Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christianity is based on Egyptian Myths - Jesus Christ is Horus

page: 20
49
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
Make sure you ALL watch "ZEITGEIST, The Movie - Official Release - Full Film" one the best informative documanteries out there explaining (with facts) on where most religions come from and more...

video.google.ca...



Thinking beyond Zeitgeist is thinking beyond Acharya is thinking beyond Massenet .




posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
Make sure you ALL watch "ZEITGEIST, The Movie - Official Release - Full Film" one the best informative documanteries out there explaining (with facts) on where most religions come from and more...

video.google.ca...


Zeitgeist is crap.

Try actually CHECKING some of it's claims - e.g. Krishna and Mithras being born on the 25h December.

They are FALSE claims, like much of the movie.


Iasion



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NJE777
 


omg i never realised that
maybe there is sum sort of religious coincidence between horus and christ



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   
For those who have not read the entire thread please see these posts:

Bryd debunked Harper's claims.

I am not rejecting some of the similarities that exist between religions; but Zietgeist has been debunked and I believe Tom Harper's claims have too.

As per Harper's claims:


Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by NJE777
So quite simply the claims made by the author are BS? Fabricated?

That appears to be the case.
...more here



Originally posted by NJE777
Controversy with Harper's sources - unbiased and factual


[edit on 5-3-2008 by Thurisaz]

[edit on 5-3-2008 by Thurisaz]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Here's a question for both the religious types and Zeitgeist types:

What makes any of the evidence you both lean on so concrete and believeable? It's all a bunch of stuff that some guy is telling you! None of it can be proved or disproved!

Examples:

Zeitgeist- these gods were born on these days and these dates and under these circumstances. How in the world does anybody know any of that? They don't, they're taking someone elses word for it! How can something that can't be proved prove anything??

Bible-This guy was born on this day and date and under these circumstances. He went on and did all this stuff. We have ancient scrolls and texts that prove it. What do a bunch of words on old pieces of paper prove? You're taking someone elses word for it!

I know religious types hate the ol "prove it" argument, so that's why I applied it to the Zeitgeist fans as well. I just find the idea of taking what some person says or what some document says as fact laughable. I understand that we have to take some things on faith, because if all we did was question every single "fact" we'd never get anywhere.

Just take your beliefes and have fun with them, but don't try and convince me using these so-called facts. The more you lean on these"facts" or "evidence" or "credible sources" the weaker your position becomes.

I am open to anyone who would like to present me with some facts that I can't refute, but be prepared for some hardcore hair-splitting.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


The ancient source texts are the final word on any of this.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by IMtheANTICHRIST
 


Oh please, do we really have to go there again. There's lots of threads on this and it's just not true.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by chromatico
 
ON any of what? The Bible or Zeitgeist?
Says who? When was this established?
Sorry, instead of providing me with anything resembling facts,evidence, or...well...anything to work with, I have more questions than when we started.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


The source texts are and have always been proof when talking about religious matters. This is not a difficult concept.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by chromatico
 

I find it to be a difficult concept that text can prove anything. The only thing texts can prove, in my opinion, is that somebody wrote something down using a writing tool. I don't expect any proof of god or gods, because if there were any, there would be no debate. I also don't believe there will be any proof saying there isn't a god or gods for the same reason. Neither is provable at this point in time.

Please refrain from using a condescending tone with me in the future, I don't believe I have said anything that warrants it. Just because I don't put the same faith in ancient texts as you do doesn't mean I lack intellect or reasoning capability.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


All the texts prove is something on the RELIGIOUS level, which is the only level that matters in this context. All we want to know is, did Christianity rip off the Egyptian religion or not (it didn't). Whether or not you believe Christianity or even the Egyptian one, for that matter, is irrelevant.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by chromatico
 
I see what you are saying, however, you should reword your statement to reflect that ancient texts support religious beliefs, as opposed to proving them. Whether I believe or not is relevant, in that, if I believed in what these ancient texts said I would likely consider them proof because my faith depended on it,whereas if I did not believe, they would not constitute evidence, they would support what I would call a theory. I can't even support the notion that ancient texts prove that more than a few people, at the time, believed in what the text said.

Also, the religious level is not the only thing that matters in this context, since the thread is just as much about the credibility of the facts used to support the theory as the theory itself. You can't debate a theory without debating the substance of the material used to explain the theory.


[edit on 22-3-2008 by Gigatronix]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Gig, I understand the point you are trying to make. However, it's not a matter of believing that Horus was born on a certain day, born a certain way, did certain things, etc. Like you said, how do we know? It's a myth. But this is what Zeitgeist (and similar things) does:

Horus was born on December the 25th, to the virgin Isis, was crucified for the sins of the world, had twelve disciples, etc.

Yet, looking at the actual Egyptian evidence we are told Horus was born in November, his mother was not a virgin, Horus was never crucified or was even killed, did not die for the sins of man, and never had twelve disciples.

That is what we mean when we say the 'texts are authoritative.' They are 'authoritative' concerning the history of beliefs concerning Horus however videos like Zeitgeist and The God Who Wasn't There (and many, many others) make blatantly false claims about mythical/pagan figures in an effort to show Christ was a pagan copycat.

We're not saying the texts are false or what is written is false. We're saying the information claimed to be believed about the other figures is false. It's nothing more than psuedo-scholars preying on the ignorance of others. 99% of Americans will know nothing about the stories behind Krishna, Mithras, Horus, Zoroaster, etc. and won't realize that what they are being told was never even believed by their followers.

[edit on 3/22/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 
Mmhmm, and I see your point, from your standpoint a movie like Zeitgeist may not only spread false information, but lead others astray from what you believe to be the true story. I can appreciate your concern on that front, and I hope you noted in one of my previous posts I called out Zeitgeist believers to question the "facts" used to assert their theory.

I won't ask you to explain how the texts used to support your beliefs are any better than those used in the Zeitgeist theory, because even I will admit that comparing some internet movie to Christianity(or any other major religion) is kind of silly.

However, I would like to ask what makes you not gullible for believing in what you believe? Your belief stems alot from similar ancient texts, yes? I don't like to use the word gullible because I dont think it really is an appropriate term to describe people that believe in evolution or God, but it's the word you used, so in the interest of fairness, I will apply it to you. How is believing in something divine based on ancient texts, myths and legends not gullible as well?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
However, I would like to ask what makes you not gullible for believing in what you believe? Your belief stems alot from similar ancient texts, yes? I don't like to use the word gullible because I dont think it really is an appropriate term to describe people that believe in evolution or God, but it's the word you used, so in the interest of fairness, I will apply it to you. How is believing in something divine based on ancient texts, myths and legends not gullible as well?


Long, long story!


A mix of personal experiences, hardcore research, and apologetics. I've explained much of it on ATS (probably enough to fill a small book) but the above sentence just about sums it up.

P.S. I'm not remotely offended by the use of the word 'gullible.' It's an honest question and I could certainly see how someone who does not know me or know why I believe what I do to see it as gullibility.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 

I didn't mean to imply you were gullible, I was trying to stay in the context of what you were saying. Then I realized I'm not even in your gullible thread LOL. My bad, I've been bouncing between threads too much tonight.

To try and get back on topic, I say this about Horus and Jesus: Since they're both supported by "evidence" I find to be dubious, I find it amusing that anyone could theorize that one thing that didn't exist could inspire something else, that also didn't exist. Which came first, the nothing or the nothing?

Edit: the above paragrpah there, I just realized is redundant because the issue is not whether Horus or Jesus existed, but whether the Horus Legend inspired the Jesus legend. But I'll leave it just cause I thought it was kind of funny(in a absurd kind of way hehe)



[edit on 22-3-2008 by Gigatronix]

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Gigatronix]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
ok I gotta question for all who dont believe in any sort of religion and or are against the idea that ancient documents are the source to the truth.

My Stand - Christian, so naturally ill be defending the Bible.

Question - since the bible has not captured your faith, what is your version of truth?

how did we get here? where did life come from? where did matter come from? where did the laws of physics come from? where did everything come from?

and if you even start to point me down the path of >big bang>matter evolving>planets/stars evolving>chemicals evolving>life evolving>millions of years of evolution> here we are.

that is a bunch of scientific BS because all of that has been proven false, as well as impossible.

so lets here what the truth is...



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
There are thousands of versions of Horus throughout the ages. One of these versions is the sun god, born of the virgin Isis. Horus is the son of Isis and Osiris, but Osiris never actually had sex with her, just as the Christian god had never actually had sex with Mary.

On the Temple of Isis it was famously written, "I, Isis, am all that has been, that is or shall be; no mortal Man hath ever me unveiled."

She is arguably the first Virgin goddess, though she may have had predecessors. She was known as the Virgin of the World, the Virgin who Birthed the Sun (Horus), and so on. Her virginity is actually highly symbolic. She represents the mystery of the origin of life (represented by Horus the Sun, giver of life); the mystery that no man has unveiled, or ever will.

Remember, this kind of stuff involves largely ESOTERIC knowledge, which will require much more research than a google search.

The relation between Christianity with Astrology is not new. The relation between Jesus and Horus is also not new. The interpretation of Christianity as sun-worship is also not new. These ideas have been floating around for hundreds of years.

The sun is a highly important symbol as it is what gives life. The ancients recognized that while we all need the sun, the sun does not ask for anything in return, nor does it need us. Thus, the ancients would express their thanks for this great, all-loving Celestial Orb in the form of prayer, and this is where the modern day concept of prayer comes from. Oh, and they knew that all the planets revolved around the sun the way before the rediscovery of that fact.

www.manlyphall.org...

[edit on 25-3-2008 by italkyoulisten]

[edit on 25-3-2008 by italkyoulisten]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


Well I think that is a huge question that we should all ponder upon, rather than let an Institution (the Church) tell you what it means. I can tell you it is not simply God creating the world in 7 days.

It is all symbolism man. It is all symbolism. Concealed within all religions is the same general truths. God usually represents the First Cause. The unknown, beyond physical entity that caused all effects since. This entity must be beyond the physical realm as it does not appear to have a cause; it IS. The nature of existence is believed to be three-fold: Void -> Spirit -> Matter, and all things manifest in this order. For example, before you physically pick up a book (Matter manifestation), you must first have the concept of picking up the book in your head (Spirit manifestation), which in turn seemingly comes out of Nothing.

This Trinity is repeated throughout many religions: Father, Holy Spirit, Son; Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto; Ulomus, Ulosuros, Eliun; Zeus, Poseidon, Aidoneus; Space, Energy, Matter (science).

The symbolism is this:
Through Jesus (our Material selves), we can tap into the Holy Spirit (the Spirit-self), which in turn will lead to communion with the Father (going to Heaven = enlightenment; oneness; the Nothing that is the All)

In Buddhism/Hinduism:
Through Meditation (physically at first), we can tap into the Spirit-self, which in turn may allow us to return our Spirit back to Brahma (enlightenment; the Nothing that is the All).

And so on.


Through my own philosophical musings, I have come to believe that all things exist because they are merely a manipulation of the Void, and that existence is a state of Everything and Nothing at the same time.

All things have opposites and that all things are defined by opposites. Nothing can exist without it's opposite, even concepts. Most fundamentally, there is matter and anti-matter. So basically, what I am saying is that existence is like an equation.

It could be

2 = 2.

However, things can always change or be added on or whatever.

2 + 2 = 2 + 2.

We are just one side of the equation, and for anything to chance on our side, there must be an equal change on the other. This concept I think is best symbolized by the yin-yang symbol. People only see the black and white portions (which represents the law of Duality that I was just talking about; the opposites), but neglect to see the symbol as a whole. The whole symbol is existence, and it is at the same time Everything and Nothing. It is Nothing because the black and white cancels each other out, becoming Nothing, while is still Everything. This, too, is akin to the equations, as any equation in which both sides are equal is also equal to zero. Everything and Nothing.

ex:
x = x
x - x = 0

The ancients believed this too, and (because they never discovered anti-matter), believed to Spirit to be the opposite of the Material.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by italkyoulisten]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
However, it is wrong to claim that Christianity came solely from Egyptian myths. Christianity actually borrowed much from many ancient religions, and then modified throughout the ages to fit the masses ("mainstreamized").





new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join