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.

 

Did Jesus Exist -- The Probing Mind

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kokoro
Mithraism


These are the only things I find similar to Jesus on this website



It is commonly believed that the cave in Mithraism imagery represents the cosmos, and the rock is the cosmos seen from the outside; hence the description of this god as 'rising from the dead'. According to some accounts, Mithras died, was buried in a cavernous rock tomb, and was resurrected.


Where is this image? They don't even bother to show it. It also says "commonly believed"...interesting
It also says "According to some accounts"
Apparently its not a for sure thing.



Some commentators surmise that the Mithraists worshipped Mithras as the mediator between Man and the supreme God of the upper and nether world.


sur·mise (sər-mīz') pronunciation
1. To infer (something) without sufficiently conclusive evidence.
2. To make a guess or conjecture.
3. An idea or opinion based on insufficiently conclusive evidence; a conjecture.

I feel like I don't even have to say anything, this is should speak for its self. Sounds like they're stretching, just to make it SEEM like they're similar.



Ahura-Mazda was said to have created Mithras to be as great and worthy as himself.


In comparison of Zoroastrianism and the BIBLE, Ahura-Mazda is YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah and Mithras is Yeshua/Jesus. (to my knowlege)

This is almost too easy.

"...for the Father is greater than I." John 14:28
Now there is a lot of arguments about what Jesus meant. But if you read the WHOLE bible and not pick out scriptures and give them your own meaning, you will find that God is NOT a trinity. Yahweh is Almighty God, Yeshua is his son that is in subjection to his father. (John 5:30, John 6:8)
So that is another difference.

Before I go on, I just want to establish that I'm comparing Zoroastrianism and Mithraism with THE BIBLE. I am NOT comparing it to christendom (christian false empire) which HAS adopted just about every pagan custom and changed the names.



According to Persian traditions, the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour expected by Zarathustra.


"Persian Traditions" I, for one, do not see any evidence or citing info. I could tell you have a million dollars. Would you believe me? or do you want to see some hard cash?



Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation. Anahita was said to have conceived the Saviour from the seed of Zarathustra preserved in the waters of Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan.


Yes Jesus was born of a virgin. But Mary was NOT immaculate. (christendom says otherwise) but She had other kids. and was not perfect or "preserved" Mary knew she need a saviour (Luke 1:47)

The last part of what I quoted doesn't make much sense to me. ""from the seed of zarathustra(zoroaster) perserved in the waters of Lake Hamun"" What does that even mean?



According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'.


Once again, the same title christendom gives to Mary. BUT in the BIBLE it NEVER calls her "Mother of God"



particularly as Christianity admitted women while Mithraism did not,

A difference they stated themselves.

I will post about the 2nd page later. I'm running out of time.
The only questionable similarity I see is that both were born of virgins.How do they know? Has a lot interesting information, but yet does not show supporting evidence for everything.

What do you think

[edit on 24-1-2007 by tylersch]




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by thehumbleone

honestly, christianity shares many things with pagan myths
jesus shares 19 out of 22 of the core characteristics of oedipus, a pagan myth


So, atheism share 35 out of 38 similarities with $h!T, doesn't mean it's the same thing. :w:


Explain these atheistic similarities please???.

I mean you could say that jesus was a raging homosexual and a paedophile because he liked to be with naked young men. Thats a nice similarity eh?

Do you wanna be like jesus?????? A dirty paedophile!!!!!!!
I wonder if thats why the priests like little boys !! to be like jesus!!!



HA HA HA HA! you atheists crack me up at the way you get offended when someone insults your beliefs.

Just listen to the anger is this post, HA HA HA HA!



It depends on what kind of Atheist they are. Some atheist say they BELIEVE there is no god. Others have NO BELIEF in a god. Some don't see the difference, but the latter basically covers there ass so someone cant say "Your just as "ignorant" as me since you are still placing a BELIEF in something you cant see"

thehumbleone, you have made some great posts and you have helped a lot. But when you start [comparing] someones beliefs or lack there of with "$h!T" thats gone too far and is very low of ANYONE to do.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by tylersch] (Changed "calling" to "comparing")

[edit on 24-1-2007 by tylersch]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   


honestly, christianity shares many things with pagan myths
jesus shares 19 out of 22 of the core characteristics of oedipus, a pagan myth


Where are you getting this from?
I just read a whole article about "oedipus" It had no similarities to Jesus at all. Did I read about the wrong "oedipus"?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

thehumbleone, you have made some great posts and you have helped a lot. But when you start calling someones beliefs or lack there of "$h!T" thats gone too far and is very low of ANYONE to do.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by tylersch]


Come on tyler, you know I was only kidding around. Look, I didn't get offended about what shihulud said about Jesus. It was all in good spirit.

(Sheesh, some people here take life too serious.)

[edit on 24-1-2007 by thehumbleone]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone

thehumbleone, you have made some great posts and you have helped a lot. But when you start calling someones beliefs or lack there of "$h!T" thats gone too far and is very low of ANYONE to do.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by tylersch]


Come on tyler, you know I was only kidding around. Look, I didn't get offended about what shihulud said about Jesus. It was all in good spirit.

(Sheesh, some people here take life too serious.)

[edit on 24-1-2007 by thehumbleone]


I edited my original post to say "comparing" instead of "calling" That is more accurate.

I know you were just kidding around, and I have a pretty good sense of humor. The problem is, not everyone does, and it becomes a distraction.

Now everyone is concentrated on the comparison, instead of questions i've asked that STILL have not been answered. Can we please refrain from name calling and comparisons with fecal matter and stay on subject, please.



[edit on 24-1-2007 by tylersch]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Seems like no one can answer your questions tyler, I wonder why?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tylersch
Btw, The only people that I can think of that spell God, like this "G-d" are Jewish people. Once again, I'm not suprised


Ive already stated in another thread that I am not Jewish. I do hold Jewish traditions and texts as a baseline to judge matters of Christianity on though, The reason for this is that Chritians claim that Jesus is the fullfillment of Jewish prophesy and fullfillment of the Torah. Therefore, it is only reasonable to study the source text,namely the Torah, to descern whether or not this is true.

With that being said I did note taht the website I gave you did not have a souces page and I apologize for that.

As for the website that was filtered out by your computer, it was not hate speech. I wouldnt post something like that on here. It was a page that advertized a book named "The Sons of G-d" and it had excepts from the book. It was basically a book about the correlations between Jesus, Buddah and some other ancient Gods.

I will try to find some more source material on the web for you to look at later on tonight. I do have some sources but they are here in book form so that does you no good. Anyway, Ill be back later on to answer some of this.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kokoro

Originally posted by tylersch
Btw, The only people that I can think of that spell God, like this "G-d" are Jewish people. Once again, I'm not suprised


Ive already stated in another thread that I am not Jewish. I do hold Jewish traditions and texts as a baseline to judge matters of Christianity on though, The reason for this is that Chritians claim that Jesus is the fullfillment of Jewish prophesy and fullfillment of the Torah. Therefore, it is only reasonable to study the source text,namely the Torah, to descern whether or not this is true.

With that being said I did note taht the website I gave you did not have a souces page and I apologize for that.

As for the website that was filtered out by your computer, it was not hate speech. I wouldnt post something like that on here. It was a page that advertized a book named "The Sons of G-d" and it had excepts from the book. It was basically a book about the correlations between Jesus, Buddah and some other ancient Gods.

I will try to find some more source material on the web for you to look at later on tonight. I do have some sources but they are here in book form so that does you no good. Anyway, Ill be back later on to answer some of this.


I, in no way called you Jewish.
Are you denying that Jewish people do not spell God "G-d"?
Just about every Jewish website I've visited has spelled it that way.
If anything I was suggesting that the author of that book or that the maker of that site was Jewish since the title of the page was called "The Sons of G-d"

Thank you for understanding the need for external evidence.
You mentioned a book you have. What book is it? You can post some quotes here. But its also important where the information for that book came from.

I look forward to your replies.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by tylersch]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:


Josephus
(37 – shortly after 100 AD/CE) - Born after Jesus died.


Philo-Judææus
(No Search Results)


Seneca
(ca. 54 BC- ca. 39 AD) - Possible


Pliny Elder
(23AD–79 AD) about 12 years old when Jesus died - Possible


Arrian
(c. 92-c. 175) Born after Jesus died.


Petronius
(c. 27–66) about 5 years old when Jesus died - Possible


Dion Pruseus
(No Search Results)


[Marcus Velleius?]Paterculus
(c. 19 BC - c. AD 31) - Possible


Suetonius
(c. 69/75 - after 130) Born after Jesus died

Suetonius on Jesus


Juvenal
Born: 1st century Aquinum? - Born after Jesus died
Died: 2nd century



Martial
Born: March 1, 40 AD - Born after Jesus died
Died: ca. 102 AD


Persius
AD 34-62 - Born after Jesus died


Plutarch
c. 46 - 127 - Born after Jesus died


Pliny Younger
63-ca. 113 - Born after Jesus died


Tacitus
(c. 56 – c. 117) -Born after Jesus died

Tacitus did write about Jesus as we mentioned earlier Tacitus on Jesus



Justus of Tiberius
(No search results)


Apollonius
c. 1-c. 100 AD - Possible


Quintilian
c.35-95 - Born after Jesus died


Lucanus
39 AD –65 AD - Born after Jesus died


Epictetus
c.55–c.135 - Born after Jesus died


Hermogones Silius Italicus
(No search results)


Statius
45AD-96 AD - Born after Jesus died


Ptolemy
90 – c. 168 AD - Born after Jesus died


Appian
c.95-c.165 - Born after Jesus died


Phlegon
lived in the 2nd century. - Born after Jesus died


Phæædrus
(No search results)


Valerius Maximus
"Nothing is known of his personal history" - ?


Lucian
A.D. 120 - after A.D. 180 - Born after Jesus died


Pausanias
2nd century A.D - Born after Jesus died


Florus Lucius
Florus, Roman historian, lived in the time of Trajan and Hadrian.
Trajan - 53ad–117ad ....Hadrian 76ad - 138ad - ALL born after Jesus died


Quintius Curtius
?Roman historian who wrote from about 60 through to 70 AD- ?Probably Born after Jesus died?


Aulus Gellius
125 - after 180) - Born after Jesus died


Dio Chrysostom
c. 40–c. 120) - Born after Jesus died


Columella
4 - c. 70 - Possible


Valerius Flaccus
(which one??) - Some were way before Jesus was born, the others were born after Jesus died.


Damis
(no mention of dates)"many scholars have thought that Damis never existed at all" hmm...


Favorinus
about * 80 - † 150- Born after Jesus died


Lysias
(which one?) only dated.. born ca. 440 BC; died ca. 380 BC-- Yea I bet he know ALOT about Jesus


Pomponius Mela
"who wrote around AD 43, was the earliest Roman geographer." why would a geographer write about Jesus?


Appion of Alexandria
(No search results)


Theon of Smyrna
ca. 70–ca. 135 - Born after Jesus died



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
/\So lets tally this up/\



People listed that lived before Jesus was born: 2

How would these people even know about Jesus? hmm?



People listed that lived during Jesus life: 7

Just because they lived on the same planet at the same time doesn't mean that they would know about Jesus. Back then technology was primitive. They couldn't post a blog telling everyone about a guy they met named Jesus.
Besides why would these Pagan and Jewish people care anyways? "oh, just another guy claiming to be the messiah...I'm not going to waste my ink on such things!" - I'm just guessing, but you never know.

One person you posted was a Geographer - Why would a geographer write about Jesus?



People listed that were born after Jesus died: 25


Some of those listed DID write about Jesus. Others may not have known or cared enough to write about it. See below for examples

* Highly reliable sources. There are two of these: Tacitus and Josephus.

* Moderately reliable sources. We find three: Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian. For the matter of Thallus, please see also our link in our essay to Glenn Miller's essay on that subject, linked in our essay. (We will look at some objections to the Thallus cite.)

* Marginally reliable or unreliable sources. Three are in this class: Suetonius, the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud.

Visit this site for more info


People that came back with no search result: 9


Some of which historians aren't even sure they existed.
Try this for yourself.. Search the names of those above that say "No Search Results" in Google. I, at least, found NO historical evidence of these people. I did find them however listed in the SAME EXACT LIST YOU POSTED in other various forums of other people trying to "prove jesus as a myth"
Try it! Its great!

[edit on 24-1-2007 by tylersch]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
tylersch, that's a good list you came up with
however
you point out only 2 things about those people
1: when they lived
2: that they wrote about "jesus"

however, you give no explaination as to WHAT they wrote about "jesus" and what context it was in

those points are just as important as their lifetime



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Josephus' antiquities section is according to Louis Feldman "almost universally acknowledged" as authentic.

The testinomium Flavianum is very controversial, even Josh McDowell accepts this.

Tacitus is accepted as authentic.

I think this guy gives a fair critical overview of the historical evidence in response to Josh McDowell's book.

He concludes...


I think there is ample evidence to conclude there was a historical Jesus. To my mind, the New Testament alone provides sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but the writings of Josephus also provide two independent, authentic references to Jesus.

As for McDowell's other sources for the historicity of Jesus, I think they are inconclusive. There is no evidence that the written works of the church fathers were based on independent sources. Tertullian's reference to Tiberius is inconclusive, as is Africanus' references to Thallus. Africanus' reference to Phlegon is probably an interpolation. The Talmud is too late to be of any value in establishing the historicity of Jesus. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Lucian are not independent witnesses to the historicity of Jesus. Suetonius did not refer to Jesus. And Mara Bar-Serapion's letter is worthless as a witness to the historicity of Jesus.[150]




[edit on 24-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
tylersch, that's a good list you came up with
however
you point out only 2 things about those people
1: when they lived
2: that they wrote about "jesus"

however, you give no explaination as to WHAT they wrote about "jesus" and what context it was in

those points are just as important as their lifetime


I did, look above your post there's a little link. But here it is again.
link to what they wrote about jesus and what context it was in.

(Scroll about 3/4 of the way down, it has links to the people that I listed)



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by tylersch


Are you denying that Jewish people do not spell God "G-d"?

No, they certainly do and so do I as I prefer to show respect in that way.



If anything I was suggesting that the author of that book or that the maker of that site was Jewish since the title of the page was called "The Sons of G-d"


the maker of the first website is Jewish,obviously. The author of the "sons of G-d" book did not spell it that way, I did. The author is an archeologist who is actually ery critical of judaism also.



Thank you for understanding the need for external evidence.
You mentioned a book you have. What book is it? You can post some quotes here. But its also important where the information for that book came from.


Yep, i can do that. You will just have to be patient though because I am in college among other things but I will find the quotes for you as soon as I can. in the mean time I found those people on google with no problem. Here are a couple of the "relevant" ones.


Philo Judaeus 20 BC- ~40 CE Jewish philosopher. No mention of Jesus, Paul or the disciples. Which is interesting because he was in the right place the right time with the right connections.
Philo Judaeus

Justus of Tiberius , same time period as Josephus. His works have been lost but they were read and commented on by Photius of Constantinople, a highly respected patriarch of the catholic church, in his work Bibliotheca. Available on line here:
Bibliotheca

]

Justus's style is very concise, and he omits a great deal that is of the utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by kokoro

Originally posted by tylersch


Are you denying that Jewish people do not spell God "G-d"?

No, they certainly do and so do I as I prefer to show respect in that way.


How does it show respect? I'm all for respecting God, but I don't understand how replacing a "o" with "-" shows respect..Why not just use his name?





If anything I was suggesting that the author of that book or that the maker of that site was Jewish since the title of the page was called "The Sons of G-d"


the maker of the first website is Jewish,obviously. The author of the "sons of G-d" book did not spell it that way, I did. The author is an archeologist who is actually ery critical of judaism also.


I have yet to get the second site to work. But I understand now, My apologies. But I think you can understand, the majority of people who spell God "G-d" are Jewish, to my knowledge anyways..



Thank you for understanding the need for external evidence.
You mentioned a book you have. What book is it? You can post some quotes here. But its also important where the information for that book came from.


Yep, i can do that. You will just have to be patient though because I am in college among other things but I will find the quotes for you as soon as I can. in the mean time I found those people on google with no problem. Here are a couple of the "relevant" ones.

I understand, I work full time and go to school part-time. Did you really find them ALL no problem?



Philo Judaeus 20 BC- ~40 CE Jewish philosopher. No mention of Jesus, Paul or the disciples. Which is interesting because he was in the right place the right time with the right connections.
Philo Judaeus

Justus of Tiberius , same time period as Josephus. His works have been lost but they were read and commented on by Photius of Constantinople, a highly respected patriarch of the catholic church, in his work Bibliotheca. Available on line here:
Bibliotheca

]

Justus's style is very concise, and he omits a great deal that is of the utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him.


I checked those two again, the first one was misspelled in the list thats why it didn't show up. And the second I guess I just missed it some how.
I will look some more into this information and update my list.



[edit on 25-1-2007 by tylersch]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   


As for the pagan G-d myths for Krishna and Buddah, ect.. these are well known pagan myths and you can google anyone of them and find thier respective stories.


I looked these two up for comparison of Jesus. Maybe i'm just looking in the wrong places, but could someone show how they are similar AT ALL, WITH a trusted source. Someone said something about "Siddhartha_Gautama" (Bhudda) being born of a virgin. From what I read I didn't see anything about it.. :?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I think the buddha story is more a case of immaculate conception, his mother apparently had a dream of an elephant entering her, then became pregnant.

Not too sure, but it's something like that.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I think the buddha story is more a case of immaculate conception, his mother apparently had a dream of an elephant entering her, then became pregnant.

Not too sure, but it's something like that.



Siddhartha_Gautama on Wikipedia
Siddhartha was born in Lumbini in modern day Nepal.[2] His father was Suddhodana, the chief of the Shakya nation, one of several ancient tribes on the growing state of Kosala; Gautama was the family name. His mother was Queen Maya (Māyādevī), King Sudhodhana's wife, who was a Koliyan princess. On the night Siddhartha was conceived, Queen Maya dreamt that a white elephant entered her right side, and ten lunar months later Siddhartha was born from her right side (see image right). As was the Shakya tradition, when his mother Queen Maya fell pregnant, she returned to her father's kingdom to give birth, but after leaving Kapilavastu, she gave birth along the way at Lumbini in a garden beneath a sal tree.


1. His father was Suddhodana (Not the white elephant)
2. On the night Siddhartha was conceived she had a dream.... ( it doesn't say she was impregnated During the dream. yes the "white elephant entered her" but it was just a dream anyways.
3. Is it even possible to have a child born "from your right side"?? that would have been interesting to see
4. I'm guessing if they were married she probably wasn't a virgin.

Just from reading that. This is my guess of how it went.
1.Suddhodana boinked Queen Maya and got her pregnant
2. Fell asleep
3. Queen Maya had a dream about a while elephant entering her ( this might have been some kind of sign that the child would be a great person or something)
4. Siddhartha_Gautama (Bhudda) was born. In whatever way- born from her "right side" or just the normal way.

Now I'm just guessing myself but I think people stretch things to make Jesus seem like just story that is just being repeated.


[edit on 25-1-2007 by tylersch]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tylersch
1. His father was Suddhodana (Not the white elephant)


Jesus' father was probably a person as well. We have no evidence that spooks can impregnate females with sperm containing human DNA.


2. On the night Siddhartha was conceived she had a dream.... ( it doesn't say she was impregnated During the dream. yes the "white elephant entered her" but it was just a dream anyways.


Whilst mary was supposed to have been impregnated by a spook.


3. Is it even possible to have a child born "from your right side"?? that would have been interesting to see


Is it even possible to be impregnated by a spook? Do they have DNA?



4. I'm guessing if they were married she probably wasn't a virgin.


It's quite possible that neither was Mary. But that's why I said I think it's more meant to be immaculate comception rather than virgin birth - it was just a point of clarification.


Just from reading that. This is my guess of how it went.


1. Mary got jiggy with another man.
2. She realised she was preggers and needed a story.
3. Mary makes up some yarn about getting jiggy with a spook.
4. A child was born and Joseph takes him on.

Both are far-fetched stories that are taken without evidence by people of the appropriate faiths.

But anyway, ignore me, I have no real place in this discussion, carry-on...

[edit on 25-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by tylersch
1. His father was Suddhodana (Not the white elephant)


Jesus' father was probably a person as well. We have no evidence that spooks can impregnate females with sperm containing human DNA.


2. On the night Siddhartha was conceived she had a dream.... ( it doesn't say she was impregnated During the dream. yes the "white elephant entered her" but it was just a dream anyways.


Whilst mary was supposed to have been impregnated by a spook.


3. Is it even possible to have a child born "from your right side"?? that would have been interesting to see


Is it even possible to be impregnated by a spook? Do they have DNA?



4. I'm guessing if they were married she probably wasn't a virgin.


It's quite possible that neither was Mary. But that's why I said I think it's more meant to be immaculate comception rather than virgin birth - it was just a point of clarification.


Just from reading that. This is my guess of how it went.


1. Mary got jiggy with another man.
2. She realised she was preggers and needed a story.
3. Mary makes up some yarn about getting jiggy with a spook.
4. A child was born and Joseph takes him on.

Both are far-fetched stories that are taken without evidence by people of the appropriate faiths.

But anyway, ignore me, I have no real place in this discussion, carry-on...

[edit on 25-1-2007 by melatonin]

Now your REALLY just making stuff up.
You are missing my point, and STILL avoiding all of my previous questions.

My point was that people are taking the birth of Bhudda and warping it to sound like Jesus' birth.
What I'm saying is that they are very different.

Comparing: Bhudda's Birth (from wiki) /with The Bible
Queen Maya was King Sudhodhana's wife / Mary and Joseph were not married yet
Queen Maya (guessing)was probably not a virgin if they were married / Mary was a Virgin and not married yet
Bhuddas father was Suddhodana / Joseph was not Jesus' father - God used his Holy Spirit to impregnate Mary

You have no evidence of Mary being with another man. Or anything else you said.
If you believe in the Bible anyways, what you said about the "spooks" having DNA and such makes no difference. If God can make a man out of dust i'm sure he can figure out how to get a virgin pregnant and keep her a virgin.

Do you even know what "immaculate" means?

im·mac·u·late (ĭ-măk'yə-lĭt) pronunciation adj.

1. Impeccably clean; spotless. See synonyms at clean.
2. Free from stain or blemish; pure.
3. Free from fault or error: an immaculate record.
4. Having no markings."

This "immaculate" conception comes from Roman Catholic Dogma. As I said earlier Mary was not "perfect" and not kept from original sin..She needed a savior.
I see no connection of "Immaculate Conception" with Siddhartha(Bhudda) either
I can't believe I even have to explain this.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by tylersch]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join