stuck in an indefinite waiting game, just as believers throughout history have been. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the structure of Christianity depends on keeping the return of Jesus just over the horizon, ensuring that the Useful Fiction remains useful for as long as possible.



And so, we watch. We analyze. We wait.

Not for Jesus, but for the final unraveling of a belief system that hinges on an eternal, unfulfilled expectation.


Then - on the other hand, if we take your argument at face value, Christianity might still be on track to finally receive the opportunity to show the world how God wants it to live.

This raises a critical tension:

Has Christianity been "held back" from its true potential due to corrupt institutionalization?
Would a "pure" Christianity—one that resists distortion by power structures—finally manifest the world God supposedly intended?

The suggestion is that small resistant Christian groups have retained the true essence of Christianity, but this claim itself hinges on subjectivity and historical revisionism. Every generation of reformers—from the Protestant Reformation to modern sects like Jehovah’s Witnesses—have made this exact claim, yet Christianity as a whole remains divided, fractured, and shaped by the same worldly power structures it supposedly transcends.

This means that your argument collapses into the same "wait-and-see" framework.

If Christianity is finally going to "get its pass," then where and when?
How would we know Christianity has reached this "pure state"?

Would it be marked by global unity among Christians?
Would it manifest as a worldwide moral and ethical transformation?
Or would it simply mean one particular version of Christianity finally becoming dominant?
If Christianity has always had this "true potential," why has it failed to manifest it for 2,000 years?

Are humans the problem, and if so, does that not contradict the claim that Christianity "improves human ability to live abundantly"?
Or has Christianity never truly had the means to fulfill its own promise?
If Christianity finally gets its pass, does that mean Jesus' return is no longer necessary?

If Christianity can fix the world without a supposed supernatural intervention, then what exactly is Jesus supposed to return for?
If Christianity requires Jesus' return to succeed, then we are simply back to the original "Useful Fiction" model of perpetual expectation.