Everyone should keep it cool in this thread. None of us are scholars in the history of religions, or anything like that. No one has presented an
actual point by point well reference argument for their case, and certainly saying 'google it' doesn't work either way.
IOW, lets all accept the fact that we're not as well researched as we could be on the development of every religion on the planet, agree that we can
learn from one another, and understand that we're going to disagree.
Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz are all prototypes of the false gods, or haven't you figured that out yet.
No, I haven't, why don't you explain it to me.
Nimrod a real person is killed is said to become Baal and Semiramis his mother-wife becomes pregnant by the sun(Baal) and has a son
Nimrod doesn't have semiramis as a wife, no tammuz as a son, and doesn't exist anywhere except in the bible. Some people have suggested that what
the bible calls 'Nimrod' is actually one babylonian king or another. That hardly means that he was satan.
Zeus the Greek head god as Nimrod(Baal) impregnates a mortal and has Hercules the son of god the savior of men.
I am aware of the stories, I reject the idea that satan made these myths in order to confuse people.
All designed to keep mankind from seeing the true Son of God who walked earth and was the savior of mankind.
Doesn't it say in the bible that people that haven't ever even heard about jesus can get into heaven? Doesn't that imply that people can't be
deceived by some silly myths and thus be sent into hell??? When have you ever heard of anyone getting the 'full gospel' and then 'rejecting
christ' in favour of Ahura Mazda anyway
Check out all the eastern religions Hinduism, Buddism, Shintoism, Confucainism etc., etc. etc. All the same sun god lies from Zoroastrianism.
Considering your handling of the Nimrod issue, I don't think that you are to be taken too seriously in regards to the origins of any of those
The ideas that you are talking about have been largely rejected by those who research the history of religions. The idea that the coincidences
between christianity and the pagan myths is the work of the devil is the result of early christian apologists. The idea that most ancient myths are
actual Solar Myths is from Max Muller, an early researcher in comparative mythology, and, again, his ideas are practically universally rejected
It should take just a few net searches for a couple of you to figure out that Baal is Satan.
Then demonstrate it.
Baal means lord, Baal is Satan.
Satan is never called lord, I don't know why you are calling satan your lord.
The people that wrote the OT of the bible knew who Baal was, they interacted daily with the worshippers of baal. NEVER did they say that they
worshipped satan, that satan was baal, or that satan created the myths of other nations and they were sun worshippers.
Satan in the OT is presented variably as a fallen angel or as an angel within god's realm but who's job it is to 'accuse' israel of its
impiousness. Never as the one behind the gods of the caananites, or the egyptians, and there's never any mention of the zoroastrians, since the
religion didn't exist.
Satan is a christian term, is it not? Then he cant be Satan. Case closed.
Satan is a term from the mythology and religion of the semitic peoples of cannan/israel. Its perfectly possible for, say, the jews to have taken up
the god of an enemy tribe and made it some sort of 'master of evil' that fights against YWH, just like the hebrews and these other hypothetical
people would've fought. In such a case, we could say that that other people's 'god' is satan. Problem is, the hebrews didn't look at baal and
say, 'that is satan'. Satan was an entity that only existed within their religion, similar to the 'Evil Spirit' of mazdaism, inferior to the
Supreme God, fallen, but still 'powerful' enough to serve to tempt/accuse/cause the downfall of man.
Either way, its possible
to make the case Sun Matrix is accepting. Its theoretically possible, but the evidence completely contradicts it, and
rather we can see that its simply an idea that exists to defend christianity from the charge of being an amalgamation of pagan traditions (which I
don't accept, as it is, as a relevant criticism anyway).