The Greko Roman Christian conspiracy

reply to post by adjensen


Now Jesus was a wandering rabbi? Did he do bahmitzfa's & partake in Passover yom kipper & eat kosher?
He didn't even read the bible (old testament) or could read (to my understanding) a Rabbi???? Come on...

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by begoodbees

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by begoodbees
I wish I could find some translated hieroglyphs or something of that nature to point me in the right direction.

You apparently didn't look too hard in those sources that I gave you:

Number six is what you were looking for: LEGEND OF THE BIRTH OF HORUS, SON OF ISIS AND OSIRIS

Although interesting I found nothing relevant in that text. Nothing to prove or disprove anything that has been asserted by anyone.

It's right there in the title -- Horus, son of Isis and Osiris, who were husband and wife, neither being a virgin.

Maybe I missed it but where did it say anyone was or was not a virgin? Even if it did say or imply someone was not a virgin it would be of no consequence to the theory as a whole. I suppose if horus was not the first born than yeah, no virgin. I do appreciate your arguments. You are showing me that this (just like everything else in life) is not so black and white as I have supposed.

reply to post by begoodbees


Hell is mentioned in the OT, but it's called Sheol. Sheol is supposedly a place where the wicked and the righteous live together. Earth is Sheol/hell, we are cut off from god because of the false doctrines that religions teach. Heaven would be Earth before humans came along and started destroying everything, a planet where nature lived in harmony, not where one species dominates everything like here on Earth.

Originally posted by adjensen


It's right there in the title -- Horus, son of Isis and Osiris, who were husband and wife, neither being a virgin.

See this is the thing others pointed out . besides your fixation with Zetgeist( which none of us seemed to have watched anyway) you seem to be trying to find the slightest differences and then proclaiming this overpowers the numerous similarities .Of course there are going to be differences given like every thing else in the bible its a retelling and mish mash of various things and people Jesus wont resemble any one god to a tee.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by begoodbees

 

Hell is mentioned in the OT, but it's called Sheol. Sheol is supposedly a place where the wicked and the righteous live together. Earth is Sheol/hell, we are cut off from god because of the false doctrines that religions teach. Heaven would be Earth before humans came along and started destroying everything, a planet where nature lived in harmony, not where one species dominates everything like here on Earth.

I stand corrected.

reply to post by begoodbees


Hey friend,

I am sorry for your loss of faith but I am really grateful for the link to E-Sword. It is very interesting software.

I find it interesting that for a person that has had, and seems to be having a crisis of faith, you are still spreading useful resources for the Faithful.

There has to be something to that.

Originally posted by thepupils
reply to post by adjensen

 

Now Jesus was a wandering rabbi? Did he do bahmitzfa's & partake in Passover yom kipper & eat kosher?
He didn't even read the bible (old testament) or could read (to my understanding) a Rabbi???? Come on...

Your understanding is not correct...

Luke 4:14-21 "And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."

Jesus taught, read from the Old Testament and claimed to be fulfilling prophecy.

reply to post by troubleshooter


He read a scroll, Ok...I'll accept that. As for the "Rabbi" description/title could you elaborate more on that. Rabbi's would partake in Passover, brisks, Yom Kippur, kosher, etc... Where can you show me he did any of those?
Thanks

Originally posted by thepupils
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

He read a scroll, Ok...I'll accept that. As for the "Rabbi" description/title could you elaborate more on that. Rabbi's would partake in Passover, brisks, Yom Kippur, kosher, etc... Where can you show me he did any of those?
Thanks

There were two kinds (and still are, I believe) -- Rabbis that were assigned to a synagogue, similar to a Catholic Priest or Protestant minister, and traveling Rabbis, who were not tied to a specific synagogue or the Temple. The former were required to be married, the latter were not (and usually were not married) -- a fact that played a role in the recent speculation that Jesus was married. Since he was not attached to a synagogue, he was not required to be married.

Originally posted by thepupils
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

He read a scroll, Ok...I'll accept that. As for the "Rabbi" description/title could you elaborate more on that. Rabbi's would partake in Passover, brisks, Yom Kippur, kosher, etc... Where can you show me he did any of those?
Thanks

Jesus is called Ῥαββί in Mark 9:5 ... it is translated into English as 'teacher'.

Wherever Jesus is called Master or Teacher it is usually the Greek word Ῥαββί (Rabbi) is used.

There is record in the Gospels that Jesus participated in the feasts...
...but remember these documents only record a few years, just His active ministry...
...and most of them focus on the last two weeks of His life prior to His death and resurrection...
...so we don't know what regular function He had in this regard during most of His thirty+ years.

reply to post by begoodbees

Dear begoodbees,

I've been away for a while and haven't kept up. I'm afraid I want to go a long way back to one of your posts (page 1) that suggested we use near-death.com... as a source for the idea that:

The whole story of the life of Jesus in the new testament is just regurgitated mythology from Egypt and many other pagan cultures. The Hebrew faith was highjacked by the writing and spreading of these pagan myths as the work of the Hebrew God.

That link was a list of "Identical Life Experiences" between Horus and Jesus. So, naturally, I looked up Horus in the Encyclopedia Mythica www.pantheon.org...

The name "Horus" is a general catchall for multiple deities, the most famous of whom is Harseisis (Heru-sa-Aset) or Horus-son-of-Isis (sometimes called Horus the Younger) who was conceived after the death of his father, Osiris, and who later avenged him. In all the Horus deities the traits of kingship, sky and solar symbology, and victory reoccur. As the prototype of the earthly king, there were as many Horus gods as there were rulers of Egypt, if not more.

The pre-Pharaohnic rulers of Upper Egypt were considered "shemsu-Heru" or "followers of Horus", and the original Horus is himself considered in some myths to be the brother of Seth and Osiris, second-born of the five children of Geb and Nut (Osiris, Horus, Seth, Isis, Nephthys). Horus the Elder's city was Letopolis, and his eyes were thought to be the sun and moon. When these two heavenly bodies are invisible (as on the night of the new moon) he goes blind and takes the name Mekhenty-er-irty, "He who has no eyes". When he recovers them, he becomes Khenty-irty, "He who has eyes". A warrior-god armed with a sword, Horus could be especially dangerous to those around him in his vision-deprived state, and during one battle in particular he managed to not only knock off the heads of his enemies but of the other deities fighting alongside him, thus plunging the world into immediate confusion that was only relieved when his eyes returned.

Horus can be seen at the top of the serekh of early kings, though in very rare cases his place was usurped by Set (Peribsen, Dynasty 2) or even shared with him (Khasekhemwy, Dynasty 2).

I have no idea how this could be compared to Jesus. Your source made claims like Jesus and Horus were both born on December 25th, apparently forgetting that Jesus wasn't supposed to have been born then. The other claims are equally unsupported by evidence I've found.

Another poster took the slightly more sophisticated position that Jesus was actually a mix of all the ancient Gods. The theory being that if you took something from Jesus' life, then looked through all the ancient myths until you found something that resembled it, the Jews obviously got their idea from that particular myth. I'm sorry, but to believe that, logic must be discarded.

Have you ever seen the list of similarities between Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy? There are about thirty astonishing similarities which would lead one to believe that Kennedy was just a copy of the Lincoln myth, if the above logic were applied.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by begoodbees


Christianity is just a synthesis of previous pagan and polytheistic beliefs. Whether that is a good thing, or a bad thing, is debatable. I, personally, find much more depth, meaning, and spiritual insight in the pagan and polytheistic versions. In my eyes, Christianity is like the child who tries to understand what is going on, but fails to catch the intended meaning of things.

It cannot be denied though, that much of the mythology, ritual, and symbolism employed by the Christian faith does have pagan and polytheistic origins. Everything from baptism, prayers, Trinities, and resurrection, to holy water, transubstantiation, the Underworld/Hell, and even the Paradise Garden can be found throughout the mythologies of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, Greece, the Celtic tribes, and the Norsemen.

To me, the real question is: knowing this, why can't Christians just accept that they are one more faith, and learn to get along with everyone else? Their faith is no more special than any other. Join the rest of us and just be yourself.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by charles1952

Another poster took the slightly more sophisticated position that Jesus was actually a mix of all the ancient Gods.

That is what happened...

As the Roman Catholics spread, encountering the Celts, the Greeks, the Norse, and the peoples of West Asia, they evolved the Christian myths so that they resembled the conquered peoples. This was done so that all of Rome's subjects would - supposedly - be under a single banner.

It wasn't just "gods," but archetypes. Dumuzi, Osiris, Baal, Attis, Mithra, Persephone, Orpheus, Adonis, and Odin all share qualities with Jesus. This is known as the dying-and-rising god archetype. Each culture which spawned the above gods, was visited, conquered, inhabited, or controlled by either Jewish or Roman-Christian overlords at one point in history. To make the people fall in line, as any theocratic state would do, the citizenry were first forcibly-converted, and then the state-religion was modified because pagan peoples are notorious for not giving up their tutelary deities.

Jesus is a solar dying-and-rising god. You can still believe in Him, even treat Him as the "right" choice. Just don't expect the whole world to agree with you. There's no more valid reason to believe in Jesus than there is to believe in any of the ones I named above.

~ Wandering Scribe

By 100 A.D. Rome ruled 1/4 of the population of the world, there weren't any significant threats to them

When Rome adopted Christianity in the 4th century they were splitting in two and threatened by Germanic barbarians and Huns, I believe, so his theory, which is far from novel, is quite likely.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Christianity is just a synthesis of previous pagan and polytheistic beliefs.

That statement requires at least some proof, and I have never seen it.

Whether that is a good thing, or a bad thing, is debatable.

It's not debatable until the thing itself is established, and it hasn't been.

I, personally, find much more depth, meaning, and spiritual insight in the pagan and polytheistic versions. In my eyes, Christianity is like the child who tries to understand what is going on, but fails to catch the intended meaning of things.

I'm happy that you're happy. Others, obviously, have different opinions.

It cannot be denied though, that much of the mythology, ritual, and symbolism employed by the Christian faith does have pagan and polytheistic origins.

Of course it can be denied. Many do deny it.

Everything from baptism, prayers, Trinities, and resurrection, to holy water, transubstantiation, the Underworld/Hell, and even the Paradise Garden can be found throughout the mythologies of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, Greece, the Celtic tribes, and the Norsemen.

It's an unacceptable leap to say that, since other religions had prayer and the idea of Heaven, that Christianity got the ideas from them. It's far more likely that those are true things made known to everyone. It seems a little like saying that since the ancient whatsis religion drank water, then all water drinkers got the idea from them. (Meant as a spiritual metaphor.)

To me, the real question is: knowing this, why can't Christians just accept that they are one more faith, and learn to get along with everyone else? Their faith is no more special than any other. Join the rest of us and just be yourself.

Do you recommend to all religions that their beliefs have no special meaning and their goal should be to get along with the rest of the world? I would enjoy seeing a copy of the report on your success in that area. The idea isn't primarily to get along with others, or even just to be ourselves. The idea is to find Truth as best we can and conform ourselves to that Eternal Truth.

reply to post by charles1952


I'll point you in the right direction for beginning to uncover the pagan origins of Christianity. I, obviously, cannot expound upon everything in 5000 characters. So, here is a link to the Syncretic Heritage of Christianity.

As for the idea of Heaven and prayer being real things which all religions knew to be true... I'll play ball. So, why is Christianity the "correct" version of these things?

What makes Christian prayer right, but praying to Hecate wrong?
What makes Jesus' resurrection right, but Dumuzi and Geshtinanna's wrong?
What makes Heaven the best destination, and not the Land of Youth?
What makes God the only "real" deity; why not Odin?
What makes Noah's ark, and not Utnapishtam, the real flood-myth?
Why is a church's holy water, and not the Tears of Isis from the Nile, real?
Why is God's account of creating men from clay, and not Enki's, legitimate?

By what measure do you judge the legitimacy of Christianity, but find every other religion on the face of the Earth to be wrong? It requires special pleading to accept Christianity, but reject all the other religions with the same practices, myths, rituals, beliefs, and symbols. That is called being intellectually dishonest.

It is actually a further stretch of reason to assume God made man from clay and breath, than it is to say the Jews grew up with the myth of Enki making men from clay and breath, and just adapted it to their chosen god.

As for "finding truth," you won't find it in religion. If you really want the truth of existence, try science. But you never will, because the truth is that we're not special, important, or created by divinity. We're just another species populating a lonely rock in dead space. No more, or less, important than any other randomly picked hunk of space debris circling a sun which will one explode and reclaim all within it's tiny, insignificant solar system.

You'll probably think that's morbid. But it's not. It's honest. If you need something to feel good for it to be truth, then you're not looking for truth. You're looking for a placebo to heal the emptiness you know to be reality.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Dear Wandering Scribe,

Thank you very much for a truly outstanding post. I appreciate your effort, thoughtfulness, and thoroughness. it should be held up as a model for others. Sorry I can only give you one star.

It seems that we may have stumbled over an insoluble problem. Does a pre-existing concept prove that a similar, later, concept borrowed from the pre-existing one? It seems you would say "yes," and I would say "no."

Let me look at some of your examples, perhaps I can show you a pattern in my thinking.

What makes Christian prayer right, but praying to Hecate wrong?

I think prayer to the "truest" diety you know is a good idea, whoever that deity may be.

What makes Heaven the best destination, and not the Land of Youth?

Same principle. Any "Heaven" or good afterlife is so common that I'm almost led to believe it follows from a deity who rewards good and provides an eternal after-life. If the Land of Youth is what a group calls it, fine with me. It probably doesn't have a name, but we'll know it when we get there.

What makes God the only "real" deity; why not Odin?

I kind of like Norse mythology, it's "manly" in a sense. Again, go with the truest God you know.

What makes Noah's ark, and not Utnapishtam, the real flood-myth?
Why is God's account of creating men from clay, and not Enki's, legitimate?

These are a little different, being events. I'm not sure whether actual clay was used, and I'm not familiar with Enki, but they both indicate that God made man from inanimate material. To that extent, I accept them both. The flood? That was a pretty big deal, I'd be surprised if it wasn't mentioned in the writings of just about every group that existed there at the time, or who heard about it later.

Why is a church's holy water, and not the Tears of Isis from the Nile, real?

this is a different kind of question. The Church declares that holy water is the result of certain steps, and that it has certain efficacy. That's pretty much between them and their followers. It's really not in competition with anything else. Further, I don't happen to know when holy water was introduced. Certainly not right at the beginning. If it had been borrowed from somewhere else, like other things are claimed to be, I'd expect it to be there right at the start with everything else.

What makes Jesus' resurrection right, but Dumuzi and Geshtinanna's wrong?

Your knowledge wins another point. I'm not familiar with that story.

By what measure do you judge the legitimacy of Christianity, but find every other religion on the face of the Earth to be wrong? It requires special pleading to accept Christianity, but reject all the other religions with the same practices, myths, rituals, beliefs, and symbols. That is called being intellectually dishonest.

But as I've tried to point out, Christianity doesn't call all other religions completely wrong, there is some truth in all of them. I don't, for example, reject prayer to God in any religion. By the way, I'm trying hard not to be dishonest. By all means, point it out if you see it.

It is actually a further stretch of reason to assume God made man from clay and breath, than it is to say the Jews grew up with the myth of Enki making men from clay and breath, and just adapted it to their chosen god.

This confuses me. You seem to be saying that the myth of Enki is a far stretch of reason, if that's what they believed. Are you saying you don't accept the Enki story? Besides, if the Jews had said God made man from rocks, it would have been the same story from my point of view. The clay isn't the essential part. The idea that God created man from non-living material seems to be the key to the story.

As for "finding truth," you won't find it in religion. If you really want the truth of existence, try science.

Sorry, that's no good. Science is, by definition, unable to study the supernatural. I believe in the supernatural.

But you never will, because the truth is that we're not special, important, or created by divinity. We're just another species populating a lonely rock in dead space. No more, or less, important than any other randomly picked hunk of space debris circling a sun which will one explode and reclaim all within it's tiny, insignificant solar system.

I disagree, and on this point I think it's Wandering Scribe versus the world.

I'm looking for truth, whether it makes me happy or sad, to explain why I'm not empty.

Again, great post.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Greetings,

First, it is a breath of fresh air to see civility in a reply to one of my posts. On another thread I'm fending off ad hominem attacks left and right, particularly for the view which you call "Wandering Scribe versus the World." So, if I come off as rude, I apologize in advance, and it may stem from dealing with other users attitudes. I do my best to be civil with those who are civil with me.

I think I need to preface by saying that I do not believe in a world-wide flood, or in a creation from clay and breath origin. I actually fully accept the idea of cellular evolution, and natural speciation as to how human beings have come about. What I do love about mythology is the psychological perspective it gives us of our ancestors.

I think prayer to the "truest" diety you know is a good idea, whoever that deity may be.

I fully agree, but with a sub-clause that studying the world's faiths be a requirement for choosing which deity you believe to be the truest. The problem is that so many are indoctrinated into a religion, and they believe solely off the words of another, instead of studying and arriving at their own conclusions.

Same principle. Any "Heaven" or good afterlife is so common that I'm almost led to believe it follows from a deity who rewards good and provides an eternal after-life.

The only problem I have here is that Heaven (the Christian variation) is exclusive. You must adhere to a specific set of doctrines (accept Jesus, have no other gods, repent, etc) in order to gain admittance. The majority (but not all) of other world faith afterlives are actually quite open, welcoming any and all human beings, so long as they want to go. The selectivity of the Christian one is what I dislike.

I kind of like Norse mythology, it's "manly" in a sense.

Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Celtic, and Norse are the four "corner-stones" on which I have discovered my own personal faith, which is why a majority of my examples come from those four cultural groups. I am very familiar with many others' though, and I always arrive at the same problem: Christianity borrows/shares in the same rituals, myths, and symbols as the ancient faiths, but wears this mask of exclusivity and individuality which it does not deserve.

These are a little different, being events. I'm not sure whether actual clay was used, and I'm not familiar with Enki, but they both indicate that God made man from inanimate material.

That type of metaphorical thinking is exactly what makes the pagan and polytheistic traditions so inspiring to me. Most Christians in the modern day look at the creation as literal: we are molded from clay, and given essence by God breathing into us. They seldom look at it as a mass of inanimate stuff (the primordial soup?) which is brushed over by the presence of "God" (the lightning or spark which causes the soup to have cellular life), and then we evolved out of it.

The same goes for the flood. It is not a myth about how uncivilized or ungodly humans were, but about the developing relationship we, as a species, shared with our terrain. We personified the Earth and it's many features. Some were friendly, others were not so much. The real core of a flood myth is man learning to respect and live in peace with the world which supports him.

Enki was the Sumerian god of wisdom, writing, invention, architecture, the sea, rain, sexual procreation, natural creation, and order. Much of the qualities he possesses are very apparent in the God of the Jews. That the Jews had trade and connection with the Sumerians is also a well-established fact.

The Church declares that holy water is the result of certain steps, and that it has certain efficacy.

Which is the same claim as the Tears of Isis being able to heal and protect the sick and fearful in Egypt. Water collected from the Nile was believed to have those same properties. So if the Church supports one, why not the other? Either all sacred water works, or no sacred water works... at least to me that makes sense.

Your knowledge wins another point. I'm not familiar with that story.

I'll U2U you the story of Dumuzi and Inanna, which features his death and resurrection.

Unfortunately, I'm running out of characters, a part two will be posted below this reply.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by charles1952


Part 2:

But as I've tried to point out, Christianity doesn't call all other religions completely wrong, there is some truth in all of them. I don't, for example, reject prayer to God in any religion. By the way, I'm trying hard not to be dishonest. By all means, point it out if you see it.

I think you're being very honest, no worries there.

I am thinking you're part of a very progressive Christian movement. The 10 Commandments, adhered to by most Christian denominations, clearly state that there will be no "false gods" before the Lord God. This is a declaration that only the Christian God is real, true, authentic, and existent.

If you, or your branch of Christianity, do not accept this commandment, I greatly respect that.

This confuses me. You seem to be saying that the myth of Enki is a far stretch of reason, if that's what they believed. Are you saying you don't accept the Enki story?

The way that I see it, is such:

An event occurs in the year 3500 BCE (we'll say). In the year 3496 BCE a scribe writes down the event. Every 10 to 20 years a scribe related to the first records the event again. All of a sudden the entire people who were recording the event disappear (killed, migrated, starved, the reason can be whatever you choose). We'll say this occurred about 2000 BCE.

1000 years later (1000 BCE) a new scribe, from a different culture, sees the older scribes lost works, and he makes a new version of the story written down. His new version has some changes though: the names of people involved, and the name of the god who was acting. The actual event though, does not change.

Now, if you were asked which account was more truthful, the one recorded within a decade, or the one recorded 1000 years later, which would you say is more accurate? This is the impasse I meet with Jewish and Christian mythology all of the time. They are retelling pagan stories, but changing the gods involved, and the names of the people who took part. Then, they say not to believe the other sources.

I feel that it is plagiarism, with a malevolent intent.

Sorry, that's no good. Science is, by definition, unable to study the supernatural. I believe in the supernatural.

The truth does not need to be supernatural though. We understand so much, based on empirical evidence gathered by observational science, which can be tested almost any time, by anyone. If science can tell us the process by which a fetus is created, which chemicals are released to cause love and lust, and what keeps the planets orbiting the sun... why is it suddenly not capable of telling you "the truth" when it has been accurate on everything else?

Not that spirituality, religion, or faith need to go away - I also have my own spiritual beliefs - but just that exiling science from this one aspect of our lives, but depending on it everywhere else, is, as I've said before, intellectually dishonest to me.

Especially when a spiritual existence can be supported by science.

I'll wrap this reply up here though. I'll do my best to send you Dumuzi and Inanna through U2U tonight.

~ Scribe

The religion of evolutionary science is a conspiracy for a different thread. One more thing invented to turn people from truth. People have always known how fetus' are created.
Also historically science has persistently been wrong and corrected. It is a series of errors and corrections much like religion, oh wait it is a religion.