Authors of the Bible: The Greatest Plagiarism Ever Believed

a reply to: deliberator

Could you link your source? It sounds very interesting so far

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: Krazysh0t
To save their faith, they adopted the allegorical interpretation and the concept of spiritual truths. However, this actually open a Pandora box for Christian theology: for who is to know whose interpretation is the truth or is actually what was meant by the authors when they wrote the Bible?

I've expressed those very concerns quite a few times on ATS whenever I hear that cop-out used actually.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: boncho
Why not have a litmus test? No religious people are allowed to hold any authority over other people.

Hmm, that actually sounds quite reasonable.

What about atheists that have any irrational thinking? Or that could possibly ever have an irrational thought? Humans are imperfect you know.

a reply to: windword

Sounds an awful lot like that Christian Mary.

Aside from they both gave "virgin" births, I would say Isis and Mary are nothing alike.

Isis was a virgin per se. But to compare her to the Christian Mary is pointless. After all Mary was a human while Isis was a god.

Isis became pregnant by using a disembodied penis from Osiris. God put the seed in Mary.

After Set dismember Osiris and spread him around the earth, Isis went and found penis and impregnated herself. I guess you could call her a virgin.... kinda sorta?

Even with her being a "virgin" it still doesn't mean that Christianity copied it. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Then there are all the other lies perpetrated about Jesus being copies of others. Most people just see that there is "proof" that Christianity is "faked" and don't bother researching further. It almost makes me want to become a Christian.

I personally don't have a horse in this race. But it upsets me to see people try to dismantle a religion based on fabricated lies and not truths.


Isis finding Osiris's penis:

She made to rise up the helpless members of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence, and she made therefrom an heir.

link

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Ghost147

Why bring it up if it isn't part of the conversation?

This might be beyond you, but because it goes to my original point.... that we will die out as a species and not exist any more.
You say, 'Oh, we will go to the moon, or maybe Mars.'
I am telling you that the odds are totally stacked against us surviving as a species.

Yet... 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours, Alpha Centauri in 100 years.

And we know the rate of which technological advancement is made.

So I would say your odds need recalculation. Also, if your top argument is "the sun will become a red giant" in 5 billion years, thus ending humanity, you're recalculation needs immediate attention.

originally posted by: butcherguy
What about atheists that have any irrational thinking? Or that could possibly ever have an irrational thought? Humans are imperfect you know.

I would say that the concept should be applied to all of humanity. Politicians should have an IQ test, and a constant monitoring of finances. Cut out the corruption all together.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: windword
I personally don't have a horse in this race. But it upsets me to see people try to dismantle a religion based on fabricated lies and not truths

Lets humor the idea that all the information in the OP is totally false, and the authors really didn't plagiarize anything. You still have all the information in the world and observable universe that falsifies just about every single story told in the Bible. Not to mention simple logical fallacies that are intrinsic to nearly every 'as a matter of fact' claim in the bible as well.

The existence of rationality alone dismantles religion.

a reply to: Ghost147

I have just added it Apologies.

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: Ghost147

I have just added it Apologies.

Great! thanks! I'll have a read

a reply to: Ghost147

I'm not sure if you are under the impression that I am a Christian or not. I'm agnostic.

I agree, there are many ways to dismantle a religion. Science, history, archeology, etc. But fictitious facts, like those that compare Jesus to others, are no better than a religion itself.

Lies dismissing lies aren't truths.

a reply to: Ghost147

This is how the author addresses the inerrancy of the Bible.

The Logic Behind Biblical Errancy
It is important to show clearly the logic of the analysis that is to follow. Some people might think that the only way to prove that the Bible is not completely and absolutely true is to prove it completely and absolutely false. However, this reasoning is logically fallacious and is based on the confusion between contrary and contradictory statements. An example will make this clear. Let the statement below be the main proposition, which we shall label A.

All Chinese today live in China (A)

A statement that is the contrary to the above is A' below

No Chinese today live in China (A')

It is obvious that both statements, A and A', are false. Thus if someone made the claim that all Chinese today live in China and asserts that the only way he will accept his statement as false is if someone could prove that no Chinese live in China, we can obviously see that his thinking is logically flawed.

What we need to prove statement A wrong is to write a statement that is contradictory to it. We will label the contradictory statement to A as -A. The relationship of these two statements must be such that they are mutually exclusive. In other words, -A, and A cannot both be wrong or right at the same time; if -A is wrong, then A must be right and if -A is right, then A must be wrong. In our example, the statement that is contradictory to A is given below:

Some Chinese today do not live in China (A-)

Hence all we need to do to show that the statement "All Chinese live in China" is false, is simply to show that some Chinese today do not live in China.

Applying this logic to our present discussion, the fundamentalist position is obviously:

Everything in the Bible is true.

All we need to show to prove this statement false is to find supporting facts for the statement below:

Some things in the Bible are not true.


It is the right approach in my opinion.

a reply to: Ghost147
Keep your dream alive that humanity will never end. I know that it is scary to ponder our end.

Even if we would manage to send a rocket on a 100 year trip to Alpha Centauri, it isn't a sure bet that it would even make it there, or that there would be any living humans on it when it arrived. Can't just swing into the local Costco for supplies.
Then there would be the problem of meeting up with an advanced race, diseases and then there is the unknown.

I am not a super religious person, perhaps I could be called a Deist as I do believe, or want to believe that something gave order to Nature. Religion provides comfort to many, purpose for others, and to some something to blame. Nothing wrong with it as I see it, it does require Faith but much of what we discuss and talk about on ATS requires Faith.

In the days of the Bible, the written word was largely not available. Many did not have the education to read much less write so stories were spoken and passed down by the story tellers and within families. Perhaps the authors of the Bible did not live during the time of Jesus but would have recited the stories as they were handed down. Of course things would be added or lost due to translations or due to the human factor but most of the stories are learning parables and not meant to be absolute truth (although many believe this) but meant to teach.

There are many stories in the Bible which are at least based upon truth as far as description of places. Many archaeological digs have shown this. The Great Flood spoken about in the Bible does have some evidence as actually having occurred...

The story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is one of the most famous from the Bible, and now an acclaimed underwater archaeologist thinks he has found proof that the biblical flood was actually based on real events.

abcnews.go.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

There are many historical cities mentioned in the Bible, some which still exist today and many sites that have been discovered which could be examples of various places that could have been. The facts are elusive either way as archaeology does not disprove the stories in the Bible nor does it provide proof.

I do believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, that many of the events did occur but many would have been made to be grander than reality, Goliath may very well have been a large human but not what we would consider a giant today but it made the story better and the job of a story teller in those days would have been much like the job of a Hollywood writer today, to capture his audiences attention and grab them at every step.

The Bible is a didactic book and a tool for life, as I do not believe anyone has a problem with some of the teachings like, thou shall not kill or steal and etc. It was cobbled together from many people from many and various places and then re-translated to what we have today.

If it provides comfort to someone, then I have nothing but praise for it, if someone believes it provides them answers then good for them. Science itself requires faith at times or we would never have the gains we have made so far so maybe I have faith but not necessarily belief.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Ghost147
Keep your dream alive that humanity will never end. I know that it is scary to ponder our end.

Again, when did I state that I believed this?

Here's the quote from the post you're responding to:

Ghost147
Humans have a chance to surpass our 'doom'

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Ghost147
Even if we would manage to send a rocket on a 100 year trip to Alpha Centauri, it isn't a sure bet that it would even make it there

When did I ever express certainty that it would get there? The point is, we do have the technology to escape the solar system, and because we know that technology is growing exponentially, there is no reason to think we will be incapable of doing so within the next 5 billion years before the sun becomes a Red Giant.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Ghost147
or that there would be any living humans on it when it arrived.

Where the hell did that come from? I'm going to assume you miss-wrote what you meant to say. You don't actually believe that I believe there are already humans living on Alpha Centauri, do you?

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Ghost147
Can't just swing into the local Costco for supplies
Then there would be the problem of meeting up with an advanced race, diseases and then there is the unknown.

Your logic is extremely close minded, and your reading comprehension is lacking severely.

a reply to: ghostrager

I personally don't have a horse in this race. But it upsets me to see people try to dismantle a religion based on fabricated lies and not truths.

Personally, it bothers me no end to see Christians destroy, with lies, the tradition and reputation of competitive religions, like they did with the Osirus, Isis, Horus story.

Isis was a virgin per se. But to compare her to the Christian Mary is pointless. After all Mary was a human while Isis was a god.

The Christian version of Isis is Mary, who was modeled after Isis.

Isis became pregnant by using a disembodied penis from Osiris. God put the seed in Mary.

Wrong.

Hymn to Osiris

Thy sister protected thee, and she drove away thy foes, and she warded off from thee evil hap, and uttered the words of power with all the skill of her mouth; her tongue was trained, and she committed no fault of utterance, and she made [her decree and [her words to have effect, Isis, the mighty one, the avenger of her brother.

She sought thee without weariness, she went round about through this land in sorrow, and she set not to the ground her foot until she had found thee. She made light with her feathers, she made air to come into being with her wings, and she uttered cries of lamentation at the bier of her brother.

16. She stirred up from his state of inactivity him whose heart was still (i.e., Osiris), she drew from him his seed, she made an heir, she suckled the babe in solitariness, and the place wherein she reared him is unknown, and his hand is mighty within the house of Seb. The company of the gods rejoice and are glad at the coming of Horus, the son of Osiris, who heart is established, and whose word taketh effect, the son of Isis and the heir of Osiris.

Read more: www.touregypt.net...

Here is a more prosaic version of the story.

Only Isis, blessed Isis, remembered us. Only she was unafraid of Set. She searched all of the Nile for the box containing her beloved husband. Finally she found it, lodged in a tamarisk bush that had turned into a mighty tree, for the power of Osiris still was in him, though he lay dead. She tore open the box and wept over the lifeless body of Osiris. She carried the box back to Egypt and placed it in the house of the gods.

She changed herself into a bird and flew about his body, singing a song of mourning. Then she perched upon him and cast a spell. The spirit of dead Osiris entered her and she did conceive and bear a son whose destiny it would be to avenge his father. She called the child Horus, and hid him on an island far away from the gaze of his uncle Set.

Read more: www.touregypt.net...

No reconstructed penis, no sex. As a matter of fact, the story of her turning into a bird sounds a whole lot like the "holy spirit" who supposed impregnated the virgin Mary.

On the doctrine of the atonement from the same site. It makes a lot of sense to me.

The doctrine of the atonement, although it has never been fully formulated in any ecumenical council, is one of the basic tenets of Christian theology. Stated simply, the doctrine of the atonement teaches that Jesus' death on the cross somehow atones for the sins of humankind.

The conclusion is simple, the atonement makes no sense. If Jesus' death, and the acceptance of his death by believers, are necessary for salvation then it was unjust of the just God to allow 4000 years to pass, allowing countless people to be damned, before sending his Son down to earth. The fact that he was sent to only one small corner of the earth (he ignored the Eastern worlds such as the Chinese and the Indians), instead of sending the message simultaneously caused many people who could not have received the good news due to geographical separation to endure eternal damnation. Should any of these people be somehow saved, then Jesus' death becomes superfluous.

Christian theologians also like to assert that the doctrine of the atonement manifest the divine spirit of forgiveness. However, the orthodox doctrine tells us that Jesus' death paid a debt owed by man to God. Now how is it that a debt that is already paid needs to be forgiven? The problem boils down to this: if Jesus' death paid the debt then the account is settled, no forgiveness is needed but if we still need forgiveness, the whole scheme of the atonement is meaningless.

Another problem with the doctrine of the atonement is in its moral content. Is it really just to make an innocent man suffer for the wrong doing of others? Would we not think of a judge who knowingly sentenced an innocent man for the crime of another? This judge would be universally condemned, and will definitely be removed from his post. But this is exactly what the doctrine gives God as doing. He "sentenced" Jesus to suffer for the transgression that originated from Adam and Eve. If we would condemn the hypothetical judge as immoral, what would we call such a God?

Another illogical idea of the doctrine is that God angry with the transgressions of men and women, punishes himself, since Jesus is God, before he can forgive them.

The doctrine of atonement is a nonsensical belief developed by a succession of overpious and none-too-bright fathers of the church.


Link

a reply to: Ghost147

Perspective is everything...

Where you assume plagiarism, I see synchronicity or a pattern or a theme. Perhaps it is as simple as understanding migrations and the purple-monkey-dishwasher phenomenom. For example, Abraham and Sarah of the Old Testament are thought by some to be Brahma and Saraswati of Hinduism. The story of the flood in the Epics of Gilgamesh (ancient Mesopotamia) is considered to be an account of the Noahide floods in the Old Testament. Others believe Moses was the Egyptian pharoah Akhenaten.

Or, perhaps, all of these accounts are separate and true accounts, which would indicate a natural order of things so to speak.

Or, perhaps, it's a form of mass hysteria and many people in many times made up the same stories out of whole cloth and fooled a bunch of other people.

Or, perhaps, _______________________________ [you fill in the blank.]

The thing is, I don't know the historical truth of the matter; I only know that neither you nor me know the truth because we cannot know the truth. And yet, your OP not only presumes to know the truth, you presume the worst about people who cannot explain/defend themselves, and suggest that people of faith have contributed to and/or are to blame for every ill in the world. You recognize no good that people have faith have performed for society, and recognize no ill that people of no faith have inflicted on society. Your OP and attitude demonstrate a disturbing combination of arrogance and ignorance. So you can scoff and ridicule and presume all you want, but what I hear as a person of faith is, "There is no higher power than me! I am omnipotent and omniscient! Yay Church of Me!!!"

And it's quite disappointing, especially on ATS. A reasonable and respectful dialogue could be interesting and insightful and enlightening. But this sure ain't it.

a reply to: windword

Isis became pregnant by using a disembodied penis from Osiris. God put the seed in Mary.

Wrong.

Right.

No reconstructed penis, no sex. As a matter of fact, the story of her turning into a bird sounds a whole lot like the "holy spirit" who supposed impregnated the virgin Mary.

Since you seem to love the touregypt.net site as a source, I found the following just for you;


m.touregypt.net...

With her magical powers, she was able to bring her husband back to life, when he had been torn apart by his brother Set. She then fashioned a replacement for Osiris' missing penis, and blew life - with the appropriate magic words, intonations and rituals... and a little help from Thoth - back into husband. Sharing a night of passion, the deities conceived Horus and Osiris died again, and went on to become Lord of the Underworld.

The Christian version of Isis is Mary, who was modeled after Isis.

Nope, the only thing they shared in common are "virgin" births, both with a completely different background. In fact, Isis hardly had a virgin birth.

To try to link Mary to Isis makes no sense.

Nice thread Ghost. Here's a link you might find interesting as additional information and confirmation... The Pagan Files

I would add to your OP, that the biggest reason of all to openly challenge Christianity is, because it's adherents have never been satisfied to live and let live. They have never been able to respect others beliefs and faith. They have spent the last few thousand years aggressively spreading their faith, and destroying other peoples faith by subversion, coercion and force when necessary.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Do you realize the odds against humans leaving this solar system before we die as a race?
The huge hurdle of interstellar travel is the main reason that most rational people do not believe that Earth has ever been visited by extraterrestrials.

Oh, so your OPINION counts as what's "rational". Well that's a good one. >_<

Well we've got 5 billion years left but you seem to have no faith in humanity and try to bring down the hopes of people because of your negative beliefs. You sound just like conservatives who have given up on everyone except themselves and go out of their way just to make sure that people with different ideas, fail. As the success of those with different opinions would mean an indirect failliure on their part as they feel that their OPINION is better than everyone elses.

Well you're right, if everyone would think like you, we would be doomed. Luckily, not all humans are like that because we would be gone by now.