Christianity - History's Greatest Scam

Gday,

Originally posted by thedonjuan
People always argue over the little difference and ignore the very big striking similarities. ie born of a virgin on the 25th of December under a start in the east with the three wise men or three kings or three Priests following said star and dying fro three days and then resurrecting on the fourth day.

So, here is the list you claim :
* born of a virgin
* on the 25th of December
* under a start [sic] in the east
* with the three wise men or three kings or three Priests following said star
* and dying for three days
* and then resurrecting on the fourth day.

Well, guess what?
Only Jesus has all those attributes.
(Assuming we fix your error about the "fourth day" to the "third day" as Christians believe. The Creed says "... he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures... ".)

It is simply not true that figures like Mithra, Krishna, Buddha etc. all shared them. It's false information spread by Zeitgesit and AcharyaS.

For example - Mithra was NOT born on Dec. 25th, and was NOT born of a virgin, did not die for 3 days.

I challenge you, thedonjuan, to provide just ONE example of another ancient God-man who shares ALL of those attributes you listed. (And I don't mean CLAIMS about them - I mean evidence from the ancient sources.)

Why don't you start with trying to show that Mithra was born on Dec. 25th from a virgin?

Originally posted by thedonjuanWhat ever small differences they have they always share these attributes.

No they don't.
Not ONE other ancient God-man shares all of those attributes on your list.

Which is why you didn't provide any evidence - you just read AcharyaS and believed every word without checking the facts. When you DO get around to checking the facts, you will find you have been misinformed.


K.

Originally posted by Roark
I say that your attempt to demonstrate that the Hebrew Creator God was derived from other cultures is a bit off the mark...

They were the original monotheists and, whilst there may be common elements between their story and others from the region (animal sacrifice, wrathful deities etc), the differences and uniqueness of the Hebrew God and the Hebrew story are profound enough to nullify arguments of derivation.

Actually, the Egyptians were the first recorded monotheists, and that was only during the reign of one king. Everybody had to worship the Sun Disk. After said king died, the Egyptian people returned to the classic pantheon.

The Hebrew-Sumerian parallels run very deep. I didn't explain it very well since I'm no expert, but you can read about it yourself. Crystalinks has a few articles, but this one is particularly relevant to my post. Even if you disagree, it's still a fascinating read.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Syrus Magistus]

Why is it that you never see any threads about people who believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? Well, because those who know that it is fantasy are not bothered by people who wish to believe in such; yet you can go to a hundred different forums and always find anti-christ threads against Christianity written by some self professed "Atheist".

If the were true Atheist, then belief in any God would not be a threat to them. The only threat is to those who are generational Satanist who hide under the term "Atheist". They are operating on an agenda, and thus, are threatened by belief in Jesus Christ. They however are not threatened by belief in Buddah, or Mohammed, or any other false religion, only Christ. Why is that if He does not exist?





"A person's morality will determine their theology."

reply to post by Kapyong


Isn't the Messianic and first widely accepted date for the birth of Jesus the 15th September?

If i remember correctly the Roman emperor Constantine changed the date to the 25th December in 314AD or there about. Since then this has long been the accepted date by Christianity in general. Again if i remember correctly the reasoning of Constantine for changing the date was for two main reasons. Firstly to separate it from any Jewish celebration and thus promote Jesus as a Christian and not Jew. The other reason was to align it with the Pagan sun festival that falls on the 25th Dec with the idea of eventually replacing Pagan belief with Christian belief.

Its from my knowledge the exact date of birth is not known at all, its just accepted to be the 25th Dec. Arguing that you can't find any one else that was born on this date by a virgin mother is completely flawed. If we knew the exact date not just the originally accepted one and the later changed one maybe proving or disproving a link between other "god-men" would be easier.

Im not saying your wrong, I personally don't have a clue whether Jesus existed or is just a invention of religion. The evidence presented on both sides has yet to convince me. Yet the seemingly close correlation between other pre Christian deity's and figures does to some degree make a very strong case for the story of Jesus happening many times before in different forms, although none of them exactly the same in my opinion the likenesses are very strong.

Originally posted by whiterider
Why is it that you never see any threads about people who believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? Well, because those who know that it is fantasy are not bothered by people who wish to believe in such; yet you can go to a hundred different forums and always find anti-christ threads against Christianity written by some self professed "Atheist".

If the were true Atheist, then belief in any God would not be a threat to them. The only threat is to those who are generational Satanist who hide under the term "Atheist". They are operating on an agenda, and thus, are threatened by belief in Jesus Christ. They however are not threatened by belief in Buddah, or Mohammed, or any other false religion, only Christ. Why is that if He does not exist?

No great evil has been done in the name of Santa or the Tooth Fairy. Entire cultures have been wiped out in the name of a false god. People have been BURNED for dissenting. Christianity continues to to great harm to the world by making many people believe that the world is about to end and there's no reason to make it a better place. I mean, hell. Bush called his war a "holy" war. Don't tell me it's harmless, because it isn't. More people have been killed in the name of Christ than every twisted, psychotic murderer in history combined. Christianity does more harm than good and the harm it does is extremely destructive. Humans have become disconnected from nature and their psychology is imbalanced as a result. Violence excites them and sexuality terrifies them. You go ahead and tell me this belief is harmless. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Although I am aware you are not speaking to me specifically, I want to make it clear that I am not an Atheist. What I believe in is a unified field of consciousness that we are all aspects of. There's no real dogma involved. This is just for the record. My beliefs encourage me to take responsibility for my life and to help others whenever possible. I do not try to "convert" others and I embrace social change. I have no problem with any belief in "God", as limited or flawed as this god may be, but I do have a problem with innocent people suffering as a result of your beliefs or anybody else's. Nobody has the right to encroach on the free will of another living being. Nothing could be more vain than to believe you are right and everyone else is wrong, or to take a god of peace and recreate him in your image. That is idolatry by very definition and is what's most dangerous about Christianity.

How many people have been killed in the name of Buddha? Should I be afraid for my life if I don't believe in Mohammad? In some parts of the middle east, perhaps, but what about the rest of the world? There are Christians everywhere. Do you know why? Because missionaries went everywhere and destroyed cultures, burned their books, killed their people and forced the remaining natives to adopt their beliefs or die. It's the most self-destructive belief system to ever infect human consciousness. How many people want to convert you to Islam or Buddhism? Mhm… right. Now, how many people want to convert you to Christianity? Assuming you're not already a Christian (which you probably are), I rest my case.

Originally posted by refuse_orders
reply to post by Kapyong

 

Isn't the Messianic and first widely accepted date for the birth of Jesus the 15th September?

If i remember correctly the Roman emperor Constantine changed the date to the 25th December in 314AD or there about. Since then this has long been the accepted date by Christianity in general. Again if i remember correctly the reasoning of Constantine for changing the date was for two main reasons. Firstly to separate it from any Jewish celebration and thus promote Jesus as a Christian and not Jew. The other reason was to align it with the Pagan sun festival that falls on the 25th Dec with the idea of eventually replacing Pagan belief with Christian belief.

Its from my knowledge the exact date of birth is not known at all, its just accepted to be the 25th Dec. Arguing that you can't find any one else that was born on this date by a virgin mother is completely flawed. If we knew the exact date not just the originally accepted one and the later changed one maybe proving or disproving a link between other "god-men" would be easier.

Im not saying your wrong, I personally don't have a clue whether Jesus existed or is just a invention of religion. The evidence presented on both sides has yet to convince me. Yet the seemingly close correlation between other pre Christian deity's and figures does to some degree make a very strong case for the story of Jesus happening many times before in different forms, although none of them exactly the same in my opinion the likenesses are very strong.

There's a documentary you can rent or watch online called "The god who wasn't there" and it proves that Christianity is myth. People were worshiping Jesus a century before his supposed birth and everybody forgot about him for almost a century after. The first "missionary" before the actual four books were written only spoke of the crucifixion and the resurrection/ascension. He didn't consider Jesus to have been a living man. I could go on, but it's all out there already and it's been said much better than I have.

reply to post by makinho21


You don't have a clue what you are talking about..All you are trying to do is piss off believers because you think it makes you look cool to all the other idiots who get on here and actually pick fights because they think they are superior to everyone else . Guess What You Made Yourself look like an ass and an idiot all at the same time..Congrats

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by speakplain

 

No it couldn't have happened my friend. This type of nonsense does not occur. Humans reproduce sexually...that is the bottom line. You can pretend to refute it with your obfuscation, but in the end, you are only lying to yourself.

What about invitro fertilization?A lot of people got started in a petri dish.

Gday,

Originally posted by refuse_orders
Isn't the Messianic and first widely accepted date for the birth of Jesus the 15th September?

So?
I didn't argue Jesus was born on Dec. 25th.

I argued against thedonjuan's claim that many other god-men were "always" born on Dec. 25th.

That claim by thedonjuan is false.

I can't find ONE other ancient god-man that was born on Dec.25th. Krishna wasn't. Mithra wasn't. Hercules wasn't.

Originally posted by refuse_orders
If i remember correctly the Roman emperor Constantine changed the date to the 25th December in 314AD or there about.

You remember INcorrectly. It was NOT Constantine.

Originally posted by refuse_ordersArguing that you can't find any one else that was born on this date by a virgin mother is completely flawed.

You don't seem to understand what the argument is !
thedonjuan claimed that the other god-men were born on Dec. 25th.
I pointed out this is FALSE.

Do you argree with thedonjuan that they WERE?
Or do you agree with me that they were NOT?

Originally posted by refuse_orders
Im not saying your wrong,

Well then, SHOW some EVIDENCE that these god-men WERE born on 25th Dec.

Or show some evidence of other similarities.
Not CLAIMS - evidence.

Originally posted by refuse_ordersYet the seemingly close correlation between other pre Christian deity's and figures does to some degree make a very strong case for the story of Jesus happening many times before in different forms, although none of them exactly the same in my opinion the likenesses are very strong.

Seemingly close correlation?
Likeness are strong?

What likenesses?
What correlation?

Are you going to produce any EVIDENCE for that claim?

I have checked the evidence myself and found it does NOT stand up to scrutiny. A practice that seems totally foreign to most posters here.

All we get is endless claims of "likeness" not supported by any actual hard evidence. Just internet claims repeated by internet users.


K.

Hmmm..

I wonder if thedonjuan will ever return here to address these issues.


K.

Originally posted by mamabeth

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by speakplain

 

No it couldn't have happened my friend. This type of nonsense does not occur. Humans reproduce sexually...that is the bottom line. You can pretend to refute it with your obfuscation, but in the end, you are only lying to yourself.

What about invitro fertilization?A lot of people got started in a petri dish.

Did they have invitro fertilization in ancient Judea? I've never heard that one before. Is there any evidence of this?

Anyway, the virgin birth was added to the story of Jesus later on. It was an attempt to reconcile conflict between two versions of the story, one where Jesus is a man and another where he is a god.

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by teapot

 

You make some pretty ridiculous points, that more or less have no bearing on the validity of this stupid fable you believe in. First off - yes artificial insemination does exist, however you need sperm. It only came about 1884. So fail on that point - mind you it didn't help your case because it requires SPERM.
Asexual reproduction ofcourse does exist. Humans do not reproduce asexually. We do not have the mechanism for it. Even hermaphrodites, who are born with both pairs of sexual organs are unable to reproduce - the organs don't work properly. They are usually sterile due to chromosomal malfunction. Anyways, there is no reason to bring this up other than try and make it seem as if it supports your outlandish dogma - which it doesn't.
Furthermore it sounds like you are talking about parthenogenesis, which does occur in the animal kingdom, however, it has never been documented in humans or mammals to occur naturally. Basically it is cloning so unless Jesus looked like a Jewish tramp (ie: his mother) then this has no place in our debate. If that is what you want to cling to, in desperate hope of somehow making sense of your ludicrous believe, so be it, but don't try and twist fact to support your fiction.

Genesis1:3 And God said...God spoke this world into existence!!!!!!!!!
He can create life in a woman without sexual contact!!

No, you wouldn't want to believe the truth. Here is what you would want
to hear and believe...
Ufo's cause phantom pregnancies,pregnant women, waking up and finding
their unborn babies stolen while they slept.I did reasearch on ufo's for
over twenty years before I accepted Jesus as my Saviour.
You want to know the truth about ufo's? They are a deception, created in
our minds,by an evil entity.We will see signs and wonders in the skies.But,
what you see may not be what is.The fool passes by and is destroyed.

reply to post by Kapyong


Im sorry for the confusion on the first point, I didn't mean to make it seem like i was trying to counter what you said. I actually agree, there is no firm evidence of the 25th Dec being the birth date shared by other "god-men". The point i was trying to make was there is no evidence it was Jesus's birth date either so the comparison was pointless.

Once again your correct on the Constantine not changing the date to the 25th, as you so clearly highlighted my memory did not serve me well on that. Constantine declared Christianity the religion of the west, and the first "official" celebrated Christmas on the 25th of December was 336. Eastern countries who celebrated on the 6th of Jan later adopted the 25th Dec from the west.

Christmas: The supposed anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ, occurring on Dec. 25. No sufficient data … exist, for the determination of the month or the day of the event… There is no historical evidence that our Lord’s birthday was celebrated during the apostolic or early postapostolic times. The uncertainty that existed at the beginning of the third century in the minds of Hippolytus and others—Hippolytus earlier favored Jan. 2, Clement of Alexanderia (Strom., i. 21) “the 25th day of Pachon” (= May 20), while others, according to Clement, fixed upon Apr. 18 or 19 and Mar. 28—proves that no Christmas festival had been established much before the middle of the century. Jan. 6 was earlier fixed upon as the date of the baptism or spiritual birth of Christ, and the feast of Epiphany … was celebrated by the Basilidian Gnostics in the second century … and by catholic Christians by about the beginning of the fourth century. The earliest record of the recognition of Dec. 25 as a church festival is in the Philocalian Calendar (copied 354 but representing Roman practise in 336).

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 3, p. 47. Copyright 1909 by Funk & Wagnalls Company

Here is what i could find about the date being chosen and by who. In fact it seems it was chosen by the Romans, Liberius was to then order it the date of celebration for all Christianity.

Each year as the days became noticeably shorter in November and December, the Roman citizens feared that the earth may be "dying". With the "return of the sun" at the end of December resulting in longer days, the Romans celebrated the "Feast of the Sol Invictus" (Unconquerable Sun") on December 25. Bishop Liberius of Rome ordered in 354 that all Christians celebrate the birth of the Christ child on that day. Scholars believe that the bishop chose this date so that Christians, still members of an "outlaw religion" in the eyes of the Romans, could celebrate the birth of their Savior without danger of revealing their religious conviction, while their Roman neighbors celebrated another event.

The Christian Book of Why, by John C McCollister, copyright 1983, ISBN 0-8246-0317-6

Anyway, hopefully that cleared up what i was talking about a bit better. Thanks for pointing out the errors, I have learned quite a bit of new stuff reading into this stuff. Learn from your mistakes as the saying goes is more than applicable in this case.

Now on to Horus and Jesus likenesses. After looking into Horus and the mythology about him, like i thought some things do appear very similar, some do not. Take into account in my previous post i said this also.

First off Horus was originally the son of Atum, Atum was in mythology the creator god, making Horus the son of the creator or son of god. With the many different positions and forms Egyptian gods changed through in their mythology and the combining of gods into others, its hard to tell which would have been the true role they had. Isis depicted as the mother and spouse of Horus at different points, that said Hathor is also credited as the mother of Horus also. More confusing is the fact she is called the daughter, mother and wife of Ra later Hathor becomes identified as a form of Isis leading to her then becoming regarded as the mother of Horus with Horus becoming the son of Osiris. Now out of that part the only correlation i see is the sun of god or sun of the creator and the comparisons between Mary and Isis none existing really, Isis and Hathor were neither depicted as a virgin mother either.

To actually get a real image of who Horus was is almost impossible, there are to many forms in which he takes through out time.
He is always regarded though as the prince or son of the gods and symbolises resurrection and eternal life, again i think this is a correlation that can be compared to Jesus. Horus died of a scorpion sting, not crucifixion as some people state, Isis after finding her dead son was distraught and was advised by Nephthys to ask Thoth for help. Thoth is stated to have stopped the boat that Ra (the sun god) sailed and provided Isis with the words to resurrect her dead son using a series of incantations. It worked and Horus was resurrected from the dead, another correlation between Horus and Jesus again.

There are more from what i have read but i don't have time to list them all. If any of the Egyptian mythology or characters are wrong or not in the right place im sure somebody here will correct me, I know a lot of people here know their stuff when it comes to the ancient Egyptians. All of the info i found on the Egyptian gods can be found on their wikipedia page or here. do a google search on them, you can tell the lies from the truth pretty easily in my opinion, yet again i might be wrong though.

Originally posted by whiterider
Why is it that you never see any threads about people who believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? Well, because those who know that it is fantasy are not bothered by people who wish to believe in such; yet you can go to a hundred different forums and always find anti-christ threads against Christianity written by some self professed "Atheist".

If the were true Atheist, then belief in any God would not be a threat to them. The only threat is to those who are generational Satanist who hide under the term "Atheist". They are operating on an agenda, and thus, are threatened by belief in Jesus Christ. They however are not threatened by belief in Buddah, or Mohammed, or any other false religion, only Christ. Why is that if He does not exist?





"A person's morality will determine their theology."

This is another contrived conclusion religious people stretch to, in order to somehow ignore the points non-believers bring in.
People who believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy don't try to force it into our school texts books, or on our money, or the pledge of allegiance. Even if they did, no one would let them because we recognize (as a whole) that such beliefs are illogical and...well...stupid.
There is a major difference here, that you conveniently deny.
The latest example is that Kansas (or Arkansas?) congresswoman who repeated her unwavering knowledge of how the earth was 6000 years old, when voting on an environmental protection bill - or something similar.
These people (perhaps you fit in this category) have infiltrated our local and federal governments, our school boards, our scientific think tanks, and our universities, and slowly but surely, push their own agendas on everyone else.
THAT is why you see threads like mine; for the sake of trying to prevent further corruption.
Beliefs manifest through our actions, and when beliefs contradict known scientific and historical fact, there is a problem: the actions that follow will surely have no beneficial impact on society (most likely they will be destructive).
You can try to beat around the bush as much as you want, but it is true. These people will do anything to see their views established as "truth", even in the face of being completely mislead. Such a determined fervor allows one to blindly defend and espouse one's personal dogma when confronted by reason, logic, and criticism.
This is why we see people in positions of power - making choices that impact the lives of many, many others - curtailed to their personal religious beliefs; which can be extremely dangerous for those whose lives are impacted.
Beliefs influence our actions: ridiculous beliefs, quite often, lead to ridiculous actions.
Also - I have the same problem with Islam. However, in my life, at the moment, I have the most experience and interaction with Christians - who are around me every day, all the time. This is what happens when you live in North America. I would be grateful if anyone with a close relationship to Muslims would comment on their faith as well. I do not get to meet many where I live, so I do not know how irrational they are normally (aside from the terrorists we hear about everyday on tv.)
Buddha does not tell us criticisms of faith are to be punished, or that anyone who doesn't belief is a sinner and so on. There is not the same position of arrogance from Buddhists, nor does Buddha tell us to "save" others. Buddha is a personal spirituality that does not require forceful influence into the lives of others.
You decided to follow this faith - sometimes we must take responsibility for our actions, something many religious followers like to forget.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 1-8-2009 by makinho21]

reply to post by kleah


well said...I guess? I mean, separate and apart from you not providing anything other than insults and slander to this thread, are you referring to a particular argument or point, or did you just want to rally the troops, as they say, while not really responding to anything at the same time.
Glad you could join us though. If you have anything interesting or important to say, please share with us. So far, the only one to "make an ass of himself" is you my friend.

reply to post by makinho21


Your right for pointing out believing in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus are just as credible as "god", its just that one group has a large number of people and money behind them, so believers consider us wrong or mad for not having the same views. I understand they feel the need to protect their collective beliefs from any scrutiny or claims of disbelief from others, most people follow the majority not their true instinct, if non believers became the majority lots but not all would just go with them. The reason most people don't consider Santa and the Easter bunny acceptable belief is purely based on the fact the majority of the people around them don't.

Look how easy it was to convince the majority Iraq had WMD's and we should take action, lots supported the war in the beginning, now i think the majority see the wrongs that were done and the lies told to us. But a huge percentage of the now unconvinced people probably reached that view without ever weighing up the evidence now presented either, the majority view changed so they changed with it unquestioning.

In both cases i think its clear that making a decision with out first assessing all other possibilities is something people do all to often, choosing a side is often a one way ticket, the only way i feel most people will ever switch sides is when the majority switches too. In vain i think people try to argue their side is correct and refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of other options, so the case for them is fact and anyone else is crazy, evil or damned forever.

Here's a couple of George Carlin quotes i like, one is on religion the other is on people. I feel i am probably in the minority group who agrees with what he says, still im open to any evidence on the contrary should it present its self and would make choices with both sides in mind.

Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money. - George Carlin

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. - George Carlin

reply to post by refuse_orders

George Carlin is awesome. I love that stand up, especially the way he delivers it (cringing in sight of the of the man in the sky - hahaha), but yes I totally agree. The "gang" mentality definitely exists outside of high school and bar fights.
I am truly open to a possible "higher power" - but there is no reason to believe it (that is my personal opinion ofcourse), so far, because logic, science, and predictions have all said different...so far.
religion is the ultimate gang mentality - if you don't agree they chastise and insult you and turn people against you, who have nothing really to do with you in the first place.

I can only say I am in complete agreement with your post.
I am also tired of arguing religion so I may go find something else to read about for now! Thanks for the post man

Originally posted by Syrus Magistus
Actually, the Egyptians were the first recorded monotheists, and that was only during the reign of one king. Everybody had to worship the Sun Disk. After said king died, the Egyptian people returned to the classic pantheon.

Excellent point. I guess I excluded the Egyptians as Akhenaten's sun cult was widely considered to be an aberration and heresy. Certainly not the norm for that culture anyway. But you are absolutely correct.

Originally posted by Syrus Magistus
The Hebrew-Sumerian parallels run very deep. I didn't explain it very well since I'm no expert, but you can read about it yourself. Crystalinks has a few articles, but this one is particularly relevant to my post. Even if you disagree, it's still a fascinating read.

Thanks indeed for the link.

oh wow so original...

Originally posted by arth247
Christianity is not,has never been and will never be a sham.Christianity is the only path to the true God.

Sez you.

Me, I call shenanigans!