Jesus is NOT a copy from Pagan religions! Those are lies! Do research and do not believe!, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 73 times

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:21 AM by GmoS719

Originally posted by Beamish
reply to post by GmoS719

And the term isn't just virgin it is "Virgin Birth".
There is only one meaning for this.

So, by that reckoning, any virgin who wishes to be a mother but doesn't want a partner and undergoes artificial insemination and subsequently gives birth has a "Virgin Birth"?

Does that make their children divine?

Did I say that a child born from a Virgin would be divine?
Now you are just pulling stuff out of nowhere because you have nothing better to say.
The topic isn't about divinity. It's about A man being born from a Virgin and a man being pushed out of a rock. NOT EVEN CLOSE to being similar.

edit on 2-12-2011 by GmoS719 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:21 AM by satron

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by satron

God's attributes are not borrowed. False god's attributes are borrowed from the one true God.
He was here first. It just took us a while to get it right.
edit on 2-12-2011 by GmoS719 because: (no reason given)

If God was envisioned wrong so many times, how do you know that you aren't in the same pickle? Another improvement to the attributes of God could be made down the road, potentially making you a pagan believing in a false God like the rest.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:22 AM by arpgme

Originally posted by Beamish
reply to post by GmoS719

To say "Sex wasn't involved" would suggest that Sex COULD be involved.

Are you being serious? When I said:

Unless someone had sex with a rock

did you think I was suggesting it was a possibility?

The point of the matter is the concept.

Mithra and Jesus were allegedly both born without procreation having taken place.

Virgin can have several meanings, not just in relation to sex.

being the first or happening for the first time

www.thefreedictionary.com...

So with that in mind, Mithra having been born of a rock – which was a first – then his is a virgin birth.

Which is Incorrect. So VIRGIN can not be applied to a rock.

It is correct. And it can be applied.

But obviously not if you are devout Christian.

OK, you can call a birth from a rock a virgin birth if you want, it still does not relate to Jesus. Only he was born of a virgin HUMAN mother...

Originally posted by lilowl53
I tend to go for the notion that Jesus is actually the "sun" and not the"son". 12 Disciples, 12 constellations in the zodiac, Sirius...etc.

Ok, so if Jesus represents the Sun (Leo), and The virgin marry represents the Virgo, why is it that Jesus (Leo) came from The Virgin Marry (Virgo), does that make any chronological sense to you?

Also, if Jesus is the Sun and Jesus had 12 deciples, why is it that the 12 deciples doesn't have the 12 qualities of the different zodiac signs? One of them was a tax collector, which zodiac sign does THAT represent?

It's scary that an Atheist would say that even with evidence they still wouldn't believe because they already came to a "conclusion". VERY scary indeed. It's sort of like the ultra religious people...

Even though I found out that Jesus existed, I'm not sure what to make of it... There can be a number of conclusions to make here, but at least I'M being open minded and admitting that he DID in fact exist...

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:22 AM by GmoS719

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by satron

God's attributes are not borrowed. False god's attributes are borrowed from the one true God.
He was here first. It just took us a while to get it right.
edit on 2-12-2011 by GmoS719 because: (no reason given)

If God was envisioned wrong so many times, how do you know that you aren't in the same pickle? Another improvement to the attributes of God could be made down the road, potentially making you a pagan believing in a false God like the rest.

Jesus came to set the record straight, and he did. I'm not worried about being wrong.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:24 AM by LightSpeedDriver

At the end of the day, whether this book has references to or texts delivered by divine beings or not, it WAS written by men. God would be either way less ambiguous or far more cerebral in his teaching delivered to man, imho. Put differently, Jesus could also be called The Cult of The Dead God. Yes, we killed Him. Dead and gone, done and dusted. I could wax lyrical about the "truth" of many old books but without "divine intervention" it is still the word of a man.

In other words, its just made up.

edit on 2/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:26 AM by satron

Originally posted by GmoS719

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by satron

God's attributes are not borrowed. False god's attributes are borrowed from the one true God.
He was here first. It just took us a while to get it right.
edit on 2-12-2011 by GmoS719 because: (no reason given)

If God was envisioned wrong so many times, how do you know that you aren't in the same pickle? Another improvement to the attributes of God could be made down the road, potentially making you a pagan believing in a false God like the rest.

Jesus came to set the record straight, and he did. I'm not worried about being wrong.

Well, that's what many pagan's thought, up to the point that they were brutally murdered. I guess God is a Ignorantia juris non excusat kinda guy, so if any developments take place, you'd better be on the ball!

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:27 AM by Tea4One

reply to post by arpgme

Why is it open minded to believe Jesus existed? Surely to be open-minded you must be open to the belief of atheists, which is that he didn't exist. I don't believe he existed but im open to peoples arguments of why they think he did. I have no problems with Christians and their faith. There are arguments for both sides, neither with 100% proof.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:27 AM by GmoS719

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:29 AM by JackTheTripper

reply to post by GmoS719

All of the pre-Christ-ian religions worshopped a son [sun] born of a virgin mother [on Christmas] that possesed powerful cognitive energy, preached to the common people, died via crucifiction, was placed in a tomb [Good Friday] and was resurrected after three days [Easter Sunday]. The birth resonates with the Winter solstice, the lowest point of the Sun, the subsequent non-movement of the Sun for three days in this low position and then the beginning of its ascent as it moves back toward the lengthening of days toward the Spring Equinox and the Summer Solstice. This event is simultaneous with the lining up of the three stars of Orions Belt [the three wiseman] and the star "Sirius" with the lowest point of the sun. The Sun stays at this low point for three days. So, after the Winter solstice the sun starts its ascent after three days, corresponding to the birth of the 'Son' [Sun] on Christmas Day. Ref: naturalscienceorganics.com...

... On december, the sun rises in sagittarius(/ophiuchus)/capricorn - but if you count the 9 months backwards which is approximately how long "human" pregnancy takes, you'll notice the sun rises in virgo - virgin... Hence the virginal "birth".

And please - check the link on this post as well www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 2-12-2011 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:29 AM by Jim Scott

Jesus was born in late September, and can be proven based on the temple duty time of the husband of Elizabeth and some other associated facts.

Jesus is the most proven life existence in human history. If you doubt that He existed, you will not accept any historical facts that pre-existed you.

The Bible is the most substantiated book in human history. There are more ancient copies closer to the date of creation of the materials than any other book.

If you don't want to believe, so be it. However, it is not a fantasy novel.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:30 AM by Beamish

reply to post by GmoS719

Your beginning argument was "So the rock had sex then".
Listen to yourself!

I finished that sentence with a question mark. (And when it comes to twisting things, I notice you neglected to include that.)

What would a question mark suggest to you? Do you not recognize sarcasm when it confronts you? As in:

Unless someone had sex with a rock…

Do you honestly think I would entertain the possibility of anyone trying to breed with a rock?

I know religion can blinker the mind but that’s taking the biscuit…

Virgin Birth and Being pushed out of a rock are not even close.

Yes they are. They’re both mythological.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:31 AM by randyvs

reply to post by arpgme

What do you think?

I think Jesus was the truth, the life and the way. Gods word in the flesh and only a God could do what he did for us. I also think this is a good thread.

SnF

edit on 2-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:33 AM by arpgme

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by arpgme

Why is it open minded to believe Jesus existed? Surely to be open-minded you must be open to the belief of atheists, which is that he didn't exist. I don't believe he existed but im open to peoples arguments of why they think he did. I have no problems with Christians and their faith. There are arguments for both sides, neither with 100% proof.

The Bible is not a book, it's a cannon OF books and letters and scribes and scrolls. Different people from different areas talking about "Jesus Christ". Paul talking to different Temples and different temples talking to Paul as if Jesus did exist...

Even secular sources said that Jesus existed! Sure, they only used the word "Christ" and that is just a title, not a name, but how many other "Christs" got put on the cross? Exactly. They were refering to Jesus Christ.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:34 AM by fusionhunter

Originally posted by Beamish
reply to post by arpgme

Mithra was NOT born of a virgin like Jesus, he was born from a ROCK!

So, the rock had had sex, then?

Out of a virgin, out of a rock; stil a virgin birth.

No it's not because the rock isn't human and therefore not of a virgin.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:35 AM by Beamish

reply to post by GmoS719

Did I say that a child born from a Virgin would be divine?...The topic isn't about divinity.

Really?

Why are you so defensive of the manner of Jesus’ birth, then? I thought he was supposed to be divine?

If this were a discussion about mythology (which it is, in effect; how differing gods were born and where), then there shouldn’t be sides, should there?

Unless you’ve already taken one, that is.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:35 AM by Stormdancer777

reply to post by arpgme

I agree.

OMG, talk about synchronicity, I was just thinking about this the other day, people can be highly intelligent and well educated, but if they are educated in falsehoods, they still will believe a lie.

"Strange times are these in which we live
when old and young are taught in falsehood's school.

And the one man that dares to tell the truth
is called at once a lunatic and fool"

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:37 AM by satron

In a sense that would be a fatal act, especially for someone like me, that doesn't take the Bible as the Word. Because God is an invention of man, I feel it is my duty to offer my opinion, so that the next God will be superior to the last. The Bible has too many passages that people can interpreted as their manifest destiny, leading to war and genocide, or nonacceptance of other people. Some people would gleefully destroy the world if they had the power, so that their religions prophecy would be meet, "HAHAHA, I told you so!" There are room for improvements, still.

edit on 2-12-2011 by satron because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:45 AM by JackTheTripper

"Having an intellectual conversation with a holy roller, or gematria-freak is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

No comments to my posts. I am abandoning this thread.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:47 AM by The Endtime Warrior

reply to post by boymonkey74

this is a start
www.kingdavid8.com...

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:47 AM by isyeye

en.wikipedia.org...

Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[5][6] and used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus[7] to conceive her son. Once Isis knew she was pregnant with Horus, she fled to the Nile Delta marshlands to hide from her brother Set who jealously killed Osiris and who she knew would want to kill their son.[8] There Isis bore a divine son, Horus.

The belief in the conception of Horus by Isis is traced to the beginning of Egyptian history. Horus' conception and birth were understood in terms of the Egyptian doctrine of parthenogenesis, which was connected with the goddess Neith of Sais.

...If Horus was born in the way described, I would count it as a virgin birth even though Osiris had been resurrected.

I will post more information latter in the thread as time permits.

edit on 2-12-2011 by isyeye because: updated information