INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Calavera on June 27, 2011, 05:44:59 PM
-
Who else thinks it's ridiculous?
It's quite a ridiculous and irrational belief to espouse that one wonders why many skeptics who claim to be rational and "free thinkers" believe this shit.
Since when did atheists and seculars believe something without proper research?
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, check this site (for example):
http://www.truthbeknown.com/
It's confusing how some atheists/agnostics/what have you can be more intellectually dishonest than many Christian apologists.
-
Copy and paste it here.
-
For example, check this:
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph"). Seb is also known as "Geb": "As Horus the Elder he...was believed to be the son of Geb and Nut." Lewis Spence, Ancient Egyptian Myths and Legends, 84.
He was of royal descent.
At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.
He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").
He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.
Horus walked on water.
His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."
He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was killed, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God's Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.
He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.
He came to fulfill the Law.
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."
Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."
http://truthbeknown.com/christ.htm
-
Where's the part about atheist and agnostics believing this?
-
Where's the part about atheist and agnostics believing this?
Oh, you get to see that in discussion boards that allow for discussions between atheists and theists and such. A lot of them believe in this crap, unfortunately.
-
Where's the part about atheist and agnostics believing this?
Oh, you get to see that in discussion boards that allow for discussions between atheists and theists and such. A lot of them believe in this crap, unfortunately.
Odd. Atheists and agnostics who believe in God and his son Horus are laughable, or at best counterproductive. Does it appear to be a sizable goup?
-
Where's the part about atheist and agnostics believing this?
Oh, you get to see that in discussion boards that allow for discussions between atheists and theists and such. A lot of them believe in this crap, unfortunately.
Odd. Atheists and agnostics who believe in God and his son Horus are laughable, or at best counterproductive. Does it appear to be a sizable goup?
Is that what is said in that site? I didn't notice that bit.
What I meant is that many believe there are striking parallels between the stories of Jesus and the stories and myths of other mythological characters. Acharya S is just one person who spreads this nonsense around. There are others who claim to be scholars who do the same, and many just take their words for granted.
-
No. Only a misunderstanding I guess. Your opening posts appeared to be saying atheist and agnostics believe this stuff, and when I asked about, you seemed to confirm this again by saying 'a lot of them believe in this crap'. Got it now.
-
Apparently Christ is the 17th prophet to have been resurrected from the dead, and to have walked around after the resurrection. Buddha, some Egyptian pharoahs, some Mesapotamian kings and even some South American prophets are amongst them. As Christianity is a religion that borrowed a lot of its mythology from earlier writings, then it would be very likely he is just one of the many.
Besides, Jesus was not born on Dec 25, it was more likely some time in March 6 BCE. And the idea of Christmas came from the Pagan festival of Saturnalia.
-
No. Only a misunderstanding I guess. Your opening posts appeared to be saying atheist and agnostics believe this stuff, and when I asked about, you seemed to confirm this again by saying 'a lot of them believe in this crap'. Got it now.
Ok, fair enough. Posting links to various discussion board topics in various forums takes too much time and effort. The following video was made by atheists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFsmmMTMCHU
If you ever have the time, watch it for me and let me know what you think.
-
Apparently Christ is the 17th prophet to have been resurrected from the dead, and to have walked around after the resurrection. Buddha, some Egyptian pharoahs, some Mesapotamian kings and even some South American prophets are amongst them. As Christianity is a religion that borrowed a lot of its mythology from earlier writings, then it would be very likely he is just one of the many.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Have you ever read Buddhist material for yourself? How about Egyptian mythology?
If you really believe this, then I'm willing to give you a challenge. Are you ready to accept it?
-
Apparently Christ is the 17th prophet to have been resurrected from the dead, and to have walked around after the resurrection. Buddha, some Egyptian pharoahs, some Mesapotamian kings and even some South American prophets are amongst them. As Christianity is a religion that borrowed a lot of its mythology from earlier writings, then it would be very likely he is just one of the many.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Have you ever read Buddhist material for yourself? How about Egyptian mythology?
If you really believe this, then I'm willing to give you a challenge. Are you ready to accept it?
Never read it, but as I got turned off Christianity a long time ago because their beliefs were too hard to swallow, I decided to become Pagan. While I might not worship around Stonehenge, or meditate like Buddha, or pray to Osiris and Ra, I still think that it's dumb of Christians to believe that they were the only ones who had a messiah that rose from the dead. Besides, Christianity as a sect only numbered about a few hundred back in Jesus day, and had the Romans got it right, they would have been wiped out. Then we have Constantine, who miraculously converted when he saw a 'vision' of cross. trick of the light, yeah, but no vision. It's got me wondering how a book of stories about mythology can be taken so seriously, but then you have to look at dicks like Ragtime and that parakeet wanker and you get the gist. Until someone can prove the existence of god, then we should take any beliefs as that - belief.
-
Apparently Christ is the 17th prophet to have been resurrected from the dead, and to have walked around after the resurrection. Buddha, some Egyptian pharoahs, some Mesapotamian kings and even some South American prophets are amongst them. As Christianity is a religion that borrowed a lot of its mythology from earlier writings, then it would be very likely he is just one of the many.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Have you ever read Buddhist material for yourself? How about Egyptian mythology?
If you really believe this, then I'm willing to give you a challenge. Are you ready to accept it?
Never read it, but as I got turned off Christianity a long time ago because their beliefs were too hard to swallow, I decided to become Pagan. While I might not worship around Stonehenge, or meditate like Buddha, or pray to Osiris and Ra, I still think that it's dumb of Christians to believe that they were the only ones who had a messiah that rose from the dead. Besides, Christianity as a sect only numbered about a few hundred back in Jesus day, and had the Romans got it right, they would have been wiped out. Then we have Constantine, who miraculously converted when he saw a 'vision' of cross. trick of the light, yeah, but no vision. It's got me wondering how a book of stories about mythology can be taken so seriously, but then you have to look at dicks like Ragtime and that parakeet wanker and you get the gist. Until someone can prove the existence of god, then we should take any beliefs as that - belief.
I don't know why you've chosen to state points that are really irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Let's just concentrate on the bolded part in your comment above.
You do realize the word "Messiah" originated in the Old Testament Scriptures (in Hebrew language), right?
Where is the word "Messiah" in Egyptian myths? When did Buddha become a Messiah?
When did Krishna become known as a character who got crucified to pay the price for the sins of mankind to be resurrected later in three days or so? How about Hercules, Odin, and so on? Were they also said to have been born of virgins and had twelve disciples each and were called Saviors, Redeemers, Messiahs, etc.?
I'm not saying this is what you yourself believe, but usually people who say what you say above also believe the other stuff that has been made popular recently about such mythological characters. So the question is why are we quick to believe what people like Acharya S and Robert Price and other frauds like them say?
-
Same as why are people so quick to believe the likes of Rev Phelps, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Jones, amongst others? Easy. It;s because people are so easily duped. Faith requires gullibility, and most fundies be it Christian, Muslim, Moron (er.. Mormon), or whatever are gullible. Religion is a big form of spiritual penis-envy; a 'my god is better than your god thing'. Mostly, it's all belief (as I said) and mostly to all free-thinkers, it's all shite.
-
Same as why are people so quick to believe the likes of Rev Phelps, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Jones, amongst others? Easy. It;s because people are so easily duped. Faith requires gullibility, and most fundies be it Christian, Muslim, Moron (er.. Mormon), or whatever are gullible. Religion is a big form of spiritual penis-envy; a 'my god is better than your god thing'. Mostly, it's all belief (as I said) and mostly to all free-thinkers, it's all shite.
Yet, you already made a couple of claims that show you're quick to believe that the character and stories of Jesus were copied from other mythological/religious sources. And that is what I'm trying to get at. If the above quote is what you think, then why do many of us read the nonsense spouted by some frauds and click our fingers and go "Hey, these guys are definitely right" ignoring the fact that they cite no conclusive evidence for their findings?
You are trying to turn this into a discussion about religious beliefs while I'm trying to get this to be a discussion about some of the irrational beliefs that many atheists/agnostics hold.
-
Silly indeed we all know Thoth is the only one that deserves worship :P
-
Same as why are people so quick to believe the likes of Rev Phelps, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Jones, amongst others? Easy. It;s because people are so easily duped. Faith requires gullibility, and most fundies be it Christian, Muslim, Moron (er.. Mormon), or whatever are gullible. Religion is a big form of spiritual penis-envy; a 'my god is better than your god thing'. Mostly, it's all belief (as I said) and mostly to all free-thinkers, it's all shite.
Yet, you already made a couple of claims that show you're quick to believe that the character and stories of Jesus were copied from other mythological/religious sources. And that is what I'm trying to get at. If the above quote is what you think, then why do many of us read the nonsense spouted by some frauds and click our fingers and go "Hey, these guys are definitely right" ignoring the fact that they cite no conclusive evidence for their findings?
You are trying to turn this into a discussion about religious beliefs while I'm trying to get this to be a discussion about some of the irrational beliefs that many atheists/agnostics hold.
Both are one in the same, when you get down to it. And why are atheist/agnostics put in the 'irrational' basket when fundie Christians etc would be just as at home in said basket? Neither party can prove themselves right or wrong, but to me the mythologies of Christianity should not be taken any more seriouly than Shakespeare or Tolstoy.
-
Same as why are people so quick to believe the likes of Rev Phelps, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Jones, amongst others? Easy. It;s because people are so easily duped. Faith requires gullibility, and most fundies be it Christian, Muslim, Moron (er.. Mormon), or whatever are gullible. Religion is a big form of spiritual penis-envy; a 'my god is better than your god thing'. Mostly, it's all belief (as I said) and mostly to all free-thinkers, it's all shite.
Yet, you already made a couple of claims that show you're quick to believe that the character and stories of Jesus were copied from other mythological/religious sources. And that is what I'm trying to get at. If the above quote is what you think, then why do many of us read the nonsense spouted by some frauds and click our fingers and go "Hey, these guys are definitely right" ignoring the fact that they cite no conclusive evidence for their findings?
You are trying to turn this into a discussion about religious beliefs while I'm trying to get this to be a discussion about some of the irrational beliefs that many atheists/agnostics hold.
Why do you think it's irrational to conclude the stories of Jesus were copied from mythology? It's impossible to have any real evidence; only stories can be compared. Though this comparison would imply some level of logic or reason to make that connection. Maybe imprecise to believe wholeheartedly, but also not irrational.
-
Same as why are people so quick to believe the likes of Rev Phelps, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Jones, amongst others? Easy. It;s because people are so easily duped. Faith requires gullibility, and most fundies be it Christian, Muslim, Moron (er.. Mormon), or whatever are gullible. Religion is a big form of spiritual penis-envy; a 'my god is better than your god thing'. Mostly, it's all belief (as I said) and mostly to all free-thinkers, it's all shite.
Yet, you already made a couple of claims that show you're quick to believe that the character and stories of Jesus were copied from other mythological/religious sources. And that is what I'm trying to get at. If the above quote is what you think, then why do many of us read the nonsense spouted by some frauds and click our fingers and go "Hey, these guys are definitely right" ignoring the fact that they cite no conclusive evidence for their findings?
You are trying to turn this into a discussion about religious beliefs while I'm trying to get this to be a discussion about some of the irrational beliefs that many atheists/agnostics hold.
Both are one in the same, when you get down to it. And why are atheist/agnostics put in the 'irrational' basket when fundie Christians etc would be just as at home in said basket? Neither party can prove themselves right or wrong, but to me the mythologies of Christianity should not be taken any more seriouly than Shakespeare or Tolstoy.
Because we already know religious beliefs are irrational. And intellectual integrity is always expected from atheists and agnostics because they are, after all, expected to be rational and intellectually honest ... unlike people who espouse irrational religious beliefs.
Yeah, the Bible is full of bullshit, but still not the point of this thread.
-
Why do you think it's irrational to conclude the stories of Jesus were copied from mythology? It's impossible to have any real evidence; only stories can be compared. Though this comparison would imply some level of logic or reason to make that connection. Maybe imprecise to believe wholeheartedly, but also not irrational.
The problem is there isn't evidence conclusively showing a significant "cause & effect" connection between the stories in the New Testament Gospel Books and other mythologies. Nowhere in any of the other stories is there a connection such as described by certain "scholars". That's one of many reasons why all serious scholars and historians like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier believe the Jesus stories were original. Just because it has mythological elements in it doesn't mean it has to be copied from other sources.
I mean, can't a good story be original for a change? :)
-
Who else thinks it's ridiculous?
It's quite a ridiculous and irrational belief to espouse that one wonders why many skeptics who claim to be rational and "free thinkers" believe this shit.
Since when did atheists and seculars believe something without proper research?
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, check this site (for example):
http://www.truthbeknown.com/
It's confusing how some atheists/agnostics/what have you can be more intellectually dishonest than many Christian apologists.
Wasn't there some movie that spewed this same crap too??
Can't remeber the name right now, but it will come to me sooner or later.
-
I mean, can't a good story be original for a change? :)
:laugh: Guess maybe it can.
-
Who else thinks it's ridiculous?
It's quite a ridiculous and irrational belief to espouse that one wonders why many skeptics who claim to be rational and "free thinkers" believe this shit.
Since when did atheists and seculars believe something without proper research?
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, check this site (for example):
http://www.truthbeknown.com/
It's confusing how some atheists/agnostics/what have you can be more intellectually dishonest than many Christian apologists.
Wasn't there some movie that spewed this same crap too??
Can't remeber the name right now, but it will come to me sooner or later.
Zeitgeist?
-
Who else thinks it's ridiculous?
It's quite a ridiculous and irrational belief to espouse that one wonders why many skeptics who claim to be rational and "free thinkers" believe this shit.
Since when did atheists and seculars believe something without proper research?
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, check this site (for example):
http://www.truthbeknown.com/
It's confusing how some atheists/agnostics/what have you can be more intellectually dishonest than many Christian apologists.
Wasn't there some movie that spewed this same crap too??
Can't remeber the name right now, but it will come to me sooner or later.
Zeitgeist?
Yeah, that's it!!
Yeah, this shit is poorly researched.
The only thing they got right is the general principle that religions plagerize their stories from earlier sources.
Truth be told, much of the Old Testament comes from the Cannanite Ugaritic Texts. The book of Psalms, for example, is a verbatim plagerizim from the Ugaritic sources.
-
Who else thinks it's ridiculous?
It's quite a ridiculous and irrational belief to espouse that one wonders why many skeptics who claim to be rational and "free thinkers" believe this shit.
Since when did atheists and seculars believe something without proper research?
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, check this site (for example):
http://www.truthbeknown.com/
It's confusing how some atheists/agnostics/what have you can be more intellectually dishonest than many Christian apologists.
Wasn't there some movie that spewed this same crap too??
Can't remeber the name right now, but it will come to me sooner or later.
Zeitgeist?
Yeah, that's it!!
Yeah, this shit is poorly researched.
The only thing they got right is the general principle that religions plagerize their stories from earlier sources.
Truth be told, much of the Old Testament comes from the Cannanite Ugaritic Texts. The book of Psalms, for example, is a verbatim plagerizim from the Ugaritic sources.
Well, it is widely accepted that stories like Noah and the Flood and such were copied and adapted from previous sources. That we can admit is correct.
But yeah, that video is crap. Conspiracy theories have always annoyed me.
-
But yeah, that video is crap. Conspiracy theories have always annoyed me.
Some people ar just shitty atheists. :dunno:
They put down religion and pick up something just as fucktarded. :facepalm2:
-
Who else thinks it's ridiculous?
It's quite a ridiculous and irrational belief to espouse that one wonders why many skeptics who claim to be rational and "free thinkers" believe this shit.
Since when did atheists and seculars believe something without proper research?
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, check this site (for example):
http://www.truthbeknown.com/
It's confusing how some atheists/agnostics/what have you can be more intellectually dishonest than many Christian apologists.
Wasn't there some movie that spewed this same crap too??
Can't remeber the name right now, but it will come to me sooner or later.
Zeitgeist?
Yeah, that's it!!
Yeah, this shit is poorly researched.
The only thing they got right is the general principle that religions plagerize their stories from earlier sources.
Truth be told, much of the Old Testament comes from the Cannanite Ugaritic Texts. The book of Psalms, for example, is a verbatim plagerizim from the Ugaritic sources.
Well, it is widely accepted that stories like Noah and the Flood and such were copied and adapted from previous sources. That we can admit is correct.
But yeah, that video is crap. Conspiracy theories have always annoyed me.
Stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Truth be told it was due to the flooding of the Black Sea by an event that happened in the arctic part of Canada some 8000 years ago. Caused a tidal surge that flooded the Mediterranean and wiped out everyone in the area. 'Global' to those fuckers meant their direct neighbourhood.
-
Stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Truth be told it was due to the flooding of the Black Sea by an event that happened in the arctic part of Canada some 8000 years ago. Caused a tidal surge that flooded the Mediterranean and wiped out everyone in the area. 'Global' to those fuckers meant their direct neighbourhood.
There isn't a 100% consensus on this one.
The story that I heard is that this tale was originally a Sumarian myth about the flooding of the Euphrates river ~5000 year ago (there's physical evidence to back up this flood too) which was ridden out by a merchant, Ziasudra, who put his family and animals on a barge and floated down river to found his own kingdom.
-
Stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Truth be told it was due to the flooding of the Black Sea by an event that happened in the arctic part of Canada some 8000 years ago. Caused a tidal surge that flooded the Mediterranean and wiped out everyone in the area. 'Global' to those fuckers meant their direct neighbourhood.
There isn't a 100% consensus on this one.
The story that I heard is that this tale was originally a Sumarian myth about the flooding of the Euphrates river ~5000 year ago (there's physical evidence to back up this flood too) which was ridden out by a merchant, Ziasudra, who put his family and animals on a barge and floated down river to found his own kingdom.
Either way, the OT version isn't original, and as with most mythology, it heavily borrowed from other stories.
-
Stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Truth be told it was due to the flooding of the Black Sea by an event that happened in the arctic part of Canada some 8000 years ago. Caused a tidal surge that flooded the Mediterranean and wiped out everyone in the area. 'Global' to those fuckers meant their direct neighbourhood.
There isn't a 100% consensus on this one.
The story that I heard is that this tale was originally a Sumarian myth about the flooding of the Euphrates river ~5000 year ago (there's physical evidence to back up this flood too) which was ridden out by a merchant, Ziasudra, who put his family and animals on a barge and floated down river to found his own kingdom.
That sounds a lot more interesting to read and much more plausible too. Makes you wonder how much of religion came from such tales of survival, glorified to mean something more than they really are?
-
This is what ZEGH posted on another forum:
you misunderstood me:
what IS jesus?
think about it
what DEFINES him?
factually, every defining feature of his life is either
1. not physically possible
or
2. a "redux" of earlyer myths
remove his _defining features_ and he is nobody, NOT EVEN a "preacher", not EVEN a carpenter. he _ceases to exist_
to put it bluntly: "jesus" "yisa" aka many other names, mostly before christianity, is simply one of many symbols of the solistice/sun.
this is where people get angry, cus they feel attacked, and will throw conspiracy accusations at you, which is why i never mention this conclusion aloud very much.
the cult of "christus" emerged long after he was supposed to have lived, the whole premise is basically a group of people claiming that "once upon a time, a huuundred years ago, lived a man!"
they just made it up
they didnt even entirely make it up, since this cult existed allready, under other incarnations.
people waaant jesus to have existed, as a non-magical but historical real person, one who maybe did not walk on water, but at least preached peace and love.
truth is, many people did this,
but the actual person of "jesus of nazareth" is not ONE specific individual. that defined person never existed.
AT BEST, "jesus" is a chimera of many different "street-prophets", but merely for a realism-effect, something people at the time could recognize "oh yes, ive seen those. ha! jesus must be real then :O"
like shleed says, the best evidence points to people forming cults, break it down, and its one of many cultists at the time, who, in their lack of uniqueness become irrelevant by themselves.
i hope this isnt tl-dr :D but it really is obvious once you just dissect it a little.
if a future deity is based on this celtic chick who could melt iron with her brainwaves, and that is her defining feature, we know that if we remove this supernatural definition, she could just as well be YOU.
without the defining feature, she could be bodie.
most likely, she never existed at all, because nobody can melt iron with their brain.
it finally comes down to faith... annoyingly enough.
theres no definite evidence "jesus of nazareth" existed.
theres no definite evidence he did absolutely never exist, as a street-prophet, under a similar name.
i choose to go for "occams razor", that the water-walker bread-rainmaker never existed whatsoever.
So now, time to dissect his post and address each point on its own just to show how ridiculous his argument is.
you misunderstood me:
what IS jesus?
think about it
what DEFINES him?
Now, ZEGH, I'ven oticed you like using this tactic quite a lot. Often suggesting that we define a person/group first before we proceed with the argument ... despite the fact that they've already been clearly defined conventionally and don't need someone like you to redefine them.
factually, every defining feature of his life is either
1. not physically possible
or
2. a "redux" of earlyer myths
Ah, this is where the fun begins. The logical fallacy galore.
First up, this is clearly a false dichotomy fallacy. There are other options to keep in mind. For example, that a certain feature of Jesus' recorded life is not supernatural and is not even a "redux" of earlier myths. So why no option 3 is beyond me. Or maybe not.
Secondly, "the "redux" of earlier myths" fringe theory is a myth when it comes to the Gospel story of Jesus. The story of Jesus is actually, relatively speaking, quite original and is not purely copied (or even adapted) from previous sources.
There is no good evidence whatsoever supporting this ridiculous idea that any character in any of the myths/legends prior to Jesus was collectively born of a virgin, had a mother named Mary (or some other similar name), baptized by a John, had exclusively twelve main "insider disciples", was crucified on the cross only to rise from the dead within a few days and ascend later on to heaven.
This means neither Horus nor Osiris nor Dionysus nor Mithra nor Heracles nor Odin nor Krishna nor Buddha nor any character whatsoever created/developed before Jesus was said to be in any story closely related to the Gospel story.
And if the above statement was not true, we'd have at least one primary source supporting the contrary and I'd have read such a fascinating pre-Jesus Gospel story from when I was a little kid who was obsessed with ancient myths and legends of all sorts. Interesting how I never came upon such a story back then.
Therefore, the second option is definitely out of the picture anyway. And we know that not all elements of Jesus' life was supernatural. So false dichotomy it is.
remove his _defining features_ and he is nobody, NOT EVEN a "preacher", not EVEN a carpenter. he _ceases to exist_
Definitely. Remove all aspects of him and he's no longer the Jesus we read of in the Bible. That doesn't mean, however, that he never existed.
No critical historian/scholar agrees with you, ZEGH, that Jesus could not have existed. At least they agree that he likely existed because it's meaningless to argue his existence. You need to come up with good solid evidence that suggests a normal human being like him couldn't have existed. Otherwise, you're just grasping at straws.
If you want to be agnostic about Jesus' existence, that's fine. But when you try to argue against his existence, then you're making a claim that needs to be backed up in some way. It's not enough to just make claims.
to put it bluntly: "jesus" "yisa" aka many other names, mostly before christianity, is simply one of many symbols of the solistice/sun.
To put it bluntly, you've been misled ... big time. You've been lied to by frauds like Acharya S and the likes. Jesus' Biblical character/story has nothing whatsoever to do with the solstice or the sun.
Try reading real educative books for a change. Or go do a course on theology or Biblical history or ancient myths or something.
this is where people get angry, cus they feel attacked, and will throw conspiracy accusations at you, which is why i never mention this conclusion aloud very much.
Or because you'd be ridiculed big time by people like me who clearly see the bullshit in the claims you're making. The only effect these arguments have on me is that they annoy me because of how much I know this is not true and because people like you insist on arguing that they're correct in what they're saying pertaining to this topic despite all the evidence countering them.
If people like you were to just admit they were wrong and that they don't have anything to back their claims up and that they'd stop spouting these bullshit claims, then I'd understand and give them the benefit of the doubt. But your insistence on arguing that they must be correct despite everything is an indication that you refuse to be intellectually honest at all.
the cult of "christus" emerged long after he was supposed to have lived, the whole premise is basically a group of people claiming that "once upon a time, a huuundred years ago, lived a man!"
Wrong. And you'll find it impossible to back such a clearly ignorant statement up. You'll never see the phrase "a hundred years ago" in any relevant primary source to do with Jesus' earthly life.
they just made it up
Like they made Nazareth up, right? Even though they could've just said "Bethlehem" from the start ... and not complicate things for themselves with the out-of-reach Nazareth claim.
they didnt even entirely make it up, since this cult existed allready, under other incarnations.
And there is no evidence whatsoever from any of the primary sources to back this up. So this is just a lie that you probably aren't even aware that it is.
people waaant jesus to have existed, as a non-magical but historical real person, one who maybe did not walk on water, but at least preached peace and love.
For me and for many historians/scholars and amateurs who are just interested in what the evidence says, we don't have an emotional attachment to Jesus' existence to the point that we want him to exist. We just find that it makes more sense that he existed than that he didn't.
And, for the record, Jesus was very likely an apocalypticist preacher, meaning he only preached peace and love so that his followers may prepare themselves well for the coming kingdom (which never came) where they would live with peace and love.
truth is, many people did this,
but the actual person of "jesus of nazareth" is not ONE specific individual. that defined person never existed.
The fact that we call him Jesus of Nazareth means that we're dealing with a person who very likely existed historically at one point in time. Otherwise, we would've been reading about a Jesus of Bethlehem instead.
AT BEST, "jesus" is a chimera of many different "street-prophets", but merely for a realism-effect, something people at the time could recognize "oh yes, ive seen those. ha! jesus must be real then :O"
Nope, that is not "at best". That's more like "at worst".
At best, Jesus did exist with enough significance on his followers that a cult was made up a while later after his death and proclaimed resurrection.
like shleed says, the best evidence points to people forming cults, break it down, and its one of many cultists at the time, who, in their lack of uniqueness become irrelevant by themselves.
I really don't know what you're saying here exactly (it's like your Qaeda and bin Laden remarks which hardly make sense), but props to you for trying to keep this vain argument going. Too bad it's ultimately just a failure.
i hope this isnt tl-dr :D but it really is obvious once you just dissect it a little.
Yeah, obvious my ass. Nice one. I hope you actually read this long reply addressing your argument point-by-point. But I doubt you'd give me much (if anything) in return to reply to.
Either way, I enjoy countering ridiculous points like these. So don't think I'm killing myself for nothing. This is nothing but pure fun for me.
if a future deity is based on this celtic chick who could melt iron with her brainwaves, and that is her defining feature, we know that if we remove this supernatural definition, she could just as well be YOU.
Yes, she could just be a human and actually exist as just a human. Funny how you don't realize how you actually countered what you were arguing this whole time in that post of yours.
Or does Jesus' historical existence bug you in some way? What are you afraid of exactly?
without the defining feature, she could be bodie.
Bodie is unique. No one can be her or even close.
most likely, she never existed at all, because nobody can melt iron with their brain.
Or it could be that she did exist but that they later made up all these legendary stories about him after his death. It's possible ... very possible.
Did you know Alexander the Great was said to have been born of a snake?
it finally comes down to faith... annoyingly enough.
Or evidence. Which you lack for your Jesus Copycat Sun God argument. Annoyingly enough.
theres no definite evidence "jesus of nazareth" existed.
There's no definite evidence any person in Jesus' day existed either. When it comes to ancient history, you will barely find any historical figure with evidence that would make us extremely confident that he ever existed. But due to the nature of evidence at the time, this is only to be expected.
If you have good reasons to believe Jesus never existed at all, then bring us evidence that collectively destroys the evidence and arguments pointing to the likelihood of his existence. Until then, your claims are just empty claims.
theres no definite evidence he did absolutely never exist, as a street-prophet, under a similar name.
Just another one of those desperate arguments people like you like to make.
i choose to go for "occams razor", that the water-walker bread-rainmaker never existed whatsoever.
Occam's razor favors Jesus' existence, silly. When you keep in mind all the sources and arguments to do with Jesus' existence, that is (for or against).
Otherwise, yes, when you take things out of context, Occam's razor can favor whatever it is you want it to favor.
-
*snore*
-
Wise move.
You'd have struggled big time in trying to find any evidence from primary sources for the solstice/sun god Jesus argument.
But you should've showed you care for intellectual integrity by admitting you were wrong. But as suspected, you'll just ignore anything what is being said here and continue to argue it elsewhere as if nothing has been said here.
Just like your big boss and cult leader Acharya S and her retarded fanboys.
-
Wise move.
You'd have struggled big time in trying to find any evidence from primary sources for the solstice/sun god Jesus argument.
But you should've showed you care for intellectual integrity by admitting you were wrong. But as suspected, you'll just ignore anything what is being said here and continue to argue it elsewhere as if nothing has been said here.
Just like your big boss and cult leader Acharya S and her retarded fanboys.
i allready told you to fuck off
what do you do? buzz right back like a fucking wasp
whats your problem, hm? i suspect your auto-associating me with the spasticity-related trolling lately, and wether or not you have figured out by now that i werent part of the trolling, you have to keep your new front.
cus thats what we're all about, isnt it? "backing your shit up", like its some forced tradition.
why dont you run off, and make me a callout thread that i can ignore?
pm me
make threads dedicated purely to how lame i am, and how i cant back my shit up, go on, take it all the way, like a real forum gangsta.
let me just tell you, i am allready getting very awkward and weird obsessive vibes from you dude.
you have issues.
-
i allready told you to fuck off
what do you do? buzz right back like a fucking wasp
You want me to submit to your desires? This is a thread I myself made. You want me to fuck off this thread?
whats your problem, hm? i suspect your auto-associating me with the spasticity-related trolling lately, and wether or not you have figured out by now that i werent part of the trolling, you have to keep your new front.
You suspect wrong.
cus thats what we're all about, isnt it? "backing your shit up", like its some forced tradition.
why dont you run off, and make me a callout thread that i can ignore?
pm me
make threads dedicated purely to how lame i am, and how i cant back my shit up, go on, take it all the way, like a real forum gangsta.
let me just tell you, i am allready getting very awkward and weird obsessive vibes from you dude.
you have issues.
Yeah, I have issues and I need zillions of psychiatrists and all that. Since you're so damn smart and know what you're talking about a lot of the times, why not provide evidence for your claims then. You sounded so passionate when discussing this topic with another member there. But now that you're interacting with someone who's very well-read on this, you dodge and evade and no longer feel the confidence you had when discussing this with that other member (Butterflies).
So ... is this an admission you were spouting bullshit the whole time? Or do you really believe the crap you spout?
-
cool story brah
-
cool story brah
And a cool PM you just sent me. You feel butthurt that I'm asking for evidence?
-
cool story brah
And a cool PM you just sent me. You feel butthurt that I'm asking for evidence?
do you even listen to yourself?
evidence?
for?
how do you put up evidence for the non-existence of a figure?
see? your spazzing out so much, you dont even know what YOU are asking for:
I am asking for evidence of jesus. I am asking YOU for evidence.
not the other way around.
relax. have a pill. and go bother someone else.
wait what am i saying, im not asking you for shit :S
GO AWAY.
yes. fuck off from your own thread. just piss off ::)
-
cool story brah
And a cool PM you just sent me. You feel butthurt that I'm asking for evidence?
do you even listen to yourself?
evidence?
for?
how do you put up evidence for the non-existence of a figure?
see? your spazzing out so much, you dont even know what YOU are asking for:
I am asking for evidence of jesus. I am asking YOU for evidence.
not the other way around.
relax. have a pill. and go bother someone else.
wait what am i saying, im not asking you for shit :S
GO AWAY.
yes. fuck off from your own thread. just piss off ::)
Yep, same behavior and attitude as you displayed in the other thread where I was trying to have a civil discussion with you.
So now the burden of evidence is on me to show that Jesus had nothing to do with solstice/Sun God fringe theory propagated by liars like Acharya S?
I'm not the one making this claim. You are. Time to stop running away for once and bring forth the evidence that people like you keep failing to bring forth.
Did you even read my long reply?
-
Yep, same behavior and attitude as you displayed in the other thread where I was trying to have a civil discussion with you.
people who talk about "civil discussion" are always those who precisely did not try to be civil in the first place.
your FIRST COMMENT
was "zegh must be a ron paul fan"
talking about me in 3rd person, like im some retard.
so
fuck you.
Did you even read my long reply?
no. i told you to fuck off,
why the hell do you think i would then return to read a whole essay of yours?
are you insane?
-
you guys are turning me on
-
you guys are turning me on
*slap*
>:I
-
people who talk about "civil discussion" are always those who precisely did not try to be civil in the first place.
your FIRST COMMENT
was "zegh must be a ron paul fan"
talking about me in 3rd person, like im some retard.
so
fuck you.
It's your problem if you thought that was not civil. Don't put the responsibility for your own feelings on me.
Did you even read my long reply?
no. i told you to fuck off,
why the hell do you think i would then return to read a whole essay of yours?
are you insane?
I may be insane, but I'm definitely not religious (as you thought in that PM of yours), so if you really have evidence to back your argument, I'm really all ears.
But you and I know very well you don't. Or else you would've laughed this whole argument off by just simply posting the evidence and then leaving me fully silenced by it.
-
again with the "evidence" jesus christ :D ::) ::)
-
you guys are turning me on
You too?
I can see it now , Zegh x Calavera. :needpics:
-
you guys are turning me on
You too?
I can see it now , Zegh x Calavera. :needpics:
dont make me slap you too! :zoinks:
-
you guys are turning me on
You too?
I can see it now , Zegh x Calavera. :needpics:
dont make me slap you too! :zoinks:
Oh Zegh you cheeky devil you. :eyelash:
:booty: :vibe: :squiddy: :bonban: :poopy: :santa: :tickle:
-
So this has evolved into a callout between Calavera and ZEGH? :zoinks:
-
again with the "evidence" jesus christ :D ::) ::)
Yes, evidence from primary sources for the solstice/sun god Jesus fringe crap theory, not for his non-existence. You know very well what I'm asking for, so you can stop playing dumb.
Come on, you were acting like such a confident professor with another member on this topic, why falter now?
-
again with the "evidence" jesus christ :D ::) ::)
Yes, evidence from primary sources for the solstice/sun god Jesus fringe crap theory, not for his non-existence. You know very well what I'm asking for, so you can stop playing dumb.
Come on, you were acting like such a confident professor with another member on this topic, why falter now?
becuase your being a prick, and trying to prove yourself.
consider this:
i discussed _this exact_ topic with other people. i did that.
so what does that say about you?
*lets concept sink in*
-
again with the "evidence" jesus christ :D ::) ::)
Yes, evidence from primary sources for the solstice/sun god Jesus fringe crap theory, not for his non-existence. You know very well what I'm asking for, so you can stop playing dumb.
Come on, you were acting like such a confident professor with another member on this topic, why falter now?
becuase your being a prick, and trying to prove yourself.
consider this:
i discussed _this exact_ topic with other people. i did that.
so what does that say about you?
*lets concept sink in*
You discussed with them without ever posting evidence anyway. What does this tell you?
And you make it sound like I'm being a prick for no reason. You were the one who commenced with the ad hominem against me. Judge yourself first before judging others.
-
IDK how anyone can have real "evidence" of something when it comes to religion. And I also don't really see a need to post evidence of something just because you hold a certain opinion of something.
-
IDK how anyone can have real "evidence" of something when it comes to religion. And I also don't really see a need to post evidence of something just because you hold a certain opinion of something.
^
this.
as for whatever else you have to say, calavera,
here is a pre-recorded reply for you:
-
IDK how anyone can have real "evidence" of something when it comes to religion. And I also don't really see a need to post evidence of something just because you hold a certain opinion of something.
^
this.
Keep evading. If you don't want to give the impression that you have no intellectual integrity, then you're compelled to either admit you were following lies or just fucking post the evidence (in the shocking case that you do have evidence).
Yes, evidence does (and should) matter. I have no idea why it shouldn't.
-
IDK how anyone can have real "evidence" of something when it comes to religion. And I also don't really see a need to post evidence of something just because you hold a certain opinion of something.
^
this.
Keep evading. If you don't want to give the impression that you have no intellectual integrity, then you're compelled to either admit you were following lies or just fucking post the evidence (in the shocking case that you do have evidence).
Yes, evidence does (and should) matter. I have no idea why it shouldn't.
you are obsessed. you dont get it, do you?
i am not discussing jesus with you. YOU are following me around.
do you do this to everyone you know?
like, do you knock on your neighbors door, and aggressively insist he discuss theology with you?
i bet you still dont get it.
-
im gonna spell it out for you, so you can get it through your dumb fucking skull:
had you approached me in a "civil manner" from the start, without trying to be some pompous ass, i would have discussed this topic with you, like i have discussed it with others, point by point.
but you didnt.
so,
fuck you.
train's gone, you fucked up, im not gonna "play" with you.
get it?
-
IDK how anyone can have real "evidence" of something when it comes to religion. And I also don't really see a need to post evidence of something just because you hold a certain opinion of something.
^
this.
Keep evading. If you don't want to give the impression that you have no intellectual integrity, then you're compelled to either admit you were following lies or just fucking post the evidence (in the shocking case that you do have evidence).
Yes, evidence does (and should) matter. I have no idea why it shouldn't.
you are obsessed. you dont get it, do you?
i am not discussing jesus with you. YOU are following me around.
do you do this to everyone you know?
like, do you knock on your neighbors door, and aggressively insist he discuss theology with you?
i bet you still dont get it.
This is a public forum, not some private house with a door to protect your privacy.
And I'm not following you around, lol. Getting paranoid much?
If you want to get out of this trap you put yourself in, just admit you were spouting crap. That is all.
-
im gonna spell it out for you, so you can get it through your dumb fucking skull:
You didn't spell anything out for me, and my skull is not a dumb fucking one. My skull owns you all over. :probe:
had you approached me in a "civil manner" from the start, without trying to be some pompous ass, i would have discussed this topic with you, like i have discussed it with others, point by point.
Yes, put the blame on me now, lol. We have a saying in Lebanese along the lines of "He who hit me cried and dobbed me". I think it applies quite well in this case.
but you didnt.
so,
fuck you.
train's gone, you fucked up, im not gonna "play" with you.
get it?
:cbc:
-
is this how you conduct all your conversations?
you must be a horrendous pain in the ass to be around.
-
is this how you conduct all your conversations?
you must be a horrendous pain in the ass to be around.
A lot of conversations I've had here are in public view and available for you to see if that's how I conduct all my conversations. But anyway, who says this is a real conversation?
And I am only a pain in the ass for people like you failing to meet my strong intellectual challenges.
Still waiting ... for the evidence ... or maybe not ... who knows ...
-
you clearly have mental issues. you keep returning to this "evidence", and by now im not even sure what it is you want me to prove, you talk about yourself in narcissistic terms "strong intellectual challenges", and you are absolutely incapable of grasping that YOU are the problem, not the topic.
i have discussed the topic with normal people on many an occation. you do not qualify.
you are a disturbed individual calavera. ive had more than enough with the likes of you. if you wanna do this little dance back and forth forever, fine, but dont expect me to "sit down" and discuss serious topics with you. its not gonna happen. and you are free to tell yourself that this is because you are staggeringly superior. i really dont give a shit. is that okay?
-
you clearly have mental issues. you keep returning to this "evidence", and by now im not even sure what it is you want me to prove, you talk about yourself in narcissistic terms "strong intellectual challenges", and you are absolutely incapable of grasping that YOU are the problem, not the topic.
I'm requesting evidence for this:
to put it bluntly: "jesus" "yisa" aka many other names, mostly before christianity, is simply one of many symbols of the solistice/sun.
You made no effort whatsoever to provide the needed evidence in your discussion with Butterflies for such an extraordinary claim. It's extraordinary because you won't read about it in any of the ancient myths pertaining to the characters said to have been prior images of Jesus "the sun god".
We have access to various primary sources for Egyptian mythology, Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Norse mythology, Hinduism, Buddhism, various pagan beliefs predating Jesus and the Gospel story, and none of them support what you say.
So what exactly are you going by, ZEGH? The lies propagated by frauds since the last couple centuries or so, the latest of them being an epitome of narcissism herself, Acharya S (or Dr Murdock)? I've read one of her books. A lot of references, but none of them relevant or having anything to do with any of the needed primary sources. She makes lots of empty claims, puffs herself up so many times, and enjoys modelling herself all over the Internet.
And you're suggesting that I'm the narcissist here? Why? Because I only want to accept what the evidence points me to?
That phrase "strong intellectual challenges" that you label as narcissistic terms is just there to provoke you into giving me what I've been requesting this whole time or into admitting you were wrong all along. You have done neither, and this can really get extremely annoying. Fortunately for me, I'm quite used to these dodges from people like you ... as I actually interacted with that crazy psycho bitch Acharya S and her fucked up fanboys/fangirls in their own forum for quite a while. It is basically impossible to reason with people like them, but I would have hoped that you'd be better and actually post the much sought-after evidence. Sadly, I continue to be disappointed.
And, no, ZEGH, I'm not the problem here. And neither is the topic itself. And you could easily not be the problem if you were just to own up to not being able to meet the challenge and just say you have no fair basis for the claim you're making. But you choose to make this a big problem for us both. All I want is evidence. Do you think it's unfair in this case to ask for evidence for something that, if true, would be very easy to provide evidence for? Heck, I'd probably have read about the pre-Jesus Gospel stories from when I was still a kid if what you're saying is true. But I never did, although I read (and continue to read) a lot of ancient myths and legends from antiquities?
What about you? Have you ever read an ancient Egyptian/Greek/Roman/Norse myth? Or story in some Hindu/Buddhist source? Did you ever read anything in any such story predating Jesus that would support what you say?
I highly doubt it.
i have discussed the topic with normal people on many an occation. you do not qualify.
Actually, if anything, I do qualify for this discussion just as much as you do. Neither I nor you are experts in this field, but the experts definitely agree that Acharya's rubbish is just that - rubbish.
you are a disturbed individual calavera. ive had more than enough with the likes of you. if you wanna do this little dance back and forth forever, fine, but dont expect me to "sit down" and discuss serious topics with you. its not gonna happen. and you are free to tell yourself that this is because you are staggeringly superior. i really dont give a shit. is that okay?
You know, I've been thinking. All these attacks and ad hominems you've been flicking at me ... maybe they have something to do with you? Who knows?
I'm thinking the person you're really addressing here is not me but the person you see when you look in the mirror. This whole "dancing back and forth" does sound like you after all.
I'm always happy to address every serious point you make pertaining to this topic. But you've chosen to attack and resort to cheap tactics. Not a good sign of confidence in what you're saying.
-
^
all that typing, when i have clearly let you know, im not discussing it with you.
thats a sign of narcissism
that is mentally ill
you seem unable to grasp this, kindov like we are all unable to see a color that doesnt exist, you are unable to grasp that i dont want anything to do with you.
i tried to explain it to you: i will discuss with professor, i will discuss with butterflies
"I'm always happy to address every serious point you make pertaining to this topic. But you've chosen to attack and resort to cheap tactics. Not a good sign of confidence in what you're saying."
^
you are delusional. you still seem to think i am discussing the topic with you. i am not. you see, for there to be a discussion, both parties must be "in on it". do you understand? finally? do you comprehend?
i will not discuss with you, because theres something wrong with you, and your "vibes" make me uncomfortable. get help.
-
^
all that typing, when i have clearly let you know, im not discussing it with you.
thats a sign of narcissism
that is mentally ill
Yeah, sure. We get it already. I'm a messed up narcissist according to you. Why? Because I keep addressing your points and because I refuse to submit myself to your narcissistic attitude, right?
I said it in my previous reply, and I'll say it again, you are really just talking to yourself when you say these things. It's called projection.
you seem unable to grasp this, kindov like we are all unable to see a color that doesnt exist, you are unable to grasp that i dont want anything to do with you.
You don't want to, and you can't have a discussion anyway. Not when you refuse to be honest with yourself.
Do you really think, at the core, I'm desperate for you to provide evidence and make this a very interesting conversation? Not really. I know you don't have the evidence. I just want you to eventually admit you were wrong and misleading with the claims you made as a so-called "professor" of Biblical history and ancient myths. But I highly suspect that you'll never do so ... just like Acharya S and her fanboys. And that itself is ironically due to narcissism itself.
i tried to explain it to you: i will discuss with professor, i will discuss with butterflies
And yet even with them, you didn't provide evidence. Butterflies made a very good point in that thread over at Spasticity which you failed to address reasonably.
And as for the Iran discussion, you were the one who started hurling ad hominem against me for no reason other than that I expressed strong disapproval of your political opinion.
If you really wanted a civil discussion, you would've avoided the personal attacks and the strawmen, but you did it anyway, and the blame is now on me. Like a typical narcissist you are. :autism:
"I'm always happy to address every serious point you make pertaining to this topic. But you've chosen to attack and resort to cheap tactics. Not a good sign of confidence in what you're saying."
^
you are delusional. you still seem to think i am discussing the topic with you. i am not. you see, for there to be a discussion, both parties must be "in on it". do you understand? finally? do you comprehend?
i will not discuss with you, because theres something wrong with you, and your "vibes" make me uncomfortable. get help.
Yep, you will not discuss with me because I can see the bullshit clearly in your claims. But you won't say that. So you'll attack my person instead.
Bravo, this is the "intellect" of ZEGH. Maybe ditch the cocaine and "indulge" in something healthier instead in life? Do you do sports regularly?
-
zegh doesnt do cocaine
-
If that's true, that's even worse.
-
from the vigorous energy calavera puts into this, im suspecting he does cocaine ::)
-
NO, I do NOT do cocaine.
I do marijuana, hashish, heroin, speed, ecstasy, and so on. But NEVER cocaine. That's just taboo.
And still no evidence for your claims that would shut the hell of me up. You could've easily done it a while ago, but I guess this would be as far as you go in admitting you were wrong.
-
he still doesnt get it
amazing
ah well,
ask me again, no wait, i mean
demand it again calavera! keep demanding it! then, tomorrow, demand it again! next week, keep demanding it!
demand it enough, and maybe ill play along with you :O
-
Oh, and I forgot:
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18830.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18830.0.html)
That's a thread made by a narcissist, yours truly.
-
there, there ::)
-
he still doesnt get it
amazing
ah well,
ask me again, no wait, i mean
demand it again calavera! keep demanding it! then, tomorrow, demand it again! next week, keep demanding it!
demand it enough, and maybe ill play along with you :O
I told you, I'm not really desperate for it. You would've easily provided evidence if you really did have any.
You were confident before with other posters, but now with me, you're just faltering. :cbc:
-
sigh
-
Ok, it's clear now he has nothing to add in response to what I've argued. That is to be expected when you follow the lies of Acharya rather than go with what the evidence points to.
I guess it's time for me to do the research for ZEGH and see if what he's arguing is really based on evidence or just wishful thinking.
-
Ok, let's start with the Jesus of the Bible. Was Jesus ever worshipped as the Sun God and connected in a significant way to the solstice/sun? Let's see what the earliest extant sources about him have to say (i.e. the various books in the New Testament). If none of these books provide this connection, and neither do later books written about Jesus in the first 2-3 centuries AD, then we should safely say that Jesus was never worshipped as a Sun God by the early Church. So the question would be: who worshipped him as a Sun God?
The way to do this briefly (to save time and space) is to do an online key word search for all instances of the word "sun" in the New Testament. If none of them show any connection to Jesus' identity as some sun god in any way, then it's safe to say that the Bible has no support for what ZEGH (or, rather, what Acharya S herself) says:
I'll use the BibleGateway website (and the NIV version to be exact). Feel free to check the verses out using other translations if you don't trust the NIV.
Link to online BibleGateway search:
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/ (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/)
Now, searching for the word "sun" from Matthew to Revelation, we get the following verse references (check them out in detail and context on your own if you wish):
Matthew 5:45
that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Matthew 13:6
But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
Matthew 13:43
Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.
Matthew 17:2
There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.
Matthew 24:29
“Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
Mark 1:32
That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed.
Mark 4:6
But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
Mark 13:24
“But in those days, following that distress, “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light;
Mark 16:2
Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
Luke 1:78
because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
Luke 4:40
At sunset, the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them.
Luke 21:25
“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.
Luke 23:45
for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.
Acts 2:20
The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
Acts 7:42
But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: “‘Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?
Acts 13:11
Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun.” Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand.
Acts 26:13
About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions.
Acts 27:20
When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days and the storm continued raging, we finally gave up all hope of being saved.
1 Corinthians 15:41
The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
Ephesians 4:26
“In your anger do not sin” : Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry,
James 1:11
For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away even while they go about their business.
Revelation 1:16
In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
Revelation 6:12
I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red,
Revelation 7:16
‘Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat down on them,’ nor any scorching heat.
Revelation 8:12
The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night.
Revelation 9:2
When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.
Revelation 10:1
Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars.
Revelation 12:1
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.
Revelation 16:8
The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire.
Revelation 19:17
And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God,
Revelation 21:23
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
Revelation 22:5
There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
***
As we can see, in almost every verse that the sun is brought up, it is associated with other objects similar to it, like the moon, the stars, etc. It is treated as an object separate from Jesus and even with less significance than Jesus himself as you can see in the Revelation verses.
The only verse that even treats Jesus as the sun is Luke 1:78, but if you check the context of the verse, it's within a hymn being sung by Zechariah the elderly priest (after his son John was born), and in Biblical hymns and songs and psalms as can be seen very often in the Old Testament, people are often metaphorically associated with objects depending on the point trying to be made, objects like the sun, the moon, the stars, like animals, like swords, and bows and arrows, and shields, and gazelles, and so on. And even then, that verse never actually suggests Jesus is the Sun God but that he is metaphorically the sun that rises on the people in metaphorical darkness. It does not mean that the Bible treats him as literally the Sun and that we're literally in darkness (at all times, that is).
So the Bible used as support for ZEGH's argument is out of the question. Other Christian sources at the time? Well, ZEGH needs to show any evidence from those primary sources treating Jesus as the Sun God. If he can't, then it means Christianity itself never treated Jesus as such.
Next post will attempt to see, by checking the primary sources, if Egyptian mythology had Gospel stories predating Jesus and that are for Horus or Osiris or whatever character you wish to choose from Egyptian mythology.
-
just so we're clear, you DO know im not playing with you right?
-
You can take a break now, ZEGH. You're no longer needed. :autism:
-
You can take a break now, ZEGH. You're no longer needed. :autism:
:LMAO:
Ass.
Don't worry, this place, unlike certain others, is what the members make it, so if you want intellectual debate, it'll happen.
-
You can take a break now, ZEGH. You're no longer needed. :autism:
:LMAO:
Ass.
Don't worry, this place, unlike certain others, is what the members make it, so if you want intellectual debate, it'll happen.
Oh, I've seen a lot of intellectual debates here, so it's not something I'll never expect to see here or something.
In the meantime, I still have to do Egyptian mythology examination and other myths as well, but can't be stuffed posting my findings if there's no real motivation to do so. And especially if I don't bear the burden anyway.
So I'll spare you all the extremely several pages of one-sided posts. Not that I was going to ever do it anyway.
-
You can take a break now, ZEGH. You're no longer needed. :autism:
:LMAO:
Ass.
Don't worry, this place, unlike certain others, is what the members make it, so if you want intellectual debate, it'll happen.
Oh, I've seen a lot of intellectual debates here, so it's not something I'll never expect to see here or something.
In the meantime, I still have to do Egyptian mythology examination and other myths as well, but can't be stuffed posting my findings if there's no real motivation to do so. And especially if I don't bear the burden anyway.
So I'll spare you all the extremely several pages of one-sided posts. Not that I was going to ever do it anyway.
I would be interested to know if there was any real evidence that Jesus actually came from Ra in some way and wasn't a real person. When I tried to look for myself, I found that name you were talking about, Acharya S/D.M. Murdock:
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html)
I remember seeing a program on the History Channel which said that many art historians believe that the early paintings of Jesus were based on the facial features of Zeus' statue, but unfortunately I can't remember which program it was.
I think this might be a clip from the show that I saw:
Are the Images of "Jesus" Zeus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NWiQH7JpXA#)
-
I don't think ZEGH wasn't that far off.. well, if you replace jesus with god (you know, the mono-theistic christian dude), I could agree then. Lot of believes that were common prae-christianity were absorbed into christianity. No doubt that happened.
The deluded idea that someone has to 'justify' his life after his/her death comes from the old Egyptian believe that one meets Osiris then and he determines whether someone can go to heaven or, less fortunate, to the underworld. The assumption that one will rise and the soul would return to the body later on, like the old Egyptians did (they mummificated bodies cos of this believe), might be copy/pasted too.. to juice up jesus' mystification.
Personally I believe Jesus did live once but to me he was just a human being. Ja, with some pretty bizarre and crazy ideas. 'God created everything and ja.. I'm his son.. follow me'.
I thank my dad (and granddad) that they made me look very skeptical towards religion. Don't think I ever believed in a god.
-
I would be interested to know if there was any real evidence that Jesus actually came from Ra in some way and wasn't a real person. When I tried to look for myself, I found that name you were talking about, Acharya S/D.M. Murdock:
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html)
Stellar House Publishing, from what I remember reading, is Acharya's own publishing company. She publishes her own books if not mistaken.
As for whether Jesus came from Ra or not, none of the primary Egyptian texts we have suggest this even remotely. The problem with me trying to prove this is that it would require me posting pages of ancient Egyptian texts just to show the readers (who'll have to read them themselves!) that there is no pre-Jesus Gospel in any of those texts. Same with ancient Greek and Roman mythology and Norse mythology and so on.
It'd be much easier if the opposite side (I don't necessarily mean you, ZEGH) were to just post the relevant text from these sources providing evidence that there's a Gospel link or any remarkable link between Jesus and Ra (or Horus or Osiris).
But, honestly, I really really doubt there is (99% sure there isn't) as it would mean there's a conspiracy going on among all the historians (among whom are secular ones) and experts in other relevant fields who refuse to publicize these controversial passages in mainstream encyclopedias and such.
It's just not likely that Jesus was copied from prior characters due to what the evidence suggests to us.
I remember seeing a program on the History Channel which said that many art historians believe that the early paintings of Jesus were based on the facial features of Zeus' statue, but unfortunately I can't remember which program it was.
I think this might be a clip from the show that I saw:
Are the Images of "Jesus" Zeus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NWiQH7JpXA#)
But we don't really know what Jesus looked like anyway. None of the primary sources for Jesus describe his facial features as far as I can recall just now.
As for the earliest paintings of Jesus, assuming the facial features were copied from Zeus, it could mean anything. Maybe the artists never knowing what Jesus himself ever looked like thought "Hey, I would imagine him to have looked like the Zeus portrayed by the Greeks. Let's draw his face like that." or "Let's attract the pagans by making out to be like their Zeus."
I don't know really and don't have much knowledge in this specific area.
-
Just saw the video. I actually agree with the probability that the legendary Jesus (not the historical one) is based on Greeks/Roman concepts in myths and legends.
That is the nature of religion. It evolves and borrows elements from prior religions, but always, there should be evidence to point to any specific connection or link between two specific religions or whatever. Otherwise, we should never boldly make claims if there's no evidence to back them up (that is the big mistake Acharya S herself makes).
-
I don't think ZEGH wasn't that far off.. well, if you replace jesus with god (you know, the mono-theistic christian dude), I could agree then. Lot of believes that were common prae-christianity were absorbed into christianity. No doubt that happened.
The deluded idea that someone has to 'justify' his life after his/her death comes from the old Egyptian believe that one meets Osiris then and he determines whether someone can go to heaven or, less fortunate, to the underworld. The assumption that one will rise and the soul would return to the body later on, like the old Egyptians did (they mummificated bodies cos of this believe), might be copy/pasted too.. to juice up jesus' mystification.
Personally I believe Jesus did live once but to me he was just a human being. Ja, with some pretty bizarre and crazy ideas. 'God created everything and ja.. I'm his son.. follow me'.
I thank my dad (and granddad) that they made me look very skeptical towards religion. Don't think I ever believed in a god.
You make some good points here. I don't actually disagree with what you said here.
Religions do evolve and borrow, but new ones also come up with original ideas based on the situation and circumstance and environment and related historical events.
-
^
Well, surry.. but I, um, disagree with my own previous post. :zoinks: The juice up and adding mystification bit.. yeah, might be incorrect.
Probably early christians (plus the Bible's story writers (NT) and clergy of course) actually heart-deep believed he arose from the death. I portrayed it as an almost deliberate vicious thing to let people believe that but probs more correctly would be that folks back then were just very superstitious and.. ignorant basically.
Not sure though.
-
^
Well, surry.. but I, um, disagree with my own previous post. :zoinks: The juice up and adding mystification bit.. yeah, might be incorrect.
Probably early christians (plus the Bible's story writers (NT) and clergy of course) actually heart-deep believed he arose from the death. I portrayed it as an almost deliberate vicious thing to let people believe that but probs more correctly would be that folks back then were just very superstitious and.. ignorant basically.
Not sure though.
That's a good topic to discuss. Jesus was believed to be the true Messiah by his disciples, so when he got crucified and killed, it was a very big disappointment for them. They had to rationalize how their supposedly true Messiah could've failed and died without having them saved from the Romans.
So psychological factors came into play leading to some mass delusion (gradual) that Jesus rose from the dead. The more it was spread around, the easier it was to believe.
And, as you said, it just so happens they were very superstitious. I mean, even in my home village in Lebanon, we had many villagers believing the Virgin Mary appeared to all the villagers. And even I for a while believed she appeared ... even though I never saw her myself. It's just, as a clueless uncritical easily suggestible child, I went along with that they all believed, especially that "miracles" were happening in the local church at the time. So why shouldn't I believe like them? That's what you call mass delusion.
-
You blasphemer it is a miracle. She even appears on toast how can you not believe :pope:
(http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2008/12/virgin-mary.jpg)
-
I've never understood why christian-debunkers go crazy revealing the origins of the dates of Christmas and Easter like it's some Da Vinci Code bombshell. I thought it was common knowledge even among Christians those dates were opted from older pagan festivals. I grew up Christian and even I knew it as a kid. The dates are not in the bible so why would anyone care.
-
is this how you conduct all your conversations?
you must be a horrendous pain in the ass to be around.
Is this how respond to someone showing you up as an idiot??
Must suck to be you! :hahaha:
-
is this how you conduct all your conversations?
you must be a horrendous pain in the ass to be around.
Is this how respond to someone showing you up as an idiot??
Must suck to be you! :hahaha:
Good conservative Scrappy, digs up a 3 year old post, in order to make a point that Jesus is a historical person.
That was the argument, in case you didn't realize. You call me an idiot, for saying Jesus is an amalgam of myths, and not a real person.
Don't bother counter-arguing, you can find all my arguments in this thread.
Idiot.
-
Good conservative Scrappy, digs up a 3 year old post, in order to make a point that Jesus is a historical person.
That was the argument, in case you didn't realize. You call me an idiot, for saying Jesus is an amalgam of myths, and not a real person.
Don't bother counter-arguing, you can find all my arguments in this thread.
Idiot.
Hey ZEGH.
if there's actually a worthwhile dicussion to be had on this topic, may I suggest making a new thread?
Seriously.
I tried reading from page one, but gave up, because the OP was too clearly doing a "Let's show how intelligent I am by ridiculing these other guys who think they're intelligent"
Ofc, it backfired badly, because he all-too-clearly didn't have the slightest grasp of the thing he was trying to ridicule.
By the bottom of page one, it still showed no signs of becoming anything more than a major embarrassment, even in I2 terms.
Maybe you can create a more promising page one?
Just an idea.
-Walkie
-
Good conservative Scrappy, digs up a 3 year old post, in order to make a point that Jesus is a historical person.
That was the argument, in case you didn't realize. You call me an idiot, for saying Jesus is an amalgam of myths, and not a real person.
Don't bother counter-arguing, you can find all my arguments in this thread.
Idiot.
Hey ZEGH.
if there's actually a worthwhile dicussion to be had on this topic, may I suggest making a new thread?
Seriously.
I tried reading from page one, but gave up, because the OP was too clearly doing a "Let's show how intelligent I am by ridiculing these other guys who think they're intelligent"
Ofc, it backfired badly, because he all-too-clearly didn't have the slightest grasp of the thing he was trying to ridicule.
By the bottom of page one, it still showed no signs of becoming anything more than a major embarrassment, even in I2 terms.
Maybe you can create a more promising page one?
Just an idea.
-Walkie
I would rather not, really :D
It invites to stubbornness, including on my part, and I think this thread sortof drew out most points that can be done about it, despite the attitude going through it.
In the end, it's a question of discovering the identity of _one_ individual, from two thousand years ago.
In Norwegian history, we aren't even sure about the historicity of events happening just one thousand years ago. So, in the end it comes down to personal conviction.
-
is this how you conduct all your conversations?
you must be a horrendous pain in the ass to be around.
Is this how respond to someone showing you up as an idiot??
Must suck to be you! :hahaha:
Good conservative Scrappy, digs up a 3 year old post, in order to make a point that Jesus is a historical person.
That was the argument, in case you didn't realize. You call me an idiot, for saying Jesus is an amalgam of myths, and not a real person.
Don't bother counter-arguing, you can find all my arguments in this thread.
Idiot.
And here you are, 3 years later, spouting the same old shuck-and-jive.
Is it the drugs that prevent you from growing up or just your assburgers?? :hahaha:
-
is this how you conduct all your conversations?
you must be a horrendous pain in the ass to be around.
Is this how respond to someone showing you up as an idiot??
Must suck to be you! :hahaha:
Good conservative Scrappy, digs up a 3 year old post, in order to make a point that Jesus is a historical person.
That was the argument, in case you didn't realize. You call me an idiot, for saying Jesus is an amalgam of myths, and not a real person.
Don't bother counter-arguing, you can find all my arguments in this thread.
Idiot.
And here you are, 3 years later, spouting the same old shuck-and-jive.
Is it the drugs that prevent you from growing up or just your assburgers?? :hahaha:
Don't Zegh and you have the same preferences for drugs?
Or did you completely quit from using cannabis?
-
Hey scrappy, jesus never existed. God is not real either. Am I hurting your predictable conservativism yet?
-
Hey scrappy, jesus never existed.
You can't prove that. There is ample evidence that an eccentric rabbi named Yeshua did exist back then. He's not necessarily linked to the stories in the gospels though. They were writen after his death and include obvious fabrications.
God is not real either.
No screaming eagle shit Batman! How long did it take you to figure that one out?? ::)
Am I hurting your predictable conservativism yet?
I'm not even REMOTELY conservative. :hahaha:
-
Yeshua, you idiot, you heard that didn't you? You are such a CHILD you poor poor tiny little man.
I have heard of Yeshua too, you know. You always think that what you know is so sharp, and fresh and new. You are just a small little boy, with a tiny little child mind.
What else can you tell me, hmmm? :o
What other names have you heard of, with a local pronounciation? :o Yusuf instead of Joseph? WHOAAAAA :O THATS AMAZING :O
I'm not even REMOTELY conservative. :hahaha:
You are a conservative.
Everything you say is conservative.
Every neo nazi says the same thing "I'm not a nazi :M" every racist says it "I'm not a racist :M" and you say it.
You are a right-wing follower, a licker of brown-shirt anus.
-
You are a conservative.
Which of these political positions that I hold sound conservative to you?:
legalized gambling
legalized prostitution
legalized drugs (most of them)
pro-abortion rights
support of gay marriage
separation of church and state
proponent of embryonic stem cell research
support of heavy regulation of banks and corporations
support heavy restrictions on police and long prison time for bad cops and prosecutors
??
You're the only person on this site that has has me "pegged" as a conservative.
Fucking dumbass. :hahaha:
-
Awww, did you feel a need to pwooove yourself? :'o
American "moderate". Still conservative.
You just don't know any better. You can't help it. Pea brain.
-
Awww, did you feel a need to pwooove yourself?
No, just had to prove what a lousy liar you are.
American "moderate". Still conservative.
I'm non-partisan by any sane person's standards. If you see me as consevative, it just shows what a libtard you are. ::)