It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plagiarism In The Bible

page: 13
28
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz

Your first 'book' link is blank. Your second is to a book of Christian apologetics.

But that's all right. You're out of your depth here, but you're too small a morsel for a shark like me. Have a nice thread.




posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: TzarChasm

I have done the research for myself, back when Zeitgheist first came out. I found the claims to be totally unfounded in exception for the case of the Osirian trinity, which I have already explained the Christ vs antichrist dichotomy earlier in this thread.


When you did this alleged research, what sources did you use? Cite them, please.


I used the Bible, the subject of the discussion was ancient text, well just because you resent the bible doesnt exlude it as an ancient text.


You used the Bible to determine the dates non-Biblical documents were written and the contents of those non-Biblical documents. Well, that's certainly an entertaining approach to scholarship.


Im sorry, I misread your initial question. No, I debunked Zeitgeist for myself back in 2008 or 2009. I didnt take any notes since I have far more important things to study.

conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

This article does a fine job at pointing out all the holes in the Zeitgeist claim. Most of the OP's claims are resolved in the link. Unlike the OP, this author cited their sources. Follow the table of contents to navigate through the research.



edit on 15-11-2014 by BELIEVERpriest because: typo



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TzarChasm


you know who else was called christ? horus. horus the KRST.

An amusing coincidence, if true.

The English word 'Christ' is derived from the Classical Greek word Χριστός (Christos), meaning 'covered in oil' (the Greek word for 'oil' was chrisma). It is a direct translation of the Hebrew word 'messiah', which means 'anointed one'. So the derivation of the word is pretty clear and evidently has nothing to do with Horus.

Having said that, this was the Middle East in the first century, a multicultural melting-pot where influences from nearby Egypt undoubtedly permeated the folk culture beneath the later overlays of Graeco-Roman, Persian and other accretions. Perhaps the homophony of the alternative names for Horus and Jesus may have some such obscure origin, but it hardly bears remark. Such things are common in multireligious, multicultural societies. We have a word for it: syncretism.

It means nothing except that superstitious people don't always distinguish between belief systems.


it means nothing except the human species thinks altogether far too much of its infant sense of spirituality. my recommendation is that spirituality be given a few thousand more years to mature before we take it seriously.

and my personal recommendation to any higher powers paying attention right now: hit this sad rock with another meteor before its too late.
edit on 15-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


abolish superstition.

If only.

Have you been able to abolish superstition in your own life? I have not. Although I consider myself a thoroughgoing scientific materialist, yet I trust hunches, enact traditional warding rituals such as knocking on wood and have been known to pray (heavens knows to whom or to what) at unusually stressful moments. I'm not particularly proud of these lapses but I think they are human and I don't consider myself any the less rational for them. They are culturally conditioned responses of a Pavlovian nature and don't reflect my actual beliefs.

How have you been doing with that kind of thing?

ETA: Ah, I see you've edited your post to say something completely different. That happens. I have nothing to say to your sentiments expressed post scriptum, I'm afraid, because I don't know what people mean when they say 'spiritual'. Or rather, I do, kind of, but I don't think what they mean means anything at all. Pardon me if I seem to strain at being more-materialist-than-thou.


edit on 15/11/14 by Astyanax because: he changed his post! He changed his post! (I do too, though, all the time.)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz

S+F for You! Good Thread!!
I had read of some of things You posted, but some new info here for Me. Cool on that!!!
I had thought that our new Bible is suspect for Plagiarism after seeing some of things that made Me think way that after reading them. Unbelievable! Good job on all the work You put into Your Thread here!!! Syx.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego

I had known of the story of Horus and always thought that the now a day Bible had stolen that story.
Definitely makes it hard to believe the word in our new texts, now doesn't it?
|I had not read up on, Attis of Phrygia or Zoroaster. Thanx for the info on Them!
Quetzalcoatl I have read on in the past as well, but good to see it in Your Post! Good addition's to This Thread.

Syx.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I figured you had access to PDF library but you don't... I'm not surprised. Hard copy is -

Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue by Masao Abe and Steven Heine (Jun 1, 1995)

Last book is Christian and I've quoted directly out of it where in an actual Christian book they claim the similarities.

You know very little so I'm curious where your small fish comment originates from. You are only aware of one subject and opposed to actually reading the quotes I've provided along the way, you can only harp on one character. Others have pointed out several. I literally used a quote from a faith you follow that states the obvious and confirms what I'm saying lol



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I've provided several sources such as the following -

Zoroaster was born in 660 B.C. into the Persian Spitma family. His mother, Dughdova was a virgin who conceived after a "shaft of light" had visited her. It is also interesting to note that Zoroaster's paternal linage is traced to the Persian Adam, Gavomart, similar to Jesus' paternal lineage being traced to Adam by Luke - The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Christian Book)

I found a simple website for one stop pulling which apparently isn't acceptable because it refutes Christian's claims. If I was going to site every source I've pulled from and quoted directly from books, it'd be pages long. And with folks inability to actually read, why waste my time on individuals who are ignorant of other religions save their own?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jenisiz
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I've provided several sources such as the following -

Zoroaster was born in 660 B.C. into the Persian Spitma family. His mother, Dughdova was a virgin who conceived after a "shaft of light" had visited her. It is also interesting to note that Zoroaster's paternal linage is traced to the Persian Adam, Gavomart, similar to Jesus' paternal lineage being traced to Adam by Luke - The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Christian Book)

I found a simple website for one stop pulling which apparently isn't acceptable because it refutes Christian's claims. If I was going to site every source I've pulled from and quoted directly from books, it'd be pages long. And with folks inability to actually read, why waste my time on individuals who are ignorant of other religions save their own?


Yes, you did provide a citation for the Zoroastrian angle, and I applaud you for that, but the fact remains that Isaiah prophised the virgin birth from the line of Judah at least 50 years before Zoroaster's birth. Who is copying who?...so it appears to me that your citation argues against your case, not for it. You have offered contradictory information, its time that you recognize it.

Now, Zoroaster is but one example, what about Dionysus, Mithras, Buddha, Hercules....where are those citations?

If this conversation were an actual debate before a panel of judges, so far you would be destroying your own founding argument.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz

Oh, and one more thing. The fact that you and your like-minded ATS members would continue to dodge the real questions that my fellow Christians, Astyanax, and I have submited (i.e., where the hell are your primary sources to back up this slander), shows your deliberate denial and supression of the truth. It shows that people will resort to believing out-right lies and preaching them as truth for the sake of destroying and burying the bible. I suppose the ends justify the means. Maybe in the end, your lies will evolve into truth.

Its not that you believe this theosophical garbage that disappoints me, its the fact that you believe unconditionally, even when confronted with the truth. That is the essence of cult mentality.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
The ages of various religions are given here: Wiki- Timeline of Religions\

Judaism, which is what Christianity comes from, isn't the oldest religion there is.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


its the fact that you believe unconditionally, even when confronted with the truth. That is the essence of cult mentality.

Really? Wow. Are you sure you want to say that here? ..... and -- WHO fell for the lies and the 'cult' mentality?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


its the fact that you believe unconditionally, even when confronted with the truth. That is the essence of cult mentality.

Really? Wow. Are you sure you want to say that here? ..... and -- WHO fell for the lies and the 'cult' mentality?




You are too predictable. Thank you for your participation.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz


You know very little so I'm curious where your small fish comment originates from.

Want to try a little shark baiting, eh? Don't say you weren't warned.

I didn't call you a small fish, or small fry. That would have been rude. I called you a morsel — something small and tasty. Much more complimentary, wouldn't you say?

All right. Down to business.

You ask what my credentials are for contesting your claims about the Buddha. I have already stated them: I absorbed the mythology, philosophy and ethics of Buddhism from my older relatives and from Buddhist monks — that is, in much the same way millions of Buddhists around the world receive their religious instruction. I've mentioned this twice before in this thread.

I have also (again, as I mentioned before), read the rules of the vinaya, as well as many of the jatakas and sutras, and discussed their meaning with members of the Buddhist clergy. Look up these words if you are unfamiliar with them — and realize that someone who dares make any statement about Buddhism and the Buddha without already knowing what they mean is a brave fool indeed.


you can only harp on one character.

Indeed. My interest in this thread was originally roused because of the obviously absurd things you were saying about the mythography of the Buddha. You still haven't provided a specific source for those claims.

As for the rest of your thesis, I don't really care. It is absolute bunkum, barely worth proving wrong. Educated people don't find such things worth discussing; they are an inevitable result of cultural exchange and cross-pollination and they mean absolutely nothing except that people love a good story.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Our fellow member Astyanax described themselves above as a "thoroughgoing scientific materialist" and also noted that although they have been known to pray they commented "heavens knows to whom or to what" ... but I fail to see where they identified themselves as a "fellow Christian." Is that what you were claiming BELIEVER?

Also, may we address "deliberate denial and suppression of the truth"? A wide range of information has been considered here.

What truth is being denied and suppressed, specifically?
edit on 21Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:49:07 -060014p0920141166 by Gryphon66 because: header



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

GIven your statement above about scientific materialism, coupled with your fairly obvious hands on experience with Buddhism, I was wondering how you gauge, or if you've ever even considered the "reality" of the Buddha versus that of the Christ?

What do you make of recent articles regarding the "discovery" of the actual birthplace of the Buddha in Nepal?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

My fellow christians are those believers in Christ who participated in this thread. There were atleast one or two. I realize that Astyanax is not a christian, but he/she did agree with me on the issue of primary source citation. So, "my fellow christians and the non- christian Astyanax" would have been a better way to put it, I suppose.

The truth that is being suppressed is that this thread shows no existing evidence of the bible being a plagiarism.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

You hit the nail on the head. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

That does make your intent more clear, thank you!

So, the truth (that is being repressed/suppressed) is that there is no evidence of the Bible being plagiarized?

Seems that given the topic plagiarism is likely a bit misplaced at any rate, yes? I think that was addressed earlier?

And given that the current composition of "the Bible" is an arbitrary matter, i.e. the documents/books/writings that have been gathered together as one "Book" aren't necessarily so, outside of tradition and of course, religious faith, right? Is that a fair statement?

It doesn't seem like anything is necessarily being "repressed" as much as it seems to me like there are different opinions or perspectives being expressed on the given material.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

There are expressed opinions and there are lies. It is my opinion that the bible is complete and unadulterated based on the Hebrew/Greek meter (which you are mildly familiar with). It would be a lie if I altered or with held details for the sake of justifying that opinion. That is what this thread is founded on, misrepresented information and with held data. The few shreds of primary source citations that the OP finally provided (after some arm-twisting) actually argue against the OP's opinion.

The truth is that this thread does not provide evidence of plagiarism in the bible. Whether or not such evidence exists is beyond my knowledge, but I doubt it. Was the use of the word "plagiarism" misplaced? Perhaps, but the theme continued throughout the conversation.

Was the compilation of the bible arbitrary? I would say no. Learn a month's worth of Hebrew and Greek (enough to phonetically read the text and count the syllables), and you will see that the 66 books of the bible belong together as a closed unit. I am currently examining Zeph 1,2,3 in the Hebrew chapter divisions. Unfortunately I dont have a functioning computer and my notes are in hand writing, so I have no way to provide evidence. Maybe in a future thread.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join