Hi, I'm interested in this movie but I have some questions

[chief]

1. Assuming that there is absolutely no evidence of Jesus at all, how does that disprove his existence? Just how many people around that time do we have concrete evidence of? If there's no evidence of your existence and you lived two millennia ago, does that mean you never existed?

2. Why were early Christians not challenged in their view that Jesus existed?

3. What would be the motivation of early Christians to believe in Jesus so much as to literally give their lives for him?

4. How could such a massive conspiracy happen with nobody letting the cat out of the bag and letting people know that the whole Jesus thing was an act?

5. And, finally....and I hope this isn't inappropriate, but why is this movie trying to be as provocative as possible? The beast? 06/06/06? What do the people in charge of this movie get out of pissing off as many Christians as possible? Are they trying to be controversial just so they can get more ticket sales and a buzz factor like The Passion of the Christ?

Thanks in advance.

[zarathustra]

1. Assuming that there is absolutely no evidence of Jesus at all, how does that disprove his existence? Just how many people around that time do we have concrete evidence of? If there's no evidence of your existence and you lived two millennia ago, does that mean you never existed?

Loads of Yeshuas existed or are nonexistent. What do you wish to believe?

2. Why were early Christians not challenged in their view that Jesus existed?
Certain sects were challenged. Which do you question?

3. What would be the motivation of early Christians to believe in Jesus so much as to literally give their lives for him?
You offer conjecture. Many, almost countless, people have given their lives for their beliefs. Of those, which do you venerate and which do you dinegrate?

4. How could such a massive conspiracy happen with nobody letting the cat out of the bag and letting people know that the whole Jesus thing was an act?
Of which sect of the Christian religion?

5. And, finally....and I hope this isn't inappropriate, but why is this movie trying to be as provocative as possible? The beast? 06/06/06? What do the people in charge of this movie get out of pissing off as many Christians as possible? Are they trying to be controversial just so they can get more ticket sales and a buzz factor like The Passion of the Christ?
Are you saying that that which is popular must be true? Like it or not the interpretations of ancient texts are up for grabs...

Thanks in advance.

You're welcome in advance.

[GeorgeK]

1. Assuming that there is absolutely no evidence of Jesus at all, how does that disprove his existence? Just how many people around that time do we have concrete evidence of? If there's no evidence of your existence and you lived two millennia ago, does that mean you never existed?You are correct in that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But here's the strange thing, there are extra-Biblical written records of many Jesuses. (In fact, Andrew just pointed out that two of them where crucified at Calgary that day. Yet there are no secular records of miracles being done. If you lived 2000 years ago and were important enough to write about, then wouldn't the miracles be the hottest topic?
2. Why were early Christians not challenged in their view that Jesus existed?Weren't they challenged in thier view that he was who he claimed to be? Again, I have no argument that Jesus was a common name at the time, or maybe it should be translated as Joshua, but I don't believe any Jesus was supernatural.
3. What would be the motivation of early Christians to believe in Jesus so much as to literally give their lives for him?
The same motivation that caused the Heaven's Gate guys to kill themselves... blind faith.
4. How could such a massive conspiracy happen with nobody letting the cat out of the bag and letting people know that the whole Jesus thing was an act?
It has become a lot easier with the internet. My theory is: Early on, it was oral tradition. Then as the Church grew in power and sorted out it's dogmas the common people never even got a chance to read it. Then there was stuff like the Inquisition that killed anyone who disagreed. Finally, the memetic virus has grown strong enough that you can read contradictions in your own Bible and not even see them.
5. And, finally....and I hope this isn't inappropriate, but why is this movie trying to be as provocative as possible? The beast? 06/06/06? What do the people in charge of this movie get out of pissing off as many Christians as possible? Are they trying to be controversial just so they can get more ticket sales and a buzz factor like The Passion of the Christ?
Yup. They need the buzz to make the money. Still, these forums are our own now. Aside from the Movie Discussion board, you will never hear the movie mentioned in the debates here. Welcome, and glad to see ya. Jump on in.

[chief]

Loads of Yeshuas existed or are nonexistent. What do you wish to believe?

I'm not quite sure I understand your point. :/

Certain sects were challenged. Which do you question?

I'm referring to the fact that most skeptics, while questioning the authenticity of Jesus's claim of being the Son of God, they did not question his existence. Wouldn't that have been much more effective back then?

You offer conjecture. Many, almost countless, people have given their lives for their beliefs. Of those, which do you venerate and which do you dinegrate?

Yes, but they all legitimately believed in their cause. What was the cause that people like Stephen believed in that caused them to literally give their lives for Jesus? Why would you give your life for some myth you created? Power? Money? Why would those things matter in death?


Of which sect of the Christian religion?

Of only the early Christians


Are you saying that that which is popular must be true? Like it or not the interpretations of ancient texts are up for grabs...

I'm not quite sure that answers my question. However, I'll find the appropriate forum for this question.

[chief]

You are correct in that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But here's the strange thing, there are extra-Biblical written records of many Jesuses. (In fact, Andrew just pointed out that two of them where crucified at Calgary that day. Yet there are no secular records of miracles being done. If you lived 2000 years ago and were important enough to write about, then wouldn't the miracles be the hottest topic?

Good point. However, just how many famous people do we know of that existed back then? I honestly do not know. And how do we know that other records of him were not destroyed in the 2000 years since?

Again, I have no argument that Jesus was a common name at the time, or maybe it should be translated as Joshua, but I don't believe any Jesus was supernatural.

I think you're missing my point. Why weren't people like that dismissing Christians outright because no Jesus that performed miracles ever existed? Why has it taken this long for controversy to arise?

The same motivation that caused the Heaven's Gate guys to kill themselves... blind faith.

Fair enough. However......what were they putting their faith in? A man that they knew they themselves had made up?

It has become a lot easier with the internet. My theory is: Early on, it was oral tradition. Then as the Church grew in power and sorted out it's dogmas the common people never even got a chance to read it. Then there was stuff like the Inquisition that killed anyone who disagreed. Finally, the memetic virus has grown strong enough that you can read contradictions in your own Bible and not even see them.

How did the oral tradition start? How did Christianity spread so quickly if there was no Jesus to latch onto?

[zarathustra]

Loads of Yeshuas existed or are nonexistent. What do you wish to believe?

I'm not quite sure I understand your point. :/

Certain sects were challenged. Which do you question?

I'm referring to the fact that most skeptics, while questioning the authenticity of Jesus's claim of being the Son of God, they did not question his existence. Wouldn't that have been much more effective back then?

You offer conjecture. Many, almost countless, people have given their lives for their beliefs. Of those, which do you venerate and which do you dinegrate?

Yes, but they all legitimately believed in their cause. What was the cause that people like Stephen believed in that caused them to literally give their lives for Jesus? Why would you give your life for some myth you created? Power? Money? Why would those things matter in death?


Of which sect of the Christian religion?

Of only the early Christians


Are you saying that that which is popular must be true? Like it or not the interpretations of ancient texts are up for grabs...

I'm not quite sure that answers my question. However, I'll find the appropriate forum for this question.

Who is Stephen? And what forum do you seek to confirm your assumptions?


PS I know the legends of Stephen as well as I know the legends of zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem upon the death of Jesus.

Which is more believable to you? Unrecorded zombies or Stephen getting stoned while Saul holds the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen to death?

[chief]

Who is Stephen? And what forum do you seek to confirm your assumptions?


PS I know the legends of Stephen as well as I know the legends of zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem upon the death of Jesus.

Which is more believable to you? Unrecorded zombies or Stephen getting stoned while Saul holds the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen to death?

Regardless of whether you believe in the way Stephen was martyred, you must admit that there were many people willing to die for their belief in Jesus.

The forum I was mentioning was someplace other than this specific board. The general discussion about the movie board I guess?

[zarathustra]

Who is Stephen? And what forum do you seek to confirm your assumptions?


PS I know the legends of Stephen as well as I know the legends of zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem upon the death of Jesus.

Which is more believable to you? Unrecorded zombies or Stephen getting stoned while Saul holds the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen to death?

Regardless of whether you believe in the way Stephen was martyred, you must admit that there were many people willing to die for their belief in Jesus.

The forum I was mentioning was someplace other than this specific board. The general discussion about the movie board I guess?

Stephen is even more enigmatic than Jesus...a name that is a mystery. There were many Stephens....I'd venture to say more Jewish Stephens than Xian Stephens. Maybe even 6 million more that would surrender to the sword before they surrendered their beliefs..

Would you rather believe that Stephen was martyred or that Achilles was the son of the goddess Thetis??


BOAGRIUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chief]

Stephen is even more enigmatic than Jesus...a name that is a mystery. There were many Stephens....I'd venture to say more Jewish Stephens than Xian Stephens. Maybe even 6 million more that would surrender to the sword before they surrendered their beliefs..

Would you rather believe that Stephen was martyred or that Achilles was the son of the goddess Thetis??


BOAGRIUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, Stephen isn't really my point. I'll even assume for the sake of argument that Stephen never existed. Are you denying however that other people were willing to die for their cause? What would be their purpose if they knew that it was a lie?

[zarathustra]

chief said:

Okay, Stephen isn't really my point. I'll even assume for the sake of argument that Stephen never existed. Are you denying however that other people were willing to die for their cause? What would be their purpose if they knew that it was a lie?

So you are eager to support David Koresh?

Willingness to die for a cause does not imply nobility.

How do you define nobility?

If I die for the cause of the moon being made of green cheese does that substantiate my belief?

[chief]

So you are eager to support David Koresh?

Willingness to die for a cause does not imply nobility.

How do you define nobility?

If I die for the cause of the moon being made of green cheese does that substantiate my belief?

At least with David Koresh, it was obvious that he was real. Why die for something you know to be fake?

[zarathustra]

So you are eager to support David Koresh?

Willingness to die for a cause does not imply nobility.

How do you define nobility?

If I die for the cause of the moon being made of green cheese does that substantiate my belief?

At least with David Koresh, it was obvious that he was real. Why die for something you know to be fake?

Real to him...he thought himself to be a Christ.


I am the Supreme Mailman...

I want you to die for me....


Ok, not really.

The former was an allegory because Chief has shown his or herself willing to end their life for an unknown cause...

See my point?

Sacrificing one's life upon the authority of another is suicide.

[zarathustra]

ok...I have reason to believe that chief might be mentally challenged....anyone who knows chief might wish to call 911 now.

[zarathustra]

seriously

[chief]

WTF?

[GeorgeK]

Play nice, Zara. Chief just got here. I believe Chief is asking the question from the premise that the early church founders had purposely invented Jesus and where aware of thier artifice.

[zarathustra]

I dunno. I wasn't intending to be sarcastic. I was a participant on a forum where one poster took a suggestion and went suidical for a while. I shouldn't post such ideas as I did.

My apologies. No harm intended.

[chief]

I believe Chief is asking the question from the premise that the early church founders had purposely invented Jesus and where aware of thier artifice.

Would that not be a correct premise?

[martini7B7]

2. Why were early Christians not challenged in their view that Jesus existed?
i strongly suggest you click here to read this (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/celsus.html). it was a second-century pagan named Celsus that "refuted" many of the Xian claims and had quite a negative opinion of Xians in general. the reason why no one cared about Xianity is because, despite pious lies per contra, Xianity was just another Jewish sect of the first century, like the Essenes. no one cared! do you think that people began refuting Scientology when it first came out?

further, ancient Romans were tolerant of many different religions. why would anyone bother to refute Xianity or Judaism or whatever unless they were causing problems?
3. What would be the motivation of early Christians to believe in Jesus so much as to literally give their lives for him?
a) martyrdom does not validate a religion. many martyrs have been seen in every religion.

b) we have religious texts used for proselytizing. what would stop one from sweetening the story with a martyr?

c) the Catholic Church has removed many of their martyr stories. the evidence of "creative" martyrdom was too shameful for even them.

1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas)).

"Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really. This legend was dreamed up by the mid-2nd century pope Anicetus (156-166) when he became locked in a conflict with the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument (over the dating of Easter) by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus staked a claim to Peter, and Peter, "Prince of the Apostles", trumps John.

2nd century texts known as the "Clementines" had made Peter the "first Bishop of Rome" and 3rd century invention gave him a 25-year pontificate – which made it a tad tricky for him to have died at the hands of Nero but, hey, this is "tradition."

3rd century Church Father Origen dreamed up a colourful flourish: Peter, feeling himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, chose option 'B' – crucifixion upside down!
click here (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostles.html) for more stories and sources about why the apostles were likely literary inventions.
4. How could such a massive conspiracy happen with nobody letting the cat out of the bag and letting people know that the whole Jesus thing was an act?
who "conspired" to create and worship Hercules? who "conspired" to create Dionysos? who "conspired" to create Osiris? what about Buddha? these are traditions that people crafted from oral histories and contempary legends. no one was "conspiring" to create this religion. they were following in the footsteps of all shamans and wisemen by amalgamating legends with mythical characters. we try to shoehorn our concept of a charlatan like Ernest Angsley or David Koresh into the ancient world. superstitions were commonplace and religion was a necessity for everything from crops to business dealings to childbirth.

the conspiracy comes later when dogmas were disagreed upon. by the second century, Xianity was big enough and spread out enough that power struggles were occurring. then, we see the need for conspiracy to defraud.

i hope i was clear. this post was getting long...

[GakuseiDon]

2. Why were early Christians not challenged in their view that Jesus existed?
i strongly suggest you click here to read this (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/celsus.html). it was a second-century pagan named Celsus that "refuted" many of the Xian claims and had quite a negative opinion of Xians in general. the reason why no one cared about Xianity is because, despite pious lies per contra, Xianity was just another Jewish sect of the first century, like the Essenes. no one cared! do you think that people began refuting Scientology when it first came out?
Martini, Celsus never challenged the existence of Jesus. He claimed that Jesus was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier called "Pandera".

I am not aware of ANY source (Christian, Gnostic or non-Christian) that questioned the existence of at least a historical Jesus, until the last 200 years.

[JoyceRejector]

Martini, Celsus never challenged the existence of Jesus. He claimed that Jesus was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier called "Pandera".

Well, if that is what Celsus claimed, then he did challenge the historical existence of the Jesus recorded in the Bible.

[Andrew Merritt]

Actually didnt I read somewere that the early christians and Pagans argue they were worshipping the same god but under a differant name,now dont ask me to look up the source,Im just doing it,by memory.But Im sure I read it somewere that the early church fathers were trying to convince pagan pilodophers they were not the same god,but the pagans said they were.Ring any bells anyone?

[GeorgeK]

I am not aware of ANY source (Christian, Gnostic or non-Christian) that questioned the existence of at least a historical Jesus, until the last 200 years.Then pick a historical Jesus, any Jesus, and tell us why you think he's the one the Bible is talking about.

[martini7B7]

Martini, Celsus never challenged the existence of Jesus. He claimed that Jesus was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier called "Pandera".

I am not aware of ANY source (Christian, Gnostic or non-Christian) that questioned the existence of at least a historical Jesus, until the last 200 years.
forgive me. i was not clear. to clarify, Celsus wrote against the Biblical Jesus. i wouldn't give a rat's tail if some rabbi named Yeshuadid exist in the first century, and i was assuming (possibly in error) that this is always what we are talking about.

apologies for the ambiguity.

[martini7B7]

Actually didnt I read somewere that the early christians and Pagans argue they were worshipping the same god but under a differant name,now dont ask me to look up the source,Im just doing it,by memory.But Im sure I read it somewere that the early church fathers were trying to convince pagan pilodophers they were not the same god,but the pagans said they were.Ring any bells anyone?
i believe it was Justin Martyr? he says something like that in the First Apology

Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior--or rather have already proved Him to be so--for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.

[GakuseiDon]

Actually didnt I read somewere that the early christians and Pagans argue they were worshipping the same god but under a differant name,now dont ask me to look up the source,Im just doing it,by memory.But Im sure I read it somewere that the early church fathers were trying to convince pagan pilodophers they were not the same god,but the pagans said they were.Ring any bells anyone?
i believe it was Justin Martyr? he says something like that in the First Apology
Actually, Justin had it the other way around from how Andrew put it. The pagans were dismissive of Christianity because they thought the Jesus story was new and innovative (which wasn't a good thing in pagan eyes, as they valued traditional ways). Justin was trying to convince them that, yes indeed, Christianity had commonalities with pagan ideas. (He then goes on to explain why Christianity was superior).

A lot of websites claim that "Justin tried to dismiss the similarities", but in fact he was stretching things to make it appear that there were similarities (e.g. a man flying to heaven on Pegasus is similar to Christ ascending).

[Andrew Merritt]

I saw this program on T,V. its very scientific if not slightly political correct,but it does give some intresting insights on early christianity. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/arch/recovering.html Please look at entire link,you will find it informative. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/

[martini7B7]

Actually, Justin had it the other way around from how Andrew put it. The pagans were dismissive of Christianity because they thought the Jesus story was new and innovative (which wasn't a good thing in pagan eyes, as they valued traditional ways).
that doesn't exactly follow from what i just quoted and what we know to be true. virgin births, father who was a god, ascensions into the heavens, miracle healings, and resurrections were not, by any means, "innovative", A Christian!

perhaps i'm not understanding your point?
Justin was trying to convince them that, yes indeed, Christianity had commonalities with pagan ideas. (He then goes on to explain why Christianity was superior).

A lot of websites claim that "Justin tried to dismiss the similarities", but in fact he was stretching things to make it appear that there were similarities (e.g. a man flying to heaven on Pegasus is similar to Christ ascending).
what about Romulus' death and ascension into heaven? Asclepius and Empedocles miraculous healings? Zalmoxis' return from death? Apollonius did many similar things to what Jesus did. did not Zeus bring his son Hercules into heaven after his death? what exactly was Justin validating that was so "innovative"?

[GakuseiDon]

Actually, Justin had it the other way around from how Andrew put it. The pagans were dismissive of Christianity because they thought the Jesus story was new and innovative (which wasn't a good thing in pagan eyes, as they valued traditional ways).
that doesn't exactly follow from what i just quoted and what we know to be true. virgin births, father who was a god, ascensions into the heavens, miracle healings, and resurrections were not, by any means, "innovative", A Christian!

perhaps i'm not understanding your point?
I think you may have missed it. The pagans were claiming that Christianity was a weird and innovative religion. Justin was claiming that Christianity was not weird, and in fact had many points of similarities to pagan ideas.

Justin was trying to convince them that, yes indeed, Christianity had commonalities with pagan ideas. (He then goes on to explain why Christianity was superior).

A lot of websites claim that "Justin tried to dismiss the similarities", but in fact he was stretching things to make it appear that there were similarities (e.g. a man flying to heaven on Pegasus is similar to Christ ascending).
what about Romulus' death and ascension into heaven? Asclepius and Empedocles miraculous healings? Zalmoxis' return from death? Apollonius did many similar things to what Jesus did. did not Zeus bring his son Hercules into heaven after his death? what exactly was Justin validating that was so "innovative"?
Again, you've got it the wrong way around. Justin was trying to prove that the Jesus story was similar to pagan ones. It was the pagans who apparently didn't believe this.

[Andrew Merritt]

This isnt quite what I was looking for,but it makes a intresting read abouit the arguements and counterarguements between early christians and pagan apolagists, http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/sheldon/heathen_apology.html

[Reality Amplifier]

what about Romulus' death and ascension into heaven? Asclepius and Empedocles miraculous healings? Zalmoxis' return from death? Apollonius did many similar things to what Jesus did. did not Zeus bring his son Hercules into heaven after his death? what exactly was Justin validating that was so "innovative"?
Again, you've got it the wrong way around. Justin was trying to prove that the Jesus story was similar to pagan ones. It was the pagans who apparently didn't believe this.

Wasn't that the point – that it was similar? In what way was it "innovative" as martini7B7 asked?

Example --

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. - THE FIRST APOLOGY - CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.

[Andrew Merritt]

Ya now I remember.

[GakuseiDon]

This isnt quite what I was looking for,but it makes a intresting read abouit the arguements and counterarguements between early christians and pagan apolagists, http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/sheldon/heathen_apology.html
Interesting link, Andrew. Thanks!

[GakuseiDon]

what about Romulus' death and ascension into heaven? Asclepius and Empedocles miraculous healings? Zalmoxis' return from death? Apollonius did many similar things to what Jesus did. did not Zeus bring his son Hercules into heaven after his death? what exactly was Justin validating that was so "innovative"?
Again, you've got it the wrong way around. Justin was trying to prove that the Jesus story was similar to pagan ones. It was the pagans who apparently didn't believe this.

Wasn't that the point – that it was similar?
Yes, that was the point Justin was trying to make.

In what way was it "innovative" as martini7B7 asked?

Example --

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. - THE FIRST APOLOGY - CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.
The pagans apparently believed that the idea of a crucified man ascending to heaven was ridiculous barbaric superstition, and quite different to what they (the pagans) believed. Justin was trying to show that, in fact, there were similarities there with what the pagans believed.

[Andrew Merritt]

Yes I tend to agree with the pagan.One has to remember just as there were pagan intelecuals that viewed there faith as metephors,(not the uneducated barbarian who thought the idols were alive)In many ways the pagan intellecuals were much like todays moderate christian liberuals.I know some christian moderates who go to the united church in Williams lake who think the reserection was a metephor.So of course many of the pagan intellectuals would of thought that a crusified man coming to life was a silly superstition of barberians.Im sure the same thing was sais about how people cliamed to believe they saw Juluis Carser even after he died.One must have to remember,Pagan intellecuals of that time didnt have the superstitouse ignorance of the common man.They were not ignorant savade brutes we seem to think of when we think pagan.They were not all dancing around in the moonlight drinking goats blood.Plato was a pagan intellect.He believe in a form of reincarnation.Tge consept of a crusified man coming to life freeing souls in hell would of seem silly to him.DFo you understand what Im saying?

[Iasion]

Greetings,

...you must admit that there were many people willing to die for their belief in Jesus.

False.
There is no evidence of early Christian martyrs.
Merely later legends.


Anyway,
many people die for false beliefs -

* the Heaven's Gate cult killed themselves for their beliefs - do you therefore believe their souls caught a ride on a spaceship hiding behind Hale Bopp?

* suicide bombers die for their beliefs - does that make you follow their views?


Even IF there really were early Christian martyrs, that proves nothing except the gullibility of humans.


Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings,

What would be their purpose if they knew that it was a lie?

Who said they knew it was a lie?
They could easily have BELIEVED it without it being true.

You seem to be arguing that strong belief proves something is true.

But notably,
this only seems to apply to YOUR Christian legends.

What about the Jews who died for their beliefs?
Do you therefore believe Judaism?

What about the American Indians who died for their beliefs?
Do you therefore believe their religion?

What about the Witches who died for their beliefs?
Do you therefore believe their paganism?

What about the Hindus who died for their beliefs?
Do you therefore believe Hinduism?

Iasion

[Goth_Slut]

Even IF there really were early Christian martyrs, that proves nothing except the gullibility of humans.

I actually point to that sacrifice as the saving throw of mankind.

If you are not prepared to die for you're beleifs, are they really worth it?
The motivations behind them may be flawed, but their devotion to what they saw was just, pure, or worthwhile, is quite impressive, if not honorable.

I wouldn't say it's an effect of gullibility. After all, if someone taught you to beleive in equality, would you die to protect blacks against racism?
And if so, would you just be a gullible human?
I hope not.


Love,
Goth_Slut

[Iasion]

Greetings,

"I believe Chief is asking the question from the premise that the early church founders had purposely invented Jesus and where aware of thier artifice."

Would that not be a correct premise?

NO!

A THOUSAND times NO !

The Mythicist case does NOT claim it was a purposeful invention - a deliberate lie.

Sadly, apologists never seem to understand this.


There is NO EVIDENCE that the Gospels were written as lies, as artifice.

Rather, the Gospels were written as spiritual LITERATURE, based largely on the Jewish scriptures (the episodes of Jesus' life are lifted from the Elijah / Elisha cycle.)

I am not aware of ANYONE who claims the Gospels were written as lies - there is no evidence that G.Mark was originally written as (false) history.

Rather,
the Gospels were LITERATURE,
later MISUNDERSTOOD as history after 2 wars and many years had elapsed.

After YEARS of debating this issue, I don't think I have seen a single apologist who grasps this point.

Perhaps you will be the first chief?
Please - show me there is at least ONE apologist on the 'net who can understand this issue.


No Jesus Mythicist claims the Gospels were LIES, anymore than Shakespeare is a liar.

Do we believe Romeo and Juliet really happened?
No.
Do we call Shakepeare a LIAR ?
NO !

So please,
lets have no more of this silly nonsense about early Christians "believing a lie".

The early Christians believed a STORY - a MYTH.


Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings,

I am not aware of ANY source (Christian, Gnostic or non-Christian) that questioned the existence of at least a historical Jesus, until the last 200 years.

Really?
The evidence shows there were many doubts about Jesus from the earliest times, even among CHRISTIANS -



Christian disagreements

The epistles of John mention other Christians who do not believe in a son of God, and attack Christians who do not believe Jesus came in the flesh.

The epistle of Polycarp also describes those who do not accept that Jesus came in the flesh.

Minucius Felix explicitly rejected the worship of a man on a cross as a Christian belief, and explicitly denied that God could become man. That's a 2nd century church father who explicitly rejected the incarnation and the crucifixion.


Pagan critiques

The early descriptions of Christianity included words such as :
"fables" "lie" "myths" "superstition" "empty rumour"
"alter the originals over and over" "invented"
"base and ignorant creed making fishermen"
"blasphemy" "spurious" "counterfeit" "contradicts"
"refuted because they disagree"

Celsus argued :
"Clearly the Christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"
(Its true Celsus did assume Jesus existed, not knowing any better.)

Roman emperor Julian explicitly argued that Jesus and the Gospel stories were UNKNOWN to HISTORY :
"But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time - the events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius - then you may consider that I speak falsely on all matters"

Pagan historian Porphyry wrote another critique of Christian beliefs "Against the Christians", including such criticism such as :

"The evangelists were fiction writers-- not observers or eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion"

"Anyone will recognize that the [gospels] are really fairy tales if he takes the time to read further into this nonsense of a story..."


So,
the evidence shows there were many early sceptics, even among the CHRISTIANS themselves, who did not believe Jesus was a real, physical, historical character.


Iasion

[GakuseiDon]

I am not aware of ANY source (Christian, Gnostic or non-Christian) that questioned the existence of at least a historical Jesus, until the last 200 years.

Really?
The evidence shows there were many doubts about Jesus from the earliest times, even among CHRISTIANS -
Sure, there were doubts, but strangely enough, no-one questioned the existence of a historical Jesus - someone who lived, breathed and interacted physically with the disciples.

I've seen lots of bogus information on this, some of which you've given below.

The epistles of John mention other Christians who do not believe in a son of God, and attack Christians who do not believe Jesus came in the flesh.

The epistle of Polycarp also describes those who do not accept that Jesus came in the flesh.
The gnostics believed that all flesh was corrupt, so indeed didn't believe that Jesus came "in the flesh". They believed he had a body formed like the angels, e.g. those who met Lot. But there is no doubt that they believed that Jesus was a historical person, who interacted with people as a human being.

Minucius Felix explicitly rejected the worship of a man on a cross as a Christian belief, and explicitly denied that God could become man. That's a 2nd century church father who explicitly rejected the incarnation and the crucifixion.
I know that's how Doherty portrays his 'smoking gun'. However, his translation is very 'fortunate'. Minucius Felix explicitly rejected the worship of a criminal who was crucified by extreme suffering for his wickedness. Doherty leaves the "for his wickedness" part out of the translation. The author goes on to explain that a criminal wouldn't deserve to be worshipped, nor that an "earthly being" was able to be believed to be God. He never says that there was no such person, just that the person couldn't have been a criminal nor a normal man. I'd like to argue this separately, though, since it isn't really known as a gnostic text. The gnostics never doubted a historical Jesus.

Pagan critiques

The early descriptions of Christianity included words such as :
"fables" "lie" "myths" "superstition" "empty rumour"
"alter the originals over and over" "invented"
"base and ignorant creed making fishermen"
"blasphemy" "spurious" "counterfeit" "contradicts"
"refuted because they disagree"
My point exactly. With all those doubts, wouldn't it be natural to point out that there was no historical Jesus??? Yet there is no evidence for it.

Celsus argued :
"Clearly the Christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"
Nope, this is a bogus quote. Celsus never said this. This is a paraphrase of a bad translation by Hoffman, that makes Celsus say something he never said.

Here is Origen's "Contra Celsus". Can you show me where Celsus says this?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html

Roman emperor Julian explicitly argued that Jesus and the Gospel stories were UNKNOWN to HISTORY :
"But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time - the events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius - then you may consider that I speak falsely on all matters"
I'm not sure of the relevence of this. What is the source? Was he questioning Jesus's existence?

Pagan historian Porphyry wrote another critique of Christian beliefs "Against the Christians", including such criticism such as :

"The evangelists were fiction writers-- not observers or eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion"

"Anyone will recognize that the [gospels] are really fairy tales if he takes the time to read further into this nonsense of a story..."
It sounds interesting, but only fragments of that work remain, in other writers. I can't track down where he writes that.

Still, it underlines my point. All these doubts, yet no-one makes the claim: there was no historical Jesus. Even though, according to Doherty, pagans had a Middle Platonic view of the gods where that would have been the obvious claim to make against Christianity.

So,
the evidence shows there were many early sceptics, even among the CHRISTIANS themselves, who did not believe Jesus was a real, physical, historical character.
Some didn't believe that Jesus was composed of flesh, and no doubt there were skeptics about Christianity, but none ever thought that Jesus wasn't a real, historical character.

I'm afraid you've been relying on some bogus sources, Iasion.

[martini7B7]

I think you may have missed it. The pagans were claiming that Christianity was a weird and innovative religion. Justin was claiming that Christianity was not weird, and in fact had many points of similarities to pagan ideas.

Again, you've got it the wrong way around. Justin was trying to prove that the Jesus story was similar to pagan ones. It was the pagans who apparently didn't believe this.
so this is a blatant acceptance by an early church father that Xianity is, in fact, quite similar to pagan religions. is this not so?

[GakuseiDon]

I think you may have missed it. The pagans were claiming that Christianity was a weird and innovative religion. Justin was claiming that Christianity was not weird, and in fact had many points of similarities to pagan ideas.

Again, you've got it the wrong way around. Justin was trying to prove that the Jesus story was similar to pagan ones. It was the pagans who apparently didn't believe this.
so this is a blatant acceptance by an early church father that Xianity is, in fact, quite similar to pagan religions. is this not so?
Yep.

[Andrew Merritt]

One must remember that at face value religions will superficualy look differant.Its only if you look at the root core and study its evolutionary past and branches that we can see the similiarities.Often pagans only took there stories as symbols of a higher truth.The stories were of a time long gone in the distant past.There was also hundreds of differant versions as religouse tolerance was normal.Depending on wich aspects you focus on the myth,it could entirely mutate to a almost foriegn form from its of original belief.The Jesus movement was a endstime movement that was of a immedant nature of a guy that was risen from the dead and became a god.And the end of the world was upond us.This would seem strange and a fable,as wandering barbarians have been speaking of these folktales forever ,its a common myth of the superstitious.

[martini7B7]

so this is a blatant acceptance by an early church father that Xianity is, in fact, quite similar to pagan religions. is this not so?
Yep.
okay... so ... we can infer from this that several aspects of Jesus were, in fact, existent in pagan religions prior to his Biblical existence? otherwise, why would Justin draw the comparisons?

[Andrew Merritt]

Sigh,Christian just doesnt get it,I think he see's what he only wants to see.Martini,I think you will find this intresting.A scholary view what the early christian apolagists believed.If such christians exsisted today,they would of been heratics!So what did Justin believe?Could we really call him a christian or a gnostic,if that be the proper term.People keep on projecting there modern views of christianity into the past.Take the time and look at this link.Jugde for yourself what the early christian apolagists believed.Why do you think they were defending there faith in such a matter? http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apology.html

[martini7B7]

Sigh,Christian just doesnt get it,I think he see's what he only wants to see.
be careful to say that. it is easily turned around!
Martini,I think you will find this intresting.A scholary view what the early christian apolagists believed.If such christians exsisted today,they would of been heratics!So what did Justin believe?Could we really call him a christian or a gnostic,if that be the proper term.
aye. i think that the proto-Xianities all fall under the same Gnostic category as what Xians now call Gnostic. it is a finely polished Gnostic belief, but by condemning the others and separating themselves later from the Gnostics, they were able to achieve this victory. how easy it is to call another group infidels or heretics!
People keep on projecting there modern views of christianity into the past.
i agree. another reason why the Xian deity has a horrible choice of medium, timing, and location to get His Word out to us peons. ;) how could Protestantism have taken place if the message was clear?
Take the time and look at this link.Jugde for yourself what the early christian apolagists believed.Why do you think they were defending there faith in such a matter? http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apology.html
they surely had to defend the faith by the time they actually achieved a decent following. what need was there when Xians were just another small Jewish sect? oral tradition held out over written tradition into the second century. why would "pagans" care about them enough to write an attack?

further, there would be no need for apologists if the Xian message was original and self-evident. unfortunately, it falls far from that tree.

[Andrew Merritt]

No not really,but I understand what you mean.Heres a link showing the religion during the time when Jesus walked the earth.What did those Romans worship anyways.What were there believes.Now there were many gods,a sort of multi culture of gods with no main religion or doctrine.Though there were favorites and populuar ones.Heres a easy to read summery of the Roman religion.Soundfamiliar anyone? Makes a intresting read,it shows the desperate attempt by early christian apolagist trying to explian away the similiarities of the two religions. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Mithraism.html

[GakuseiDon]

so this is a blatant acceptance by an early church father that Xianity is, in fact, quite similar to pagan religions. is this not so?
Yep.
okay... so ... we can infer from this that several aspects of Jesus were, in fact, existent in pagan religions prior to his Biblical existence? otherwise, why would Justin draw the comparisons?
Now, this is Justin's point: the similarities exist because the pagan religions copied from Christianity, via Judaism. His point is that Judaism predated the pagan religions, which may well be true, so that Christianity/Judaism was the original one.

You can see that he is advocating the same concept as Christ Mythers today. He is, in fact, a "Pagan Myther". If those similarities predate the pagan religions, can we then assume that the Greeks copied from Judaism?

[Andrew Merritt]

Actually there was copying on both sides.A gold bar besided a silver bar after a while the gold bar will have gold on it and vice a versa.Yet as a rule,dominant cultures rarely take on the personifications of presieved inferior cultures.For the most part its the other way around.The inferior subordinant culture takes on atritutes of the dominant culture.We can see this clearly in the evolution of the old testament .Compare it to the later greek influence Jews like the Essenes and such.

[GeorgeK]

You can see that he is advocating the same concept as Christ Mythers today. He is, in fact, a "Pagan Myther". If those similarities predate the pagan religions, can we then assume that the Greeks copied from Judaism?Are you saying the older the book the more credibility as source material for later adoption?. Then the Vedas are by far the oldest, right? Though logicaly, I don't think the age of a work should be considered a merit.

[GakuseiDon]

You can see that he is advocating the same concept as Christ Mythers today. He is, in fact, a "Pagan Myther". If those similarities predate the pagan religions, can we then assume that the Greeks copied from Judaism?Are you saying the older the book the more credibility as source material for later adoption?
No, merely explaining Jusin's point. Justin takes a handful of similarities, and uses them to show that the pagans copied from Judaism/Christianity.

At the end of the day, showing similarities is very subjective. "Dionysus had 2 legs, so did Jesus" - a similarity, sure, but it doesn't prove anything. What matters is the evidence that one influenced the other.

Then the Vedas are by far the oldest, right? Though logicaly, I don't think the age of a work should be considered a merit.
Yep, it is a logical fallacy: "A happens before B, therefore A causes B".

[GeorgeK]

At the end of the day, showing similarities is very subjective. "Dionysus had 2 legs, so did Jesus" - a similarity, sure, but it doesn't prove anything. What matters is the evidence that one influenced the other. Though beyond just having two legs, Dionysus is said to have yearly caused barrels to fill with wine and on special years, to even cause wine to flow from the temple. Ya got to admit, not many people can do that. I think it's also a much more signifigant similarity.

Which brings up another question I have? Do Xians in general believe that miracles can be performed by anyone other than Yaweh? Like Dionysus or even the Pharaoh staff-to-snake guys? That one is described in the Bible itself.

[GeorgeK]

Here's an interesting take on the Jesus wine miracle.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/diochris/p1.jpg
Christ squeezed in the wine-press distributing his blood to the faithful 15th century

[GakuseiDon]

At the end of the day, showing similarities is very subjective. "Dionysus had 2 legs, so did Jesus" - a similarity, sure, but it doesn't prove anything. What matters is the evidence that one influenced the other. Though beyond just having two legs, Dionysus is said to have yearly caused barrels to fill with wine and on special years, to even cause wine to flow from the temple. Ya got to admit, not many people can do that. I think it's also a much more signifigant similarity.
Yes, I agree.

Which brings up another question I have? Do Xians in general believe that miracles can be performed by anyone other than Yaweh? Like Dionysus or even the Pharaoh staff-to-snake guys? That one is described in the Bible itself.
I don't know.

[Andrew Merritt]

Boy thats creepy.A form of vampirism.I think I remember the ritual ,a form of symbolic cannilabulism was in hopes to incorporate some of the charactoristics of the diety one devoured.Within all the pagan reiligions including Dioneyouse to Horus everyone had the blood representing wine and the body representing the bread..Then everyone would sit and have a sort of last supper.I believe the egyptians called it the feast with the gods.But obviouse this was derived from a agicultrual based religion.

[martini7B7]

Now, this is Justin's point: the similarities exist because the pagan religions copied from Christianity, via Judaism. His point is that Judaism predated the pagan religions, which may well be true, so that Christianity/Judaism was the original one.
thanks. i think i have it now.

the problem with this argument is that Moses nor any of the patriarchs did wine miracles or had a resurrection as Dionysus. Andrew is correct in finding that most ancient cultures had water and meal rituals. while it can be claimed that Abram (via Moses' hearsay) came to Egypt, Abram, et. al. came from Ur of the Chaldeans as per Gen 11:31. unfortunately, i have read that this is a mistranslation and actually means Babylonians. either way, unless you'd like to assert that all cultures came from the Tower of Babel episode immediately preceding in 11, how could all of these cultures "copy" off of the Jews when they were so geographically distant? i mean, weren't the ancient Hebrews usually overtaken by other cultures? wouldn't that mean the other cultures forced their own rituals on them instead of the other way around? not being a historian, i would appreciate any help on this...
You can see that he is advocating the same concept as Christ Mythers today. He is, in fact, a "Pagan Myther". If those similarities predate the pagan religions, can we then assume that the Greeks copied from Judaism?
it appears as though your question is "if Jewish customs existed before the Babylonian, Greek, and Roman customs anywhere in the the world, can we then assume that they mimicked these Jewish customs?" that is to say, if the Jews existed far and away from the Babylonian culture and were overtaken by the Babylonians, why would the religion be taken by the invaders instead of the other way around? i think Andrew mentioned this as well.

[Andrew Merritt]

Ifound this link very informative showing the link between many of the bible hereos such as David,Moses,ect,ect,with there pagan god counterparts.For example did you know that the pagan version of noahs name means drunkeness.Remember when noah got drunk?Lots of intresting connections with pagans with just the names alone.Seems to me a lot of the pagan gods like Samson when incorporated into Jewish folklore got demoted to mere mortals because you can have only one god.Either that or Angel of the lord.Yet carefull reading of the old testament,even though it states angel of the lord,often in the next breath,it sounds like god himself.Seems to me the people who edited the old testament didnt really do a good job. http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/08012002.htm

[GakuseiDon]

Now, this is Justin's point: the similarities exist because the pagan religions copied from Christianity, via Judaism. His point is that Judaism predated the pagan religions, which may well be true, so that Christianity/Judaism was the original one.
thanks. i think i have it now.

the problem with this argument is that Moses nor any of the patriarchs did wine miracles or had a resurrection as Dionysus.
I'm sure a similarity could be found. It is more about how imaginitive and general you want to make the similarity. A person can see shapes in a cloud, but that says more the person than the cloud.

I'm not saying Justin is right. I'm accusing him of doing what Christ Mythers do today. He is forcing similarities in order to promote his own agenda.

Christ Mythers often use Justin to show that early Christians tried to "dismiss" similarities, yet they never use the same similarities that Justin himself brings up. Like many (though not all) of the similarities that Christ Mythers bring up, Justin's similarities are pretty lame.

You can see that he is advocating the same concept as Christ Mythers today. He is, in fact, a "Pagan Myther". If those similarities predate the pagan religions, can we then assume that the Greeks copied from Judaism?
it appears as though your question is "if Jewish customs existed before the Babylonian, Greek, and Roman customs anywhere in the the world, can we then assume that they mimicked these Jewish customs?" that is to say, if the Jews existed far and away from the Babylonian culture and were overtaken by the Babylonians, why would the religion be taken by the invaders instead of the other way around?
Nothing so deep, I'm afraid. I'm just highlighting the logical fallacy "A precedes B, therefore A causes B" that Justin uses.

[Andrew Merritt]

I see what your saying though theres too many cioncedences.Sure theres all sorts of differances,thats why its called a differant religion.Normally we tend to look at the differances and not look at the similiarities.Like the donkey riding or the blood representing wine and the bread flesh.Virgin or at least a god having sex with a mortal.Heculese mortal mother.Ishtars mortal lover Tammuz who spends 3 days or 6 months(winter)in hell then then Ishtar looks for him,raises him from the dead and he becomes a god.When he comes back the world is renewed and life comes back into the plants and the birds and the bees a buzzing?The dieing and coming back to life(not nesesarly a sacerfice on purpose,but the result of death gave the world good results)One of the more intresting ones was the god Baal in the Babolonyian one,his name means father of all gods.He is also called cloud rider as Jesus is called cloud riderYet Baal seems to have certian aspects similiar to Jesus..Now all other aspects of the story is differant.Thats why we call it a differant religion!Yet its the frame work or the bluprint that similiar.There are many other versions of Baals story thats differant.Just as the Romans got there gods from the greeks,theres similiarities but there differant.The greeks got there gods from the egyptians.The greek gods superficially seem so differant from the egyptians,but the connections are clear,once you know what to look for.The hebrew people and the early christians were no differant.Just look at the hebrews in the babolonian influence and compare them with the hebrews influenced by the greeks.Its like apples to oranges. http://members.megapipe.net/jstafford/baal.htm

[Andrew Merritt]

Here is another link showing egyptian scolars giving parelels,now focas on the similiarities not the differances.Now do you think these egyptianolagists are just making things up?Are these people lieing?Do they have a secret agenda to discredit christianity as just another myth?Is it really just imagined face4s in the clouds? Why not e mail them and ask for the verses in the egyptian book of the dead themselves?Have you rented or borowed Joseph Cambels the power of myth yet from the library yet?I have seen the text,its just I dont know were it is in the egyptian book of the dead.Yet its not just in one religions.Basicly its found in all of the meditranian religions. http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/egypt-bible-similarities.html http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/pagan.html

[martini7B7]

A Christian,

i understand your post hoc ergo propter hoc, but that is only a fallacy if there is no evidence to back it up. i know that you are interested in the concepts behind the dying and rising gods and that you, too, look for similarities and disparities among them. if we have evidence of existing concepts in ancient Rome before the Bibilical Yeshua, what more proof can be offered save that all of NT can be found in other antecedent Greco-Roman literature? Justin was doing what every religious adherent does -- protect their faith. if he did point out similarities between them, can we assume that he saw something which we cannot get just from his writings? the same can be said of Celsus.

i feel like you're not willing to take most forms of parallel seriously because you can find specific differences between them. Justin drew several parallels because he felt that they would get his point across. why do you disagree?

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Now, this is Justin's point: the similarities exist because the pagan religions copied from Christianity, via Judaism. His point is that Judaism predated the pagan religions, which may well be true, so that Christianity/Judaism was the original one.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!


Judaism is the first relgion? I think all of the EASTERN, SUMERIAN, EGYPTIAN, CENTAL AFRICAN, WESTERN AFRICAN, INDIAN, ANCIENT AMERICAN Gods just woke up with that ridiculous statement.

Well I guess since I am an African the explanation and origin of my people come from a curse of noah roughly 2000 bc after a flood 300 years before Abraham(which didn't exist) HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Until you atheists get a grasp on what GOD really is; you aren't going to understand how someone like A CHRISTIAN who is an intelligent person can have FACTS in front of his face and yet not see anything. Jesus Christ never existed, but he DOES NOW!!!!!!!! It's a spirit folks and it is very very real.

[Andrew Merritt]

You mean you know what a god really is?As far as I understand it,its a highly advanced being that has unlimited abilities.Though I understand there could be other versions of the entity with lesser abilities that could be responsible for creating things like stars,galaxies and other pet projects that it may so desire.Are you suggesting that you know what this life form is,if we can call it a life form.Ive always suspected that the creative forces that play upon the universe were merely the charectoristics of energy and matters cosmic dance within the endless viod.

[GakuseiDon]

i understand your post hoc ergo propter hoc, but that is only a fallacy if there is no evidence to back it up. i know that you are interested in the concepts behind the dying and rising gods and that you, too, look for similarities and disparities among them. if we have evidence of existing concepts in ancient Rome before the Bibilical Yeshua, what more proof can be offered save that all of NT can be found in other antecedent Greco-Roman literature?
I agree that it comes down to a matter of evidence.

Justin was doing what every religious adherent does -- protect their faith. if he did point out similarities between them, can we assume that he saw something which we cannot get just from his writings? the same can be said of Celsus.
Only to the extent that the assumption is backed up by evidence.

i feel like you're not willing to take most forms of parallel seriously because you can find specific differences between them. Justin drew several parallels because he felt that they would get his point across. why do you disagree?
My objections fall into two groups:
1. Many of the parallels are built off erroneous information, e.g. Horus was called "KRST". Does it matter how close "KRST" is to Christ if Horus was in fact never called "KRST"?
2. Many other parallels are extremely lame. One similarity that Justin uses is that the prophets said, "Strong as a giant to run his course," which the pagans copied by saying that "Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth". That certainly is a parallel, but do you find that convincing?

It's not that I can find "specific differences between them". Doing that is as subjective as finding the similarity itself. It is that the parallels are offered without any real analysis going into it. The questions that should be asked are:
1. Is the information reliable, and from primary sources? (E.g. "Horus the KRST")
2. Does it predate? (Some things said about Mithras actually are dated after Christianity)
3. Is it the most likely influence? (Some things are more likely to have come from Judaism than paganism)

A lot of the parallels offered by Christ Mythers falls into the first category.

An example of a parallel I find interesting is how at one temple to Dionysus, each year the priests would find some jars miraculously filled with wine. Now, it wasn't water turned to wine, it wasn't at a wedding, and there was no appearance of Dionysus. Still, the central theme - miraculous creation of wine - is a significant parallel IMO. It could have been an attempt at "one-up" showmanship by the early Christians.

Another parallel that Freke&Gandy uses is: Jesus was dressed in purple near the crucifixion, and the priests of Dionysus was dressed in purple sometimes during their ceremonies. This is extremely lame (IMHO). F&G don't even attempt to explain why their similarities are signifant.

[GakuseiDon]

Now, this is Justin's point: the similarities exist because the pagan religions copied from Christianity, via Judaism. His point is that Judaism predated the pagan religions, which may well be true, so that Christianity/Judaism was the original one.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!


Judaism is the first relgion? I think all of the EASTERN, SUMERIAN, EGYPTIAN, CENTAL AFRICAN, WESTERN AFRICAN, INDIAN, ANCIENT AMERICAN Gods just woke up with that ridiculous statement.
Ummm... ok.

1. I'm not claiming it, just reporting what Justin wrote.
2. Justin was saying that Christianity/Judaism predated Greek and Roman paganism, and he is probably correct. But I disagree with him on that meaning that the pagans copied from Judaism in the manner he suggests.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

You mean you know what a god really is?

In my best french accent: "But of course" :D

As far as I understand it,its a highly advanced being that has unlimited abilities.

Which "concept" of GOD are you getting this assertion from?

Though I understand there could be other versions of the entity with lesser abilities that could be responsible for creating things like stars,galaxies and other pet projects that it may so desire

Where does your need or acknowledgment of a "Creator" conception of GOD come from?

Are you suggesting that you know what this life form is,if we can call it a life form

What is "life" and what is "form"?

Ive always suspected that the creative forces that play upon the universe were merely the charectoristics of energy and matters cosmic dance within the endless viod.

AHHH you are getting warmer ;) ........."characteristics of energy" thats one interesting little comment *hint* *hint* :)

It's safe to say that most atheists are just former christians which proves to me that they are one in the same. If an atheist says there is no GOD period then why do they use Judeo-Christian examples of what GOD is supposed to be in order to exist to an atheist....that's a logical fallacy. And I just love when atheists use ad-hominems against the validity of the Judeo-Christian GOD by presenting eastern Gods in the debate as being as logically valid to a theist when in turn an atheist is using this against christians lol.

[Andrew Merritt]

Thats because there differant religions therefore focus on differant things.Theres no doubt about mithra predating christianity as noted that water breaks from the bulls side from the spear as the same with Jesus.The egyptians didnt focus on the trinity but its known that Isis inpregnated herself using osiris's penis when he was dead.There is no doubt that Horus was thought to be Osiris reborn.It was commonly believed that they walked the earth.(in fact did not archologists find what could be Osiris;s bones rescently,so he may be based on a real person)Its well known that he was called the good sheperd and was a fisher of men.Sure its all within a differant context.But thats how believes commonly change and evolve according to what the culture focuses on.Are not egyptianolagists primary sources?Wouldnt they know.Why not ask Earl Doberty.He has been on this forum.Do you really think that Robert Price who used to be the darling of the fundelmentalist movement would discredit himself by not checking the primary source.Ive seen the primary source in books,I just dont know were it is in the book of the dead,the book is like a mile thick.I ask agian,why not ask them.Lets ask Tom Harper.Ive heard he has defended his book quite well.Do you not notice the differance between hellinistic jews and the babolonyian influence jews in the old testament writings?I thought it quite clear.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

1. I'm not claiming it, just reporting what Justin wrote.
2. Justin was saying that Christianity/Judaism predated Greek and Roman paganism, and he is probably correct. But I disagree with him on that meaning that the pagans copied from Judaism in the manner he suggests.

Ok, I guess....the bottom line is this A CHRISTIAN your Bible is bogus and all we are trying to do is show you FACTS. You seem to be like any other christian in the fact that when you receive the FACTS you have a way of having a fantastic ignorance in discerning them. You are an intelligent guy from what I have read from your posts on this forum....why discredit that by being too SCARED to admit you have been fooled while falling in the same category of stupid christians because you still hold the same belief. By the way...I AM NOT AN ATHEIST BY ANY MEANS. So I think it's fair for me to refute your religious beliefs while having an intelligable understanding of GOD belief. So please don't look at this as an attack.

[Andrew Merritt]

That previouse post wasnt meant for you egyptian.So it sounds like the god that you worship(or dont,as some gods dont care if there worshiped or not)Is more of the universe itself and the material world is merely the vessel its spirit inhabits.Is that the god you believe in?If it is,Ithink you will enjoy the holograghic universe theory.It could be interpited in such a light,though intellegent one doesnt nessesarly need to call it a life form or even have conscience awareness.More of a unconscience intellegent ever evolving creative force that manasfestes itself as the universe.Goth slut,you will like this too.Its the closes science has gotten to a god consept. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

That previouse post wasnt meant for you egyptian.So it sounds like the god that you worship(or dont,as some gods dont care if there worshiped or not)Is more of the universe itself and the material world is merely the vessel its spirit inhabits.Is that the god you believe in?If it is,Ithink you will enjoy the holograghic universe theory.It could be interpited in such a light,though intellegent one doesnt nessesarly need to call it a life form or even have conscience awareness.More of a unconscience intellegent ever evolving creative force that manasfestes itself as the universe.Goth slut,you will like this too.Its the closes science has gotten to a god consept.

Some what close, but no cigar....been there done that and no that's not GOD...it could be defined as the BODY of GOD though ;) I must say Andrew you surely hit the forums with great websites and sources. You will be of much importance to the alliance...I applaud you.

[zarathustra]

A_REAL_EGYPTIAN said:
It's safe to say that most atheists are just former christians which proves to me that they are one in the same. If an atheist says there is no GOD period then why do they use Judeo-Christian examples of what GOD is supposed to be in order to exist to an atheist....that's a logical fallacy.

Point of reference, beano...

Your god/s have no meaning to an ex-xtian.....I reject your definition of gods, even having grown up with them...I would dare say that I can define them (gods) better than you...

Keep trying...you'll never get it right.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Point of reference, beano...

Your god/s have no meaning to an ex-xtian.....I reject your definition of gods, even having grown up with them...I would dare say that I can define them (gods) better than you...

Keep trying...you'll never get it right.

Man, this comment is so weird I won't even comment...not to mention the avatar lol

Save it freak

[Andrew Merritt]

I didnt realise you had to pay for the subscription of the holographic universe.It makes a intresting and fasanating read.Here is another link,though not as good for those who couldnt pay for the scientific America article.Its a pretty amazing theory,and not without evidance either. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-David-Bohm-Holographic-Universe.htm

[Andrew Merritt]

Okay that one was too technical for some,please be patient and try this easy to read and fasinanting article. http://itotd.com/index.alt?ArticleID=227

[GeorgeK]

Egyptian,
Your posts tend to come off as kinda pompous. If you have anything to add to any thread, lay it on the table. If you wanna start attacking people, I suggest you take a look at their history of comments first. You are posting on a Xianity debate site attacking one of the best Bible verse "slingers" you may ever come across and quite a critical thinker to boot.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Your posts tend to come off as kinda pompous. If you have anything to add to any thread, lay it on the table. If you wanna start attacking people, I suggest you take a look at their history of comments first. You are posting on a Xianity debate site attacking one of the best Bible verse "slingers" you may ever come across and quite a critical thinker to boot.

I in no way mean to come off as pompous so if I come off as that I apologize. As far as the last comment to that weird guy I just responded to the peculiar response he gave me that's all.
I have attacked noone and I am rather compassionate so I don't know where you get pompous from.

[Andrew Merritt]

Come on all of you,sarcasim and dark humour or teasing is one thing,but lets keep this forum on topic about ther discussion at hand.So egyptian.Do you know anything about the cliams of the Horus,Osirus,Jesus connections?Or are they as christian says,vague connections with no real meaning?

[GeorgeK]

I don't know where you get pompous from.
From your few other posts.
I didn't want to let the cat out of the bag to the christians reading this post in revieling to them that GOD and SATAN in the bible ARE THE SAME shhhhhhhhhh
And if you read the Quran and the Bible knowing what GOD REALLY IS
You pontificate well, but fail to expand upon your argument. To me, this came across as pompous, but I am still open to hearing the reasoning for your certainty.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Come on all of you,sarcasim and dark humour or teasing is one thing,but lets keep this forum on topic about ther discussion at hand.So egyptian.Do you know anything about the cliams of the Horus,Osirus,Jesus connections?Or are they as christian says,vague connections with no real meaning?

Well I do have a sense of humor man...I can't change that :D Of course at a point in time the trinity was originally Horus(heru/har) Osirus(asaru) Isis(aset/bast) and before then it was AMEN, RA, PTAH and if you add the holy spirit of "Khonsu" that would be a quadity and would show why catholics and christians both have the quadity, but Catholics recognize MOTHER MARY(isis) more although they keep it a secret about a QUADITY and just use the Trinity. Remember...Crete(Greece) was begotten by AFRICANS shhhhhhh don't tell anyone. ;) Christians just feel their belief goes in vain if they find out they have been lied to....which is a sad thing actually because it is not the atheist/satan/devil/non believers or whatever you wanna call them that are keeping them blinded.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

You pontificate well, but fail to expand upon your argument. To me, this came across as pompous, but I am still open to hearing the reasoning for your certainty.

You seem pretty intelligent and cool, it's just that one guy is kind of strange. So sure ask me anything I would be glad to help man. :)

[GeorgeK]

You pontificate well, but fail to expand upon your argument. To me, this came across as pompous, but I am still open to hearing the reasoning for your certainty.

You seem pretty intelligent and cool, it's just that one guy is kind of strange. So sure ask me anything I would be glad to help man. :)

Well, Martini has a very old thread devoted to the Horus, Osiris, Isis parallel.
clicky ("")
In other threads that have mentioned this, there seems to be dispute as to the veracity of some of the claims of similarity. Perhaps you can bring new sources to the debate?

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Well, Martini has a very old thread devoted to the Horus, Osiris, Isis parallel.
clicky
In other threads that have mentioned this, there seems to be dispute as to the veracity of some of the claims of similarity. Perhaps you can bring new sources to the debate?

Well it's quite simple...Where is Rome's knowledge without Greece and India. Where is Greece's knowledge without Niger(Obatala) or Egypt(Horus). Where are the Jews/hebrews/dravidians/brahmidians knowledge without Sumer(Tammuz) and Egypt(Horus). So basically this principle of a trinity is coming from two different stop points from two different origins meeting together in Europe. It's rather fascinating how the World works together. You have to go to the root or origin of the NATIONS themselves. Christian's are just affraid to admit this that's all. The word Christ can mean annointed or God elected or what have you. The simple question to ask christians is...how did this word Christ exist before 0 ad lol Christ - Crestus and Christos - Kristos - Krishna(India), Karast(Egypt), Khur(Sumer)*which is where the word "church" originates from*. Even if Christians admit that the word Christ existed before their beloved Jesus...they would be forced to see the attributes of the other Christs that predate him by hundreds and even THOUSANDS of years. This is the main reason they had Jesus going to Egypt in the New Testiment (which christians can't explain why the Son of God or God himself would hide in Egypt for so many years; Yet just finished smiting the hell out of it in the Old tesiment hmmmm)...to COVER up the fact that the religion as well as MYTH and KNOWLEDGE comes from Egypt. Which was extremely clever by the author of the New Testiment and here is why: When the Greeks controlled Egypt, they did alot of changing in the culture of my Nation changing the language and names obviously. Asaru became Osirus, Aset became Isis, Heru became Horus, but here is something that many fundamentalist anti-christians don't know when refuting the trinity and or Jesus with Osirus/Isis/Horus....Osirus/Isis/Horus are now more Joseph/Mary/Jesus rather than the other way around from GREEK influence. Although Joseph/Mary/Jesus is truely Asaru(sep)/Aset/Heru in it's origin..Christianity has doubled back and corrupted Egypt lol which when Christians find this out they easily refute "The book of the dead"(which is a mistranslation by the way it's "Coming forth by day") and they are 100 % correct. So those clever aristocrats of Christendom have yet giving Christians another "iota" to have speculation about lol. But We the SERPENTS(Nacal/Niger/Naga/Nachash) are Not fooled ;)

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Heru/Har/Hor/Haru/Hr/Krst “Horus” is symbolic of the Rising Son. Jesus is also symbolic of the rising son. Jesus was the son (sun) who died (set) on the cross by crucifixion and he will resurrect (rise) according to the Christians. When the son came down and apparently sets or dies into the darkness and he raises or resurrects back to life.

It is the story of the Christian’s God Jesus.
What religious fanatics don’t realize is that if the sun shuts down that would be the end of life as you know it. This is what Egypt teaches about the sun: If I say I worship the sun, people say oh that’s sun worship. I know that. The reason why I say worship the sun, s-u-n and laugh at you who worship the son, s-o-n is because my sun is an obvious provider. If my sun doesn’t come up in the morning, we can chalk it.

Jesus (the son) went to sleep 2,000 years ago, has not gotten up yet, and you all are still doing fine. Yet you are still waiting for your son to rise. If my sun doesn’t rise each day, it’s over for Jesus and you. Now with this reasoning, I can live without your son. Can you live without your son? Can you live without my sun? The answer is simply NO.

If you look throughout Egyptian history, you see that many of the characteristics of Horus existed long before 2,000 years ago, and parallels that of Jesus of 2,000 years ago. What I will do is put in parenthesis the original parallel's between the two, although there are tons of parrallels missing from this *Greek* "Egyptian Book of the Dead". I will also put the Greek plaguerisms (so Christians I am even giving you room by being honest...aren't I nice :D )

Jesus performed the miracle of turning five loaves of bread in one case and seven in another to feed the many multitudes of people.

This ties in with Horus who makes seven loaves of bread for Osiris to live by. (Greco-christian))

Yashua is in the desert and being tempted by the Devil, who said to him, “If he was the son of God, turn a stone into bread.” The stone of the desert is symbolic of Set. (original)

As the child Horus comes to the Earth, then enters matter or becomes flesh. He is born as the word of his father who becomes Seb, who consort is Nu whose other name is Meri. (original)

Which is the same as Jesus coming down to Earth as the word of God in the flesh having and adopted father of Joseph (Seb) and Mary his mother.

Jesus said “I and the father are one. He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me.”

Horus is the father seen in the son. (original)

Jesus claims to be the son in whom the father is revealed.

Horus was the light of the world. The light that is represented by the symbolic eye. The son of salvation. (original)

Yashua is called the ‘Good Sheperd’ with the lamb or kid on his shoulder.

Horus was the good shepherd who carries the crook upon his shoulder.
(Greco-christian)

Jesus is called the Lamb of God, the bread of life, the truth and the light.

Horus is called the Lamb of God, the bread of life, the truth and the light.
(Greco-christian)

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

Horus is was baptized by Anupp the Baptizer.(original....."masonic ritual")

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the ‘House of Bread.’

Horus was born in Annu, the ‘Place of Bread.’(Greco-christian, there is no Annu in Egypt)

Jesus the Christ.

Horus the Krist (original)

The star in the east that indicated the birthplace of Jesus.

The star, as announcer of the child Horus.(Greco-christian)

The blind man given sight by Jesus.

The blind mummy made to see by Horus. (lol Greco-christian although Lazarus comes from Osirus "el-asaru-us" and Horus raised Osirus from the dead/Head wound *hint* *hint*

Jesus walking on water.

Horus walking on water.(original, symbolizing the Sun walking on water)

THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. This is just to give you clear overstanding that the Jesus of your bible came from the Egyptian diety of Horus, and Christianity came from the various stories from Egypt. The story was just reiterated as most stories in your bible are. They are stories from old tablets such as the Enuma Elish, and the Giglamesh Epic. The names were just changed, in different cultures. In fact, the names of the bible aren’t even names, they are titles. For example the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the bible is just the story of ANU, Antum, and Iyd in the Enuma Elish. The story of Cain and Abel in the bible is just the story of Osiris and Set in the Egyptian records.

[GeorgeK]

I like that post much better. I'm particulary fond of this part, which I have not seen discussed around here yet:When the Greeks controlled Egypt, they did alot of changing in the culture of my Nation changing the language and names obviously. Asaru became Osirus, Aset became Isis, Heru became Horus, but here is something that many fundamentalist anti-christians don't know when refuting the trinity and or Jesus with Osirus/Isis/Horus....Osirus/Isis/Horus are now more Joseph/Mary/Jesus rather than the other way around from GREEK influence. Although Joseph/Mary/Jesus is truely Asaru(sep)/Aset/Heru in it's origin..Christianity has doubled back and corrupted Egypt lol which when Christians find this out they easily refute "The book of the dead"(which is a mistranslation by the way it's "Coming forth by day") and they are 100 % correct.That certainly adds another grainy filter to the lens of hindsight. Have many pre-Greek sources survived with the myths and language as it was originally?

[Andrew Merritt]

Well I have to tend to agree.Ive heard it before from Joseph Cambel and many other sources.Even from a P.B.S. production called from christ to jesus.A link I put up somewhere on this forum.Yet is it possible you can give a primal sourse.For example Ive even seen,(but can I find on the internet?)A bible quote that goes,though I walk through the valley of the death,Ishall fear no evil.)and theres a egyptian version of it somewhere.Almost word for word.That its quite obviouse plagerism as the hebrews didnt even have a written language till they picked it up from the Babolonians.Would you happens to have any info on that as well if you could ?

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Have many pre-Greek sources survived with the myths and language as it was originally

Can you re-word that a little better I want to be sure I understand what you mean.


Would you happens to have any info on that as well if you could ?

As far as the valley of death quote I would have to research further for that but here is one MUCH BETTER he he sorry christians I can't resist:

(Matt3:17) and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased

2,000 years before the so called Jesus Christ existed
this is plagiarized from Egyptian hieroglyphs for the birth of King TUT:

1a. To say by Nut, the brilliant, the great: This is (my) son, (my) first born, N., opener of (my) womb; 1b. this is (my) beloved, with whom I have been satisfied.

*Read the bible again Christians; Joshua/Yashua is the "core" of Jesus plaguerization!!! ;) they just recopied essentially what Joshua/y'ashua WAS in the OT and moved it to the NT and of course adding other things which is why Jesus leaves at 12 years old which is when King Tutankhamun(Joshua) died the "savior" after Akenaton(one of the moses in the OT) and pops back up at 30-33(rd degree) and dying(masonic code right here shhhhhh lol)


BOOYAH!!! lol

[GakuseiDon]

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

Horus is was baptized by Anupp the Baptizer.(original....."masonic ritual")
I can't find any reference to a "Anupp the Baptizer", or any baptizer. What is the source?

Jesus the Christ.

Horus the Krist (original)
I understand that the Egyptian word "KRST" means burial, and was never applied to Horus (not sure that "Horus the Burial" makes sense, anyway!) What source says that Horus was known as "the KRST", and what does KRST mean?

Jesus walking on water.

Horus walking on water.(original, symbolizing the Sun walking on water)
What is the source for this information?

For example the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the bible is just the story of ANU, Antum, and Iyd in the Enuma Elish.
Here is a link to the 7 tablets of the Enuma Elish:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/

It's not very long, and I can't find that story there. Can you show me where the story of Anu, Antum and Iyd is?

[Andrew Merritt]

Most intresting.Ive always found it a bit of a cioncedence that when ancient Egypt went from the many gods to the one god,That the hebrews did the same when Moses showed the ten commandments that you shall have no other gods before you.That you shall have no idols.And at about the same time when the egyptians got rid of there many gods and worshiped the sun cliaming that the egyptian god was the living energy behind the sun as its light spreads throughout the earth.That god is the light of the earth.Anyhow,Its a bit of a cioncedence I think.Ive found this most intresting link on Egypt and christianity.It seems pretty scholary.What do you think? http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/moses.html

[GeorgeK]

Heru/Har/Hor/Haru/Hr/Krst “Horus” is symbolic of the Rising Son. Jesus is also symbolic of the rising son. Jesus was the son (sun) who died (set) on the cross by crucifixion and he will resurrect (rise) according to the Christians. When the son came down and apparently sets or dies into the darkness and he raises or resurrects back to life.Beyond merely rising and setting, every winter solstice the sun reaches it's lowest point in the sky and stays down for 3 days before beginning to rise again. Furthermore, if you envision the circle of the zodiac in the sky, you can split this circle with a cross into four seasons with the cross points representing solstices and exinoxes. Of course only at winter solstice does the sun appear to "die" when it moves onto the cross and then get reborn.

[Andrew Merritt]

Ya I know,when I was a chrristian and I first found that out,I was shocked,then when I studied more about how it was being suppressed I was angry.Ive found a lot of christian arguements kinda lame and weak at best.Always focusing on the differances.Like some godmen were at a wedding when they turned water to wine,other godmen were in the form of a spirit when wine jars magicly filled with wine.Some godmen were unwilling to die or be sacerficed,others did it willingly(Though Jesus did ask for this cup be taken away from him for all things are possible with god,though his request was in vian as he ended it with lwt your will be done)So Jesus willingly,though reluctently went to the cross.But the obviouse parelels with astrology,wether the pagans themselves knew it or not is irrelevant,as they too forgotten the astrological connections and got caught up with there own take on the myths,no differant then the christian did.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

quote]Most intresting.Ive always found it a bit of a cioncedence that when ancient Egypt went from the many gods to the one god,That the hebrews did the same when Moses showed the ten commandments that you shall have no other gods before you.That you shall have no idols.And at about the same time when the egyptians got rid of there many gods and worshiped the sun cliaming that the egyptian god was the living energy behind the sun as its light spreads throughout the earth.That god is the light of the earth.Anyhow,Its a bit of a cioncedence I think.Ive found this most intresting link on Egypt and christianity.It seems pretty scholary.What do you think? http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/moses.html[/quote]

I've read that before, but they are still stuck in the "spell of one" Moses in the bible is atleast 4 characters in REAL history...Akenaton(starting a major monotheistic religion of "ATON"(Adonai) in the bible he is the one the Moses that left Egypt with "his" commoners the "Seshu/hebrews" around 15th dynasty exodus and the one that returned at age 80 even though thats a fake age number), Thutmose I(in the bible stipulating the 10 commandments even though they are really the 42 negative confesions in egypt), General Ahmose(in the bible the part of Moses killing a guard), Merymose(in the bible exodus part of freeing his people 22 dynasty exodus)


I can't find any reference to a "Anupp the Baptizer", or any baptizer. What is the source?

Anupp is another way of saying ANUBIS the Jackel, it's not necessarily in the Egyptian lore that Anupp the Baptizer was a guy it doesn't work like that all the time, but Heru was "drawn out"(moshe in hebrew *hint*) of the water which is where your baptism comes from in your religion. This is a "ressurection into the new light" masonic ritual. Read Genesis chapter 32(32nd degree) That whole chapter is Masonic and about Moses ;)

I understand that the Egyptian word "KRST" means burial. What source says that Horus was known as "the KRST", and what does KRST mean?

Karast/krst would mean Risen/Christ/Son of the Sun(like what aryan means in sanskrit *note Lord KRiS(t)na* not burial lmao..sigh..this is Europeans way of defamating everything that is not "White" or "European" by reversing the meaning of words it's raher sad, but nothing NEW smh.
Like Niger meaning "black"(negative) in Latin yet it really means "King of Rivers" in Africa.

What is the source for this information?

You can find that anywhere that's the easiest one lol.

Here is a link to the 7 tablets of the Enuma Elish:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/

It's not very long, and I can't find that story there. Can you show me where the story of Anu, Antum and Iyd is?

He he...all the lawyers in my family said I could have been the best one..I did that intentially so you would BITE on it..Check the Etana Tablets, Tablets of Adapa, Atra Hasis, The Epic of Gildamesh and The King Ship of the Heavens....READ THEM ALL my friend mwahahahaha!!!!

[GeorgeK]

Have many pre-Greek sources survived with the myths and language as it was originally

Can you re-word that a little better I want to be sure I understand what you mean.You answered my question while I was writing that by noting those of the Horus stories that were original and those with Greek influence in your next post. Your post implies that there are indeed versions of the Egyptian stories that have survived from times before any possible Greek influence. Could you tell us more about which versions of these books you have access to? Or what commentaries of these books you are drawing on? This has been a subject visited often around here that typically meets with a Xian response asking for sources and reliability.

One other comment. You have made a couple references to freemasons. Have you any reliable sources that describe much of anything about masons thousands of years ago? There were many "Mystery Religions" that used secret initiations like baptism. These seem to have had some influence on the formation of Xianity. As to the last degrees of masonry, all I know is that 32nd degree is what is required to be a Shriner. (Yes, the guys in tiny cars with red fezes.)
"Only when a Master Mason has achieved the 32nd degree Scottish Rite or Knights Templar degree in York Rite can he petition to become a Noble of the Mystic Shrine."
source: http://www.mastermason.com/fbshrine/FAQ.htm
Much wierdness, I'm sure. But I really know nothing about them.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Beyond merely rising and setting, every winter solstice the sun reaches it's lowest point in the sky and stays down for 3 days before beginning to rise again. Furthermore, if you envision the circle of the zodiac in the sky, you can split this circle with a cross into four seasons with the cross points representing solstices and exinoxes. Of course only at winter solstice does the sun appear to "die" when it moves onto the cross and then get reborn

VERY WELL DONE my friend also lets not forget the "southern cross" constellation that looked as if it died to the Persians in the coordinaces of that area on earth and was prophecized to come back..The Cross is as OLD AS DIRT as far as symbol. Also Christians over look the fact that any image of John the Baptist has him having a staff like a cross even when baptising Jesus lmao...how can this be when the cross is supposed to symbolize Jesus's crucifixion.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Could you tell us more about which versions of these books you have access to? Or what commentaries of these books you are drawing on? This has been a subject visited often around here that typically meets with a Xian response asking for sources and reliability.

The funny thing is this is common knowledge to REAL Egyptians, but considering we are labeled as "ancient peoples" grrrrrrrr we still have to keep up with the times and that is the uninformed "NEW WORLD" so here are books I have read.

# The Pyramid Texts Translation by Samuel A. B. Mercer
# Oxford History of Ancient Egypt by Ian shaw
# Egypt in Africa by Theodore Celenko
# Ancient Egypt in Africa by David O'Connor
# Ancient Egypt: A Social History Bruce Trigger
# African civlization myth or Reality Cheikh Anta Diop
# Ancient History of the God Jesus by Edouard Dujardin
# Antiquities Unveiled by JM Roberts, Esq.
# Apollonius the Nazarene by Raymond Bernard, PhD
# A Short History of the Bible by Bronson C. Keeler
# Christianity Before Christ by John G. Jackson
# Christianity: The Last Great Creation of the Pagan World by Vernal Holley
# Deceptions and Myths of the Bible by Lloyd Graham
# Did Jesus Exist? by GA Wells
# Deceptions and Myths of the Bible by Lloyd Graham
# Did Jesus Exist? by GA Wells
# Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless, Esq.
# Gnostic and Historic Christianity by Gerald Massey
# Isis Unveiled by Helena Blavatsky
# Pagan and Christian Creeds by Edward Carpenter
# Pagan Christs by JM Roberts
# The Bible in India by Louis Jacolliot
# The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read
# The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth by John Allegro
# The Diegesis by Rev. Robert Taylor
# The Coming Forth By day(correct translation) by Imam Isa
# "The Great Myth of the Sun-Gods" by Alvin Boyd Kuhn, PhD
# The Gospels and the Gospel by G.R.S. Mead
# The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ by Gerald Massey
# The Historical Evidence for Jesus by GA Wells
# The Origin and Evolution of Religion by Albert Churchward
# The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves
# The Truth about Jesus," lecture by M. Mangasarian


One other comment. You have made a couple references to freemasons. Have you any reliable sources that describe much of anything about masons thousands of years ago?

Any books or Websites concerning the history of Freemasonry would be best represented by these: Maurice Doggins, Madame Blavastky, Albert Pike, Gerald Mackey, Albert Mackey and Aleister Crowley. As far as the start of "Free"-Masonry or Shriners *headed east of Africa*(from Nubia/Egypt/Sumer to middle east ending up in Europe) 32nd and not Masonry 33rd or early African Gnostics *headed west of Africa*(from Nubia/Egypt to Greece then to upper Europe) In the Bible it *hints* in Genesis the "said" starter of Free Masonry in the middle east kingdom(head scorpion king) NIMROD who's real name is "NAR.MER".

Gen 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

Gen 10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

Gen 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

Gen 10:11 Out of that land went forth ASSHUR(ashuric or arabic must be learned as a shriner even today *hint*), and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,

[GeorgeK]

lets not forget the "southern cross" constellation that looked as if it died to the Persians in the coordinaces of that area on earth and was prophecized to come back.I thought I read something about the Southern Cross, but I wasn't sure that would be visible at all above the equator. Do you know what times of year it is visible above the horizon in those latitudes?

hehe, if not, my school has astronomy software that can simulate skies anywhere at anytime... but I'd have to learn to use it.

[Andrew Merritt]

Cool man,Egyptian man IS full of data.

[GakuseiDon]

I can't find any reference to a "Anupp the Baptizer", or any baptizer. What is the source?

Anupp is another way of saying ANUBIS the Jackel, it's not necessarily in the Egyptian lore that Anupp the Baptizer was a guy it doesn't work like that all the time, but Heru was "drawn out"(moshe in hebrew *hint*) of the water which is where your baptism comes from in your religion. This is a "ressurection into the new light" masonic ritual. Read Genesis chapter 32(32nd degree) That whole chapter is Masonic and about Moses ;)
So, where is Anubis called "Anubis the Baptizer", then? Simple question.

I understand that the Egyptian word "KRST" means burial. What source says that Horus was known as "the KRST", and what does KRST mean?

Karast/krst would mean Risen/Christ/Son of the Sun(like what aryan means in sanskrit *note Lord KRiS(t)na* not burial lmao..sigh..this is Europeans way of defamating everything that is not "White" or "European" by reversing the meaning of words it's raher sad, but nothing NEW smh.
Like Niger meaning "black"(negative) in Latin yet it really means "King of Rivers" in Africa.
What do you mean by "Risen/Christ/Son"? They aren't synonyms.

So, where was Horus called "Horus the Karast", then?

Here is a link to the 7 tablets of the Enuma Elish:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/

It's not very long, and I can't find that story there. Can you show me where the story of Anu, Antum and Iyd is?

He he...all the lawyers in my family said I could have been the best one..I did that intentially so you would BITE on it..Check the Etana Tablets, Tablets of Adapa, Atra Hasis, The Epic of Gildamesh and The King Ship of the Heavens....READ THEM ALL my friend mwahahahaha!!!!
Well, I suggest that one of us does, at the least.

ARE, I'd love to find if this is true or not. So, the story of Anu, Antum and Iyd ISN'T in the Enuma Elish? Where is it, then?

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

I thought I read something about the Southern Cross, but I wasn't sure that would be visible at all above the equator. Do you know what times of year it is visible above the horizon in those latitudes?

hehe, if not, my school has astronomy software that can simulate skies anywhere at anytime... but I'd have to learn to use it.

Great info and VERY interesting here:

THE SOUTHERN CROSS

This remarkable constellation is said to suggest to every one the idea of a cross, particularly when in attaining the meridian its upper and lower star are perpendicularly on it. Though now no longer visible in the north temperate zone, it was seen there from the time of Adam and Seth to that of the Christian era. It seems impossible that a constellation of such brilliancy and distinctness should have been omitted in the early arrangement of the emblems, though gradually declining in altitude from a considerable elevation, till the topmost star disappeared under the horizon of the latitude of Jerusalem, about the time of the awful sacrifice it prefigured. This fact, and this alone, reasonably accounts for the ancient tradition, that whenever the south polar constellation should be discovered, it would be found to be in the form of a cross (Dupuis, &c.). The ancient Persians celebrated a feast of the cross a few days before the sun entered Aries, when this constellation would be brilliant among the stars of night. Its disappearance may be thus briefly explained. Owing to the greater thickness of the earth at the equator, that part of the earth comes every year a little sooner to what are called the equinoxes, the points where the ecliptic crosses the equator; consequently the north pole moves every year a little farther on in the circle it describes in the northern sky. Thus it has gradually receded from the Southern Cross. This movement being known to be about 50" in a year, the place of the stars in ancient times can be ascertained by it (Humboldt's Cosmos, Herschel, &c.).

It is well known that the cross was a sacred emblem in the Egyptian mythology. The Arabians and Indians also, before the coming of Christ, venerated this emblem. There is in the British Museum a large silvery cross, taken from the mummy of an Egyptian priest. Sozomenes, AD 443, relates that "there was found in the temple of Serapis the sign of the cross, surrounded by hieroglyphics, which meant the life to come." The last letter in the Hebrew alphabet, thau, was originally in the form of a cross; and its name means boundary, limit, finishing (as in Gen 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren. ), as of the Messiah's work, as when He said, "It is finished."

When this constellation began to sink below the horizon in the north temperate zone, and its form was no longer apparent, its memory seems there to have been lost, and its place among the decans to have been supplied by the division of some other emblem. Ptolemy substituted the half-horse, to make up the number of the constellations to forty-eight: an injudicious contrivance still preserved on our globes. Others, by reckoning as separate constellations the Pleaides and Southern Crown, and making the number forty-nine or more, threw into confusion the original arrangement of three decans to each sign.

Dante, who was a great astronomer as well as poet, supposes himself at the antipodes of Jerusalem, and describes what he would have certainly seen there, these "four stars never beheld but by the early race of man." Humboldt conjectures he had seen them on Arabian globes: but at the time he wrote southern voyagers had brought the report of them, though as yet they had seen but four.

"In the fourth century the Christian anchorites in the Thebaid would see the Southern Cross at an altitude of 10o." "It will again appear in the northern latitudes, but after the lapse of thousands of years" (Humboldt).

In a recent letter from Australia, a working man writes home with much admiration of the Southern Cross, calling it "our constellation," "the constellation of Australia." May the omen be fulfilled!

Still, it should be borne in mind that even this emblem, so dear to the heart of the Christian, has been, like the brazen serpent of old, made an object of almost idolatrous veneration. That serpent must have been lifted up on a cross, no other form would support it, even as our Lord Himself was lifted up, that whoso looketh on Him may live: but when the people offered incense to it, it must be broken, as Nehushtan (2 Kings 18:4), a mere piece of brass. To this resplendent starry symbol no desecrating honours appear to have been offered. Regarded as a memorial of our faith, it may be very precious to our expatriated brethren, and remind them that the crucified Saviour will be present, according to His promise, where "two or three" of them are gathered together in His name, in those Australian wilds, as He has been to their northern ancestors from whose sky its splendours have so long departed.

From the calculations of modern astronomy we learn that the constellations of our sky, at least the principal ones, if we were transported to the nearest fixed star, would be seen in the same grouping as from the earth. This fact is peculiarly interesting as to the Southern Cross. May not the sacrifice offered on earth upon the cross extend to the universe of starry worlds? it should seem so from what St. Paul says, "Making peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, by Him, whether things in earth or things in heaven."


NOTE I
"The cross was the symbol of worship of the highest antiquity in Egypt and Syria, said to signify the life to come. Champollion interprets it support, or Saviour." "It is among the ruins of Palenque with a child held up to it in adoration." (Prescott's Mexico.)


NOTE II
Kennicott thought that "instruments of cruelty in their habitations" (Gen 49:5) related prophetically to the cross of Christ: the nails, the scourge, and spear might be included. The cross occurs here as the third decan or accompanying constellation of Libra. On the breastplate of the high priest the name of Levi and the sign Libra appear to have been engraven on the same stone. In the third decan of Libra the Persians, according to Albumazer, had the name Arbedi, one sense of which is "to cover," as in Proverbs 30:22. This might well be derived from the traditionary revelation, that on the cross the charity, the love, the sacrifice of the Redeemer should cover a multitude of sins. The Southern Cross is immediately below the victim, the atoning sacrifice.


NOTE III
Should any one wish to follow, on the modern celestial globe, the position assigned to this constellation in former ages, it will be necessary to reckon back the precession of the equinoxes to the time required, as altering the boundaries of the signs, the position of the colures and of the pole of the earth. While the pole of the ecliptic, in reference to which the stars are divided, is fixed, the pole of the equator has a motion in consequence of that of the equinoxes. About 6000 years since it would point to the brightest star in the tail of the dragon, which must be considered as the pole-star, in trying to rectify the globe for that time. This must be done for N. lat. 36o or thereabouts, which the traces of ancient astronomy have been thought to indicate as that where the earliest observations were made. Such being the situation of the sources of the river Euphrates, this supposition agrees with what is said in Genesis 2 as to the original habitation of mankind, the fountains at least of great rivers apparently not having been altered by the deluge. The Southern Cross will then be found to rise about 16o above the horizon when on the meridian; this altitude gradually lessening, its highest star will be seen to have disappeared from the latitude of Jerusalem about the time of the crucifixion of our Lord.


NOTE IV
"In consequence of the precession of the equinoxes the starry heavens are continually changing their aspect from every portion of the earth's surface. The early races of mankind beheld in the North the glorious constellation of the Southern Hemisphere rise before them, which, after remaining long invisible, will again appear in these latitudes after the lapse of thousands of years. At Berlin, and in the northern latitudes, the stars of the Southern Cross, as well as a and b Centauri, are receding more and more from view. The Southern Cross began to become invisible in 52o 30' north latitude, 2900 years before our era. According to Galle it might previously have reached an altitude of more than 10o...I am indebted to the communications of my friend Dr. Galle, by whom Le Verrier's planet was first discovered in the heavens, for all the calculations respecting the visibility of southern stars in northern latitudes." (Humboldt, Cosmos.)

"The constellation of the Southern Cross has acquired a peculiar character of importance from the beginning of the sixteenth century, owing to the religious feelings of Christian navigators and missionaries who have visited the tropical and southern seas, and both the Indies. The four principal stars are mentioned in the Almagest, and were regarded in the time of Adrian and Antoninus Pius as parts of the constellation of the Centaur. At the time of Claudius Ptolemaeus the beautiful star at the base of the Southern Cross had still an altitude of 6o 10' at its meridian passage at Alexandria, whilst in the present day it culminates there several degrees below the horizon. In order, at this time (1847), to see a Crucis at an altitude of 6o 10' it is necessary, taking the refraction into account, to be 10o south of Alexandria in the parallel of 21o 43' north latitude. In the fourth century the Christian anchorites in the Thebaid desert might have seen the Cross at an altitude of 10o. Dante says in the celebrated passage in the Purgatorio:


'Io mi volse a man destra, e posi mente
All' altro polo, e vidi quattro stelle,
Non viste mai fuor ch' alla prima gente.'
And Amerigo Vespucci, who at the aspect of the starry skies of the South, first called to mind this passage on his third voyage, boasted that he now looked on the four stars never seen till then by any but the first human race."

This constellation is mentioned by Christian missionaries and navigators as "a wonderful cross more glorious than all the constellations in the heavens."

Acosta mentions that in the Spanish settlements of tropical America the first settlers were accustomed, as is now done, to use the Southern Cross as a celestial clock, reckoning the hour from its vertical or inclined position.

Humboldt says, "the Persian, Kaswini, and other Mahomedan astronomers took pains to discover crosses in the Dolphin and the Dragon." This has probably been to account for the feast of the Cross observed in ancient Persia.

Humboldt says of the Divina Commedia, "The philosophical and religious mysticism which vivifies the grand composition of Dante assigns to all objects besides their real existence an ideal one, it seems almost as if we beheld two worlds reflected in one another." "The ideal world is a free creation of the soul, the product of poetic inspiration."

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

So, where is Anubis called "Anubis the Baptizer", then? Simple question

Anubis is symbolic of the angel of death, a black jackal dog. Dogs throughout history have been known to sense the presence of death and I was showing you how the God Anubis is used in masonic rituals to "draw out" which is baptism...It's not about a man named "Anubis the Baptizer" or "Anupp the Baptizer" I thought I made that clear. I am showing where even your concepts are coming from thats why I put "original" at the end of that parallel because; while not verbatum; it's origin and meaning are still from Egypt.

What do you mean by "Risen/Christ/Son"? They aren't synonyms.

Those are interpretions of the WORD karast how are they not synonymous, when yet your beloved Jesus has all of these attributes lmao.

So, where was Horus called "Horus the Karast", then?

Um, in Egypt lol. That is what we are talking about isn't it?

[Andrew Merritt]

I think the problem lies in the fact christians exspect identical meanings,but that was never the arguement.The arguement was that the christian conscept evolved natrualy through many cultures and private interpitations that often the end result has mutated to a almost unrecgonisable form.Yet the similiarities and the germ of the connections,if you know how to look are there.Of course there will be differances.There differant religions and often within a differant context.This is true with vertually anything.Even in languages.For example the word wife is derived from the word wif,wich simply means woman.The word husband means master of the house.Hus meaning house and Band meaning master.Today the words no longer have the original meaning.Yet we still use them and the original meaning for most seem alien.The same is true with the natrual evolution of religion.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

The arguement was that the christian conscept evolved natrualy through many cultures and private interpitations that often the end result has mutated to a almost unrecgonisable form.Yet the similiarities and the germ of the connections

Well put..I love the mutated and germ analogies that was clever lol

[GakuseiDon]

So, where is Anubis called "Anubis the Baptizer", then? Simple question

Anubis is symbolic of the angel of death, a black jackal dog. Dogs throughout history have been known to sense the presence of death and I was showing you how the God Anubis is used in masonic rituals to "draw out" which is baptism...It's not about a man named "Anubis the Baptizer" or "Anupp the Baptizer" I thought I made that clear. I am showing where even your concepts are coming from thats why I put "original" at the end of that parallel because; while not verbatum; it's origin and meaning are still from Egypt.
You said: "Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist... Horus is was baptized by Anupp the Baptizer.(original....."masonic ritual")"

So, it wasn't really Horus, it wasn't really baptism, it wasn't really by Anupp, and he wasn't really called "the Baptizer". But other than that, it is a remarkable similarity to Christianity, right?

BTW, "Draw out" isn't baptism. The Greek for the word ‘baptizo’ means to "immerse in water". That means "put in".

What do you mean by "Risen/Christ/Son"? They aren't synonyms.

Those are interpretions of the WORD karast how are they not synonymous, when yet your beloved Jesus has all of these attributes lmao.
OK. So you are saying that the word "karast" can be interpreted to mean "Risen", "Christ" and "Son". What is its primary meaning? Is it "burial"?

So, where was Horus called "Horus the Karast", then?

Um, in Egypt lol. That is what we are talking about isn't it?
Nope, we are talking about primary sources. In which text was Horus called "Horus the Karast"?

Please remember that quite a few of these primary sources like the Enuma Elish, the Pyramid Texts and the Book of the Dead are on-line now, so I suggest that you claim that it's in one that isn't on-line.

Cool man,Egyptian man IS full of data.
He is full of something, anyway. Personally, I think that he's Dr Jason Long. Am I correct, Real Egyptian?

[Andrew Merritt]

Didnt the hindus baptist people in there sacred river.We already know that the term means drawn out and the other version means submerge.That was never a secret anyways.Remember how wif evolved into wife?Of course they will be differant,you miss the piuont of the arguement.If thats the best critism you got,actually it was the apolagetics that lead me to see what they were apolagising about.Ive found the skeptics more honest and the apolagetics emberessingly desprate.Picky,picky focasing on things while ignoring the obviouse.Even if they were not associated,theres still a hundred other things.Its dumb by saying that there was no virgin birth in egypt cause Isis got herself pregnant by using Osiris cut off penis while he was dead.Saying its nothing like the holy spirit knocking up a 14 year old Mary who was engaged to another man anyways.Focusing on the differances rather then the similarities.How come the christ myth shatters dont mention the feast of the Gods were everyone eats bread,the flesh of god and drinks wine,the blood of god.Or that Dioneses,or however you spell his name rides a donkey?They only focus on certian arguements.Is someone suffering from selective presception?Yet I agree with you christian,though Ive seen the artifacts and the egyptian connection on the video,The power of myth with Joseph Cambel,I would for your sake,and the sake of others.I would like to see it on line,right here on this forum.Though I personally doubt that the likes of Robert Price, Earl Doberty and Tom Harper would emberess themselves on something that would be so easily disproven.Yet lets pretend there was no conection with Jesus and other dieing and rising Gods,like say Tammuz of the old testament.Theres still plenty of confusion and illogic,like geography errors,like when Jesus cast demons into pigs they run to the sea when they fall off a cliff.Theres no sea nearby,about 5 miles and theres no cliff.There was no nazerith,actually Im rambling,Ive already posted this on other parts of this forum.So even without the pagan part god,part man connections,wich would be differant,one could imagine new religions evolving from misunderstandings of foriegn religions.Like ezekiels wheels description is identical to a zodiac sighn.The writter of ezekiel didnt know what he saw,he probably saw it on a wall or a temple and incorporated it in his story.Shattering the christ myth is a leaky boat,with every similarity they try to explian away by plugging a hole,2 more leaks spring.Face it the obviouse is the most likely.So how bout it Egyptian?Any actual primary sources?

[GakuseiDon]

Picky,picky focasing on things while ignoring the obviouse.Even if they were not associated,theres still a hundred other things.
I'm not sure what else to do. If someone claims "the story of Abraham is in the Enuma Elish", and it isn't in there, what am I supposed to do?

If someone calls Anup "Anup the Baptizer", but there is no evidence for that claim, what should I do?

I'm not being picky at this stage at all, I'm just trying to track down whether these claims are true in the first place. That's why I'm always asking for primary sources, because you, Jason Long and Real E are repeating a lot of misinformation.

Don't YOU want to find out if these things are true? Don't YOU find it strange that no-one can really back up their claims? (Martini is the only one on this board who has done that)

Its dumb by saying that there was no virgin birth in egypt cause Isis got herself pregnant by using Osiris cut off penis while he was dead.
There WAS no virgin birth in Egypt, because Isis wasn't a virgin. She was married to Osiris at the time. So why call it a "virgin birth"? Why not just say a "miracle birth"? It is that imprecise terminology that causes confusion.

Focusing on the differances rather then the similarities.
No, I'm focusing on the claims. The claims are cr*p, mostly. There is no point on focussing on either the differences or the similarities until the claims have been backed up by some evidence. If the claim isn't true, what is there to discuss? What is needed is NOT what you thought you read in a book or a website, but what is in the primary source.

How come the christ myth shatters dont mention the feast of the Gods were everyone eats bread,the flesh of god and drinks wine,the blood of god.Or that Dioneses,or however you spell his name rides a donkey?
Where does Dionysus ride a donkey?

They only focus on certian arguements.Is someone suffering from selective presception?Yet I agree with you christian,though Ive seen the artifacts and the egyptian connection on the video,The power of myth with Joseph Cambel,I would for your sake,and the sake of others.I would like to see it on line,right here on this forum.Though I personally doubt that the likes of Robert Price, Earl Doberty and Tom Harper would emberess themselves on something that would be so easily disproven.
Price isn't too bad. Doherty is a bit paranoid. He refuses to publish his ideas in a peer-reviewed journal, yet he wants his views to be taken seriously by academia. He seems to have already decided that he won't be given a fair hearing, despite that there are a number of atheist Biblical scholars out there, and his ideas have some limited support from Carrier. Tom Harpur is a joke.

Shattering the christ myth is a leaky boat,with every similarity they try to explian away by plugging a hole,2 more leaks spring.Face it the obviouse is the most likely.So how bout it Egyptian?Any actual primary sources?
Good question, Andrew! But please supply primary sources yourself when you make a claim. Just remembering it from a book or website isn't enough. What if you remembered incorrectly? Or what if that book wasn't using good information?

[Goth_Slut]

There WAS no virgin birth in Egypt, because Isis wasn't a virgin. She was married to Osiris at the time. So why call it a "virgin birth"? Why not just say a "miracle birth"? It is that imprecise terminology that causes confusion.

The only bit I have to add, is that marital status does not neccessarily denote coitus had ever been performed.


Love,
Goth_Slut

[GakuseiDon]

There WAS no virgin birth in Egypt, because Isis wasn't a virgin. She was married to Osiris at the time. So why call it a "virgin birth"? Why not just say a "miracle birth"? It is that imprecise terminology that causes confusion.

The only bit I have to add, is that marital status does not neccessarily denote coitus had ever been performed.


Love,
Goth_Slut
True enough. It reminds me of an old joke: Scientists have discovered food that reduces a woman's sex drive by 90%. It's called "wedding cake" :)

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

You said: "Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist... Horus is was baptized by Anupp the Baptizer.(original....."masonic ritual")"

So, it wasn't really Horus, it wasn't really baptism, it wasn't really by Anupp, and he wasn't really called "the Baptizer". But other than that, it is a remarkable similarity to Christianity, right?

OOHH wait a minute I see what you mean now...the Egyptian book of the dead and Pyramid Texts have "Anupp the Baptizer" this is a Greecian insertion of "John the Baptizer", they chose "Anupp" because Horus's initiation(masonic) is associated with Anubis. So while Jesus's baptisings origin is Egyptian as well as Anubis all the Greeks did was combine the new "John the baptist" with what was already there. Which was a very common thing to do. "Combine your Religion/God and incorporate it with what is already there. The African-Americans did this with "santeria" combining Voudun with Catholocism because they wouldnt' have been able to practice Voudun in a Catholic society. The Greeks had it much easier in this instance because all they had to do was put minor newly acquired attributes of Jesus back into Horus because Jesus already came from Heru. Sorry I didn't understand you before I apologize.

BTW, "Draw out" isn't baptism. The Greek for the word ‘baptizo’ means to "immerse in water". That means "put in".

Lmao!! Who cares what the "word" Baptism means...it's about where does that practice COME FROM and what is its TRUE MEANING...It's "initiation". There is no coincidence that word is only in the new testiment of your bible *hint* The word might have fallen out of the sky, but the practice didn't. They talk about the significance of water(nun/nu/ma/mayim) in the Old Testiment..by the way and yet they never use the word baptism hmmmm lol


OK. So you are saying that the word "karast" can be interpreted to mean "Risen", "Christ" and "Son". What is its primary meaning? Is it "burial"?

No, but in order to RISE one must be buried correct? The Europeans just want to CHOOSE what they want an ancient word to mean after they change it and take it for their own...lol nothing new. So if that is the definition you are receiving then that is the reason you are getting a European meaning of the word Krst meaning "burial" In Nubia(cush,ham,mizrayim) the Africans developed what is known as the "Chi-Rho" (handled or sword cross). This cross is X. One of the bars of this cross has a loop on it to represent a sword with a handle. This is the symbol of the African Deity known as CHR/CHOR/CHOR-AMON/HOR(remember moses on mount what? lol *wink* not to mention the hebrew word for "mount" is what? lol)/HAR/HAR-U/HERU. This god of light was crucified, rose from the dead, and destroyed the forces of evil.

In the second century B.C. the Greeks borrowed this cross from the Africans, changing Heru to Harpocrates = Hero-Horus-Heracles (Hercules). Shortly thereafter the same Deity was named by the Greeks Xpnc (Chres) or Lord, Chrestos, and Christ. Many European scholars (including Christian scholars) have admited that Heracles/Hercules as none other than an emblem of Jesus Christ(note the picture of jesus carrying the cross on his back...that is a heracles picture originally). This reveals the African origin of the word, Christ. Bear in mind that the names Heracles, Hercules, Hero, Christ, and Messiah(messi/messu em ah) are also titles directly derived from the word HERU which is of African origin. The Greek title Christ, is derived frm the Egypto-African word KARAST. KRISTOS or CHRISTOS is the KRST (KARAST). Karast is a person who is anointed as a Heru (Hero) during their lifetime,when they are deceased they receive a great honor as a KRST or AUSAR (Osiris). Their bodies are anointed with spices, oils, and resins to preserve the body. The body is wrapped in bandages, placed in a coffin, the coffin is placed upright to symbolize resurrection so the Europeans I am assuming are taking this degree of the meaning (burial) in what you have seen the word to mean from your limited research. I mean in your Buybull story Jesus was the Messiah first THEN the CHRIST after he died right lol. African people believed that the Herus (Heroes) or Krsts (Christs) would rise again to save the world as fully divine beings. "He has risen." The Afro-Asians (Hebrews, Jews, Black Semites) brought this tradition out of Egypt. Jesus has this same title of a Christ.


Nope, we are talking about primary sources. In which text was Horus called "Horus the Karast"?

What does "TEXT" have to do with Horus being the KARAST and Jesus being the CHRIST. If this is your attempt at sophistry I would suggest you get a better example lol.

Please remember that quite a few of these primary sources like the Enuma Elish, the Pyramid Texts and the Book of the Dead are on-line now, so I suggest that you claim that it's in one that isn't on-line.


I think I answered this question in the response above.

He is full of something, anyway. Personally, I think that he's Dr Jason Long. Am I correct, Real Egyptian?

Don't know who Jason Long(he definetly isn't Egyptian) is and there is no need for insults...I am not the one that lied to you brother; the Christians did. Please don't attack me just because I give you the facts yet you want to ignore them because you have been programmed to fear the truth of Chrisitanity, I am only trying to help. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST, I must repeat that so that you will not think I am trying to strip something away from you when in actuality I am GIVING you something..and that is POWER which is KNOWLEDGE!!!!!!

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Shattering the christ myth is a leaky boat,with every similarity they try to explian away by plugging a hole,2 more leaks spring.Face it the obviouse is the most likely.So how bout it Egyptian?Any actual primary sources?

LMAO man I love your analogies!!!!!

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Primary sources for anything is "HISTORY" my friend...I know my countries history(your jesus crap is called plagirism, you owe us 3 quadrillion dollars please lmao as well as Sumeria and India). But since THAT ISN'T ENOUGH grrrrrr I gave a huge book list that I obviously have wasted my time reading :( considering believers and not "fact" havers only use their emotions for verification of what TRUTH or LIE is smh.

# The Pyramid Texts Translation by Samuel A. B. Mercer
# Oxford History of Ancient Egypt by Ian shaw
# Egypt in Africa by Theodore Celenko
# Ancient Egypt in Africa by David O'Connor
# Ancient Egypt: A Social History Bruce Trigger
# African civlization myth or Reality Cheikh Anta Diop
# Ancient History of the God Jesus by Edouard Dujardin
# Antiquities Unveiled by JM Roberts, Esq.
# Apollonius the Nazarene by Raymond Bernard, PhD
# A Short History of the Bible by Bronson C. Keeler
# Christianity Before Christ by John G. Jackson
# Christianity: The Last Great Creation of the Pagan World by Vernal Holley
# Deceptions and Myths of the Bible by Lloyd Graham
# Did Jesus Exist? by GA Wells
# Deceptions and Myths of the Bible by Lloyd Graham
# Did Jesus Exist? by GA Wells
# Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless, Esq.
# Gnostic and Historic Christianity by Gerald Massey
# Isis Unveiled by Helena Blavatsky
# Pagan and Christian Creeds by Edward Carpenter
# Pagan Christs by JM Roberts
# The Bible in India by Louis Jacolliot
# The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read
# The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth by John Allegro
# The Diegesis by Rev. Robert Taylor
# The Coming Forth By day(correct translation) by Imam Isa
# "The Great Myth of the Sun-Gods" by Alvin Boyd Kuhn, PhD
# The Gospels and the Gospel by G.R.S. Mead
# The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ by Gerald Massey
# The Historical Evidence for Jesus by GA Wells
# The Origin and Evolution of Religion by Albert Churchward
# The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves
# The Truth about Jesus," lecture by M. Mangasarian


I'm not being picky at this stage at all, I'm just trying to track down whether these claims are true in the first place. That's why I'm always asking for primary sources, because you, Jason Long and Real E are repeating a lot of misinformation.

Who is this Jason guy? The sad thing about you A christian is that I just did a search on yahoo.com and found all of your answers with few key words in 2 seconds...SOOOOOO this tells me you are just playing games with this forum. All this so called misinformation is baby carrots compared to the REAL truth of your relgion and its plagiarisms please don't let the TREE TRUNKS out and you end of becoming a NON-BELIEVER. I don't want to have to do that and I've done it many times before and felt guilty about it even though I gave them truth. So I am in a difficult position of LOVE(giving you truth) and RESPECT(discerning the end results of the truth I give).

Don't YOU want to find out if these things are true? Don't YOU find it strange that no-one can really back up their claims? (Martini is the only one on this board who has done that)

I love that Red Herring you used by mentioning MARTINI lmao...not to mention that MARTINI definetly doesn't believe in Jesus or the Buybull because of FACTS yet you used him as an example of backing up claims?!?!?! So this just proves that you are here to play games..I definetly dont have time for that :~

There WAS no virgin birth in Egypt, because Isis wasn't a virgin. She was married to Osiris at the time. So why call it a "virgin birth"? Why not just say a "miracle birth"? It is that imprecise terminology that causes confusion

That is because the meaning of Virgin was young damsel maiden or young woman. In hebrew they have the word "almah" for this meaning. Don't get mad at us for the word "virgin" in Greek taking on two differnent meanings and only one word...European tongues tend to do that alot lmao ;) hmmmm Also many of the pagan myths are incorporated with the Gods taking a human woman to bear a God man child taking a "fair" or "pure" woman..nothing new(gabriy'el comes from the God gab/geb by the way lmao). As far as why MARY is a virgin by not being touched by a man (bethula) that's just to add to her divinity and Jesus's..I mean come on you can't have God or the son of God come out of a dirty vagina now can you lmao obviously a Catholic/Jewish thing. No wonder Satan has taken over the world..God was in the womb for 9 months lmao lmao!!!! *rolling eyes*

No, I'm focusing on the claims. The claims are cr*p, mostly. There is no point on focussing on either the differences or the similarities until the claims have been backed up by some evidence. If the claim isn't true, what is there to discuss? What is needed is NOT what you thought you read in a book or a website, but what is in the primary source

Someone's little Holy Spirit that resides in him is very upset...AHHH that baptismal FIRE!!!! lmao By the way doesn't your God love the smell of burning flesh? You should go play the lottery now you will probably be blessed right now and win lmao.

[GakuseiDon]

You said: "Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist... Horus is was baptized by Anupp the Baptizer.(original....."masonic ritual")"

So, it wasn't really Horus, it wasn't really baptism, it wasn't really by Anupp, and he wasn't really called "the Baptizer". But other than that, it is a remarkable similarity to Christianity, right?

OOHH wait a minute I see what you mean now...the Egyptian book of the dead and Pyramid Texts have "Anupp the Baptizer" this is a Greecian insertion of "John the Baptizer", they chose "Anupp" because Horus's initiation(masonic) is associated with Anubis.
So, WHERE do the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Pyramid Texts say "Anupp the Baptizer", or the equivalent, or the masonic ritual, or whatever you are claiming? Both those are primary sources that are available on-line, so if you give me a reference, I promise I'll check it.

BTW, "Draw out" isn't baptism. The Greek for the word ‘baptizo’ means to "immerse in water". That means "put in".

Lmao!! Who cares what the "word" Baptism means...it's about where does that practice COME FROM and what is its TRUE MEANING...It's "initiation". There is no coincidence that word is only in the new testiment of your bible *hint* The word might have fallen out of the sky, but the practice didn't. They talk about the significance of water(nun/nu/ma/mayim) in the Old Testiment..by the way and yet they never use the word baptism hmmmm lol
"Who cares what the word Baptism means"? Well, if you are going to use the word, I suggest you should, otherwise confusion occurs.

In which primary source can the Egyptian practice of "baptism" (or whatever you want to call it) be found?

OK. So you are saying that the word "karast" can be interpreted to mean "Risen", "Christ" and "Son". What is its primary meaning? Is it "burial"?

No, but in order to RISE one must be buried correct? The Europeans just want to CHOOSE what they want an ancient word to mean after they change it and take it for their own...lol nothing new. So if that is the definition you are receiving then that is the reason you are getting a European meaning of the word Krst meaning "burial"
That is the meaning that Egyptologists say "KRST" has. Are they wrong, then?

In Nubia(cush,ham,mizrayim) the Africans developed what is known as the "Chi-Rho" (handled or sword cross). This cross is X. One of the bars of this cross has a loop on it to represent a sword with a handle. This is the symbol of the African Deity known as CHR/CHOR/CHOR-AMON/HOR(remember moses on mount what? lol *wink* not to mention the hebrew word for "mount" is what? lol)/HAR/HAR-U/HERU. This god of light was crucified, rose from the dead, and destroyed the forces of evil.
HERU is another name for "Horus". As far as I know, Horus never dies. Primary source for the account of the crucifixion, please?

In the second century B.C. the Greeks borrowed this cross from the Africans, changing Heru to Harpocrates = Hero-Horus-Heracles (Hercules). Shortly thereafter the same Deity was named by the Greeks Xpnc (Chres) or Lord, Chrestos, and Christ. Many European scholars (including Christian scholars) have admited that Heracles/Hercules as none other than an emblem of Jesus Christ(note the picture of jesus carrying the cross on his back...that is a heracles picture originally). This reveals the African origin of the word, Christ. Bear in mind that the names Heracles, Hercules, Hero, Christ, and Messiah(messi/messu em ah) are also titles directly derived from the word HERU which is of African origin. The Greek title Christ, is derived frm the Egypto-African word KARAST. KRISTOS or CHRISTOS is the KRST (KARAST). Karast is a person who is anointed as a Heru (Hero) during their lifetime,when they are deceased they receive a great honor as a KRST or AUSAR (Osiris).
Sounds FSCNTG (fascinating) but I suggest that it is BLLSHT. Where do you get this from? I mean, if you didn't dream it, there should be a primary source somewhere using these words in the manner you suggest, correct? In which text was Horus called "Horus the Karast"? If you can't give me a text, then HOW do you know that he was called "Horus the Karast"? I'm sure you can see that my question isn't unreasonable.

Please don't attack me just because I give you the facts yet you want to ignore them because you have been programmed to fear the truth of Chrisitanity, I am only trying to help. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST, I must repeat that so that you will not think I am trying to strip something away from you when in actuality I am GIVING you something..and that is POWER which is KNOWLEDGE!!!!!!
Great! I appreciate that. Knowledge is indeed power, as long as it is correct knowledge. But I believe that you are unintentionally spreading misinformation, like Andrew Merrit and Jason Long. Surely you can appreciate that. You claimed that the Abraham story was in the Enuma Elish, but it wasn't there. Don't you see why I am a little suspicious of your information? I honestly don't think that you can back up your claims from primary sources, but I am more than happy to look if you give me the references.

When people start making claims without being able to provide a primary source for those claims (or they refuse to have their claims challenged in an academic setting, as per Doherty), alarm bells start ringing for me, I'm afraid.

Look, for all I know, you have actually gone to the primary sources yourself, and investigated thoroughly. If that is the case, I would really appreciate if you can give me the references you used.

But if you HAVEN'T seen primary sources for this information (and I strongly believe that this is the case), I would appreciate if you let me know that, too.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

So, WHERE do the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Pyramid Texts say "Anupp the Baptizer", or the equivalent, or the masonic ritual, or whatever you are claiming? Both those are primary sources that are available on-line, so if you give me a reference, I promise I'll check it.

There was no Anupp the Baptizer so I don't know why you are concerned with this...I just showed you the reason for the GREEKS doing this not Egyptians...so drop this discussion especially considering I thoroughly explained it. Giving you a primary source doesn't do anything for "Anupp the Baptizer" because I already told you it was Greek so don't worry about this.

"Who cares what the word Baptism means"? Well, if you are going to use the word, I suggest you should, otherwise confusion occurs.

In which primary source can the Egyptian practice of "baptism" (or whatever you want to call it) be found?

What is this term "primary source" mean...what are you asking for? Do a search on the meaning of "mos" or "mose" and Egypt or "initiation" or "masonry" you can do this on your own man...I told you where baptism originates from you have what you need to verify. Isis bathed(baptised) three times a day you can do research on isis and bathing whatever you want to do man It's up to you lol.


That is the meaning that Egyptologists say "KRST" has. Are they wrong, then?

I told you the reason for the degree of karast they gave you I need not further explain, if your Jesus didn't die and was in a tomb and ressurected then you would have a case in the discrepency of this word, but you don't, you are just being difficult for no reason.

HERU is another name for "Horus". As far as I know, Horus never dies. Primary source for the account of the crucifixion, please?

I gave you the source for "x" didn't I? Christ's/Karast sacfrice their life for their people this crucified savior plagiarism is in many more cultures than just Egypt..hell get the 16 crucified saviors book if you want. Again do the research use the key words you want I can tell you are just doing this for games


Sounds FSCNTG (fascinating) but I suggest that it is BLLSHT. Where do you get this from? I mean, if you didn't dream it, there should be a primary source somewhere using these words in the manner you suggest, correct? In which text was Horus called "Horus the Karast"? If you can't give me a text, then HOW do you know that he was called "Horus the Karast"? I'm sure you can see that my question isn't unreasonable

I just gave you a very thorough history of the etymology of the African orginat of the word CHRIST and this is the thanks I get??!?!? WOW gee thanks alot..Horus the Karast is in the Egyptian book of the dead and other sources the sad thing is I just did a search on Horus and KARAST and I got thousands of pages. So what the hell?

Great! I appreciate that. Knowledge is indeed power, as long as it is correct knowledge. But I believe that you are unintentionally spreading misinformation, like Andrew Merrit and Jason Long. Surely you can appreciate that. You claimed that the Abraham story was in the Enuma Elish, but it wasn't there. Don't you see why I am a little suspicious of your information? I honestly don't think that you can back up your claims from primary sources, but I am more than happy to look if you give me the references.

When people start making claims without being able to provide a primary source for those claims (or they refuse to have their claims challenged in an academic setting, as per Doherty), alarm bells start ringing for me, I'm afraid.

Look, for all I know, you have actually gone to the primary sources yourself, and investigated thoroughly. If that is the case, I would really appreciate if you can give me the references you used.

But if you HAVEN'T seen primary sources for this information (and I strongly believe that this is the case), I would appreciate if you let me know that, too

The primary source is EGYPT itself..considering that I am being considerate about you not being Egyptian; I gave you dozens of books and you have billions of websites to do searches on. Again you already have what you need it's not in my hands anymore...you can either subconsciously purposely avoid or ignore the facts or do the research yourself since what I have thoroughly explained is not enough for you. No need for any more response from you.

If any other Christians that have been reading this post have questions just ask...but A CHRISTIAN you have lost against the facts and ignored them so I'm done with you personally on this post.

[GakuseiDon]

But if you HAVEN'T seen primary sources for this information (and I strongly believe that this is the case), I would appreciate if you let me know that, too

The primary source is EGYPT itself..considering that I am being considerate about you not being Egyptian; I gave you dozens of books and you have billions of websites to do searches on. Again you already have what you need it's not in my hands anymore...you can either subconsciously purposely avoid or ignore the facts or do the research yourself since what I have thoroughly explained is not enough for you. No need for any more response from you.

If any other Christians that have been reading this post have questions just ask...but A CHRISTIAN you have lost against the facts and ignored them so I'm done with you personally on this post.
Thanks for your time, Real E.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

Thanks for your time, Real E.

Well it seems as If I've wasted my time, but if you got brave enough between the last two posts and actually researched and you learned something then thats all that matters.

[martini7B7]

haven't we covered the water cleansing rituals in other religions some time ago? they are quite common. while you may call equivocation on the word "baptism", the fact that the ritual is used still denotes some religious experience connected with cleansing.

Achamana is sipping water three times, repeating the Names of the Lord. Prokshana is sprinkling water over ones body for the sake of purity, when a bath is not possible. This is for internal as well as external purity. While sipping water Mantras are repeated.

Excerpt from All About Hinduism by Sri Swami Sivananda

Ritual purity was of utmost importance. Everything and everyone which was to come into the presence of the god had to be purified, i.e. washed with natron and water from the Sacred Lake, of which there existed one on every temple ground. Natron as well as incense and water for libations played an important part of the rituals. These things were also prepared alongside of the offerings.
daily ritual in ancient Egyptian temples

Homer mentions the washing of hands before prayer, and the purification of an entire army with water [Iliad, 1.313]. The Greeks even had priests, kathartai, who specialized in purification with water.

Buddhists everywhere celebrate the New Year and the Buddha’s birth, enlightenment, and death. The beginning of a new year is, generally, a time for "taking stock" of one’s karma, cleansing, and well-wishing. In Theravada communities the New Year is celebrated in mid-April on the lunar calendar and lasts for two or three days. The laity ritually bathe the Buddha-images and sprinkle water on the monks and the elders, showing respect and offering good wishes.

etc.

[Goth_Slut]

Water in any form, usually comes as a pretty standard definition of "purity."
The rivers around Eden: Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Perat.
Pishon surrounds the whole land of Havilah where the finest gold is, Gihon surrounds the land of Cush, Hiddekel runs east of Asshur, and the last, Perat.
[From genesis]

Baptisms, holy water, Eden, the ocean, the great biblical floods, etc. etc.
Water has often symbolised the power of God, and purity by cleansing.

It's very interesting how many different religions see water as the power of the supernatural. It isn't hard to see why either, considering the geographical locations that the 3 primary religions were born, and the destructive and life giving power that water possesses.

Egyptology has always been my favorite study. So far, I would have to thank you Real Egyptian, you've given me much reading material to pursue. This is my tiny contribution.

“And just as Ra, the holy spirit, descends in Tattu on the mummy Osiris, and as Horus places his hands behind Osiris in the resurrection, so Iu comes to his body, the mummy in Amenta. Those who tow Ra along say, ‘The god comes to his body; the god is towed along toward his mummy.’ The sun-god, whether as Atum-Iu (Aiu or Aai) or Osiris-Ra, is a mummy in Amenta and a soul in heaven. Atum or Osiris, as the sun in Amenta, is the mummy buried down in Khebt, or lower Egypt.”

I found it from what is by far, one of my favorite sites. I've read most of it so far, in my free time.

http://web2.airmail.net/dsh440/lost%20light_x.htm

Here's another good one that details the possibility of Christ's origins.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

For whatever use they may be, I hope they are helpfull to someone.

I likes 'em lots. :)

As a side note before I forget, "The Rivers of Paradise" by David Noel Freedman, and Michael J. McClymond detail the last two of the four rivers mentioned in genesis as the Tigris and Euphrates, but I've not heard many credible claims as to the other two. Pishon might be the Nile, or at least a branch of it. Any thoughts?

And a question for Egypt, what kind of impact do you think that Set had on the bible? I would like to hear your (or anyone's) thoughts on that one.


And now, I shall butt-out.



Love,
Goth_Slut

[Andrew Merritt]

Ive always thought the psychological reason why water plays such a spiritual influences is because,water is the life source of all things,wether it be crops,animals or human.Water also cleanses.Just before a baby is born,a womans water bag breaks.So of course differant cultures will have a differant take on water as it is closely associated with life.Life associated with spirit.The spirit associated with God.

[A_REAL_EGYPTIAN]

And a question for Egypt, what kind of impact do you think that Set had on the bible? I would like to hear your (or anyone's) thoughts on that one.

During the early dynasties of Egypt, Babylon was the ruling empire for a very short time and invaded Egypt and in a since took over (for use of words). The Babylonians(post original Sumerians(Sag.gi.ga)) had been influenced and taken over by those invaders from "KISH" they brought Zorastrianism(Persian/Syrian principles) in to the culture. The Babylonians after invading Egypt put this Zorastrianism concept into Egypt. The main priniciple of Zorastrianism is GOOD VS. EVIL and HEAVEN and HELL. So although the elected high god in Egypt became "Murdoq"/RA over "Ptah" in Egypt bcause they took over, they added a Good and Evil concept which is not at all an ANCIENT concept!!! So as time went on and new Gods became elected they kept this Good and Evil concept throughout the remainder of history in Egypt. At the point when Osirus was the High God, Set was made the Evil one(demonized) because in the ancient history of these Gods, Set killed Osirus. So your Satan(in the Egyptian degree) comes from SET(fire) HEN(house)---house of fire!! Sound familiar? ;) and horus was to raise from the underworld and kill Set for killing his father (see the Greek story of "Hades"...horus is hades ;)) Don't get this confused with the Mesopotamian degree of Shay(thing) Taan(clay)--thing of clay(man) shaytaan. So now we have "saw tawn" (satan) in hebrew as the adversary or accuser(En.ki/Ptah) against this God of the bible.

water plays such a spiritual influences is because,water is the life source of all things,wether it be crops,animals or human.Water also cleanses.Just before a baby is born,a womans water bag breaks

You know for someone that is an atheist you SURE ARE CLOSE to realizing what GOD is all about....you are almost there my friend...keep up the great work brother :D

[stophboy7]

Ive always thought the psychological reason why water plays such a spiritual influences is because,water is the life source of all things,wether it be crops,animals or human.Water also cleanses.Just before a baby is born,a womans water bag breaks.So of course differant cultures will have a differant take on water as it is closely associated with life.Life associated with spirit.The spirit associated with God.

There is a possibility that none of you have yet explored. That being the actual...biblical one. I'll take the timeline of this 'god' from the earliest written history we have (the bible) up until now, and it's real easy to see the whole picture clearly.

- world wide flood, world needs to be repopulated.
- not many generations after, 'Nimrod' is born. He takes over most of the world, and makes himself into a God. Calls himself 'Bel-Nimrod'. Builds a tall ass tower so he can go to heaven, called 'Tower of Bable'.
- Nimrod realizes he isn't immortal, and makes up a new story. His wife, and his child, are now also God. His child is a reincarnated version of himself, and was born miraculously from his wife.
- This 'God' eventually is called 'Baal'.
- He is then eventually called lots of other stuff, like 'Ra' and 'Zeus'.
- When the real God's actual messiah comes (who is a man, and not God himself at all), he gets entangled in this 'God' mess, because people are stupid, and the Roman Empire absorbed the faith, called it 'christianity', and gave it the same story their God had, and has had, ever since his name was Bel Nimrod (this is where the trinity comes from, waaaay back then.)

What people fail to see is: the bible never says the stuff about Jesus that christians say it says. So yes, christianity is stolen from very ancient gods, which originated with Bel Nimrod, who is documented in the Bible as existing, and being a powerful king. however, just because some stupid guys made up a religion based on what God was trying to do, doesn't discredit God.

as far as the symbolism of water and what not...might it make sense that these things were created in this manner so that we could understand deeper spiritual truths in a way that relates to us? not saying it's a fact, just saying it's a possibility. even the way you talked about the 'woman's water breaking' made the symbolism seem VERY intentional, and not at all random, like say, the only other theory; evolution.

Those ideas being thrown out there, I commend you for being far more personable and cordial than that religious fanatical psycho. Heh, he won't burn in hell for eternity, cause that's made up too, and isn't in the bible, however, he'll sure have a rough time dealing with self created destructive situations if he keeps that attitude up.

[stophboy7]

1. Assuming that there is absolutely no evidence of Jesus at all, how does that disprove his existence? Just how many people around that time do we have concrete evidence of? If there's no evidence of your existence and you lived two millennia ago, does that mean you never existed?

2. Why were early Christians not challenged in their view that Jesus existed?

3. What would be the motivation of early Christians to believe in Jesus so much as to literally give their lives for him?

4. How could such a massive conspiracy happen with nobody letting the cat out of the bag and letting people know that the whole Jesus thing was an act?

5. And, finally....and I hope this isn't inappropriate, but why is this movie trying to be as provocative as possible? The beast? 06/06/06? What do the people in charge of this movie get out of pissing off as many Christians as possible? Are they trying to be controversial just so they can get more ticket sales and a buzz factor like The Passion of the Christ?

Thanks in advance.

hah...oldest tricks in the the christian handbook 101. gotta get some new material, maybe read the bible a bit more and rely on the tactics it suggests instead of using coined stuff?

for instance, if you could prove at least one of the miracles happened in the bible for sure, wouldn't that give some validity and credibility that they all at least probably happened?

doesn't the book of Jude say that Sodom and Gommorah were burned to a crisp, and serve as an 'example' to others who would live the same way? (oh, and by the way, it wasn't just 'homosexuality' that did S&G and others in...it was complete disregard for not only their own well being, but others' as well. why do christians make such a big deal about homosexuals? it's only mentioned like 4 times in the whole bible, old testament and new. You know how many times idolatry is mentioned? yeah...)

well, if they were burnt, and they are serving as an example, go find em. that might go a long way to proving the validity of the scriptures. Some guy did find them by the way, a guy by the name of Ron Wyatt. They're still standing, for the most part, today; pretty neat actually, if anyone cares to look it up.

[The Intrepid Traveller]

There is a possibility that none of you have yet explored. That being the actual...biblical one. I'll take the timeline of this 'god' from the earliest written history we have (the bible) up until now, and it's real easy to see the whole picture clearly.

- world wide flood, world needs to be repopulated.
- not many generations after, 'Nimrod' is born. He takes over most of the world, and makes himself into a God. Calls himself 'Bel-Nimrod'. Builds a tall ass tower so he can go to heaven, called 'Tower of Bable'.
- Nimrod realizes he isn't immortal, and makes up a new story. His wife, and his child, are now also God. His child is a reincarnated version of himself, and was born miraculously from his wife.
- This 'God' eventually is called 'Baal'.
- He is then eventually called lots of other stuff, like 'Ra' and 'Zeus'.
- When the real God's actual messiah comes (who is a man, and not God himself at all), he gets entangled in this 'God' mess, because people are stupid, and the Roman Empire absorbed the faith, called it 'christianity', and gave it the same story their God had, and has had, ever since his name was Bel Nimrod (this is where the trinity comes from, waaaay back then.)


Why o why do people always seem to assume that these historical dudes were dumb? please stophboy, if Nimrod were that thick how did he obtain world dominion? Building a tower to heaven?
These are the guys who gave us the wheel, taught us to make bread etc...
Try factoring with Roman Numerals.
Come on, use your common sence and think things through before posting this stuff. ;)

[Andrew Merritt]

Earlier I asked if Nimrod,you know the king who god called his servant in the bible,who god later turned him into a wild animal for 7 years who's name means to revolt.I mistakenly thought he originated from a Egyptian diety,well it turns out its the Babylonian supreme god Marduk.Its intresting to note in the tower of Babel in hebrew means confusion actualy means El,god Bab gate.Gateway to the gods!Remember just like religions evolve through the times,so does language and meaning,depending on the culture and time period.There are a lot of intresting myths about Nimrod in both pagan and Jewish sources.Some have him as a halfbreed between a god and a man.