Christianity is based on Egyptian Myths - Jesus Christ is Horus

page: 5
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
What is your opinion of the information on this site?

Link

Or is your interest limited to Egyptian History?


Just briefly... on the surface, he presents an interesting case (right now I'm more interested in lunch!) and a fairly convincing one. I'm not closed-minded to the idea that the Romans thought of Jesus as some sort of nutjob with a handfull of followers... and I can see that as a real scenario (that the gospels rather inflated his influence.)

Interesting site. I'd like to go through his resources a bit more. He scores some excellent points about the Bacchus material... but his parallel falls apart when he starts up on Hannibal and Carthage.




posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

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

That appears to be the case.

If you simply go to the original material (there's lots of sites with translations of the Birth of Horus (and commentaries) and the story of Horus) and look at it and the variants, you'll see that there's absolutly NO correspondance there.

Dunno where your author got his information. I hope you had time to read the link that Blaine suggested (I addressed it in my previous post.)



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
truthwillnotberevealed,

Alright, if you think I'm just being a zealot, go, right now, and prove to me that Jesus was born on December 25th. Get the bible out, and find it. Remember, the only guide you have are the hebrew calendar events which are said to be transpiring at the time.

Have fun.

Not only was Isis not a virgin, but she was also the akkadian Inana. Research, my friend, research.

Have you READ the Shabaka Stone text? I didn't think so.


lets say hypothetically that you are right on those statements, it doesnt snubb out the fact that there are many many other similiarities.

video.google.com...

Zeitgeist imo is feared by all people religous. They are afraid that these things are true.

He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. ~Harold Wilson


[edit on 8-7-2007 by truthwillneverberevealed]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Ah, hell, I'll bite. Why, Byrd, do you not feel Jesus was a historical figure? Do you really believe that you could write detailed fictional stories one maybe two generations after they supposedly happened and credibly pass them off as true?


There's no concurrent mention of him... so that either he was a wandering preacher with a handfull of followers OR that the story we have is a "kit bashing" of one or more of the self-proclaimed messiahs (there was a rash of them during that time period. At least one is mentioned in the Bible).

And yes, I believe that the followers elaborated on the stories. Look how many Americans believed the story of George Washington and the cherry tree (completely fictional.) Or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (another fiction.) Or the Diaries of Nat Turner.

Books and letters have the power to create belief and create revolutions. Again, the link cited by Blaine actually has some good thinking about it (on a cursory read... we're getting ready to go out to lunch.)



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthwillneverberevealedZeitgeist imo is feared by all people religous. They are afraid that these things are true.


Do you have a text link for those of us who read quickly and really don't have the time or interest to sit through a video several times in order to pick up the critical points?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
truthwillneverberevealed,

Listen, if I can read Zecharia Sitchin without fear, I can read anything. I don't fear criticism. And especially, when it's false.

You should check out the work of David Rohl. Now there's an interesting egyptologist.

Our current history books are really messed up. Rohl proved to my satisfaction, that it was clearly the people of Shinar (Sumer/Akkadia) who started the Osiris tradition in Abydos, Egypt, which was said to be the seat of Osiris' authority. Thusly, you find countless pharaohs digging up Abydos and Naqada, looking for the historical Osiris. And Seti I, found it in the form of the Osirieon construct. But the history books don't tell you that. The reason they don't is because they'd have to back track and erase all those comments about Osiris never existing. Of course, he existed. It isn't necessarily his fault, if people later deified him.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Ah, hell, I'll bite. Why, Byrd, do you not feel Jesus was a historical figure? Do you really believe that you could write detailed fictional stories one maybe two generations after they supposedly happened and credibly pass them off as true?


There's no concurrent mention of him... so that either he was a wandering preacher with a handfull of followers OR that the story we have is a "kit bashing" of one or more of the self-proclaimed messiahs (there was a rash of them during that time period. At least one is mentioned in the Bible).

And yes, I believe that the followers elaborated on the stories. Look how many Americans believed the story of George Washington and the cherry tree (completely fictional.) Or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (another fiction.) Or the Diaries of Nat Turner.

Books and letters have the power to create belief and create revolutions. Again, the link cited by Blaine actually has some good thinking about it (on a cursory read... we're getting ready to go out to lunch.)


byrd can you debunk zeitgeist? As i said earlier you and many others seem to be religous zealots clinging to something you thought was concrete slowly turning to dust. Zeitgeist is very well done and i highly doubt you can even come close to disproving what a huge team of researchers put together there.

He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. ~Harold Wilson



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
truthwillneverberevealed,

Listen, if I can read Zecharia Sitchin without fear, I can read anything. I don't fear criticism. And especially, when it's false.

You should check out the work of David Rohl. Now there's an interesting egyptologist.

Our current history books are really messed up. Rohl proved to my satisfaction, that it was clearly the people of Shinar (Sumer/Akkadia) who started the Osiris tradition in Abydos, Egypt, which was said to be the seat of Osiris' authority. Thusly, you find countless pharaohs digging up Abydos and Naqada, looking for the historical Osiris. And Seti I, found it in the form of the Osirieon construct. But the history books don't tell you that. The reason they don't is because they'd have to back track and erase all those comments about Osiris never existing. Of course, he existed. It isn't necessarily his fault, if people later deified him.


like my response to byrd you cannot even come close to disproving zeitgeist. even if you are right on a fraction of the information you are telling me there is a plethora of other information you cannot touch. so its pretty much you vs a large team of researchers who spent time and money to reveal the truth.

He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. ~Harold Wilson



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
truthwillneverberevealed

If you think I can't touch it, you got another thing coming. I can touch it ALOT. But the problem is, do YOU want to hear it? I'm not a mainstreamer. You will find that I cut threw the bull of anything that doesn't bear itself out, and that includes christian traditions that are not christian in origin, historical accounts that are not borne out by the artifacts and texts, and of course, any commentary that suggests our predecessors were all lying, delusional, stoned on magic mushrooms or writing purely in metaphor, across every continent.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
truthwillneverberevealed

If you think I can't touch it, you got another thing coming. I can touch it ALOT. But the problem is, do YOU want to hear it? I'm not a mainstreamer. You will find that I cut threw the bull of anything that doesn't bear itself out, and that includes christian traditions that are not christian in origin, historical accounts that are not borne out by the artifacts and texts, and of course, any commentary that suggests our predecessors were all lying, delusional, stoned on magic mushrooms or writing purely in metaphor, across every continent.



If you think you can touch zeitgeist please enlighten us all.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Why even bother? Do you know what I see on this thread? I see a bunch of people, actually everyone that has posted on it,other than Byrd, trying to validate their own personal beliefs. I am not even going to waste my time.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Why even bother? Do you know what I see on this thread? I see a bunch of people, actually everyone that has posted on it,other than Byrd, trying to validate their own personal beliefs. I am not even going to waste my time.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


Oh I dunno about that. I'm a christian but I certainly don't think Hinduism is a lie. Or Buddhism. Or even Egyptian religion. I think these things are based on real events and real people/beings. On the other hand, if you read the mainstream history, it claims all these things were make believe metaphors for the sun, moon and stars.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthwillneverberevealed


If you think you can touch zeitgeist please enlighten us all.



Well I dunno if I'll be able to enlighten you or anyone else for that matter, but I am watching it now and so far, he's absolutely right. Will let you know when and where I disagree with him



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
some people have to fight to "deny / ignorance"
i.e refuse to believe /something they believe is untrue or wrong
....and get back into there comfort zone.... when truth is painful and ignorane is bliss

[edit on 8-7-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
CPD, well, that may be true. However, this thread was pretty much put to rest by Byrd in my opinion. Yet, people seem to keep trying to validate their beliefs, both the Christians and those who doubt that Christ is a real figure. It's rather amuzing to watch. Continue on,though. I'll pour my self some wine and enjoy the show.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I'm half way throught this movie ZEITGEIST and I'm literally on the edge of my seat... it's shaken me to the very core of my being on several different levels...



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
It is almost impossible (actually it is totally impossible) to not, know women with small children.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
some people know all 2 well that people like to be herded back to there comfort zones by those seen as an authority

especially when one being herded knows perception trumphs truth when creating reality


palasheea alright i am going to watch the film



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Link


Interesting site. I'd like to go through his resources a bit more. He scores some excellent points about the Bacchus material... but his parallel falls apart when he starts up on Hannibal and Carthage.


Thanks so much for taking a look. I hope you got to your lunch OK.

I think the part about Hannibal was randomly selected to make a point. I need to go back and read this again today. I read that in a hurry yesterday.

Thanks again.

NJE777,
Whether I agree with the premise of the OP or not this is an interesting thread.
I'm sure it will keep me reading all week long. I have some old books I need to dig up that I bought at a yard sale. The husband had died and he lived and breathed Egypt. I honestly don't expect to find a correlation though.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
"the religious institutions of this world, are at the bottom of the dirt"

He is absolutely right. Religion is organized and typically doesn't flourish unless it's been given the green light by the established principalities.

"all they care about is what they've always cared about and that's controlling the whole, damn world"

Absolutely right.

"religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man, living in the sky"

LOL! This made me laugh. But truth of the matter is, there's alot about this universe and even our own planet, we don't know and have not seen.

"but he loves you"

ROFL!!! I think someone got slap happy on the hell fire thing. I'm more inclined to believe the answer is alot less "painful", but I guess that would all depend on what the original text actually said.

the red disk on horus' head is said to be the sun, but originally, it was
from the hathor disk. that's a long story but it is not the
sun, it's Mars. this relates back to the legend of the destruction of mankind, an
egyptian story. The Eye of RA, likewise, is not the Sun. In fact, it's the same red disk on Hathor's crown and Horus' crown. It's Mars and there's a reason it's Mars, but that's for another thread.

this guy is saying that the people didn't actually experience the events they said they did
and that all such examples, are simply metaphors for the movement of the sun, moon and
stars. that is not correct. light and dark have many applicable metaphors. for example,
we could say that luke skywalker was light and darth vader was dark. although they are
fictitious characters, the fact of the matter is, luke is not really the sun, and darth is
not really the absence of the sun. the application of metaphor to such an extreme
is the equivalent of saying our ancestors were all idiots who worshipped the sun moon
and stars and thought they were real people that came to talk to them and so forth.
what they've done with this metaphor idea is throw the baby out with the bath water.

his "horus is born to virgin/three kings" thing, is not documented anywhere that i can find. (same for all the other examples he listed)
in fact, i can't find any documentation for his claims, like walking on water and so on.
horus was never known as the lamb of god. listen, i wrote a paper in college humanities
on the similarities between osiris/horus and god/jesus and none of these things were
in it. i dunno where he's getting this stuff. seriously. crucified? buried for three days?
where's the text/artifacts to support this?

he's making this up as he goes along to support his astrology is the key to all religious
ideas and astrology is itself, based on the sun moon and stars. etc. which is right back
to the idea that these events are purely metaphor and that they were never real entities,
and thusly all the ancient texts are lying. baby and the bath water, out it goes. it's a
knee-jerk reaction to ancient history because it's not easily explainable otherwise.


you realize all this started with german higher criticism? they also said
troy never existed and the greeks didn't write their own histories and sagas and epics,
because they couldn't write. all of which is wrong and has since been proven wrong.
they also said, the idea that we were created was impossible because there's no way
people could be created other than via intercourse and vaginal delivery which has since
been proven wrong. and that there was no way people could fly, or rise up to the skies, or
any of that heavenly movement stuff, so obviously it was about the sun moon and stars,
but the idea that people can't fly has also been proven wrong since then.

ARE YOU READING THIS? If you don't know what I said in the paragraphs above
don't bother reading any more of this because you frankly DON'T WANT TO KNOW. Anyway....

Let me give you an example. If Horus was the sun, and was crucified and didn't rise
till the 3rd day, does this mean there were three days where the planet simply didnt
rotate? Think about it. What they don't tell you in their metaphorical treatise is
that to believe it's all a metaphor for real planetary movements, also requires applying
the metaphors to real planetary movements, which they don't even bother with because
the fact of the matter is, they'd have to prove their hypothesis only applies in concept
but not in any other way. That's not enough evidence to change historical texts, so they ignore that part.

Here's another example. I was sick in the hospital. Went into a coma, on total life support
I was basically dead. Machines were keeping my organs from deiterating. Five days later,
I woke up/rose from the dead. Does this mean five days later the sun rose in the sky?

Calling things metaphorical to that degree, allows you to simply negate the experiences
of our ancestors under the premise that they were totally clueless or flat out lying and
creating metaphors. A metaphor is in itself, a rather complex human artform. If they were
smart enough to create a metaphor, you'd think they'd be smart enough to know when they were
and weren't experiencing real events with real beings/people.

Here's yet another example, Enki is the sumerian-akkadian god. Some claim he's the god of water
because he's pictured sometimes carrying what appears to be a trident weapon and has water
springing from his shoulders, but really his name means
LORD EARTH. So is he the god of water or the god of earth? According to biblical texts, Satan is
the Ruler of the Earth. the god of this planet.

Does that mean he's dirt or the zodiac for the "earth signs"?
No.
Does that mean he's the water signs?
It doesn't mean he's any particular sign.

He's the ruler of the planet. That's what it means -- Lord Earth means Lord Earth. Really, so
simple. It's the attempt to make it metaphorical that makes it so twisted up and confusing.
That alone should concern you. The real cover up is that the ancient past is talking about
real events, real people and real entities, and they continuouly prove themselves out.

For example, did you know they claimed Gilgamesh was a fantasy, a fairy tale, till one day
someone found his city? But boy oh boy, if you were to read the books on the subject before
that, Gilgamesh was a metaphor for a group of stars!! That, my friend, is the real cover up.
Why don't they want YOU to know, that these events actually happened?

Think about it.





new topics
top topics
 
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join