A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
well we know who doesn't know how to google :biglaugh:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Jesus Original?
- Thread starter Adriel
- Start date
well we know who doesn't know how to google :biglaugh:
Adriel
Member
wow you are really hung up on the virgin thing... Fine, take the alleged virgin birth out of the equation. answer is still the same.take out half the examples. Still enough to show that the concept of christ was based on older, pagan, religious figures
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
But that is not demonstrated the by borrowing/sharing of symbols. It may well be that Christians/Jews of the day had a firm concept already in place before shared symbols were embraced.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I'm sorry... but my copy of the papyrus of Ani doesn't mention that stuff... It has a lot of what to say when you face judgment and how to cross the nile when you are dead....
the website doesn't list any sources for it's information...
I've never seen a reference to any "Anup the Baptizer".... or baptizm in general in anchient Egypt.
Isis found Osiris' phallus and ... well you know the rest. Hardly a virginal moment...
anyway... it makes swiss cheese look like cheddar...
wa:do
the website doesn't list any sources for it's information...
I've never seen a reference to any "Anup the Baptizer".... or baptizm in general in anchient Egypt.
Isis found Osiris' phallus and ... well you know the rest. Hardly a virginal moment...
anyway... it makes swiss cheese look like cheddar...
wa:do
Yeah, Tom Harpur is a joke and his new-agey approach to religion and history does a disservice to both.
The problem is that there are so many common motifs amongst the Mediterranean religions in Jesus' time that it's easy to cherry-pick, distort, or forcibly shove similarities into the argument despite the lack of substantial ones. Yes, I do believe the virgin birth was not a historical reality, and other religions did have virgin born messiahs- but Christianity's virgin birth motifs are clearly Jewish in origin and have nothing to do with Egyptian lore.
eta: I have an old edition of Kersey Graves The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors and he's the source for much of these alleged similarities. Unfortunately Graves work is worthless and about as unscholarly as it gets.
The problem is that there are so many common motifs amongst the Mediterranean religions in Jesus' time that it's easy to cherry-pick, distort, or forcibly shove similarities into the argument despite the lack of substantial ones. Yes, I do believe the virgin birth was not a historical reality, and other religions did have virgin born messiahs- but Christianity's virgin birth motifs are clearly Jewish in origin and have nothing to do with Egyptian lore.
eta: I have an old edition of Kersey Graves The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors and he's the source for much of these alleged similarities. Unfortunately Graves work is worthless and about as unscholarly as it gets.
Last edited:
slave2six
Substitious
That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The "Church" (assuming that you mean one of the sects of the Christian Church) is not the pillar of truth! If it is then why does it rail against the truth where it is revealed in the natural universe? If it is, then why have its doctrines changed over time? Shoot! You Christians should still be torturing and killing infidels, excommunicating heretics, and persecuting those damned Protestants who have fallen from the true faith if the Church is the pillar of truth. The Muslims haven't forgotten how to hold onto truth and what to do to those who assail it! In this they are eons ahead of Christianity.
If truth is a pillar then it stands fast and is immutable. The Church has proven to retain neither of these qualities.
There is so little original "truth" in the Christian religion that it is laughable.
Christianity, like all new religions, usurped another religion and expounded upon it. In this case, it usurped the Judeo religion (largely) but was also influenced by the other religions being practiced throughout the Mediterranean at that time - including Egyptian and Greek teachings.
The Virgin Birth of Christ was not included in any of the gospels that are attributed to the people who were supposedly actually with him (his disciples) but only in the Gospel of Luke who was a Greek physician who became a Christian much later. One could infer that he was fully aware of the Horus myth as it had been morphed into Greek mythology and was part of the religion of the times. And Horus wasn't the only deity who supposedly became a human being or who was killed in human form or who was attributed with the title of "saviour." Additionally, none of the "epistles" make any mention of the virgin Mary and her place in Christendom and yet Marian Theology is one of the "pillars of truth" in Catholic and Orthodox teaching. Why is it that no one who was actually around Jesus made a fuss over Mary but only one Greek Doctor and later hellenized Christians throughout the Empire - all of whom were familiar with other such fables? Don't you think that if the virgin birth was real that the people who were actually "witnesses" to Jesus and who knew Mary personally would have said something about it? I mean, they made a big deal about his genealogy. The virgin birth would have been some pretty heavy evidence to have on hand since it would have fulfilled a prophecy and Mary herself was around to serve as a witness to the truth. That's a pretty major oversight, wouldn't you say?
Moreover, not a single one of the "gospels" was written at the time of the events but many decades later and those documents that were eventually added to the Bible were not originals but some documents that had been re-written many times over a 300 year period - a period during which such documents were simply passed from house to house and there was no possibility of the contents being at all accurate. This is the source of your "pillar of truth"? At least the Egyptian writings were preserved in original form either on stone or in tombs.
IT'S ALL A MYTH! THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS BASED ON A MYTH, NOT ON FACT OR REALITY.
And that myth was formed through other, older myths. Shoot! Even the idea of the Trinity was an Egyptian concept! How can you ignore facts just to prop up your myth?
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It's kinda cute when people first learn stuff like this.
slave2six
Substitious
In the introduction to his book "The Natural Genesis" Massey wrote, "The writer has taken the precaution all through the (the book) of getting his fundamental facts in Egyptology verified by one of the foremost of living authorities, Dr. Samuel Birch..." and later "...although I am able to read hieroglyphics, nothing offered to you is based on my translation. I work too warily for that! The transcription and literal renderings of the hieroglyphic texts herein employed are by scholars of indisputable authority. There is no loophole of escape that way."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey#cite_note-6
Considering his close association with Birch and others leaders in the study of Egyptology, one can surmise that his sources, at least, are accurate. Whether his conclusions are all sound is another matter. Still, one cannot discard him or his work lightly.
Considering his close association with Birch and others leaders in the study of Egyptology, one can surmise that his sources, at least, are accurate. Whether his conclusions are all sound is another matter. Still, one cannot discard him or his work lightly.
slave2six
Substitious
I suppose that depends on what text you are reading.
D.M. Murdock's book "Christ in Egypt" is the most comprehensive book that I have read on the matter, although I do find that at least some of his mental leaps are a stretch. What is refreshing about those, though, is that he willingly admits that in those cases they are less rock-solid than the other evidence and conclusions.
However, this work has over 600 scholarly citings and is very well compiled. It makes a rather compelling case. It also spends a great deal of time in the Introduction discussing the evidence itself and the scholars who are cited throughout the work.
It's like 550 pages long and sometimes quite cumbersome but still it is well noted and his citings are easily verifiable. Anyone interested in at least getting a full picture of the argument ought to read it.
slave2six
Substitious
Is it just me or is it just a little weird that the Ankh and the Crucifix are both extremely important religious symbols? The similarities are a wee bit too close to be coincidence.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
meh... marking the four directions is pretty common... It's a repeated motif around the world.
wa:do
wa:do
Records of the Egyptian god Horus have been proven to predate Christ. The two are remarkably similar. I know that some will argue that there are multiple records of Horus so they are not original, but all records of Horus have been proven to predate Jesus. Below are some (most i think) of the similarities between the two.
-born to a virgin
-father a supernatural entity
-foster father of royal descent
-birth announced by angels
-shepherds saw him first at birth
-3 others came later
-birth heralded by a star
-birth date is unknown but celebrated late december
-a leader (Herut for horus, Herod for jesus) tried to have him killed as a child
-theres no record of his life from age 12 to 30
-he stilled the sea
-he walked on water
-cast out demons
-healed the sick
-gave sight to the blind
-he was baptised in a river, and the baptist died from beheading
-he was crucified with 2 thieves
-descended to hell and rose 3 days later
-a woman first found his empty tomb
-hes coming back someday to rule for 1000 years
-he is the savior of humanity
-he was known as:
-the annointed one, the
-the good shepherd
-the lamb of god
-the son of man
-the word
-associated with a sign of a fish
-he was transfigured on a mountain
-one of his key addresses was the sermon on the mount
-and a common portrayal is his virgin mother holding him as a child.
To me this seems pretty damning evidence against the credibility of christianity. If anyone can disprove this, please post. I welcome any facts anybody has to offer. Just please refrain from the ever popular argument that Jesus was real because you feel him in your heart. Put a kid in a dark room at night and he feels the presence of a great many things that dont exist. The mind is quite powerfulI appreciate anyfacts and opinions from every religious view. Thank you
To do this we need to research the reasons why Horus worship disappeared, I did a little bit of it and found that it was an avian deity and that there were several other falcon looking gods worshiped by the ancient Egyptian and Horus became the assimilation of these gods, to complicate things even further this god took several forms.
This God was the son of Osiris the god of the dead, the under world and his mother was a goddess Isis, but you said that she was a virgin, we know that there were lots of hanky pankings among the pagans god of the ancients, where do you get the virgin thing from?
Now to what Jesus claimed, He claimed to be the son of the God of the Israelites the one and Only God and a woman, a virgin woman not a goddess, Horus was the son of a god father by another god and a goddess descended from other Gods, the fact is that the religion of the ancient Israelites is unique because it is a monotheistic religion, Jesus did not claimed kingship over any earthly kingdom, Jesus called himself the son of man (human) not a bird with Kingly rights over any earthly kingdoms, Well that should gives us start I think that this is unique when you consider that these two religions coexisted for a time.
Adriel
Member
Emiliano - I pulled all those listed similarities from one site, the link to which i posted somewhere up there^. But yes, I should have scrutinized the information a little more before posting and I have been corrected many times about the virgin birth thing, and a few others as well lol. but there are still a bunch that havent been discredited, but if you get the info, please post.
And what similarities are there in Jesus been the son of God and Horus been the grandson of Ra?
And what about his avian appearance? In fact if you research the subject you will find that the earliest representation of this god is a little falcon.
Jesus is the savior of the disobedient humanity. Horus is the savior of his father Osiris earthly kingdom. Jesus Kingdom is not of this world. Horus receive an eye injury that he cured himself with I his own saliva and the representation of that eye became the symbol of health and is the amulet that the ancient pagan used to ward off infirmities, in Jesus; by his stripes we are heal.
Jesus is the word incarnate and through Him everything was created, the universe, the heavens and earth, Horus was the protector of Egypt his father earthly kingdom, IMO Jesus is pretty original when compare to polytheist pagan religions, dont you think?
Adriel is somewhat loose with both fact and characterization.
Culling through the trash to find intellectual reinforcement is intellectually bankrupt. You're embarrassing yourself.