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.

 

Christianity is based on Egyptian Myths - Jesus Christ is Horus

page: 15
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo


jesus was not born on December 25th.
That was the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to incorporate the solstice celebration in with the birth of Christ. Christ, based on the events that surrounded his birth, would've been born around the beginning of September.


Again


Fact is, Jesus is actually the Sun. Which (figuratively)dies every year on Dec 23 for 3 days and is reborn on the Dec 25th making its journey daily back up the horizon. The Sun, our Savior, our Light of the World, King of Kings, only Sun of God.....etc

Google Video Link



Nobody really knows the actual birth of Jesus depicted in the bible. There are (once again) vague references in the gospels of Luke and Matthew that basically contradict each other.

Jesus' attributes were greatly "borrowed" upon by earlier mythologies during the council of Nicea. The Jesus depicted in the bible was decided and invented (if you will) around 325AD. There are strong arguments that support the fact that christianity didn't exist until after 325.

[edit on 063030p://upSunday by QuasiShaman]




posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
double post?

[edit on 063030p://upSunday by QuasiShaman]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
Fact is, Jesus is actually the Sun.


This is incorrect and not a fact.


Originally posted by QuasiShaman
only Sun of God.....etc


English wordplay has no bearing on Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew texts.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Yeah, those fanatical Christians can be a pain in the butt. I heard talk many of them get carried away with love and forgiveness. What a pain.


Yeah Sun, you've got to cut out that Christian Extremism. It's that Fundamentalist viewpoint that's responsible for horrible things like taking care of your family, friends, and people you randomly meet. Next thing you know we're going to lose traditional values like domestic violence, divorce, and warfare. What will we do then Sun? What will we do...

[edit on 2-9-2007 by saint4God]


The logic is puzzling. No doubt



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuasiShaman


The terminology is in reference to her "pregnancy" AFTER his death.

The story goes that when he was torn into 14 pieces and scattered along the Nile, Isis collected the pieces and put them back together. The missing part was his phallus. So she fashioined a fake one and using "magic", she hovered over him and was impregnated by his artifical phallus, even though he was dead. It doesn't mean she was literally a virgin, it just means real intercourse did not transpire because the guy was dead and sportin' a literal woody, if you'll excuse the expression.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by undo]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   


English wordplay has no bearing on Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew texts


Precisely.

The latin word for sun is different than the egyptian one, and so on. And the hebrew word for male offspring is different than the english word for old Sol.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
please read the book by kersey graves a quaker minister in the 1880's called "16 crucified saviors, Christianity before Christ" then follow up with Oxford books of ancient history to get the anthropology of early religions, then look at alester Crowley "777" masonic books on early religions like pathorgas and mithras



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Or you could read this, The Two Babylons, 1853 version



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   
It has loads of good info on Mithras and mythology! Every religion has it's origins at Babylon. Except faith in Jesus(.Jeshua)



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Mohammad knew about Jesus and the Jews, he made a religion
that may have counter parts except they went extreme.

Say the Jews could forgive Jews for a sin but not the Gentile for sin.
So murder a Jew you are not forgiven; murder a non Jew, the Jew is forgiven.
So Jew does not murder Jew. (Very rare or no forgiveness.)

Jesus was a rebel saying that God says the forgiveness rule applies to all.
Old line Jews not liking the new covenant killed the Jew Jesus.

Mohammad must have some how let the issue get to extremes and looks
like sin is to be dealt with in physical slaughter at times even if by
their own kind.

So Jesus is not Horus cause Mohammad knew about Jesus and would
not factor in any Horus for the religion from Alla.


[edit on 10/4/2007 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
This is incorrect and not a fact.


From the KJV:


But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
~Malachi 4:2


Most scholars/theologians/etc. assume that to be a reference to Messiah.


English wordplay has no bearing on Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew texts.


'Sun' = shemesh

From Strong's Concordance:


H8121
shemesh
sheh'-mesh
From an unused root meaning to be brilliant; the sun; by implication the east; figuratively a ray, that is, (architecturally) a notched battlement: - + east side (-ward), sun ([rising]), + west (-ward), window. See also H1053.


How about Hebrew *word-play*???


* Although idiom would be the formal/correct term.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
Every religion has it's origins at Babylon.


NOT so!

For example:
  • Buddhism was founded in the 6th century BCE; following the experience & teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, aka 'Buddha' (the original or first Buddha), who was born in what is now Nepal.
  • Hindu, as of yet, has no specifically identified origin; although its regional center is India & so must certainly have arose in the still-largely-mysterious & recently-discovered Indus Valley/Harappan civilization, rooted in the Iron Age Vedic religion. This civilization is thought to have originated as early as 7000 BCE & to have reached is height between 2300 to 2000 BCE, at which point it encompassed over 750,000 square miles & traded with Mesopotamia.
  • Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) was a Persian (Iranian) prophet commonly believed (by scholars) to have lived & taught near the Caspian Sea in the 6th century BCE. The general idea of his teaching was aimed at replacing the traditional Indo-Iranian gods with just one supreme god named Ahura Mazda (which means 'Wise Lord').
Currently, it is accepted by scholars, archaeologists, anthropologists, et al. that there are four basic regional roots from which all civilizations/cultures/religions/etc. arose:
  • Mesopotamia
  • Indus
  • Egypt
  • China
All of them have been, so far, traced back to generally having the SAME timeline regarding the advent of written language (approx. 3000 to 4000 BCE) as well as a similar point of general genesis/origination (approx. 5000 to 7000 BCE).

As far as Babylon is concerned, the 'old Babylonian' period in Mesopotamia began circa 2000-1800 BCE, with the 'Assyrian' period beginning around 1200 BCE & the later 'Neo-Babylonian' period starting about 600 BCE.

...So...
Babylonian religion is but a fraction contained within a fraction (1/4) of the total possible roots for world religions.


ALSO, Mithra was a greco-roman cult-god popular between the 1st & 4th centuries CE, & more similar to greco-persian Zoroastrianism, if similar to any other religion/cult at all.

Your author's premise is unfounded according to empirical evidence; although perfectly in-sync with the accepted Christian theology of his day!


Originally posted by Clearskies
Except faith in Jesus (Jeshua)


Yeshua or Yehoshua or Iesous or Jesus - there was no 'J' in either ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek!

Another thing...
...there is NO biblical mention of faith IN Jesus; it is faith OF Jesus:It is NOT about anyone's capacity to believe but is all about his trustworthiness toward us, regardless of belief or lack thereof. The Greek word 'pistis' means 'reliability,' 'assurance,' and 'fidelity,' NOT 'hope' or 'belief,' which is 'elpizo'.


When Israel a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
~Hosea 11:1

He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return.
~Hosea 11:5


??


Certainly Judaism (and therefore, Christianity) has ties with BOTH the Egyptian & Mesopotamian/Babylonian/Assyrian religions!

--------------------
*Sources*

History World
Columbia University
Washington State University
Religion Facts



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
For example:
  • Buddhism was founded in the 6th century BCE; following the experience & teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, aka 'Buddha' (the original or first Buddha), who was born in what is now Nepal.



"The name of Shing Moo, applied by the Chinese to their "Holy Mother," compared with another name of the same goddess in another province of China, strongly favours the conclusion that Shing Moo is just a synonym for one of the well known names of the goddess-mother of Babylon. Gillespie (in his Land of Sinim) states that the Chinese goddess-mother, or "Queen of Heaven," in the province of Fuh-kien, is worshipped by seafaring people under the name of Ma Tsoopo. Now, "Ama Tzupah" signifies the "Gazing Mother"; and there is much reason to believe that Shing Moo signifies the same; for Mu was one of the forms in which Mut or Maut, the name of the great mother, appeared in Egypt (BUNSEN'S Vocabulary); and Shngh, in Chaldee, signifies "to look" or "gaze." The Egyptian Mu or Maut was symbolised either by a vulture, or an eye surrounded by a vulture's wings (WILKINSON). The symbolic meaning of the vulture may be learned from the Scriptural expression: "There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen" (Job 28:7). The vulture was noted for its sharp sight, and hence, the eye surrounded by the vulture's wings showed that, for some reason or other, the great mother of the gods in Egypt had been known as "The gazer." But the idea contained in the Egyptian symbol had evidently been borrowed from Chaldea; for Rheia, one of the most noted names of the Babylonian mother of the gods, is just the Chaldee form of the Hebrew Rhaah, which signifies at once "a gazing woman" and a "vulture." The Hebrew Rhaah itself is also, according to a dialectical variation, legitimately pronounced Rheah; and hence the name of the great goddess-mother of Assyria was sometimes Rhea, and sometimes Rheia. In Greece, the same idea was evidently attached to Athena or Minerva, whom we have seen to have been by some regarded as the Mother of the children of the sun. For one of her distinguishing titles was Ophthalmitis (SMITH'S Classical Dictionary, "Athena"), thereby pointing her out as the goddess of "the eye." It was no doubt to indicate the same thing that, as the Egyptian Maut wore a vulture on her head, so the Athenian Minerva was represented as wearing a helmet with two eyes, or eye-holes, in the front of the helmet. (VAUX'S Antiquities)

Having thus traced the gazing mother over the earth, is it asked, What can have given origin to such a name as applied to the mother of the gods? A fragment of Sanchuniathon, in regard to the Phoenician mythology, furnishes us with a satisfactory reply. There it is said that Rheia conceived by Kronos, who was her own brother, and yet was known as the father of the gods, and in consequence brought forth a son who was called Muth, that is, as Philo-Byblius correctly interprets the word, "Death." As Sanchuniathon expressly distinguishes this "father of the gods" from "Hypsistos," The Most High, * we naturally recall what Hesiod says in regard to his Kronos, the father of the gods, who, for a certain wicked deed, was called Titan, and cast down to hell. (Theogonia)


* In reading Sanchuniathon, it is necessary to bear in mind what Philo-Byblius, his translator, states at the end of the Phenician History--viz., that history and mythology were mingled together in that work.
The Kronos to whom Hesiod refers is evidently at bottom a different Kronos from the human father of the gods, or Nimrod, whose history occupies so large a place in this work. He is plainly none other than Satan himself; the name Titan, or Teitan, as it is sometimes given, being, as we have elsewhere concluded, only the Chaldee form of Sheitan, the common name of the grand Adversary among the Arabs, in the very region where the Chaldean Mysteries were originally.... ."



  • Hindu, as of yet, has no specifically identified origin; although its regional center is India & so must certainly have arose in the still-largely-mysterious & recently-discovered Indus Valley/Harappan civilization, rooted in the Iron Age Vedic religion. This civilization is thought to have originated as early as 7000 BCE & to have reached is height between 2300 to 2000 BCE, at which point it encompassed over 750,000 square miles & traded with Mesopotamia.


  • "Though modern Hinduism recognises millions of gods, yet the Indian sacred books show that originally it had been far otherwise. Major Moor, speaking of Brahm, the supreme God of the Hindoos, says: "Of Him whose Glory is so great, there is no image" (Veda). He "illumines all, delights all, whence all proceeded; that by which they live when born, and that to which all must return" (Veda). In the "Institutes of Menu," he is characterised as "He whom the mind alone can perceive; whose essence eludes the external organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity...the soul of all beings, whom no being can comprehend." In these passages, there is a trace of the existence of Pantheism; but the very language employed bears testimony to the existence among the Hindoos at one period of a far purer faith.

    Nay, not merely had the ancient Hindoos exalted ideas of the natural perfections of God, but there is evidence that they were well aware of the gracious character of God, as revealed in His dealings with a lost and guilty world. This is manifest from the very name Brahm, appropriated by them to the one infinite and eternal God. There has been a great deal of unsatisfactory speculation in regard to the meaning of this name, but when the different statements in regard to Brahm are carefully considered, it becomes evident that the name Brahm is just the Hebrew Rahm, with the digamma prefixed, which is very frequent in Sanscrit words derived from Hebrew or Chaldee. Rahm in Hebrew signifies "The merciful or compassionate one." But Rahm also signifies the WOMB or the bowels; as the seat of compassion. Now we find such language applied to Brahm, the one supreme God, as cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition that Brahm had the very same meaning as the Hebrew Rahm. Thus, we find the God Crishna, in one of the Hindoo sacred books, when asserting his high dignity as a divinity and his identity with the Supreme, using the.."



    posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 12:23 PM
    link   
    After the great deluge, men dispersed FROM babylon, except the righteous seed of Noah, who didn't adhere to babylon.
    Every religion has similar aspects,...Coincidence?
    READ tha link I provided and try to debunk it then.

    To be continued.....



    posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 06:59 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Clearskies
    "The name of Shing Moo, applied by the Chinese to their "Holy Mother," compared with another name of the same goddess in another province of China, strongly favours the conclusion that Shing Moo is just a synonym for one of the well known names of the goddess-mother of Babylon.


    Shing Moo? Who the heck is Shing Moo?
    That isn't even a good made-up name!


    The Egyptian Mu or Maut was symbolised either by a vulture, or an eye surrounded by a vulture's wings (WILKINSON). The symbolic meaning of the vulture may be learned from the Scriptural expression: "There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen" (Job 28:7).


    Ma'at? The eye of Horus? Or Mut?

    And, consistently translated, Job 28:7 ought to read
    (...) which the kite's eye hath not seen.

    H344 is translated as 'kite' in the only two other OT mentions, and another word for vulture is translated as 'vulture' every time - H1722.


    "Though modern Hinduism recognises millions of gods, yet the Indian sacred books show that originally it had been far otherwise. (...)In these passages, there is a trace of the existence of Pantheism; but the very language employed bears testimony to the existence among the Hindoos at one period of a far purer faith. (...) Thus, we find the God Crishna, in one of the Hindoo sacred books, when asserting his high dignity as a divinity and his identity with the Supreme, using the.."


    Links, please!

    I don't even know what/who it is that you are citing.



    posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 07:19 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Clearskies
    After the great deluge, men dispersed FROM babylon, except the righteous seed of Noah, who didn't adhere to babylon.


    Shinar. Which is a Sumerian name for Sumer. Not 'Babylon.' East from Shinar

    Ever heard of Gilgamesh? Does your author mention him, at all? If so, then what does he say?


    Every religion has similar aspects,...Coincidence?


    Of course not.
    But I bet not for the reasons you are saying.


    READ the link I provided and try to debunk it then.


    How can one debunk op-ed theology?
    Truly. That's what ALL of what you posted seems to be. Do you have links of your citations?
    Play fair.



    posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 09:34 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by queenannie38
    From the KJV:


    I'd respond but tend not to have dialogue with someone who openly states they want to take an axe to me. That kind of violence speaks for itself. When your hostilities cease and you have interest in discussion the perhaps we can talk then.



    posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 11:24 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by saint4God
    I'd respond but tend not to have dialogue with someone who openly states they want to take an axe to me.


    Get over it! Seriously.

    You purposefully ignored my explanation of something said ONE time....if you won't benefit from direct communication, then why do YOU keep bringing it up? Just stew over it privately, if you must stew at all.



    That kind of violence speaks for itself. When your hostilities cease and you have interest in discussion the perhaps we can talk then.


    Diversionary tactic. Does it qualify as true 'hubris' or a defense mechanism?

    I am, in no way, being discourteous to you in this thread!
    Don't make it personal if it's not.

    ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

    [edit on 10/5/2007 by queenannie38]



    posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 11:32 PM
    link   
    reply to post by queenannie38
     

    The link I already provided you with.
    I don't have any more time tonight for this thread....
    [url=The Two Babylons



    posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 11:42 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Clearskies
    The link I already provided you with.


    Not that one - you mention 'Theologia' and 'VAUX'S Antiquities,' neither one of which I have heard of.


    I don't have any more time tonight for this thread....
    The Two Babylons


    Not a problem - at your leisure!



    new topics

    top topics



     
    49
    << 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

    log in

    join