Calling all Christianity debunkers

i agree, but I think the revised renditions of the similarities would look nothing like what everyone seems to be parroting. I mean Virishna doesnt even exist exept on the pages of david Icke and Leedom's books!

Oh come on!!

How can you guys claim to be such Christians and then come here just trying to pick fights with people?? What is Christian about that?

Where you get this notion that Constantine worshipped some "sun god" I have no idea--please give some (believable) sources when posting such claims, because frankly these claims are ludicrous...and further since when does Lucifer=sun god??? The word Lucifer means "light-bearer"--do you leap from that to thinking it made him some kind of "sun god"? If so you are sadly mistaken. Lucifer was a fallen angel--never any kind of "god".

And this mention of the Vatican being "the very place that the Christians were executed"--yes it was, but not for the reasons you imply. You seem to be suggesting that the Vatican was placed there as some kind of smug symbol of "Haha this is where we killed our enemies, the Christians!"

Actually the Vatican is placed over the ground sanctified by the blood of the early Christian martyrs because their sacrifice made it holy ground!! This means that the Vatican views these early martyrs as their founders and their spiritual heroes--the placement of the Vatican honors Christ and his earliest followers. You have it exactly backward!!

Please try getting your "facts" straight!

And Amenti--did you come here really seeking facts--or a fight??

You're beating a dead horse with David Icke (isn't he the nutjob who thinks the royals are "reptilians"??? Who takes him seriously?) and this "Virishna" or whatever it is.

I never heard of it, and I suspect no one else has--unless they've been reading some of Icke's ravings. Which I haven't. Got better things to do with my time than watch someone lose his sanity.

I think there is a Hindu god named Vishnu, or something like that.

Are you perhaps confusing the two?

[edit on 6/21/07 by abovereproach]

Everything you mentioned below is part of the Law of Moses, which in at least some Christians' belief has been abolished by the atonement work of Jesus Christ on the Cross. His death was necessary to satisfy justice by taking the penalty for sin onto Himself. No one passed under the Law, all were worthy only of death and we would all perish under it. The atonement, while taking place in time at Golgotha, is eternal and covers all who trust God regardless of their works, for all time, including both Old Testament and New Testament saints.

The problem of Canaan is that they stood in the way, opposed to God's will, and would not move. It was a people whose sin had reached its full measure and who were in perpetual rebellion against the Lord, and as such, if they were allowed to, would oppress the followers of God terribly. There was nothing that could be done with them except to kill them. God is slow to anger and merciful and I'm sure there was plenty of time for them to get the message because in previous generations the people of God had ruled them, under Abraham and Jacob. They were also left alone when the Israelites went to Egypt; it's part of the walk of faith for God to withdraw His obvious presence to see if the teaching of faith takes effect or not.

In Canaan, it did not make a dent; instead, they failed to take heed from previous lessons of their encounters with Israel, particularly the war they provoked by raping Dinah, the sister of the children of Jacob. The first city to fall to Israel had but one family in it that not only knew the history but put enough trust in Rahab to follow her in keeping the spies from Israel hidden. As a result her clan, the Kenites, even though Midianites, escaped Jericho alive and eventually merged with the Judahites, becoming the clan of Rechabite scholars that no doubt helped preserve the story of Jericho.

The land belonged to the faithers descended from Shem; it had been given to him in God's promises to Noah as outlined in apocryphal literature that survives to this day. The descendants of Ham, inheritors of the animal cloak that their ancestor stole from Noah, had moved in and were squatting. God made the decision to give the land to Abraham and his seed forever. There was not a condition on that, it belongs to Abraham's seed, the seed of faith, through Isaac and Jacob, forever. That the Hamites, particularly the Canaanites, had turned against God and set their face against Israel despite their own prophet's warning as it appears in Numbers, proves they were not fit to live there, they were squatters when the generation after Shem lost it to the Hamites, they were squatters when it was promised to Abram, and they were squatters when Israel drove them out under orders from God.

You can get passing surface similarities between any religious leader or god and Jesus Christ, because he is (at least claimed to be) God and was a religious leader. This does not make Him or His message substantially similar en toto to these other religious figures. There are some facts about the only Jesus Christ that exists in history that set him apart from every other religious leader. You can read about them at www.resurrectionism.com....

I believe that the redemption plan of God has been known for far longer than most people are aware. E. Bullinger wrote an excellent book called "The Witness of the Stars" that shows that ancient astrologers from as long ago as 5,000 years B.P. knew the basic outlines of this plan. Since this also included knowledge that an evil being stood opposed to this plan, you have to know that if there is any truth to the existence of God and Christ, that this evil being, force, or what have you has been trying all that time to cloud the message and take the truth out of context, so he can make people believe it is invalid. One way of doing it would be to raise up counterfeit Messiahs, especially before the real Messiah came in the scheduled time. Apparently, we are now aware of something like 80 examples of just such counterfeit Messianic gods and prophets.

I believe the key to unraveling the confusion is simple. If you lay a straight stick among a bunch of crooked sticks, it stands out. There is only one Jesus Christ, who came making unique, humanly impossible claims about himself that stand apart from every other respected or revered religious founder. He is also the only founder of a religion whose founding is based on a historical event that is also a miracle, his resurrection from death after a Roman crucifixion at the behest of religious authorities. This death, even, is unique, because of the peculiar circumstances involved; for one thing he is crucified at the demands of some of his own people, for another, it's probably the only way to die that cannot take place as a suicide, and for another, he offers not a whiff of resistance to what ranks as one of the worst forms of execution ever devised.

You can debate whether the history is accurate, you can make that debate about the history of any religious founder. History is his-story. I don't care which history you read of which religious founder or what legend of what god, it always comes with a point of view attached. The key to sorting that out is determining as nearly as possible the veracity of the original witnesses to the story. Do they tell on themselves even to their own hurt, or do they aggrandize themselves and duck episodes embarassing to themselves? Was there pressure on them to alter the story, were they sponsored to tell it or were they pressured to suppress it? Do internal details in the story as told by different witnesses (if available) hang together consistently while representing different points of view honestly, or is there a "groupthink" mentality that shows coaching? Are trivial details changed to fit their audience, or are apparently inconvenient details left unchanged despite the potential to confuse their intended readers?

Questions like these were answered about Jesus and the resurrection story by the author of the article www.resurrectionism.com.... I highly recommend reading it if your aim is to debunk or even to prove the basis of a faith in Christ.

Actually I feel I have reason to suspect that Zoroaster was in fact Ezra, the prophet of Judah and "Second Moses" to the 5th or 6th century BCE Jews. Without going into too much detail (also not remembering which website I read about Zoroaster on, all I can tell you is it was a Zoroastrian site), both Zoroaster and Ezra were principal advisors to a Persian king, both gave advice and commentary about the power of wine (see apocryphal Greek Ezra or I Esdras), both were prophets (see apocryphal II Esdras), both were eminent legal scholars of their respective days, both were monotheists, and both enjoyed a great respect among each respective people, Jews and Persians, in subsequent generations. Both also are said to have lived, according to the best estimates of secular historians, around the middle of the first millenium BCE in Persia (despite Zoroastrian tradition to the contrary, in the case of Zoroaster.) And, as if that is not coincidence enough, both begin their names with the consonants (which Hebrew is written only in) in this order: ZR.

Books by the author Tony Bushy discuss his research that Roman religion called Christianity is generally a fabrication based upon amalgamation of the lives of twins born in Judea about 2000 years ago.

These twins were Judas and Yeshua ben Joseph, the former and elder was a zealot who lead an insurrection against the Roman occupiers, the latter was a rabbi who later initiated into the Egyptian mysteries and sought to bring secret Torah teachings into the public domain and paid for it with his life. Both were members of the Essene group.

His books give an opinion that I've not seen anywhere else but for those who are neither in the "There was no one called Jesus" and its flipside "Jesus is god made man" camps it puts a believable human tale behind what is written in the bible and accepted verbatim.

If you want to see for yourselves, the proof of Jesus' existance, click, or,copy and paste the link. When you get into the site, scroll down a little to the video..... If you don't really care, then what further can I really do?

nowheretorun.podomatic.com...

It's up to the learned individual to do their homework. I'm always looking to see if anyone can actually disprove anything written in the Bible.....especially when Strong's Concordance is used in their attempt.
Peace be with you all....

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---