Christianity is based on Egyptian Myths - Jesus Christ is Horus, page 21

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:25 PM

link

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
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").

Don't talk like that man! You'll be accused of airbrushing history, or conspiring to defame religion, or just plain talking out of your arse! Where's the proof, where's the evidence, what do the ancient texts say?? Quick, post a biased link or a quote taken out of context!

/end sarcasm

italkyoulisten

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:05 PM

link

reply to post by Gigatronix

Thanks for just responding to my final add-on statement. I already just showed the significance of the Virgin Isis birthing the Sun symbolism. But unfortunately, most of the ancient texts were destroyed through repeated book burnings, such as Pythagoras's sacred mathematics and theory of numbers. I did not just quote some internet site, but instead I explained the meaning behind the symbolism.

I did provide a link, though, to one of Manly P. Hall's lectures on Christian Theology in relation to sun-worship. He will quote the ancient texts for you, as there are few, if any, internet links to the obscure ancient texts that Christian concepts allude to. It's just over an hour long, but I think it will be pretty enlightening to those who listen to it. He was even a bit ahead of his time. He notes that the Pyramids are of Astrological significance, before the discovery that they were aligned to the Orion's (Osiris's) Belt constellation.

I cannot provide you the ancient textual references immediately, obviously, as I must go to my university's library. And I would like to see you stake a claim rather than just bashing other people's. The surviving ancient texts are few, but it is pretty well known that Christianity borrowed many ideas from previous religions.

See the Scandinavian Balder the Beautiful

books.google.com...,M1

Oh, but that must be a non-credible and biased source, since it is not from ancient times and therefore the author must have been talking out of her ass and completely made everything up. Please, have a real point next time other than "cite ancient sources!"

If that link doesn't take you to the page, it's page 401 in the book.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by italkyoulisten]

italkyoulisten

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:16 PM

link

And you don't need ancient texts to show that the Church is constantly trying to "mainstreamize" Christianity. Just look at the Catholic church today. Naming new Sins while rebuking old ones, and so on.

All religions are deeper than just silly myths told to people. They ALL contain Sacred Knowledge obscured by symbolism, so that its inner teachings can only be interpreted by the initiated and adepts. Much of the knowledge has been lost over the thousands of years, but the symbolism still remain, almost mocking us all with its near impenetrable veil, and we can only sneak peeks and pieces of the sacred truth as we attempt to decipher the symbols. We know the meaning of most of the symbols, while some are more debated, and others are completely unknown, and together, the symbols paint a larger picture of Sacred Knowledge, as this was the purpose of all religions: to preserve the profound spiritual knowledge discovered by the ancient scholar class through rituals and symbols so that as long as the rituals and symbols live on, so must the Truth.

I am not an Atheist, however, as I do believe in a higher power, and I believe that it is up to ourselves to figure it out, rather than letting an Institution tell us what to believe.

The only difference is that Christian symbolism is mostly stolen from Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek ideas, including some "barbarian" influences but will not admit to it, and has perverted much of the symbolism and the knowledge behind the symbolism and capitalized on it.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by italkyoulisten]

Gigatronix

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:41 PM

link

reply to post by italkyoulisten

Just so nobody else is mistaken, my post that he is replying to here was meant to be in jest. I was imitating some of the hysteria I see alot of around here, hence the /end sarcasm note at the bottom. I u2u'd him to clarify this, and am letting anyone else know who felt i was attacking him or ridiculing him that that was not my intent. Perhaps my "joke" was poorly worded, my bad. It is not my practice to ridicule people.

Personally, I don't feel that I am educated enough on these things to say he is wrong,right,or somewhere in between. My debating usually centers on mans weakness, and the tendency to blame a mans belief system instead of making the man himself responsible.

IN this thread, my main point has been to question and evaluate so called "proof" "evidence" and "facts". I find it interesting how much faith people will put in some documents and texts, while outright dismissing others of similar nature on the basis of, accepting these alternative documents would conflict with their established notion of truth.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Gigatronix]

Byrd

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:31 AM

link

Originally posted by Gigatronix
[IN this thread, my main point has been to question and evaluate so called "proof" "evidence" and "facts". I find it interesting how much faith people will put in some documents and texts, while outright dismissing others of similar nature on the basis of, accepting these alternative documents would conflict with their established notion of truth.

I believe you're approaching this the wrong way.

A "belief" is a philosophic construct, right? I can believe in "luck", for instance; that I am a "lucky person." A study will show that I'm probably not much luckier than others, but I have a belief.

I may also believe that spirits walk in the world, or that a certain group of deities or one deity rules over certain aspects of the world. None of this is proveable -- it is a belief, and hence falls under philosphy.

Now, we do examine philosophy by looking at ancient texts, to see what ideas rose when and how they vary throughout time. Tales change (as did the religious view of Horus and others), and so if someone announces that this god and that one are one in the same, we look at the ancient records to see 'when did that particular aspect of the belief arise and how similar is it to this one here?'

We don't attempt to measure or to prove the construct; the god. We only look at the shape and the rules of the construct -- the religion itself.

Gigatronix

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:45 PM

link

reply to post by Byrd

Perhaps this is the way you think, and if it is, I applaud your reasoning skills. However, many people, eager to prove themselves as "right"(a relative term in itself in this context) will present to you all manner of documents, literature, quotes, and various dissertation. While I am not saying to dismiss these things, obviously everyone must somewhere along the lines choose to accept some kind evidence for something, I would take these things witha grain of salt. Especially considering that, in this sort of debate, where we're talking about entities that are unprovable, to be wary of any claim that says they can indeed prove them. I'm not disputing the evidence that says people believe Jesus or Horus existed, but rather the evidence they put forth to validate their belief. If they want to believe in that evidence, that's fine with me, just don't treat me as a fool if I find that evidence severely lacking, which is frequently the case when debating with some hardcore believers in anything.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Gigatronix]

drevill

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 02:02 PM

link

Originally posted by NJE777
I have just finished reading The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur. There are too many similarities between Horus and Christ to reject the author's claim that the story of Jesus Christ was plagiarised from much earlier Egyptian mythology.

Is this just a case of history repeating itself? Are we doing an Egyptian re run? If so, why?

Does the cult of Horus prove that Christianity is false?

Some parallels between Horus and Jesus Christ:

1. Horus born of a virgin.

drevill

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 02:09 PM

link

Originally posted by Gigatronix
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?

hello

i've not watch the video

however what Christianity are they comparing? the one way have today has been paganised. from church worship to holidays, no wonder they say its been copied, cos most of the aesthetics have been.

As a Christian the wolves in sheeps clothing is a double edged sword in this respect.

all the best

david

orangetom1999

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:02 PM

link

Drevill,
you posted

however what Christianity are they comparing? the one way have today has been paganised. from church worship to holidays, no wonder they say its been copied, cos most of the aesthetics have been.

As a Christian the wolves in sheeps clothing is a double edged sword in this respect.

all the best

david

Praise God...!! Hallelujah...someone else gets it. It can sometimes seem like one is out here alone. I know that I am not alone...it is just at times a barren wasteland among the wildlife out here.

I dont keep holidays..or birthdays for the simple reason that I choose not to observe a day above another....For they are all His days.

I have told this narrative before on other religious boards where occasionally about 30 miles from me up at Colonial Willamsburg ..the historians will attempt to explain how the early colonialists decorated thier houses for christmas. They will sing and dance all around the truth that they did not celebrate christmas..nor decorate. Then they will dramatize by showing "this is how we think they decorated though we dont actually have any records of how they did this." Talk about a con job.
The news reporters and camera people really eat this junk up. They think it is real intelligence.

It is not that difficult on line or in librarys to find a book or chart on when the various states adopted christmas as a holiday. I choose not to observe it and gave it up once I understood the pagan origins.
Yet I find it intresting the number of Athiest who also observe this holiday. This alone, should be a clue to Believers that the numbers here dont add up to good nonsense.

You are quite correct when you state that Christianity has been Paganized. The amazing observation is to me that most Believers havent a clue.

What is just as intresting to me is that neither do most Athiests have a clue. Most of the AThiests also tend to use the Church at Rome as representing all of Christians by default. This I find incredible. It was my first clue as to how ignorant were many of my Christian Bretheren. Many are so incredibly dumb about Christianity or even history that they let this tack default through without even a whimper. Incredible but true.

As to this topic line on this thread about Christianity being based on Egyptian Myths. This is not possible.
THe conditions for the Hebrews in the Olde Testament under the Law or the Law of Moses...one of them specifically over and over ...was not to do as the nations around them were doing. Do not as do the nations surrounding you are doing. This warning is done over and over again...in the Olde Testament. For the land is defiled.
Also ..Moses is not any ordinary Hebrew. He was in fact raised in the house of Pharaoh. If anyone knew the secrets of the Egyptian Religion it would be Moses. Yet you see him incorporating none of it in the Law.
What many try to pass off as logic has little to go with the logic and reason done in the Olde or New Testament. Parallel or likeness is not the same as actually is so. I see this technique attempted often by many on these threads.

In Christian times since the Cross...the intresting thing about Christianity is that it is intended to be Sectarian.

By sectarian I mean .......seperated from. Not joining and mixing. Come out from amongst them and be ye seperate. This has not changed from the Olde Testament. Another term for this would be anti social.

The attempt always and historically is to be non-sectarian..joining in with whatever corruption or changing wind is popular today. This is not Christianity. IN this vein the Athiest have a valid point about what "appears" to be Christianity. They overly dwell on this aspect little knowing or understanding that it is not Christian but veiled paganism.
Non Sectarian is a pagan fingerprint or mark. Lets all join together in a mix ..no matter how bastardized and corrupt it is.

There is another thread in CIR on the concept that athiests are trying to overthrow Christianity. I dont believe they are. I believe that certain pagan rites and sects are trying to overthrow Christianity or infiltrate it and turn it to thier tack or methods. They are and have been remarkably successful in this attempt. However I do not credit Athiests with such an attempt. Not possible. IF you think it through....by doctrine and dogma..it is not possible for Athiests to be good counterfitters. Pagans yes..Athiests no. Athiests tend to be to anti Christian to be as effective as Paganism in turning and destroying Christianity. Paganism has been far more effective in this type of seduction

By they way..for Athiests reading this..it is not intended to insult or offend.. merely state my opinion based on the history with which I am familiar.

One of the facets I have studied in when I can find genuine material on the subject is Occult religions and historys. This is a indirect result of learning the concept of Counterfits when I realized what it was about the observance of Holidays. Counterfits..counterfit holidays and worship. I think you have enough acumen by your posts to grasp the totallity of this.

When you look at much of the AThiest posts here on ATS/BTS/PTS..it is in response to a counterfit. Amazingly enough ..the same can be said for many of the posts of Believers. It really is astonishing when you look at the overall picture. They are both chasing a placebo..a sugar pill.

Well enough of that . I think you get the pattern to which I am alluding here.

Thanks Drevill...for your post. It is so very good to know that someone else gets it out here among the wildlife..among the wasteland.

In His name,
Orangetom

drevill

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link

reply to post by orangetom1999

orangetom1999

Hello

Satan has been trying to get us lot on earth to worship him forever,

not a hard act for him to accomplish if the Egyptians, Sumarians etc etc

were indoctrinated and fooled, Satan can transform himself into an Angel of light, i don't think it would be too difficult for him and his fallen angels to pose as gods showing lying wonders as it were.

Christians should be reading the word of God. they shouldn't be bound up in a church listening to the occasional Bible VERSE and then a rambling about politics. I'm generalising of course! there are some good preachers about, its just they could be good in a field, house,train,car etc etc etc. if you know what im ranting on about

Anyway

all the best

david

MajKarma

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link

The subject of religions is of course a hot topic, as everyone hopes they are right whatever they believe. I am no different, I was raise Episcopalian, a branch of the Church Of England that supposedly broke away during the American Revolution en.wikipedia.org... BUT, I know at least where my family is concerned, who were amongst the founding Alamo Families in San Antonio, many still consider themselves connected to the Church Of England and the Queen (Few realize the connections to England and Germay that the State of Texas have but it is serious). [ have regressed for the point of my responding]

I have, like most, taken at least a glance at other Christian Denominations, other religions and appraoches to finding God and while I have concluded that "All Religions Are Man Made"; even the New Testiment of the Bible was written by people who never knew Jesus and there is scores of other information that basically say that Men Created these religions.

However, the real proof in the pudding is this: WHEN YOU PRAY; WHEN YOU CALL OUT TO GOD..Does he answer? As far as I am concerned, if a person sincrely tries to reach out to God, prays, fasts, burns candles, tries everything they are told to try in order to be heard by God and he/she/it does not answer, you have the wrong number, wrong God, wrong religion.

It is oure and simple, all people would worship the true creator, even an Atheist would change their true if the Being behind all creation appeared; even a fallen angel; even the blackest heart would submit to the all powerful being that is responsible for all that exists, if he/she/it exists and appeared to them. I will allow for fools be excluded from that list, as I imagine there would be someone, somewhere that would not bow to GOD.

Anyway, if you call out to GOD and he does not answer, then, if he/she/it exists and is not answering, then he/she/it must either not care or you are calling the wrong GOD. So, when ever I have a person "Of God" taling at me about their religion, I always ask "When You Call God" does he answer and if he does not, and I am not talking about metaphorically, then I don't want to hear about "Your God or Your Religion". If he is answer, I would like his phone number.

orangetom1999

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link

Wow!!

I did not realize that you were still onboard ATS. Very good.

Agree..Satan has been trying constantly to seduce the world and world systems over to his way. To counterfit the Lords way. This is obvious once one understands some of the hidden ways this was done even to a intelligent people like the Hebrews. Or even the Egyptians if you like.

Yes Believers Should be reading the Word. And yes once again..there are good preachers about who are still salty in the word and will feed thier flocks with Rightiousness and Faith. And yes...absolutely ..you understand the pattern..they could indeed be in a field, a train station, a car, a book store, on the job. I know a few preachers who just like the rest of us hold down jobs as electricians, welders, roustabouts etc. They could be anywhere.

Also David..concerning this from your earlier post

As a Christian the wolves in sheeps clothing is a double edged sword in this respect.

For this reason we are also given a two edged sword..a Word which is in fact properly used..sharper than any two edged sword.

Thanks for your quick response,
Orangetom Phil

drevill

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link

reply to post by MajKarma

Hello there

certainly does answer my friend. i have witnessed prayers answered within seconds and minutes and then up to months and years.

as for his telephone number pick up (IMHO) a 1611 KJV read exodus 20 really think on them, about in deed and thought and then cry out for Jesus in repentance and beg for forgiveness.

I guarantee you God answers when you dial, if you are genuine in your heart. been there, seen it experienced it

david

drevill

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link

reply to post by orangetom1999

Amen to that!

Brilliant!

iesus_freak

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link

reply to post by NJE777

rememberr what the bible sad people took the truth and obscured it maybe justy maybe the egyptians took that from the jewish religion of the messsiah not the other way around

pluckynoonez

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link

reply to post by NJE777

"There are too many similarities between Horus and Christ to reject the author's claim that the story of Jesus Christ was plagiarised from much earlier Egyptian mythology."

What about synchronicity? Who's to say that The Source of all and everything did not give us many different looks? If I was the divine creator, and I wanted to impart a message to many, I wouldn't just enable one human to give that message, I would repeat the message in as many guises as possible. Therefore, to say that Christ is a fabrication because there have been similar accounts before, is jumping the gun a bit much, a much too much.

Anonymous ATS

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link

reply to post by freight tomsen

A - #ing - men... i would also go a step further and say that all religions no matter where they originate were formed and used as a means of control, enslavement and extortion...

I FIND THAT MOST SKEPTICS ARE ONLY SKEPTICAL OF THINGS THAT GO AGAINST THEIR OWN BELIEF SYSTEM AND PATTERNS OF PROGRAMMING... THEY REJECT ANY OUTSIDE INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE BY REFLEX ACTION... IT'S AUTOMATIC. HEAVEN FORBID THEY SHOULD DO SOME REAL RESEARCH. RESEARCH TO MOST SKEPTICS IS READING SOURCE MATERIAL FROM BOOKS THAT SUPPORT THEIR IDEAS TO BEGIN WITH... THATS LIKE ASKING A CRACK DEALER IF HIS CRACK IS ANY GOOD. OF COURSE HES GONNA SAY YES - HE WANTS TO SELL IT... IF YOU WANT TO DO REAL RESEARCH ON CHRISTIANITY YOU JUST CANT GO TO A CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORE FOR YOUR INFORMATION BECAUSE IT'S ALL GOING TO BE BIASED...

i've lived in a small town my entire life. this town is very christian - so much so that there are first, second, third and fourth reformed churches in town (if christianity is so great why do they need a dozen different versions of it?). the last count was twenty three churches within seventeen blocks. so there are two churches on at least a few blocks... one has four...

out of this town i can honestly say i have yet to meet a christian who wasn't judgemental, bigotted and downright closed minded... as a kid i wasn't allowed to attend any of the youth groups my friends did because i skateboarded, had black hair and wore skeletons on my clothes... i went to something called awana once and was treated so badly i never went back... then they tried to tell me that because i didnt like awana, i didnt like god... i'm sorry folks, but in my 34 years of living on this earth i have never met a single christian that i would even consider being friends with.
i dont ask a lot from my friends either. i just ask for loyalty, integrity, love and respect for me and my beliefs... i give the same and expect no more or no less in return...

believe what you want to believe - but dont try to tell me youre better than me because of what you or i believe... that just makes you an asshole... and unfortunately all of the christians ive met cant even pass this test...

i look at religions like cars. they are all vehicles to the same destination regardless of the passengers being aware of it or not... you may think your route is the best way but i can guarantee someone else will find a short cut or another path altogether. some will forge ahead creating new paths. it doesnt matter how you got there - the point is - you got there...
so instead of bitching at people for being late, taking a different route or stopping to smell the roses enjoy the fact that youre together and celebrate it...

AS SOON AS YOU LABLE SOMETHING YOU REMOVE IT'S SOUL...
LABLES DIVIDE AND SEPERATE. THEY DO NOT UNITE. I KNEW PEOPLE IN THE RAVE SCENE THAT QUIT HANGING OUT WITH PEOPLE BECAUSE INSTEAD OF LISTENING TO TRANCE, THEY WERE LISTENING TO HAPPY HARDCORE... IT ALL SOUNDED THE #ING SAME. LIKE A MORTAL COMBAT SOUNDTRACK, BUT BECAUSE ONE WAS CALLED TRANCE AND THE OTHER HAPPY HARDCORE ONE WAS COOLER THAN THE OTHER? DESPITE THE FACT THEY WERE BOTH CRAP...

RELIGIONS ARE NO DIFFERENT. THEY ALL SOUND THE SAME - THEY JUST HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES...

Anonymous ATS

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link

reply to post by Fett Pinkus

Many atheist scholars will tell you that jesus Christ is a fake, because the Egyptian god mithra’s story is identical to jesus’ and mithra was created nearly 600 yrs before jesus was even born.
Jesus never stole any story from Mithra. And Jesus was not the first of God's creations. He IS God. In case you didn't know, that's exactly what the word "lord" meant 2000 years ago - "deity". And Jesus is called lord several times.
The Mithran system of worship originated from the Zoroastrian religion, which had its center in the Persian regions. Now, keep in mind that when the Kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonians, the Jews were exiled into Babylon. The Jews took their faith, and their sacred texts to Babylon with them.

Among those exiled was Daniel the prophet, Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach), Azariah (Abed-nego), and others. Now, Daniel was eventually honored as a wise man, and his God was hailed as the true God by royal decree (Dan. 2:47-48; 3:29-4:37). Even the Babylonian mystics became students of the Jewish texts.

Keep in mind that when Jesus was born, the wise men from the East who came to worship were actually from this region. Their cultural and mystic history explains how they came to know of Jesus' coming birth. They were students of the Jewish texts. Their forefathers had been introduced to it during the Jewish exile in Babylon, even during a time when the Jewish faith was hailed as a true religion in the Babylonian empire. They knew of the prophesied Messiah through their studies of the Hebrew Scriptures.

So then, it comes as no surprise that some of the similarities between the Mithran tale and the Lord Jesus were the very things prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is a reality that the cult of Mithras predates Christianity. But, it does not predate the Hebrew texts that the Babylonian/Persian mystics actually studied. Christianity, then, does not borrow from Mithraism. To the contrary, Mithraism borrows from the prophesied Hebrews texts regarding the coming Messiah.

2. Roman Catholic Corruption
Some of the other similarities between Mithraism and Christianity can only be ascribed to the compromises and accomodations the Roman Catholic Church instituted during the early history of the the Church.

The early church never celebrated Jesus' birth. That's why we have no idea of when Jesus was born. If they celebrated His birth, we'd have a clear record of when it took place, and we don't.

The celebration of the nativity was a later addition to the Christian "calendar", and its date was chosen because that was the date of another very popular celebration--the pagan celebration of the birth of Mithras. Christianity turned their celebration of the birth of the sun god into a celebration of the birth of the Son of God. That's why December 25 was chosen.

So, in this sense, extrabiblical Christianity did borrow from Mithraism, and it SHOULD NOT HAVE... But, biblical Christianity (the only REAL type) says nothing about celebrating Jesus' birth, and His date of birth is nowhere indicated.

3. The Adversary's Scheme
It comes as no surprise that Satan, who was well aware of the prophecies regarding the coming Messiah would seek to pre-date his coming with myths that would eventually serve to discredit the truth of His coming. He is a counterfeit, a copy-cat, and in this case, because the prophecies had already been recorded, he had a perfect opportunity to try to beat God to the punch by putting legends out there about what would come to be a historic truth regarding the true Messiah.

Ultimately, Christianity is true. Consider that the testimonies of Jesus were not simply concocted centuries after the supposed figure was long gone. To the contrary, the very people who walked with Jesus were still around when the gospels and epistles were written (1Co. 15:6). They were in a perfect position to refute the testimonies, especially considering the persecution they received from their Jewish brothers because of this testimony. Yet, we have not a single historical refutation of the accounts. sorry if it seems like im ranting, yahoo peeps

Every single one of Jesus' original twelve disciples (with the exception of Judas the traitor, and John the Beloved) was martyred for their faith. The testimonies they shared were, in fact, true (Lk. 1:3-4; Jn. 21:24), and even extrabiblical sources testify to their truths.

Just remember that the events surrounding Jesus' life were not concocted by a group of men who made up an account of a person long-since dead. His life was recorded during the lifetime of the very people who walked with Him, and it wasn't isolated to a group of twelve, but of thousands of people who had heard of Him, seen His miracles, and had come to sit under the direct teachings of the first-hand witnesses themselves.

Source(s):
lots of research, because this challeneged my faith before, but if you get off your butt and look before you speak, or think, for that matter, then you may get what you are looking for.

Anonymous ATS

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link

reply to post by Blaine91555

First to tackle your charge that there is no disagreement on Christs existence: There is no doubt that there is an on going debate on the historical man Jesus Christ. This debate may not be present at your church but the academic world, who bases their theories on historical documents and artifacts is indeed in disagreement in regards to whether or not Christ actually lived. There is no denying he has had an effect on history but whether or not he was an actual historical figure is up for debate! But does this fact actually change his historical contribution?

Next in regards to the Horus VS Jesus debate: If you would like to pick up a book rather than checking Wikipedia I suggest that you look at the open minded minister Tom Harpur's "Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light". Here both Christians and atheists alike may be appeased. He argues that the story of Christ is an allegory meant to teach christian values and not meant to be taken literally. The heart of his argument is that this allegory is indeed based on Horus rather than on an actual living man (he is one of the first academic scholars to bring the similarities of the two stories to the popular masses though others have tired before). The similarities of the two stories is made very clear by Harpur, some of which are posted at the top of this page. While reading Harpur's extensive list of similarities keep in mind the influence Egypt had on the Roman Empire and that Horus' myth predated Christ by thousands of years. This is not to be disrespectful to those that believe in Christ but rather a different stance on what might be taught at some churches.

For the atheist and open minded Christians (and by open minded I mean ones who are willing to believe that the bible was not meant to be taken literally) you might want to look at Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's two books, "Laughing Jesus : religious lies and gnostic wisdom" and "Complete Guide to World Mysticism".

Anonymous ATS

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link

reply to post by Karilla

I have seen one such criticism at this site here

[url=http://counterknowledge.com/?cat=51]