MikeMcK #fundie

MikeMcK #fundie christianforums.com

Hate to break this to you, but Christ and His teachings were around long before Buddha.

[When it is pointed out that Buddhism came into being about 500 BC, the poster responds with this:]

But Jesus was around before 500 BC.

138 comments

old comment by FMG

Actually the very concept of "christ" like figures were about long before Buddha.

However. They were not Christ. They were a bunch of similar figures because the very concept of "don't be a dick to each other" fits in with all religions (Or rather don't be a dick to each other of this religion). The concept of sacrificing oneself for the purpose of saving something else is not just a christian thing and indeed concepts such as various egyptian gods, the pre nordic "hanged kings" (the Allfather is the most famous eventually becoming Odin) and the concept of human sacrifice to alleviate the sins of the community as a whole are not alien to the rest of the world. Its just that fundies don't quite understand that most religions came from a set source of beliefs that most people share hence the similarities within them.

Convergent evolution if you will...

old comment by Rationalist

There is some evidence that Gnostic Christianity was around as early as 100 BC or so (of course, Gnostic Christianity invented the character of Jesus by plagiarizing Pagan life-death-rebirth deities, especially the Egyptian god Horus). The early (literalist) Christians couldn't agree when Jesus supposedly lived and dated him from 100 BC to 100 AD.

Obviously, the facts for this argument don't go the way fundies would want them to. However, Buddha is probably a fictional character as well, as there is no evidence for his existence either except for religious people who believe he existed. It is also doubtful that Moses existed because there is no evidence for the Exodus. Muhammad is the only ancient religion founder whose existence we can be certain of and he was not a prophet since he thought Jesus was real.

old comment by Skyknight

Admittedly, even if you DID somehow prove that the Buddha didn't actually exist, I don't think it would do horribly much to most sects of Buddhism. After all, the Buddha was not anything along the lines of personal savior, but "just" an exemplar of right living. After centuries of following his example, actual or imputed, I think Buddhists have decided that this philosophy tree's fruit is very healthy. Even a fictional person can make for a good exemplar; you'll just have trouble carrying on an actual conversation.

Somehow, I don't think this will work so well for Christians who believe that being an exemplar of right living was absolutely NOT one of Jesus's primary purposes.

old comment by MikeMcK

Hi, fellas.

Just wanted to clear a few things up.

Yes, I was a history teacher. I taught history and American Government at a government high school in South Jersey, DelTech, University of Delaware, and Community College of Philadelphia.

I also taught, at various times, philosophy, rhetoric, and comparative religions (but not English, as you can probably tell from my grammar).

I hold a Master's degree in history from Auburn University, a Master's in Sociology from Rutger's University, and Bachelors' degrees in Biblical and Theological Studies
and Expository Preaching and Pastoral Leadership from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. As I mentioned elsewhere in my post, am currently completing my M.Div through that same university.

I retired from teaching full time in the early 00s to turn my love of carpentry and furniture making into a successful business and to expand a small agricultural concern I'm involved with.

Currently, I'm teaching Church History and Survey of the OT I&II through a cooperative program with a local college and working to complete my M.Div.

To answer your question: yes, I do know what BC means. It refers to the time before Christ's incarnation, not to a time before Christ's existence. Although Christ entered into a human existence at His incarnation, as God, he existed before His incarnation for all eternity and has no beginning.

Thus, Christ did exist before 500BC and Buddha has Christ to thank for his own existence.

While I understand that you are atheists and, as such, do not believe in God, as a pastor who has studied both the scriptures and the historic creeds, confessions, and catechisms of Christianity for more than twenty years, I can assure you that the Bible does teach, and Christians do believe, that Jesus Christ is God an, as such, has always existed.

old comment by MikeMcK

@ Rapax Pringer

Although it's difficult for us to comprehend because we think in terms of material and physical things, all of which are governed by physical laws that say that every physical thing must have a beginning and end, God is neither physical, nor material, nor has a corporate body, so God doesn't need a beginning.

God simply always has been. He is of a completely different nature than the terms we're used to thinking in. Because God is spirit, not material, He is not subject to the same laws we are, or that our universe is.

Besides, if God did have a beginning, then God would no longer be God. Whatever the person or thing that caused God's beginning would be God and then we would have an infinite regress of "well then, where did that god come from".

old comment by mikemck

Mike, you said that Jesus is eternal, and therefore existed long before Buddha, but this is illogical.

How so?

Jesus is referred to as the "Son", but the gospels claim that he is part of god, and has always existed.

The Gospels don't say that Jesus is a part of God. They say that He is God. What you're suggesting is a heresy known as Sabellianism (or, more commonly known as "modalism").

Well then, if he did not issue forth from God(except for the physical birth), why call him Son?

For two reasons.

Jesus is referred to the "Son of God" several places in the scriptures, but typically only in two different contexts.

The first is an acknowledgement of His nature. That is, just as human fathers give birth to sons who are human by nature, so Jesus' Father is God and so Jesus has a divine nature.

The second is that, in addition to being divine, Jesus also had a human nature. The existence of these two natures is a doctrine in Christianity called the "Hypostatic Union".

In this case, Jesus is referred to as the Son of God to show His submission to the Father and also, on a lesser note, to show that God is the Father of the righteous.

old comment by mikemck

Also, most of Jesus' teachings are not found in the old testament.

Really? Can you name one that isn't?

[quoet]God demanded that people obey all of his laws, but Jesus said that you have to worship Jesus as lord and savior.

I'm not sure I understand your point. How do these two things contradict one another?

Bottom line: Buddhism is over 500 years older than Christianity. Period.

No one is arguing otherwise. My point is that Buddhism, while pre-dating the establishment of the Christian church, the second person of the Godhead, incarnated as the man, Jesus Christ, and the principles of Christianity pre-date Buddhism.

You can make all the metaphysical speculations you want, but that is recorded fact.

Just as it is recorded fact that God pre-dates Buddha and Buddhism and the principles of Christianity are found in Old Testament scriptures dating to before Buddha or Buddhism.

old comment by Gyeong Hwa Pak

"Just as it is recorded fact that God pre-dates Buddha and Buddhism and the principles of Christianity are found in Old Testament scriptures dating to before Buddha or Buddhism."

And you know what predates that? Polytheism.
But that's besides the point. You can't claim that the Christian scriptures existed before Christianity. If there is similarities between NT and OT (and there is), it's because the OT influenced the NT. Also there are other scriptures that shares similarities to the Christian ones, and predates it. Why? Not because Christ's teachings are older. It's either because, Christ's teachings are influenced by these pre-existing ideas or because these ideas are not exculsive to Christianity. In the same way the Egyptian Book of the Dead influenced the 10 Commandment, other traditions influence Christianity. You're deluded if you claim it can't.

EDIT: It's also confirmation bias to claim that similarities in the OT and NT is due to Jesus Christ, rather than the more probable idea that the OT influenced the NT.

old comment by The Duelist

@ MikeMck

Are you smoking something? Jesus says to treat others as you would like to be treated, which is in direct opposition to the O.T., which consists mainly of "An eye for an eye", "stone homosexuals and pagans", "kill everyone who disobeys god", etc., etc.

Jesus also says to pray for them that persecute you, which is not found anywhere in the O.T.
You still want to claim that Jesus' teachings are found in the O.T.? Then give me the chapter and verse where your god contradicts himself by saying that you shall not harm anyone. That is a contradiction.

Also, your last sentence is immaterial. Since your god's existence is "recorded" in books of fairy tales(Bible, Koran), there is no proof that your god even exists. The concept of god is older than Buddhism, but the concept of "gods" is older than yours.

[EDIT] The point: you said that Jesus, being part of the Trinity, is eternal and was around before 500 b.c., but this is merely speculation, like Muslims who believe that Muhammad went to Heaven on a celestial steed; no evidence, therefore it is inadmissible as evidence for a historical point of view.

old comment by SpukiKitty

To the the "Prof" whom we are scrutinizing his quote, unlike the others on the board who flippiantly dismiss world scriptures are "fairy tales" & the Higher Power as "sky fairy" (though I side with them 100% & respect them & their beliefs, I abhor their insulting theists & theism)...I AM a Theist...I respect a guy like Jesus...however, I reject dogma & orthodoxy & respect that there's truth in all paths & that many preach similar stuff...whenever literal historical figures or not...figures like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc. had many great things to teach & examples to lead...scriptures serve a purpose as important myths that teach about the human condition.
It's a long story & complex & you may never truly comprehend. What you call "God" is Universal. Deity is Universal, Andrgynous, Multi-Faceted, Complex, Knowable yet Unknowable...there's no one right way to follow Him/Her/It & there's nothing wrong with not believing in Him/Her/It...Scriptures are not neccessary & it would be ludricous to think you can put Deity in a book. My scripture is the Universe itself, the sky, Earth, trees, experience with people & things in this world, common sense, ethics & the adage "An it harm none, do what thou wilt". Be nice to others, don't be selfish or violent, respect others, humanely disipline those who do malice, altruism, etc.
....deeds...not creeds.

old comment by

@ The Deulist

"Treat others as you would like to be treated" is in the Old Testament. In fact, in the very verse you're quoting, Jesus says that the idea that we're supposed to treat others as we would be treated is what the prophets taught. He was referring to the OT.

You can find this in Le 19:18 Isa 1:17,18 Jer 7:5,6 Eze 18:7,8,21 Am 5:14,15 Mic 6:8 Zec 7:7-10 8:16,17 Mal 3:5.

Likewise, the idea of praying for those who persecute us is found in Ex 23:4,5 2Ki 6:22 2Ch 28:9-15 Ps 7:4 35:13,14 Pr 25:21,22.

So there you have two examples of Jesus' teachings that are found numerous places in the Old Testament. Do you have any more you'd like to try?

old comment by The Duelist

...

These verses refer to treating Israelites kndly; for example, Le. 19;18: "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of *your* people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

The prophets taught the Hebrews to be nice to Hebrews, not everyone else. If you think I'm mistaken, check out Joshua 8;24-27. Jesus was the one who taught that Gentiles could also achieve salvation, and claimed that you needn't be executed for breaking the Sabbath.
"Do you have any more you'd like to try?"
All I'm pointing out is that your claim that Jesus existed before 500 B.C. is based on religious beliefs, thus, unproven. Case closed.

old comment by David B.

Leviticus 24:17-22, "'If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitutionlife for life. If anyone injures his neighbour, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.'"

Matthew 5:38-42, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Does the NT contradict the OT? You bet it does, and the authors darn well knew it.

Hence the "New Covenant" of Christianity was inclusive. The Israelites were no longer God's chosen people, anyone could now be God's special friend just by following Jesus.

old comment by MikeMcK

@David

David, I'm not sure I understand what the contradiction is supposed to be. In one case, you have God stating that the Nation of Israel has the authority and the duty to put murderers to death and, in the other, you have Jesus telling individuals that they shouldn't seek revenge for wrongs done to them.

Surely you can understand the difference between a murderer being charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by the state through the channels of due process, and an individual killing someone because they insulted him, don't you?

And you might also be interested to know that this isn't an Old Testament vs New Testament issue, because the text you cite from Matthew 5 is also found in Le 19:18 1Sa 24:10-15 25:31-34 26:8-10 Job 31:29-31 Pr 20:22 Pr 24:29

Likewise, the Levitical instruction on punishine murderers is repeated in the NT in Romans 14 and in Jesus' encounter with Pilate.

old comment by Fompili

This quote sucks so hard that my ears just popped.

And then MikeMck really comes on here to basically say, "Lalalalalala, what I believe is true because I want it to be true, and if I imagine it hard enough, what I believe in will always have been true and will always have existed. And it will predate everything else, because my imagination is strong. I can change history by putting my fingers in my ears and going on like this FOREVAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRR! Lalalala!"

(And OF COURSE he does that thing too when cornered, he picks and chooses which characteristics his god really has... see his reply to #1201346: #1204467. It's all the same shit. Picking and choosing stuff from a fictitious book, ignoring all historic facts. So very, very sucky.)

old comment by The Duelist

Mike, for a Christian, you really don't know much about the Bible, do you? Denying reality because it jars with your religious views is delusion- practically the text book definition.
Now stop wasting our time and insulting our intelligence with your drivel.

[EDIT] By the way, Mike, here's an oldie but a goldie from the Old Testament; Deuteronomy 28;53- "Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your god has given you."

You said earlier that Jesus IS God; so Jesus is basically more brutal, evil and barbaric than all the tyrants in history. I believe the key word here would be "delusion"...

old comment by

@ Fompili

No, actually, I've never claimed that anything is true just because I believe it. To the contrary, I've always been very consistent in pointing out that we can believe the Bible, not because we believe it, but because it provides evidence in its own defense to make it credible.

@ Swede

Again, "BC" refers to the time before Christ's incarnation, not before His existence. That would be nonsensical because there was no time when Christ did not exist.

@ Duelist

I won't bother to list my credentials again, but I'll just point out that it's a little oh, let's just say "ironic" for you to accuse me of not knowing the Bible, but then turning around and showing that you don't know that De. 28:53 is not a command by Jesus, but a prophecy given to the author by Jesus. Obviously, you didn't bother to read the chapter because the chapter tells you over and over that this is a prophecy of things that have not happened yet, but that will be the result of Israel's continued disobedience.

You also, evidently, missed the inverse portion of the prophecy, in which the author prophesies that God will bless Israel.

Perhaps you might want to take a few minutes to get your facts straight before you mock somebody else and claim that they're the ones who don't know the Bible.

old comment by The Duelist

Ah, where to begin? First off, I didn't say that this was a command of Jesus, just pointing out that only a egocentric, genocidal tyrant would threaten people with eating their own children. And, since you claim that Jesus is God, then he is a despicable despot. Besides, it's funny how God spent all his time either coercing Israel with petty threats or coaxing them with promises of blessings. Really? Then how come they've been persecuted and massacred for over two thousand years?
As for mocking you, well, given your total denial of your God's nature at 7:53:46, and your denial that the Hebrews did not wipe out the Canaanites to steal their land, this seems to betray a certain lack of understanding in the O.T. Read Deuteronomy 25;11-12, if you still want to deny that your god is a tyrant.
Also, either provide hard proof for the Bible or stop wasting our time. That is all.

[EDIT] By the way, as I've pointed out, your claim that Jesus has always existed in nonsensical, because the burden of proof is on you. And Christians have been trying to prove this idea for two thousand years. They still have yet to succeed.

old comment by MikeMcK

@ The Duelist

Again, He didn't threaten anybody with anything. It's a prophecy. Not a teaching, not a command, not a threat, but a warning about the consequences of Israels actions and a plea for them to change course precisely so that these things you find so distatesful don't happen.

Again, you obviously didn't even bother to read the chapter you're mocking.

Second, I didn't deny God's nature. I denied your false representation of God's nature. There's a big difference.

Third, perhaps you could explain how De 25:11-12 makes God a "tyrant".

Fourth, not only have I provided evidence that Jesus Christ did exist before the incarnation, you, yourself, have referred to the pre-incarnate Christ.

@ Neth

So you say, but if that were true, then I sincerely doubt I would have made it through seminary, been called by a church, and be allowed to preach and teach on the scriptures, including teaching Survey of the Old Testament I&II and numerous expository sermons on OT texts without somebody noticing.

@ Louislois

It's easy to call names. It's far harder to pull up your big boy britches and make a reasoned argument. Perhaps you would have more credibility if, instead of merely throwing insults, you would at least try to show why you believe we're wrong.

old comment by MikeMcK

@ The Duelist

Again, you obviously didn't even bother to read the chapter you're mocking.

Second, I didn't deny God's nature. I denied your false representation of God's nature. There's a big difference.

Third, perhaps you could explain how De 25:11-12 makes God a "tyrant".

Fourth, not only have I provided evidence that Jesus Christ did exist before the incarnation, you, yourself, have referred to the pre-incarnate Christ.

@ Neth

@ Louislois

old comment by The Duelist

Mike, I hate to say this, but I think you're an idiot. Seriously. "... a warning of about the consequences of Israel's actions and a plea for them to change course precisely so that these things you find so distasteful wouldn't happen."

Are you a Poe? First off, this would count as a threat, because(duh) God is basically saying, "Go back to worshiping me, or you will eat your children, and all the plagues of Egypt will descend on you(yes, I did read the whole chapter mike, and if the whole thing doesn't count as petty, inhumane threats, then nothing does)".

So I presented God's nature in a false manner? Denial; the self-defense mechanism of Fundies everywhere.
Deuteronomy 25;11-12:
"(11)If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals,(12)Then you shall cut off her hand: your eye shall not pity her."

You were saying, Mike?

By the way, lying for Jesus is still lying, Mike; you have failed to produce any proof, whatsoever, that Jesus existed before 500 B.C., or even existed at all for that matter, so either provide hard evidence in your next post or be quiet. Also, as I have already stated(duh), I am an ex-Christian; I know that the Incarnation is a fairy tale; I was speaking in a hypothetical sense, Mike, because I did not want to write, "assuming that Jesus even existed, and was really divine" before every other sentence.
I made the mistake of assuming that you were intelligent enough to grasp the context, but apparently, I was wrong.
It would not be the first time, unfortunately, that I have given Christians too much credit for intelligence.

[EDIT] Also, anyone who is not utterly revolted by a god who threatens people with "distasteful" things like being driven to eat their own children is either brainwashed into accepting such things, or just plain evil. I don't find this behavior to be "distasteful", Mike; I know that it is distasteful, and evil, because I am no longer under the delusion of worshiping a murderous "god".

old comment by The Duelist

*sigh* This is not the first time I've had Christians avoid certain topics by saying that I am "angry", "bitter", etc. I'm not angry, pal, just exasperated that Christians can be so deliberately obtuse, and at times, moronic or even crazy. Nice way to avoid presenting proof, Mike. If you don't know what to tell me, then stop wasting my time with childish fire & brimstone stories. As for calling you stupid, well, I don't mince words. If someone is acting rude or stupid, then that is how they will be addressed. For example, I'd be willing to bet that, at this very moment, somewhere, there is a rich, powerful man giving some deadbeat a warning about the consequences of his actions, and a plea for him to change course so certain things the deadbeat finds "distasteful" won't happen to him.

No doubt, the powerful man is not threatening the deadbeat, but just offering him some friendly advice, so that the deadbeat doesn't get his arms broken. Right?

To my fellow FSTDT posters, this is something Christians do frequently in debates; they ramrod you with half-facts, and childish propaganda they've clung to since childhood(usually), and as soon as you refute these dogmas and point out that their god is not so loving after all, all of a sudden, you're "bitter", "depressed", "angry", etc., etc., etc....

By the way, Mike, if you want to pray for me to Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh, etc., that's fine. However, if you are going to ask Sky Father to make me a Christian, don't waste your breath. Considering the knowledge I possess concerning the origins of the Gospels, the numerous contradictions in the Bible, and the fact that the Old Testament proves, beyond a shadow of doubt that the Biblical "god" is a vicious, sexist control freak(if he actually existed, that is), the only conceivable way for me to become a Christian would be for me to receive a lobotomy, a massive head injury, or brain cancer. Or all three.

[EDIT] You know, a big part of growing up is learning how to develop sound reasoning and good judgment, respect for human beings living around you, true forgiveness, etc. As for being "hostile", "angry", and "bitter", well, I'm not the one telling you that if you don't mindlessly believe everything a sexist, self-contradictory Bronze Age book tells you, then you will be thrown into hell for all eternity, where you will be burned and tortured by command of a loving god. The point is that every single time I post a fact on here, you respond with nonsense and denial, like "That's not why the Israelites wiped out the Canaanites", "God wasn't threatening anybody", "nah, nah, nah-nah! I can't hear you! Nah nah nah!!", and then you say I'm the one who needs to grow up? Please. Act like a rational person, or leave this site. Also, I'm still waiting for some hard evidence(and don't try to fob me off with any of that N.T. nonsense). I suppose I've been a bit rude, however, so I apologize for calling you stupid.

Sincerely Yours,

The Duelist.

old comment by Dr.Shrinker

To be fair, the quote says that Jesus was around before 500 BC, not Christianity. Orthodox Christian doctrine does teach that The Son is an aspect of the Godhead, and thus is eternal and would predate 500 BC. Whether one chooses to accept that or not is a matter of personal belief.

However, when MikeMcK says that Christ's teachings were around before 500 BC, he is committing an error in his historical judgement and heresy against his own religion. The notion that the Old Testament is actually based on Christ's teaching was an idea promoted in The Epistle of Barnabas. The latter epistle was excluded form the New testament canon, despite its popularity, because it was believed to be promoting false teachings.

You read that right Mike, FALSE TEACHINGS!

This lesson brought to you by an atheist.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Christ and His teachings were around long before Buddha."

Siddartha Gautama:

Born c. 563 BCE or c. 480 BCE

Died c. 483 BCE or c. 400 BCE (aged 80)

Jesus

'The Christ myth theory, which questions the existence of Jesus, appeared in the 18th century. Some of its supporters contend that Jesus is a myth invented by early Christians'

Siddartha Gautama - Buddha - actually existed

Ramses II existed too. Temples, statues, stelae. Writings. A DNA analysable body does his existence no harm, neither.

Not one single scrap of evidence - even one artifact - to prove this 'Jesus' actually existed. The 'Turin Shroud' was proven to be a medieval fake.

Jesus was never around. You may now provide me with actual physical empirical secular Peer Reviewed evidence to my satisfaction, to prove otherwise. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV): 'Prove all things' - thus you are forced to use the Scientific Method to destroy your own 'Faith' - forces you to. [/mega-paradox]

I'm satisfied that Ramses II & Siddartha Gautama existed.

A rainbow doesn't actually physically exist, but it can be seen. Science - and a child with simle apparatus - can even explain, and therefore prove what doesn't physically exist. Can't deny Reality.

'Belief'. You cannot spell that without the word LIE.

Game, Set, and Annihilated Argument to me.

@The Duelist

Well, facing far superior intellects, McMcMc here certainly lost interest ITT: with emph-ass-is on lost. His last post: 2010. Nope, not so much as a sniff of him since then, and it's 2014. Mayhaps he's learned something: when you're in a hole, you stop digging, as his previous 'answers' dug his hole of FAIL far deeper than the one on Nero's ship Narada ever could in the JJ Abrams "Star Trek" film. Oh, and as for holes...:

"Yes, I was a history teacher"

Just that one extremely telling word 'was' speaks volumes of the depth of his own FAIL as a so-called 'educator'. 'Was'. As in the poast tense. Hopefully, school board(s) heard about his fundie BS, and fired him.

...meanwhile no religion hamstringing China's pool of pure educated Atheist talent. In Soviet China, God worships you.

MikeMcK #fundie christianforums.com

138 comments

Confused?