There is a fringe element of Skeptics out there who become so persecuted and paranoid that their responses take on an element of tragic comedy. One such wrote JP trying to defend the usual "the Holy Grail is the bloodline of Jesus" nonsense, and assured him that he was being played for a sucker by believing certified historians and NT scholars over psychologists and media moguls and chivalric genealogists who held out promises of secret documents otherwise unknown to the scholarly world. Academia is in on a conspiracy (even disbelieving academia, at times, mind you); there is no solution you can present that is not undermined by bias and conspiracy; historians are plain stupid and uncredentialed freethinkers are worlds smarter when they say Jesus never existed; The Da Vinci Code contains actual history which the academic histories have failed to mention. Such of these is the self-styled "Amergin".

Another forum member passed JP some tidbits of Amergin's (ergh) "wisdom" for a look...there is much of political meandering, much of railing against "Fundies" (used as a grab-bag category of, as a whole, not-named individuals); much of nonsense as history. For example:

The Fundies need you to bring on Armageddon, which will kill most of you according to plan. They need you to "forced" Jesus to return with a army of destruction and deliver vengence to those who refused to convert. They will accept your support at the voting places to elect Bush, but some day, they will turn against you. If you pay close attention their anti-Semitism is just below the surface. The president or some Big Shaman of the Southern Baptist Convention said the "God does not hear the prayers of Jews."

Hmm. As an inerrantist (Fundy?) with preterist beliefs (no Armageddon ahead) and being politically independent (voted for Bush as the lesser of two dislikes), JP would wonder about this sort of thing. I also wonder if "anti-Semitism" was anywhere behind that statement (it was actually Dr. Bailey Smith, as President of the SBC, though I have found it attributed also to Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart!), since it is doubtful the same person would have said that God did hear the prayers of Muslims or Buddhists. I also wonder about such anti-Semitic statements as, "your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me" (Jer. 6:20) "And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood." (Is. 1:15) Jeremiah and Isaiah sure were arrogant guys, weren't they?

Then of course as part of the package, we have Amergin claiming all sorts of hanky-panky with texts:

Remember the Christian Bible edited scriptural writings and tossed out anything that contradicted the deification of Jesus or the Orthodox Trinitarian religion of Athanasius. They never included the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, James, or Thomas.

Gosh no they didn't. Why would they include something written by Gnostics, with no contextual connection to Jewish Palestine, 150-200 years after Jesus lived (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas)? This process was in place long before Athanasius, and despite Amergin's Da Vinci Code Scholarship, junk documents from late, decontextualized sources deserved to be cut. And if he thinks otherwise, and can get beyond lists and sound bites, let Amergin explain, in detail, why.

The gospels, all four of them are ambivalent to negative about the divinity of Jesus. They were clearly written before the divinity of Jesus was widely accepted by Christians.

Hmm. Sound bite city. The Gospels are quite firm about the divinity of Jesus, identifying him with divine hypostatic Wisdom and the divine Son of Man. Amergin can see here if he has the nerve.

Not only did women contribute little (were allowed to contribute little), but they were slandered and verbally abused by the Black Book.

Sound Bite City! In that case, here there is a ton of bricks for Amergin, showing how the "Black Book" actually respects, treasures, and values women. Think Amergin can respond? It'll take him a while! Meanwhile we see Amergin is into McDonaldLand history:

In the name of a man of peace they have started wars, persecuted millions of people, burned a million women as witches, burned or decapitated many heretics for trivial doctrinal differences.

Whoops! That "million" is a wee bit inflated....say, by about, 950,000! Also, not all were women, not all were burned, and not all were executed by the Church. The rest lacks in specifics to be addressed; who has decided "trivial" and on the basis of what effects?

The Book of Revelation is an irrational mix of Mithraic symbolism and outright psychotic ramblings. It has no credibility and bears no similarity to the teachings of Jesus.

Pfaw, aside from alluding to the Olivet Discourse? There is no Mithraic symbolism in Revelation; this is a Literature Fantasy. Revelation is chock full rather of allusions to the Old Testament; we'll let the bigoted analysis of "psychotic ramblings" stand from someone who certainly has no appreciation for the world-known genre of apocalyptic. Though to be fair, it's likely Amergin would say the same of Hindu or Buddhist apocalyptic texts.

Now we have some places where Amergin puts on some heavy boots and wade into his version of first century history...

It is true that the Romans and Jews of 4 BCE to 30 CE do not seem to have noticed Jesus. Romans were obsessive records keepers. Pilate existed. His office recorded executions, data on the Zealots but Jesus being crucified or even causing trouble are not in Pilate's records.

Wa ha! If Amergin has seen Pilate's records, will be please send a letter to the editors of the Journal of Roman Studies and inform them of this remarkable find? Maybe it's right next to where Amergin keeps the Mithraic Scriptures that not even David Ulansey, the world's leading specialist, knows about....folks, there are no such records. Period. Amergin is on a historical fantasy train ride, heading into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.

There are references to Jesus later by Josephus (proven to be an added forgery written in a different style and out of context.) Others mentioned simply that there were people who worshipped a Jesus or Chrestus, but that is like me saying that some people believe in salvation in the tail of a comet.

Uh hm. JP already has one Christ-myther by the tail; wonder if Amergin can do any better with this, including the detailed essay showing that Josephus' passages are NOT forgeries (just interpolated partially), and not in a different style or out of context. We'll see.

Could he have been the model for a Messiah or even a Mithraic God-man? The birth narrative of Jesus is clearly plagiarised from the Greek version of Mithra.

That's funny, because from the dates and the evidence, if anything it is the other way around; see here. Amergin has a fixation on Mithraism as a source for Christianity; he ought to contact Ulansey and correct him.

The Gospel of Mary exists and was found in several parchments in Egypt. It was rejected by the Patriarchs of the Church Peter and Paul, who went so far as to lie about Mary, calling her a prostitute. There is no evidence that she was a prostitute. She was a woman who loved and was loved by Jesus according to writings older than the accepted Gospels.

Interesting, is Amergin using The Da Vinci Code as a source? Not even that book claims that the "Mary was a prostitute" idea emerged earlier than 591 AD, much less with Peter and Paul! (See our comments here about that Gospel of Mary, which exists only in very late parchments and with a load of decontextualized non-Jewish Gnosticism!)

Did I mention Amergin's fixation on Mithraism?

If you bothered to search history, you will find out how the original Christianity of Jesus of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala was usurped by the Pagan Mithraist Paul of Tarsus. You are a Pagan and don't know it.

JP bothered to search history, including the works of leading Mithraic specialists, and funny, none of them agree. As for Paul being in Tarsus, let's ring up Glenn Miller on this again:

Well, all the data we have indicates:

4. We have already seen that recent scholarship has seen Judaism as the background for the various images in Pauline literature (and the gospel literature, for that matter), instead of these cults anyway. So, even if he had been 'raised in this pagan stuff', he apparently liked his other education in Jerusalem better...

Sorry, folks. Amergin is way behind the seven ball on this one! Insert this comment of his for irony:

You are a mental slave to a mind control system. It makes you hate everyone who doesn't believe. We threaten you with our clearer thinking and reason. That is why you fear reason, it may cause you to THINK.

Yup...we sure are "threatened" by someone who has no truck with credentialed historians and scholars, and plugs outdated theories promulgated by loudmouthed 19th-century freethinkers...you da man, Amergin!

Meanwhile Paul keeps getting dissed. When someone said, "Paul was God's messanger," Amergin bollicked:

Or so he claimed. Peter and James disagreed. And it is odd how he avoids repeating the teachings of Jesus and the parables.

Odd? Not at all. This is Doherty's old thesis, rebuked here. As for James and Peter -- well, just click there for a more scholarly view. Sorry, quoting the likes of Schei, Durant, and Spong won't cut it here!

And as for preaching God, he didn't preach the same God as Jesus. And even the message was different. Jesus preached compassion, love, forgiveness, kindness to women, not legalism and punishment. Paul preached rigid legalism, harsh unkind views on women, no love, minimum on forgiveness, strong on punishment. Jesus was love. Paul was rules. Jesus was compassion, Paul was punishment.

Do you recognize any of this? Paul, the "legalist" who taught Christian liberty (Rom. 14), lack of observation of Jewish holidays (Col. 2), no circumcision (Galatians), "no love" (uh, 1 Cor. 13???), punishment (never mentions hell once, while Jesus mentions it two dozen times)? Who knows what Bible Amergin is reading these days?

Next up! Amergin stumps for the "Jesus survived in the tomb" thesis...nah. I'm not that masochistic. See here. Amergin also has the usual trouble with, "If Jesus is God, how can he address God?" (Hint: "God" was not a proper name! See here for better clay on the Trinity than just quoting Thomas Jefferson!)

Now from the "only God could make this God-sized sort of goof" department:

The virgin birth without introducing male Y chromosomes in sperm is problematic. If Miriam became pregnant with Jesus without sexual intercourse with a human male, then Jesus would have only X chromosomes no Y chromosome. That means Jesus would have to be a female.

Righto...the God who created the universe out of nothing....can't manage creation of Y chromosomes (or fixing brain neurons, as Amergin also supposes)...I see it all so clearly now. OK, for some more clarity...

The death and resurrection are a major problem. I realise that about 10 other god-men died and resurrected before Jesus, so the theme was popular.

I wonder if any of those 10 are on our list here. Problem is, they all either were post-NT, or didn't "resurrect" in any sense of the word...and now for this ad for abstinence and on wine and Jesus:

Did he ever taste it? Alcohol is an addictive, mind altering, brain damaging drug. It destroys the liver, causes oesophageal cancer, liver cancer, stomach cancer, peripheral polyneuropathy, Wernicke's Haemorrhagic Encephalopathy, Korsakoff' syndrome (loss of memory), myopathy (muscle pain, weakness, and muscle fibre loss.)

Yow. Hate to give Amergin a shock of contextualization, but the alcohol of the Biblical era was usually so weak that it couldn't kill a fly, much less alter the mind or damage the brain, and even that which was, was so expensive that you couldn't afford enough to get you any cancer or mypoathy or whatever. Amergin can take his protest down to the 7-11. I might add that since oxygen eventually causes cancer, Amergin may as well stop breathing.

And of course, no fundy atheist would be complete with all the usual emotional arguments by outrage: The Canaanites? See here -- a very merciful end in context. Amalekites? Check. Taking Midianites as sex slaves? Uh huh. Try "merciful assimilation". And of course, the favorite of the decontextualized who do not know what an honor and shame society is:

As the supposed punishment for raping a virgin, the rapist pervert is required to buy the victim from her father and marry her. Rape victims were forced to marry their rapists. Deut. 22:28-29 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold of her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the MAN THAT LAY WITH HER shall give unto the damsel's father fifty she-kels of silver and she SHALL be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

It would never occur to a modernist, provincial like Amergin that this passage reflects the desire of women of the day, would it? (See JP try to work with another such decontextualizer, here.)

Now for expert commentary on the Trinity, by Amergin:

To be fair, nobody has solved this enigmatic idea. The idea is that there is one god but three persons or personalities. I compare it to multiple personality syndromes in humans. Logically it is difficult to defend otherwise 3=1, 1=3. Manifestations or personalities make some sense. But Tertullian who invented it in the 2nd century never really explained it well.

Nobody has solved it, huh? Amergin, meet Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham, and a host of others here.

"But "original sin" is the claim that God punished all future generations for the actions of Adam and Eve, which would be inconsistent with the belief that God is fair and just."

Think so? See here.

Jesus thought that he would return within a century. (Before those before him had passed away.) He was wrong. Jesus thought leprosy was caused by sin not bacteria. He taught blindness was due to sin, not Trachoma virus, Loa Loa, or congenital optic atrophy. Jesus didn't know the world was a sphere. He was taken up to a high mountain by the Devil where they could see all the Nations of the world. But that is impossible on a sphere. (He could not see the Meso-American and Andean Civilisations, the North American Hopewell and Anasazi Civilisations, the Kingdom of Hawaii. He thought the world was flat. Jesus also thought epilepsy was due to daemon possession.

Amergin of course has complete medical records showing that these persons had the conditions described....well, aside from the miracle-bias, two corrections: Jesus did "return" in 40 years ("return" has always been the wrong word, anyway) and news flash, the word used for what Jesus saw of the world was oikoumene, which means only the Roman Empire...no need for the Andes (even if we aren't dealing with a being with miraculous powers, eh?).

Now take out your hankies, Amergin has a sermon for us:

John 9:1-3 As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him. How terrible a story! God deliberately made some poor bloke blind so that he could show off later. That is awful.

Yes, it's awful, isn't it, how that man provided a testimony of his healing which would have inspired thousands to believe in Jesus and receive eternal life, and inspired millions more in the future to do so. Isn't long-term benefit out of short-term suffering a terrible thing?

Anyway, back to Mithra and that fixation:

The faithful referred to Mithras (REMEMBER, 4000 years ago!) as "the LIGHT OF THE WORLD", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a MEMBER OF A HOLY TRINITY. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was BORN OF A VIRGIN given the title 'MOTHER OF GOD'. The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil.

Nope -- see the link above. Not one word of this is correct. No light of the world title; no symbol of truth, etc. (not in the Roman version, sorry); no mediation between heaven and earth (the Persian version, not the Roman one, was a mediator between the good and bad gods); no trinity, no virgin birth, no birth in a cave, no celibacy or self-control or ethics or anything of the sort. No heaven and hell, as Amergin says further, and no day of judgment or resurrection -- he is confusing Mithraism with Zoroastrianism. And the attending by shepherds is too late.

One last comment for samples, and it is about that usual big nasty of this crowd, Constantine:

So He correctly assumed that he could fuse Triniatarians, Mithraists, and Sol Invictusites into one syncreted religion. That would bring a needed unity to the fractious empire. He accomplished that at Nicaea in 324 CE. He actually forced the Bishops of the Church, mostly Arian to renounce Arianism, accept the Trinity and Jesus as God with the Mithraic myth as its foundation. The Gospels had been written by Athanasians so it was already a process under way.

Wow, what a mishmash of conspiracy scholarship. There is nothing to show that Constantine did any of this; Nicea had zero to do with Mithra or Sol Invictus; the bishops were not forced to do anything and were already overwhelmingly anti-Arian (the vote was 298-2 against Arius!); and Athanasians wrote the Gospels....???!???

I think we can close on that one without comment!

7/05: Amergin is back, and after denying that this article was about him (!) he offered up another rambling-robot reply. Let's see what we can make of this:

Again, when one makes an outrageous claim, it is the onus on the claimant to prove his claim. I have no obligation to prove that I don't believe any of it. I read the parts of the Bible that your Propagandist either cannot see, cannot comprehend, or cannot rationally process. It doesn't matter if he wants to believe Jesus walked around as a zombie in Jerusalem, that is fine. But I reserve the right to not believe it and to question the integrity of his brain circuits.

By all means, then, let us believe Amergin's not in the least outrageous conceptions taken from the pages of The Da Vinci Code! What he really means is, "when one makes a claim *I* find outrageous"....though indeed, the old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" canard requires a fix: replace "evidence" with "explanations" and you have it right.

Is it paranoid when in America, Atheists are called immoral for politically incorrect belief? My Atheist cousins in America are 5-10% of the public, 10% of Vietnam veterans, but barred from membership in the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and their sons barred from Boy Scouts of America. Is it paranoid when in America they put the Christian 10 Commandments in court rooms at which non-Christians must expect equal treatment under the law. Is it paranoid when we are constantly accused of immorality, when Atheists are 0.2% of Criminals in US Prisons? Remember Atheists are as high as 10% (factoring in that many are closet Atheists in America.)

Yes, it is paranoid when in America, atheists make some issue of being called "immoral" (as if they do not dish out the verbiage in return such as, "ignorant," "superstitious," religious nut," etc) -- if they can't take the heat, they should leave the hellfire. Yes, it is pananoid when you complain that an organization that has belief in God as one of its membership requirements ought to bend for you. I didn't ask Madalyn O'Hair to change American Atheists to admit me, and Amergin shouldn't whine if VFW and BSA exclude him; or else, why not ask VFW to also accept non-vets as members, or BSA to include girls and old men? Yes, it is paranoid when a whinge is made of the 10 C's in courtrooms -- they are part of our legal history, whether you believe in God or not, and if Amergin has anything but paranoia to prove that they have resulted in unfair treatment to him, that is what "appeals courts" are for. Yes, it is paranoid, because 10% is a created, inflated figure; and why not then say that there are closet atheists in prisons that would increase that percentage?

Does he seriously believe the Holy Grail Myth? It isn't in the Black Book. It was invented by Chretien de Troyes in a STORY. It is an absurd myth. I never defend it. I discussed it as a myth of interest. I don't even believe the unsubstantiated claim that the Virgin ever existed. Jesus has never been documented independently. His mythical death on the cross is no mentioned by contemporary writers. The Gospel stories are flawed.

"Discussed it as a myth of interest" indeed -- Amergin held this up as a valid thesis; and we'll see if he even bothers to answer specifically what I offer re the Christ myth. Not here does he do so:

I can't say that Jesus never existed. I can say that you have no credible proof. Non-Christian Historians give little credibility to the Jesus Myth. It is not claiming that I am smart. It is as Sen. Mondale said, "Where is the beef?"

But maybe he will later, after the point where I gave the link.

I am not a historian. But why is it that academic historians do not mention it? I am not saying that the Da Vinci Code has no history. I never bothered to read it but for about three pages. I just ask [Holding] to indicate what history is in the story. There may be some bits of history included. The book of Daniel has some fairly decent history in the generally unreliable O.T. But does that prove the existence of a virgin born, god-man, announced by a supernatural messenger, impregnated by the Holy Ghost, lain in a manger, attended by shepherds, and visited by three Magi with gifts. That is the basic plot of a dozen other virgin born god-men. The God-man executions, dead for three days, and resurrecting is little different from the many other resurrecting god-men over three days stories.

Asked and answered already for Amergin -- DVC, here. Daniel, here. Alleged god-men, here (and sorry, all the parallels are false or worthless).

Then the Mithra bit returns, with a "so..."?

Remains of Mithraic temples can be found throughout the Roman Empire, from Palestine across north of Africa, and across central Europe to northern England.

That's nice, but so what?

I have never discredited Jesus and his teachings by his early followers. I dispute his apotheosis into a god, Christ, by Graeco-Roman Pagans. Actually most of the hard evidence against Pagan Christianity is in the Gospels themselves. You can tell as Joseph asserts that the Gospels were not written by real Jews. They were written by Gentile Pagans and Paganised (Hellenised) Jews. That is evident in their incorporation of clearly Pagan virgin birth myths, a child god-human, who is the son of God and often a Sun God (rhyming name is coincidental only in English), the Man-God is slain to atone for human sins, and he is resurrected by the High God (Ahura Mazda and JHWH) to bring salvation. Not surprisingly the god-man's resurrection is some version of Three days after his death.

Out of this rambling comes little that can be made sense of (who is "Joseph" here?) and we already have given the link for why there are no pagan parallels, and there is no "three days" either. Maybe Amergin will get to this? No --

That story plot is not Judaic. It is found in older variant forms in Zoroastrian sect of Mithra, the Egyptian Horus/Aten/Osiris, Greek Prometheus/Dionysius/Apollo/Apollonius, Irish Lugh, Briton Lleu, and Gaulish Lugas. The Cross goes back 6000 BC, and centuries before the Christian era, the Celtic holy logo was a Circle with a cross in it. This was incorporated unchanged as the cross in Celtic Christianity.

The item offers rebuttals on Mithra, Horus/Osiris, the Greek fellows -- the UK set is a new one that not even Quackarya S offers. As for the "cross," links provided by Amergin provide no such confirmation but make "crosses" out of everything from boats to wheels. I guess when someone calls "X" on Wheel of Fortune they are engaging in mysticism.

But anybody who seriously reviews Jewish beliefs, and then critically reads the Gospels can see that Christianity is founded on Pagan myths. You read the Bible with blinders that filter out the obvious Paganism. Then you pretend to yourself that Christianity came from Judaism because it is your Church dogma, and you were told to believe that or go to Hell. I know. I remember that kind of pressure. But I wanted the truth. So I took off all blinders and mental blocks when I read the Bible. You should try that because your beliefs are irrational. Even using your own scriptures, you can see the disconnect from Judaism. If you would do your own search of European and Egyptian Pagan myths you will find the embryonic gospel stories, and the older models for the invention of the Christ.

In all of this we have yet to see a specific reply, much less an argument showing that Judaism is the wrong source and that Amergin really can "see". I did my search, and all the tales are either too late or else no parallel. So where's the beef, Clara?

Fundy or Fundies is a common expression in the British Isles and much of America for a person who claims to take the Bible as literally true. To me it means abandoning rational thinking. This likely because the Fundy has had his logic circuits damaged by a mind virus, or harmful meme complex, that of the literal story of Christian Mythology. It is terribly irrational. That codes for irrational thinking. Bypassing reason over and over for a patently psychotic story, eventually makes it incapable of distinguishing its delusional world from the real one.

We appreciate the definition, but it speaks for itself that Amergin has endorsed the "meme" theory which is the equal to the fundy "the devil stole my car keys" excuse. One wonders why Amergin is not infected with a "skeptic meme" that compels him to make historically absurd arguments. In the meantime, no direct replies yet --

I know that genuine Jews interpreted that hateful and arrogant remark as "anti-Semitism." It may simply be superstition based ignorance by religious extremists who think they have a personal relationship with the head honcho of the universe. BTW the Southern Baptist Convention was founded at or before the American Civil War to justify slavery, Black racial inferiority, and later justifying Segregation. The rest of that paragraph is ancient mythology for which the actual meaning is vague and may have been metaphorical. That last quote is a great example of the rantings of a sick mind.

"Interpreted as" means exactly nothing -- it shows that those offended apparently do not even know their own OT Scriptures which, written by genuine Jews, to genuine Jews, tells genuine Jews that if they are disobedient, their prayers will not be heard. The texts that they accept as legit themselves say that a "personal relationship" (actually, a patronage form of relationship) is necessary -- and the answer to this is to prove the claim wrong, not merely wave it off as "ignorance" by appealing to ignorance.

In terms of the SBC, what that has to do with the issue at hand (beyond an effort to poison the well) is hard to say, and I really don't care if it is correct or not (why not blame atheism for Stalin and Mao, then?) but it will certainly require more than vague soundbiting (IOW, documentation, something Amergin seems to have problems with) to verify.

The Four Gospels are decontextualised by you warped thinking. They do NOT proclaim the apotheosis of Jesus. They were thematically Arian. Jesus' words are that he was SENT by God. He says that he doesn't know, only God knows. He says that he is not good, only God is good. After the resurrection, he tells Mary Magdalene to go to the brethren and tell them (quote from memory, I don't have a Bible here) "I ascend to My GOD and MY FATHER, and to YOUR GOD and YOUR FATHER. Why does Paul have Jesus sitting at the right hand of God, not to the right of himself? Numerous other passages attest to Jesus believing that he was subservient to God, does the will of his God or Father, and only God knows the time and the hour…. That is Arianism. It clearly began with the late 1st Century Greek Gospel writers and Paul whose views formed the basis of Bishop Arius' Christianity. Athanasius was not born until later when Pagan influences pushed one particular Jesus cult further away from Jesus, Paul, and the Gospel writer.

This set of goofy comments either does not know what Arianism is, or else whaty Trinitarianism is, or both. The latter has no problem saying that Jesus was "sent" by God or that the Father was Jesus' theos (as in many passages he goes on to cite); Amergin has obviously never heard of the difference between ontological and functional subordination -- Trinitarianism agrees that the latter is true and that in this sense Jesus is indeed subservient to the Father. Mark 10:18 he does not interpret properly within the agonistic tenor of the social world of the NT; it is not a denial of divinity. His appeal to Mark 13:32 only shows that Amergin has also never been aware of the principles of kenotic emptying. Amergin's coloring-book understanding of the issues here goes far in explaining why he sees a problem at all. Not surprisigly, Amergin simply ignored the link with detailed commentary on this subject. His version of Trinitarianism is not the historical one; it is red and smells moreover of fish. Thus for example:

Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place. (Luke 22:42) To whom was he praying? To a part of himself? No, he was praying to someone entirely separate, his Father, God, whose will was superior and could be different from his own, the only One able to remove this cup.

It seems clear that Amergin has no real knowledge of what Trinitarianism teaches -- the Jesus WAS talking to a separate person indeed, with superior will. It seems that Amergin needs to go back to school on this matter; as it is, all of his comments here either suport Trinitarianism or else show remarkable ignorance of it. But he seems inclined to ignore links, as this is all he had to say to Glenn Miller's series on women:

McDonaldLand? What in bloody hell is that a vague metaphor for? It shows how your bran works and supports my hypothesis of extremist religion being a harmful meme complex acting as a mind virus.

It is a metaphor for the cheap, fast-food level of Amergin's "scholarship" and his refusal to confront refuting materials. Well, at least we're invited to "read the following regarding kindness to women" but had Amergin read Miller's material, he would see that each of these is already covered -- but we suspect his brain can avoid this forever and his mind blinders will stay on:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16 By this third chapter of Genesis, woman lost her rights, her standing--even her identity, and motherhood became a God-inflicted curse degrading her status in the world.

False! What this rather illustrates is a perpetual power struggle in which man and woman try to undermine the rights of each other -- no loss of standing or identity here, despite Amergin's decontextualized reading.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14

So sorry! This passage must be read in the context of what Paul was addressing -- first: silence was required in the ancient world of ALL students, whether male or female. Second: a heretical view that tried to argue that women were superior to men in achieving gnosis.

One bible verse alone, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, if not millions, of women. Do women and those who care about them need further evidence of the great harm of Christianity, predicated as it has been on these and similar teachings about women?

"Tens of thousands" is closer to the truth by far; but as we noted, not all were women. In any event, this verse would best be said to be "anti-witch" (and that is another issue) but it is not "anti-woman"! By this logic verses against rape are "anti-man"! But now, apparently not finding enough support in the Bible, Amergin changes gears to later sound bites:

Church writer Tertullian said "each of you women is an Eve . . . You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law."

Unlike many such quotes, this one seems to be genuine; but it must be read in view of the totality of what Tertullian says about women AND men (whom he hardly holds blameless either!). Some examples from a scholar's analysis here: But to stop here would be to condemn oneself to a superficial view of the attitude of Tertullian. When he says "my blessed ones", "very dear sisters", "partners in service " (Cult., Ux.), he is not less sincere than when he extends himself in invectives and talks of the "arch-venomous viper" (Bapt., I, 2) or the "infamous prostitute" (Praescr., XXX, 6)....Even if the woman is sometimes as futile and depraved as he describes, he knows and believes that she is no less created by God than he, equipped with a heart like his and promised like him with eternal happiness. For if there is one thing which cannot be denied in Tertullian, it is the concern with the truth and the knowledge of the Scriptures. It is sometimes tempting to extort from the text things that they do not say. But as soon as the true doctrine is concerned and that it should be defended against the heretics, he leaves his personal preferences there and points out the dogma...However the dogma here, it is that the woman is the equal of the man in the eyes of God; and Tertullian gets busy to prove it, for example in De anima, XXXVI. He stresses there that the soul does not have a pre-established sex. There are not female hearts which would be lower than male hearts. Heart and flesh "are sown" at the same time in the uterus at the time of the conception. Moreover, the flesh of Adam was animated by a soul, so the soul of Adam was used as well as his body in making the woman. In short, Amergin hardly represents Tertullian fairly or accurately with this sound bite.

Martin Luther decreed: "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."

As for this one, no such luck! I can find no source online that says where Luther said any such thing. As a result both of these have been added to JP's "bogus quotes" page, the latter as "under investigation." Amergin had best check that page before he uses any more sound bites he digs up.

[The witch burnings) was a horrible atrocity inflicted upon women. I could be wrong about the numbers but not wrong about the moral depravity of those Taliban Christians.

Sorry, but as noted, "witch hunts" were no more "anti-woman" than laws against rape are "anti-man". As for moral depravity, that depends -- if you think witchcraft is a real threat, is it morally depraved to punish those who do it? No; Amergin is better off saying rather that they were misinformed, not depraved. They could only be "depraved" if they knew the accused were innocent, and killed them anyway.

I know Revelations is a load of bollocks, rather comparable to the better written horror fantasies of H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu, Hastur, Nyarlohotep, Yog Sothoth, and Shub Niggurath. But Lovecraft's stories while immeasurably better written, cannot convey the utter cosmic level hate that John of Patmos did.

Amergin just ignores that he was corrected on what Revelation contained (OT allusions verses Mithraism) and once again changes gears out of embarrassment. Sorry, but works like The Apocalyspse of Baruch and 1 Enoch are rather better comparisons. As for "hate," one will next be told that laws are "hateful" towards criminals, and it will be just as effective a sound bite as this one.

I have not seen Pilate's records. You are the one making the outrageous claim. It is your obligation to provide evidence that a Yeshua was executed by the Romans for Treason. Romans executed people for civil crimes, and political treason. If Jesus claimed to be a Palestinian King, then execution would make sense. Romans were religiously rather tolerant for that age. They did not execute religious prophets or even would be gods. If you know otherwise, show me the records. Show me the Jewish records of the entire Crucifixion story.

If he has not seen Pilate's records, then why is Amergin claiming before that there was no notice in Pilate's records of Jesus?!? There is, in fact, nothing "outrageous" about the mere claim that Yeshua was executed for treason by crucifixion -- the Romans crucified thousands of traitors. Nor is there anything "outraegous" about the claim to be a king; I can say such a thing right now. Amergin is simply in error to say that the Romans were "religiously rather tolerant" -- that is false, where religions that were themselves intolerant were concered (hint: Judaism, Christianity!) and that denied the Romans gods. But in the end, we are under no obligation to meet this "bet you can't jump over that building" playground challenge. Amergin is making absurd demands that would never be made for any other historical figure. No one demands "Athenian court records" in order to believe that Socrates was ordered to die.

Biblical Scholars, men better informed than I and vastly better informed than you have shown the insertions into Josephus to be fraudulent. Here are comments from Biblical Scholars of which you and I are not.

Amergin provides a listing of objections and comments we have already answered in the linked item above, which he merely ignored, and so we will ignore his list and advise him to get up to date. (But he is so insensate that he even quotes authorities that favor partial authenticity of the passage, and apparently not even noticing this, nevertheless reaches the conclusion that his offering proves a fraud!)

What is so funny? Mithraism clearly is centuries earlier than the Christian Myth. Since it has the same elements: virgin birthing a god man, in a stable or cave, lay in a manger, attended by Shepherds, and visited by Magi (Zoroastrian Priests) bearing gifts, a magical star guiding them. 12 apostles representing the Zodiac. Saving Grace, Redemption, Eucharistic Meal, Baptism, execution of God-man, resurrection of God man to redeem humanity. Now if you had any logical capacity. Two similar stories usually mean the last one is plagiarised from the original one.

What is funny, sorry, is that Mithraism clearly had NONE of these elements, whether the Roman version or the Iranian version, as we showed at the link but which Amergin apparently could not understand. Some "answers" he provides!

I do not give any of them credibility as proving anything. But their contradictions of each other are interesting. And it is very interesting that the last syncretism, Athanasius' clearly shows an ignorance of the Arianist Gospel Writers. Arianism existed long before Bishop Arius, who just officially preached what many if not most Christians already believed.

Not much in the way of specifics here, and we have already answered the point that there is no Arianism in the Gospels.

Paul was born in Tarsus. He may have been raised in Jerusalem, but he was clearly a Hellenised Jew. And his 14 year exile after being chased out of Palestine was in Tarsus.

Yes, that is ALL Amergin has to say about Miller's thrumming of his idea of Paul influenced by Mithraism! Sorry, but sound bite in return: a) Paul was Hellenised in some ways, but NOT religiously; b) he was not "exiled", much less for being Hellenized!

Jefferson was possibly one of the greatest Americans ever. But I don't rely on him to discredit the Resurrection. I rely on science. The claim is about a physical event so is open to scientific investigation.

Amergin then launches into a long, pointless diatribe about how Jesus would have died and how his body would have decayed. No one contests a word of this. In fact, it is as good an apologetic for Jesus' death as one we would produce. So why this long diatribe? Amergin whines about the Gospel writers not reporting anything that he thinks is needed (like "Loss of pupillary reflexes", no EEG reading, etc.). Well, sorry, but none of that is needed and it does not need to be mentioned simply because Amergin needs a creative excuse for his bigotry -- once again, see here for a rebuttal to the idea that Jesus could have gotten away alive from the cross (much less escaped the tomb and faked being raised from the dead!). And his other objection, just in case, is that after all this (again), there is no way that he could be raised from the dead -- as if the God who created the universe would have any problem with Jesus, with "his entire brain having] to be remade from scratch with intact neurons, axons, myelin sheathes, synapses, ample concentrations of neurotransmitters at pre-synaptic nerve endings, and normal transmitter receptors on healthy dendrites of neurons," etc. I suppose Amergin's version of God can't even walk and chew gum at the same time. Amergin can't even figure out how God could create a fetus ex nihilo in the womb of Mary, and thinks asking Absurd Questions ("How did God introduce the nucleotide code for Y chromosome, since being non-human, he did not have human chromosomes?") actually constitutes some sort of problem for the theist!

Only Apollonius of Tirana came 60 some years after Jesus. All of the rest were earlier than Jesus. I may not be able to recall each one, but they all came before the Christ Myth. But here are a few: Mithra, Osiris, Aten Sun God, Horus, Lugh of the Golden Fire, Attis, Dionysus, and Tamus-Dumuzi that I recall. I found these at: http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0680Saviours.html

Ha ha! The idiotic "askwhy" site as a source makes for a good laugh. Sorry, but JP's series linked above sends them flying as well. But don't expect Amergin to bother answering any of it.

Fundy Atheist is an oxymoron. One without a dogma cannot be Fundamentalistic or literal about what he doesn't believe in. That is logically contradictory.

No "fundy atheist" is a real category -- an atheist who maintains a "fundamentalist" exegesis of the Bible. Amergin fits the model to a T, as with replies like this to Deut. 22:28-9:

The women of that day did not have a choice or decision. So you don't know.

Yes, as a matter of fact, we DO know, because we DO understand the workings of honor and shame societies -- Amergin does not, and has no answer to those who do (or to those who do indeed solve the issue of the Trinity -- as if Amergin has actually READ "Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham, and a host of others here" he continues to not answer.)

That is so. Inherited Original Sin is the concept of primitive savages who carried excessive and obsessive retribution to psychotic extremes. When those shamans invented your God, they made God just like themselves, evil, crazy, vindictive, and subject to violent rage attacks.

Nothing like name-calling and bigotry as an answer, eh? Too bad Amergin missed that I provided a different one than the one he is criticizing.

What is the source of Mr. Holding's claim that O.T. wine was too weak to kill a fly?

My sources are critical scholars familiar with the ancient world and/or the ancient processes of making wine, as described here.

Come on J. P. that is a rather inane analogy. I could equally say that people who believe Christianity die of Alzheimer's, Coronary Artery Disease, Cancer, and Stroke. So J.P. you need to denounce Christian Mythology immediately. Oxygen actually fuels the brain circuits of sceptics in aerobic metabolism extending mental energy beyond purely anaerobic metabolism. Maybe J. P. should consider adaptation to Aerobic metabolism and energy production by considering breathing Oxygen. Aw, give it a chance, take of your mask and mental blinders, and breathe.:)

I am glad Amergin admits that his screed against wine was "inane". Yes, if we follow his logic indeed the same could be said about those who believe Christianity -- only oxygen toxicity is at least a medical fact.

Oh, the end justifies the means. Osama also believes that.

And if Osama were indeed righteous and not evil, he would be justified in what he says and does. Thus the circle closes again, right on Amergin's foot.

You said not one word of my post is correct. That is because you have been brainwashed by the Christian Meme Complex that in bypassing your rational circuits makes you incapable of critical analysis and sceptical examination. Here is the source: http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/deities/mithra.htm

Ah yes. A "source" that uses such non-expert sources as J. M. Robertson's Pagan Christs as opposed to sources that are truly Mithraic scholars. We are impressed, and JP's article already answers the claims of this one, so we will wait for Amergin to get his nose out of the Da Vinci Code and do some homework. By the way, real Mithraic scholars do not see Mithraism as a "branch cult of Zoroastrianism."

Nicaea had nothing to do with Mithraism or Sol Invictus. I did not claim that. Nicaea was the Constantine called council with an attempt to unify Christianity and outlaw its "Christian" Rivals. The empire focused on extermination of its Christian rivals over the next 50 years. The Empire only turned on the Pagans during the reigns of Theodosius I and II. Because the educated upper class and patricians still had some power, the persecutions were begun piecemeal in the more Christian populated East. They left the Patrician Pagans of Rome unmolested for another century but eventually eliminated them.

Of course Amergin "claimed that" when he said: So He correctly assumed that he could fuse Triniatarians, Mithraists, and Sol Invictusites into one syncreted religion. That would bring a needed unity to the fractious empire. He accomplished that at Nicaea in 324 CE. As for the rest, it is merely vague paranoia disguised as history. Yes, Nicea was an attempt to affirm the right doctrine, but Amergin offers no specifics to back up the rest. On a good note, Amergin admits his error in claiming that "Athanasians wrote the Gospels" even as he also promulgates the silly idea that Paul was Arian (refuted by the link above about the Trinity).

And that, aside from some pompous puffery, is all we have from the Master of Evasion. Maybe we'll hear him actually answer one of the linked items in the year 2030.