And aside from language changes, the Bible has also been edited hundreds of times and had about a dozen possible books taken out of it by the Catholic Church in an effort to censor it.
Those books were not taken out...the Bible as we know it was assembled from the many manuscripts which were the gospel according to (insert name here) during the time in which Christianity was being persecuted by the Romans and people like me were being killed for not denying our faith. They chose the most cohesive gospels to spread among the Christians help unify them and grant more solidity to the faith. In a time where being a Christian was such a bad thing you needed as much foundation and ground to stand on as you could get.
Yes, Christianity survived for quite some time without a Bible. The gospel was orated and passed from one person to another for quite some time. In history this is quite common for many events. Even without the Bible the gospel would still be spread.
One fringe notion in my mind (I say notion because I've never given it much thought and have absolutely no evidence to back it up) is that maybe when the angels that followed Lucifer were cast down they were given a chance to redeem themselves? Maybe their actions made it impossible to exist in heaven due to their (our?) sin
However if you assault a pregnant woman (regardless of the fetus' stage of development or if the assailant has knowledge of the womans' pregnancy) you can be charged with any harm that befalls the unborn as if it were any other person...including a charge of murder in the case of a micarriage. Why is it okay for a criminal to be charged with a crime even if he doesn't realize or mean to hurt the fetus; however the mother is allowed to intentionally murder ot as long as it is by her choice?
Why consider it a human being in one circumstance but not the other?
According to the Unborn victims of violence act they are considered alive only when it is effected by a violent crime. Kind of a double standard if you ask me. I suppose thats law for ya.
Moloch:
"King". The sun god of the Canaanites (Ammonites?) in old Palestine and sometimes associated with the Sumerian Baal, although Moloch (or Molekh) was entirely malevolent. In the 8th-6th century BCE, firstborn children were sacrificed to him by the Israelites in the Valleye of Hinnom, south-east of Jerusalem (see also Gehenna). These sacrifices to the sun god were made to renew the strength of the sun fire. This ritual was probably borrowed from surrounding nations, and was also popular in ancient Carthage.
Moloch was represented as a huge bronze statue with the head of a bull. The statue was hollow, and inside there burned a fire which colored the Moloch a glowing red. Children were placed on the hands of the statue. Through an ingenious system the hands were raised to the mouth (as if Moloch were eating) and the children fell into the fire where they were consumed by the flames. The people gathered before the Moloch were dancing on the sounds of flutes and tambourines to drown out the screams of the victims.
According to some sources, the Moloch in the Old Testament is not a god, but a specific form of sacrifice.
Baal:
The antiquity of the worship of the god or gods of Baal extends back to the 14th century BCE among the ancient Semitic peoples, the descendants of Shem, the oldest son of Biblical Noah. Semitic is more of a linguistic classification than a racial one. Thus, people speaking the same or similar languages first worshiped Baal in his many forms. The word Baal means "master" or "owner". In ancient religions the name denoted sun, lord or god. Baal was common a name of small Syrian and Persian deities. Baal is still principally thought of as a Canaanite fertility deity. The Great Baal was of Canaan. He was the son of El, the high god of Canaan. The cult of Baal celebrated annually his death and resurrection as a part of the Canaanite fertility rituals. These ceremonies often included human sacrifice and temple prostitution.
Baal, literal meaning is "lord," in the Canaanite pantheon was the local title of fertility gods. Baal never emerged as a rain god until later times when he assumed the special functions of each. Although there is no equivalent in Canaan of the sterile summer drought that occurs in Mesopotamia, the season cycle was marked enough to have caused a concentration on the disappearing fertility god, who took with him the autumn rain clouds into the neither world.
After defeating the sea god Yam, and building a house on Mount Saphon, and taking possession of numerous cities, Baal announced that he would no longer acknowledge the authority of Mot, "death." Baal not only excluded Mot from his hospitality and friendship, but also told him that he could only visit the deserts of the earth. In response to this challenge, Mot invited Baal to his abode to taste his fare, mud. Being terrified and unable to avoid the dreadful summons to the land of the dead, Baal coupled with a calf in order to strengthen himself for the ordeal, and then set out. El and the other gods donned funeral garments, poured ashes on their heads, and mutilated their limbs, while Anat, aided by the sun goddess Shapash, brought the corpse back for burial. El placed Athtar, the irrigation god, on the vacant throne of Baal, but Anat bitterly missed her dead husband. She begged Mot to restore Baal to life, but her pleas went without avail, and Anat's attempts to interest the other gods in helping her were met with cautious indifference. Thus, Anat assaulted Mot, ripping him to pieces "with a sharp knife," scattering his members "with a winnowing fan," burning him "in a fire," grinding him "in a mill," and "over the fields strewing his remains." El, in the meantime, had a dream in which fertility returned, which suggested that Baal was not dead. Afterwards, he instructed Shapash to keep watch for him during her daily travels. In the due course of time Baal was restored, and Athtar fled from his throne. Yet Mot was able to arrange another attack, but on this occasion all of the gods supported Baal, and neither combatant could gain the victory. Finally El intervened and dismissed Mot, leaving Baal in possession of the field.
The above myth, fragments of which are on the Ras Shamra tablets, relates to the alteration of the seasons. Baal is the god of rain, thunder, and lightening. "At the touch of his right hand, even colors wilt." Yam, the owner of salt water, gave place to Baal as the genius of rainfall and vegetation, a displacement that left Mot as sole contender under the mighty El. Torrid heat, sterility, the arid desert, death, the neither world: these were Mot's irresistible realm till Anat threshed, winnowed, and ground the harvested corn, the fecundity of Baal's land, just as the siding of El with the resurrected rain god ensured the continuation of the annual cycle. A parallel of the magical rites can be found in Psalms, where "they that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that go forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bearing sheaves with him." This is sympathetic magic the tears shed were expected to induce drops of rain.
Baal was the son of El, or Dagon, an obscure deity linked by the Hebrews with the Philistine city of Ashdod. Dagon was perhaps associated with the sea, as a coin found in the vicinity portrays a god having a fish tail. Although Baal personally overcame Yam, it is uncertain whether or not he fought Lotan, the Leviathan of the Old Testament, but it is known that Anat "crushed the writhing serpent, the accused one of the seven heads." Another echo of the Mesopotamian thought patterns are nestled in these reasons advanced by Baal for needing a "house." His food offerings were too meager for a god "that rides on the clouds." As far apart as Carthage and Palmyra were temples dedicated to Baal-Hammon, "the lord of the altar of incense," whom the Greeks identified with Cronos. On Mount Carmel it was the prophet Elijah who discredited King Ahab's belief in the power of Baal, when at his request "the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice," and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. Afterwards Elijah had the people slay "the prophets of Baal," thereby assuring the survival of the worship of Yahweh in Israel.
The worship of Baal extended from the Canaanites to the Phoenicians who also were partially an agricultural people. Both Baal and his cohort Ashtoreth, or Astarte, who is equivalent to the Greek goddess Aphrodite, were both Phoenician fertility symbols. Baal, the sun god, was fervently prayed to for the protection of livestock and crops. Priests instructed the people that Baal was responsible for droughts, plagues, and other calamities. People were often worked up into great frenzies at the prospects of displeasing Baal. In times of great turbulence human sacrifices, particularly children, were made to the great god Moloch.
Since the Phoenicians also were superb ship builders the religion and cults of Baal spread throughout the Mediterranean world. The worship of Baal was found among the Moabites and their allies Midinites during Moses' time. It was also introduced to the Israelites.
The religion of the god Baal was widely accepted among the ancient Jews, and although it was put down at times, it was never permanently stamped out. Kings and other royalty of the ten Biblical tribes worshiped the god. The ordinary people ardently worshipped this sun god too because their prosperity depended on the productivity of their crops and livestock. The god's images were erected on many buildings. Within the religion there appeared to be numerous priests and various classes of devotees. During the ceremonies they wore appropriate robes. The ceremonies included burning incense, and offering burnt sacrifices, occasionally consisting of human victims. The officiating priests danced around the altars, chanting frantically and cutting themselves with knives to inspire the attention and compassion of the god.
In the Bible Baal is also called Beelzebub, or Baalzebub, one of the fallen angels of Satan.
India:
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=6705
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1999/09/29/anti-christian-violence-rise-india
If you come in as a Christian you might be fine, if you convert from Islam you might be dead
Qatar:
The government uses Sunni law as the basis of its criminal and civil regulations. Some religious tolerance is granted. Foreign nationals are free to affiliate with their faiths other than Islam, i.e. Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Bahai, as long as they are religious in private and do not offend 'public order' or 'morality'. There is persecution here.
Bangladesh:
Religious minorities may worship openly, but they face social discrimination. Most discrimination against Christians comes from Muslims, but Buddhists in southeastern Bangladesh also cause trouble for Christians. Christians are denied access to public water wells, beaten and blackmailed. Last year, six Christian health-care workers accused of “hurting religious feelings” were arrested while working with a Japanese volunteer doctor. A judge dismissed the case in April because police failed to submit a primary investigation report.
Malaysia:
In Malaysia if you want to be considered a Malay then you are legally required to be a Muslim. If a non-Muslim marries a Muslim, they are legally required to convert to Islam. Oh, also Christians are not allowed to proselytize Muslims, only Muslims are allowed to do that.
Pakistan, are you serrious?:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_pakis.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1624223.stm
http://www.domini.org/openbook/pak20020925.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2281191.stm
http://www.wnd.com/2006/09/37799/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/nyregion/24missionary.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8179823.stm
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Eight-Christians-burned-alive-in-Punjab-15943.html
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/14/132031645/
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/
Sri Lanka:
The persecution of Christians, including violence and hate propaganda, has escalated in Sri Lanka in recent years with the rise of militant Buddhist nationalist groups. Although the constitution guarantees religious freedom, minority Protestants have experienced violent persecution as well as discrimination in employment and education. An anti-conversion law is awaiting legislative approval. The law would make evangelism punishable by up to seven years in prison. In February 2011, a pastor and his family were attacked in their home. The attacker was arrested but later released with only a severe warning and the requirement that he apologize to the pastor.
As far as the statistic:
1. God is Omnibenevolent (God is all good or perfectly good)
2. God is Omnipotent (God is all powerful)
3. God is Omniscient (God is all knowing)
_________________________________
4. Evil exists.
If god is all good, how or why does evil exist?
If god is all good and powerful, why does god not stop evil?
If god is all knowing why does he allow evil to happen? or why does god create evil beings.
do you challenge the fact that evil exists? or are the things that we (society) consider evil, not really evil?
This is the premise of the debate, so where does it say anything to the effect of "if God exists" or "does God exist"?
The answer is nowhere, in fact if you look at the first three statements it is working off of the assumption of the existence of God in order to answer the questions.
I believe God commands us to do what is morally correct. When you look at the commandments (in a generalized sense) you have:
1. Don't worship any other gods (reference my post to the right)
2. Don't worship graven images...ditto as above
3/4. Don't misuse my name and remember the sabbath: he wants a relationship with us.
5.honor your parents: parents by nature should love their children...asking them to do the same is understandable.
6.-10. Don't kill, cheat on your spouse, steal, lie, or covet others property or spouse: the coveting part is typically what leads to stealing, murdering, and adultry.
I think these commandments are a pretty good moral list, espcially Jesus, last command: love one another.
I would suggest that you pick up a study Bible as well as a few theology courses. Many of the instances where God orders a populace to be killed it is due to worshipping Canaanite/Ammonite gods. Look up Baal and Moloch...you'll see what God had ordered his people to stop. Also when someone tells you God is bad or evil then quotes a Bible passage, dont't read just the passage but the entire book that passage is in so you can understand any historical context which is used.
Unfortunately, if you want to pursue this line of argument you would first have to prove that God exists and that he gave man free will. Since you have proven neither, your criticism holds no water.
Since when did this become a debate about me proving the existence of God? ::cough:: Red herring! ::cough::
The second premise is not questioning whether or not something could be done, but whether it should be done or not. You are attacking a straw man.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
How is this a straw man?
If God did not allow some deaths to happen either by happenstance or design do you know what the world population would look like and why types of food shortages we would be looking at, let alone the energy crisis?
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Which could not be done without infringing on the free will he gave his creations.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
See last comment
Ergo,
3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
If you misunderstand the concept that God created man with free will and will not infringe on it then it would be easy to draw this false conclusion. Using the same erroneous logic you could assert:
1. Laws are made to prevent crime.
2. Criminals exist
Therefore laws do not exist.
or:
1. If someone owned Fort Knox they would be rich.
2. Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Ergo,
3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
This would be known as affirming the consequent.
Your little tap dance might be good for comic relief
This is an ad-hominem attack, a logical fallacy. I typically do not respond to such comments. Now if you wish to conduct yourself in a civil manner I would be more than happy to rebut you.
Christianity was but a means to an end...a means that men like Jakob Wilhelm Hauer planed on gradually replacing. It started in 1920 with the start of Positive Christianity to express a "world view which was Christian, non-confessional, vigorously opposed to the spirit of Jewish materialism, and oriented to the principle of voluntary association of those with a common racial-ethnic background"
Sound familiar? It should...
Fast forward 13 years:
Positive Christianity continues to become warped to be more fascist friendly. The Bible gets thrown out of churches and is replaced by a modified combination of Hindu and German literature as their gospel. This really isn't surprising as the swastika itself Hindu in origin which was used to evoke 'shakti' which is the sacred symbol of auspiciousness. Anyway, I digress, further plans were underway to replace Christian ceremonies like baptism and communion with Pagan like equivalents. Ultimately their goal was to slowly subvert Christianity until it was no longer Christianity but a faith with the fatherland as their god; a perfect fascist nation.
The person who made this video may have known where to look for these events however if you take it out of context it would certainly make God look bad. Now why would God order his people to do such things?
Did the narrator bother to mention how the condemned had turn their backs on God and starting worshiping the Canaanite deities? Which included Asherah cohort of Baal?
Baal was a rather interesting and detestable Canaanite deity that was a storm and fertility god. During his rituals they would make burnt offerings (including human victims) while his priests would cut themselves to try to get their gods attention.
But wait! It's gets better (or worse), Baal is also associated with the Canaanite deity Moloch who was represented as a bronze statute with the head of a bull. The inside of Moloch's statue was hollow so a fire could be built, children were placed in his hands which were in turned raised dumping the poor children into his mouth as if Moloch were eating them...in turn they could be burned alive inside the statue.
Oh, BTW Baal has a couple of other names he is known by: Beelzebub, or Baalzebub, one of the fallen angels of Satan.
There is a good reason why God said not to have any other gods before him...
1. God is Omnibenevolent (God is all good or perfectly good)*: Yes
2. God is Omnipotent (God is all powerful): To my knowledge
3. God is Omniscient (God is all knowing): To my knowledge
_________________________________
4. Evil exists: Most certainly
If god is all good, how or why does evil exist?
Man was created without knowledge of sin, after eating from the tree he gained knowledge of good and evil. With mans free will he could then choose to commit acts of good or evil.
If god is all good and powerful, why does god not stop evil?
God created man with free will, it is mans choice. We all have the ability to refrain from evil acts.
If god is all knowing why does he allow evil to happen? or why does god create evil beings.
How does being all knowing have anything to do with stopping evil?/God does not create evil beings, he creates beings of free will that have a choice to do good or evil deeds.
do you challenge the fact that evil exists? or are the things that we (society) consider evil, not really evil?
Depends on which society...some societies moral standpoints may differ greatly at times so this is a very vague/subjective point.
Afghanistan
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Bhutan
Brunei
Chiapas
China
Colombia
Comoros
Cuba
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gaza and the West Bank
India:
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mauritania
Mindanao (Philippines)
Morocco
Myanmar
Nepal
Nigeria
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan
Tibet
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Yep a very small pocket of 52 Nations where about 160,000 Christians are killed each year simply for refusing to denounce their faith.
By executing over 100k of them and throwing the rest they could find in the gulags to rot. Then there would be only atheists in their society, can't have a nation of people the state can control if they answer to a higher power. The only ones who were spared were the ones who went into hiding. Stalin wasn't looking for a ratio...he wanted them gone.
How does North Korea's government run? Those Christian morals really help support those forced labor camps which produce almost 80% of their exports...wait religion is illegal there and will land you in one of said camps. Their beloved leader is the closest thing to God they are allowed to know; however they must be denied any other religion.
Maybe those monsters just felt that atheists were easier to control...you know, without those morals in their way. Without the Russian Orthodox Christian Church the Soviet state was the only entity left to tell them what was right or wrong.
P.S.
I know what the bill is about that is why I stated a few days ago that a moment of silence at the beginning of the day is enough.
You really are an abrasive person...then again based on my initial interactions your resorting to insulting and labels really doesn't surprise me. I 'm done speaking with you until you can learn how to conduct yourself in a debate.
Also I love how you presume to know how I spend my time. You know I should use my skills as an RN to volunteer at clinics, or help out at places such as the Red Cross, my local domestic violence shelter, food pantry, fire department, or Mission. Oh wait I already do those things...with my friends. But I'm sure you already knew that.
Stalin's purging. Mass persecution of Russian Orthodox Christians, over 100,000 executed, the rest that were caught were sent to rot in labor camps because they believed that anyone who believed in God was backwards...so they removed them from society.
"It probably didn't happen like that..."
We really don't know how it happened since humanity never observed it. Now if science is supposed to be knowledge gained through observation and study? If we can't observe it then we are left speculating. I think the search for the origin of life should be approached with a blank slate...people need to stop trying to fit the round peg in the square hole. Instead of worrying about how to make things fit into the hole that is evolution you should be looking for the hole it does fit in regardless of where it takes you.
First of all I would suggest not using Wikipedia as a reference...anyone can post anything on there and it is not peer reviewed.
Secondly we are still seeing species reproducing after their kind...you see variations of species; big dogs, small dogs, furry dogs, furless dogs...but they are still dogs. Mosquitoes are still producing mosquitoes,fish are still producing fish, and flies are still producing flies.
Lastly I don't believe my last question was answered regarding a selective pressure that would cause an asexual organism to reproduce sexually...if it were to happen what are the odds that a male and female of that species to be produced and manage to find each other.
My biggest issues with evolution are:
1. Why haven't we found any fossils of transitional life forms; if Darwin was correct we should be able to find many examples of this?
2. Why have we not been able to observe one species becoming another?
3. If we all came from a common ancestor, most likely from a single cell organism (I don't see the claim of abiogenesis producing a mammal or anything that complex); at what point did life forms change from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? Additionally what selective pressures would cause such a thing?
Regarding the question of "why does God allow evil to happen?":
It's not that God allows Evil to happen, evil is the darkness and God is the light...the only time you have darkness around is in the absence of light. Where you have no God and no influence or actions of what is right...the only thing you have left is the darkness.
According to a recent study swearing does increase stress. This would certainly lend some credibility to swearing being related to violence; for instance if someone did something bad to you I would have to certainly say your stress level would play a major factor in the decision to tell them off, walk a way, or hurt them.
"Public prayer isn't about god, it's about people who want attention and to show everyone else how holy they are."
Public prayer is praying in public, when the churches in my area host Jesus Fest each summer we are lead in public prayer at the start and close of the festival which is in a public place. Leading your friends in prayer prior to hitting the books at Eat N Park is public prayer. When people like Toby Mac leads a crowd of over a thousand people in prayer at a concert is public prayer...as I said it is about fellowship, worshiping God together, not what you assert it to be.
That is a rather unfounded assumption...people who do not pray only in privacy may also do so in fellowship with those of similar beliefs. My wife and I say grace regardless if we are at our own table or at a restaurant. My Muslim friends pray at all their appointed times because of the tennants of their faith...not because they want to "show off" as you assert.
I think moments of silence are sufficient for this. If you are a theist you can pray to whatever deity you believe in, otherwise you may simply have time to read, reflect, etc. This is a better way to respect the personal beliefs of each student.
This theory has been around since the mid 1800s and has been brought up, quashed, and brought up again despite the fact that scholars have been able to prove it false again and again. This begs the question as to why, why do certain individuals/groups continuously try to push this nonsense out into public eye? I think the answer is simply that this is a desperate ploy to attempt to discredit the source of Christianity. The most Christianity's opponents have been able to speak against it is by simple ridicule but as long as they would continue to admit the existence of Jesus of Nazareth the harder it is for them to dispute his claim to divinity...so they tried to take a short cut and make it appear that he never existed.
The downfall of these Christ mythers is that they have to have a really good poker face and hope, or dare I say pray, that nobody tries to check their information sources and simply accepts their word as truth regardless of how far fetched it seems.
Lastly we have Krishna, I thought finding a copy of the Vedas might be hard but it turns out that it was quite simple:
1. Born of a Virgin on December 25
Since, according to legend, Krishna had seven older siblings, it's unlikely his mother, Devaki, was a virgin (and there's no tradition saying she was). According to Krisna World, Krishna was born on the "8th day of the dark half of the month of Sravana. This corresponds to July 19th 3228 BC." I've seen other sites say he was born in August. Skeptic Acharya S makes the claim that Krishna was born of a virgin in the book "The Christ Conspiracy", but her footnotes for this merely say that "The orthodox legend of Krishna is that he was born of a married woman, Devaki; but like Maya, Buddha's mother, she was considered to have had a miraculous conception." How does having a miraculous conception equate to her being a virgin?
Manali says "The reason this gets mentioned as a point of similarity, I guess, is not to point that mothers in both cases were a virgin. And its not said anywhere that Devaki the mother of Krishna was a virgin. I think the point of similarity is that like Jesus, Krishna was not Devaki's child, but son of god, whom she conceived miraculously."
I agree that their both being conceived miraculously is a point of similarity, but the Christ-myther claim of Krishna being "born of a virgin on December 25" is still not true on either point.
2. His human father was a carpenter
No, his human father (his only father, for that matter) was a man named Vasuveda. I have found no sources suggesting that he was a carpenter. I even did internet searches on the combination of "Vasuveda" and "Carpenter" in Google, Yahoo and Infoseek, and got no hits except for articles written about Krishna by people whose last names were 'Carpenter'. In fact, he was most likely a dairy farmer.
3. Father was off paying taxes when Krishna was born
No, his father, Vasuveda, was in prison with his mother when Krishna was born.
4. Birth was signaled by a star in the East
I've found no mention of this in any Krishna story.
5. Birth was attended by angels and shepherds, was presented with spices
I found this site, written by a follower of Krishna, which gives the story of the birth of Krishna, and even makes some general comparisons between Krishna and Jesus (that they were both born of a woman, born in this world and were 'God-on-Earth'), yet it mentions nothing about angels, shepherds, or spices. I haven't found such comparisons anywhere else, either. Manali points out that Krishna was visited by cowherds after his birth, since his family was in the dairy business.
6. A ruling tyrant ordered the slaughtering of thousands of infants upon hearing of Krishna's birth
While there is a parallel here, it's not the one the critics claim. Devaki's brother, Kansa, was told by a voice from Heaven that Devaki's 8th child would kill him. So he put Devaki and Vasuveda in a cell, so that he would be able to kill their children as they were born. Krishna is freed from prison through divine intervention, and Devaki tries to track him down. According to Manali, "after Kansa failed to kill Krishna, and came to know that the baby has been born and is living somewhere, he called upon his army to search the entire city of Mathura and its suburbs, to find and kill all the infants born in the same period as Krishna. Thus he ended up killing several infants, and there are several stories of how miraculously Krishna as a baby escaped the killings." So it was "several" infants, not thousands. Also, the number of infants killed by Herod when he found out about Jesus couldn't have been much more than about twenty according to most scholars, so it wasn't "thousands" there, either. So replace "thousands of" with "several" in the claim, and there is a parallel. However, the earliest version of this story in the Krishna tradition probably dates from the 4th to 6th century A.D., well after the Jesus story had been in circulation. Some date the Krishna story as early as 2nd century A.D., but even this is after the Gospel accounts were written.
7. Was anointed with oil on the head by a woman he healed
I can't find any such incident in any version of the Krishna story.
8. Was depicted as having his foot on the head of a snake
Again, this cannot be found in any version of the story.
9. Worked miracles: raised the dead, healed lepers, healed the deaf, healed the blind
He worked miracles, but I have yet to find any references to his raising the dead, or healing lepers, the deaf or the blind. Acharya S has no footnotes for this claim, so apparently she can't find the references, either.
10. Taught in parables
One of the Hindu followers who responded says he knows the Krishna story very well, and he says that Krishna did not use parables.
11. Krishna lived poor and loved the poor
The two Hindu followers who responded to this page disagree slightly on this. The first one said that "Krishna never lived as a poor person. The Yadav Caste (of which Krishna was a member) are dairy farmers, and, since milk is an important commodity, they have always been quite wealthy by Indian standards". The second responder, Manali, says that "Krishna did live poor during parts of his childhood, when he was under the care of foster parents. When Kansa's reign ended and he was welcomed back into the royal family, he never lived poor again."
But when we say that Jesus "lived poor", we're talking about his entire life, childhood and adulthood, so this isn't a comparison. Besides that, many people throughout history have lived poor and loved the poor, it's not hard to believe that Krishna and/or Jesus may have been among them.
12. Castigated the clergy and charged them with hypocrisy and ambition.
Again, not found in any version.
13. Was transfigured in front of his disciples
Again, not found in any version
14. Gave his disciples the ability to work miracles
Ditto.
15. Krishna's path was "strewn with branches"
Ditto.
16. Some traditions held that he was crucified between two thieves
Critics claim this, but never back it up. The only method of demise that I can find is his being shot in the foot by a hunter's arrow, and then either died or disappeared. If anyone out there can give me an example of a tradition in which he is crucified, please let me know. Acharya S's footnote on this one makes claims about other mythological figures being crucified, but makes no mention of Krishna being crucified.
The forementioned Jacolliot does make the claim of Krishna being affixed to a tree with arrows after he was killed, but doesn't mention anything about two thieves, and since Krishna was already dead and no crucifix was involved, this was hardly a crucifixion. And no one has ever been able to back up Jacolliot's claim, anyway, making it likely fraudulent. And even if not fraudulent, this story postdates Christianity by over 1800 years and was thus certainly influenced by Christianity.
17. Was killed around 30 yrs old and the sun darkened at his death
According to tradition, Krishna was 125 when he died. Only off by 95 years! And there's nothing about the sun darkening at his death.
18. Rose from the dead and ascended to heaven
The closest parallel comes in some later versions in which Krishna's body turned into a log-like image which floated around the East coast of India, finally ending up in a temple in the town of Puri. But he neither rose from the dead or ascended to Heaven.
19. Was depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his feet.
Only in post-Christian times.
20. Was called: Shepherd of God, Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin-Bearer, Liberator, and Universal Word
He was called the "Shepherd God" (though not "Shepherd OF God"), only because, unlike Jesus, he actually WAS a shepherd. Jesus was a shepherd only metaphorically. I cannot find any record of the other names.
21. Was deemed: Our Lord and Savior and Son of God, who came to earth to die for the salvation of man
He was never referred to by these titles.
22. Was the second person of a trinity
Sort of. The first Hindu follower who responded to this site states, "That Krishna is an avtar of Vishnu would make him the second god of the Hindu threesome". However, he also acknowledges that the form of the threesome has changed over the years, and besides that, "The Hindu threesome cannot be equated even remotely with the Christian trinity." The Hindu trinity is three separate beings, not the three-in-one of the Christian trinity.
23. Was called: Jezeus/Jeseus by his disciples
The source for this appears to be the forementioned Jacolliot, and thus postdates Christianity. Besides that, remember that Jesus' Hebrew name was Yeshua. Jesus is only the English pronunciation. So even if true, this one is essentially meaningless.
24. Krishna will return to judge the dead and will do battle with the "Prince of Evil." The Earth will be desolated.
This is another claim originating with Jacolliot and cannot be dated to earlier than the 19th century. Nor is it backed up by any evidence besides Jacolliot's claim.
Manali pointed me to these two passages in the "Bhagvad Gita":
"whenever there is a fall of sustenance; when it goes down, the righteousness falls off, to kill, to destroy these horrible negative forces: to save and sustain the saints, I come in every age in human form."
"To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium."
Manali says that Krishna is born into a new body in order to return (reincarnation), so this does not compare to Jesus, who is said to be returning in the same body He had in the 1st century.
What about the supposed parallels between Jesus and Dionysus?
1. Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25th and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
Actually, his birth was always celebrated on January 6th. Also, his mother, Semele, was impregnanted sexually by Zeus. He was never referred to as the "Holy Child" or placed in a manger in any version of the story. See Diodorus Siculus: Library Of History: Zeus And Semele
2. His birth was announced with a heavenly display and celestial music.
I can find no reference to either, and there is no "celestial music" in the Jesus story.
3. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles.
This is true. However, this phrase loses any similarities with Jesus when we deal with the specifics of what Dionysus did. Jesus traveled in a limited area, while Dionysus supposedly traveled to most of the known world (including Greece, Persia and Arabia). Jesus' miracles were healings and such - all positive miracles. Dionysus' miracles were judgments against those who defied him.
4. He "rode in a triumphal procession on an ass" and "is often pictured astride a donkey, which carries him to meet his passion" a scene re-enacted with crowds "shout[ing] the praises of Dionysus and wav[ing] bundles of branches."
This claim mixes two things, one semi-valid, one invalid. Dionysus was dipicted riding a donkey while a crowd waved ivy branches - the typical homecoming for any royal figure. The crowd welcoming Jesus to Jerusalem were imitating this sort of homecoming, though using the traditional palm branches of Israel. So while this could be called a sort of imitation, it's an imitation committed by the people in the story itself, not by any writer, and had nothing to do with Dionysus in particular. The latter quotes come from the book "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy. Their only reference is to a depiction of a scene from Orphic eschatology which, oddly, has nothing to do with Dionysus.
5. He was a sacred king killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.
There exists an unofficial story (that is, not part of the general understanding of the Dionysus story) in which he is, as an infant, attacked by Titans who eat everything but his heart. Zeus destroys the Titans, and restores Dionysus from the remaining heart. Who would call the Jesus story a 'copycat' of that story? Taking this 'similarity' apart, yes, Dionysus was killed. His actual body was eaten, but since Jesus' body was not (the eating of Jesus' body is a metaphorical thing), this is not a comparison. Also, Dionysus wasn't eaten in any sort of ritual for fecundity or purification. In fact, the eating of Dionysus is clearly a bad thing (unlike the eating of Jesus' body) and is punished by death. Also, he wasn't a sacred king. The king was Zeus, not Dionysus.
6. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25th.
Nowhere is the date of March 25th given in any Dionysus story. The date of his "resurrection" after his murder by the Titans is given as November 8th (and as shown in the above answer, this story is hardly similar to the story of Jesus' resurrection and is an unofficial story anyways). There is an ancient reference to Dionysus being "a god who renews himself and returns every year rejuvenated", but this doesn't involve death. Besides that, Jesus didn't rise from the dead on March 25th either. While an exact date is not given, most scholars believe that His crucifixion happened no earlier than March 28th, making His resurrection no earlier than March 30th.
7. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.
Dionysus was indeed "the God of the Vine". However, Jesus wasn't.
The earliest possible reference to Dionysus turning water into wine was by Achilles Tatius in the Greek Romance, "The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon" which was written in the 2nd century A.D. It mentions a Tyranian myth about Dionysus introducing wine to the world, with Dionysus calling it "the water of summer" and saying "This is the water, this is the spring". It's not clear whether this a real Tyranian myth being mentioned here (in which case it may be pre-Christian) or just something Tatius was inventing for the purposes of this story. Either way, Dionysus is not actually turning water into wine, but simply calling the wine a type of water. And we cannot reliably date this myth to any earlier than the second century A.D.
8. He was called "King of Kings" and "God of Gods."
Nope. These would be odd titles to give Dionysus, his being the son of Zeus, who is the main God in the Greek religion. The titles would only fit Zeus himself, and even he was never referred to by either of these titles.
9. He was considered the "only Begotten Son," "Savior," "Redeemer," "Sin Bearer," "Anointed One," and the "Alpha and Omega", and "Lord God of God born"
Of these, Dionysus is only referred to as 'savior'. And in the context in which he is referred to 'savior', he is saving people from the wrath of Pentheus, not from sin or eternal damnation. So even this is hardly a comparison to Jesus.
10. He was identified with the Ram or Lamb.
In one version, he is born with horns on his head like that of a ram. That's the only mention of a ram in any Dionysus literature, and doesn't compare to Jesus' story at all.
11. His sacrificial title of "Dendrites" or "Young Man of the Tree" intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.
This was no a 'sacrificial' title in any sense. He was simply called 'Young Man of the Tree'. How does that suggest he was hung on a tree or crucified?
12. At his trial, Dionysus is described by Freke and Gandy as "a quiet stranger with long hair and a beard who brings a new religion."
Dionysus was hardly quiet before King Pentheus, but engaged in quite a bit of dialogue with him. As for "long hair and a beard", most men wore both in those days. In fact, the Bible says nothing about Jesus having long hair or a beard. We only assume He did because they were common for middle-eastern Jews in those days.
13. He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism.
Nope. The followers of Dionysus never claimed to be 'born again' and their 'baptism' had to do with waving a fan above their heads, not submersing them in water.
14. His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.
This is not true of any version of the Dionysus story.
I had to go to a few resources for this all of which are pre-Christian dating anywhere from 2nd to 7th century BCE.
http://www.theoi.com/Text/
http://www.theoi.com/Text/
Let's explore the alleged parallels between Jesus and Attis:
1. Attis was born on December 25th of the Virgin Nana.
While many gods have their birth dates celebrated on December 25th (including Jesus, though this date is not ascribed to his birth in any biblical writing), Attis’ birthday has never been celebrated on December 25th. While Attis was conceived non-sexually, no texts make the claim that Nana was a virgin.
2. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.
Attis was not a savior and was never recognized as one. There are various versions of how he died. In most of them, he commits suicide by emasculating himself under a tree. Even in the ones in which he is slain (in one version Zeus sends a boar to kill him, in another a king rapes and murders Attis), it's not for the salvation of mankind in any sense.
3. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.
His followers had a ceremony in which they ate bread and drank either wine or milk, but neither was recognized as being symbolic in any way of Attis’ body.
4. His priests were "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven."
They were eunichs, but nowhere does it state that they emasculated themselves “for the kingdom of heaven”.
5. He was both the Divine Son and the Father.
Actually, in the most common version of the story, Attis was the grandson of Zeus. His father was an androgynous creature named Agdistis who was disliked by the gods, including his father Zeus. In other versions, Attis had human parents. Attis’ name appears to mean ‘father’ and he was a consort of Cybele, the mother goddess. But Attis had no children and was never recognized as any sort of symbolic father figure. So other than his name meaning father (which is of no parallel to Jesus), there's nothing to this claim other than his being a descendent of a god.
6. On "Black Friday," he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.
Attis died under a tree, and shed blood which made flowers. Of course, the 'tree' Jesus died on was a crucifix, not an actual tree. There is no reference anywhere to Attis dying on a Friday (of any color), being crucified, or redeeming the Earth.
7. He descended into the underworld.
That he did. But again, this was almost certainly influenced by Christian writings.
8. After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25th (as tradition held of Jesus) as the "Most High God."
There is no reference to Attis being resurrected. In one version, Agdistis (Attis’ father) asks Zeus to resurrect Attis, but Zeus merely makes it so that Attis’ finger moves continuously and his body remains uncorrupted. Attis does not come back to life in this, or any, version of the story. Also, this story dates to 150 A.D. at the earliest.
9. Doane is recorded as saying that Attis was represented as a "a man tied to a tree, at the foot of which was a lamb, and, without doubt also as a man nailed to a tree..."
Doane said no such thing. He did record a story in which an unnamed Phrygian flute player is tied to a tree after losing a fluting contest and is flayed alive. But the flute player was not Attis, there was no lamb in the story, and he wasn’t nailed to the tree. Note that the story of the flute player resembles the story of Marsyas, another figure falsely compared to Jesus.
10. Jackson is reported as saying that on March 22nd, a pine tree was felled and "an effigy of the god was affixed to it, thus being slain and hung on a tree..." Later the priests are supposed to have found Attis' grave empty.
First of all, Jackson reported this as happening in 354 A.D., over 3 centuries after Jesus’ death. And this was representative of Attis’ death under the tree (they affixed it only so that they could carry the tree without the effigy being left behind). And Jackson reported nothing about finding Attis’ grave empty
Courtesy of the OVID, METAMORPHOSES (written well before Christianity)
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel
This is old testament and authored 7th century BCE
In the new testament you have:
Matthew 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.
Luke 1:26Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28Having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, you highly favored one! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women!”
29But when she saw him, she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered what kind of salutation this might be. 30The angel said to her, “Don’t be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and will call his name ‘Jesus.’ 32He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father, David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. There will be no end to his Kingdom.”
34Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?”
35The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.
When I see bull crap information I call it. If someone chooses to bring unsubstantiated claims to the table of a debate it's going to get voted down.
Same goes for ad hominem attacks which certainly shows a weak argument when you have no recourse but to attack your opponent rather than attempt to rebut them.
I got bored and looked at the wiki entry:
Self-taught amateur Egyptologist Gerald Massey argued that the deity of Horus and Jesus shared identical mythological origins in his 1907 book Ancient Egypt, the light of the world.[13] His views have been repeated by theologian and Toronto Star columnist Tom Harpur, author Acharya S, and political comedian Bill Maher.[14][15][16] Theologian W. Ward Gasque composed an e-mail to twenty leading Egyptologists, including Professor Emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool Kenneth Kitchen, and Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto Ron Leprohan. The e-mail detailed the comparisons alleged by Massey which had been repeated by Harpur. The scholars were unanimous in dismissing any similarities suggested by Massey, and one Egyptologist criticized the comparison as "fringe nonsense."
I'd have to agree with the scholars.
There is something else you may wish to consider: During the Roman persecution of Christianity Christians chose to go to martyrs deaths rather than renounce their faith. They choose to die for what they knew was right, not for a sincere belief that they could be wrong about.
You can't say state factually that God does not exist. In order to do so you must be able to see everything regarding distance/magnification (from the universe all at once all the way down to a pinpoint position and subatomic particles), you must also be able to see in every spectrum, detect all types of energy, and be all knowing to even know what to look for.
If you were able to do all of this then either you have some crazy tech from the future or you are in fact yourself a deity.
You are certainly entitled to believe that God does not exist however, but you don't know it for a fact.
His sister [Isis] hath protected him, and hath repulsed the fiends, and turned aside calamities (of
evil). She uttered the spell with the magical power of her mouth. Her tongue was perfect, and it
never halted at a word. Beneficent in command and word was Isis, the woman of magical spells,
the advocate of her brother. She sought him untiringly, she wandered round and round about this
earth in sorrow, and she alighted not without finding him. She made light with her feathers, she
created air with her wings, and she uttered the death wail for her brother. She raised up the
inactive members of whose heart was still, she drew from him his essence, she made an heir,
she reared the child in loneliness, and the place where he was not known, and he grew in
strength and stature, and his hand was mighty in the House of Keb. The Company of the Gods
rejoiced, rejoiced, at the coming of Horus, the son of Osiris, whose heart was firm, the
triumphant, the son of Isis, the heir of Osiris."
Page 2 under the Hymn to Osiris
First of all I don't read anything on wikipedia. You can list anything on there and they will accept it, none of it is peer reviewed (this is basic stuff you learn in any college course which requires you to write research papers)
Second the Vatican church (you know, the Catholics?) ordered the observation of Christ's birth on 12/25 in 3rd century AD. The New Testament never stated anything to that effect, nor was any date given anywhere in the Bible. As this was an order from the Vatican and not an official declaration of Jesus' birth date it once again is irrelevant.
Also it was not a single discrepancy but 8 out of 8 alleged parallels were refuted. You may wish to read my post in the right hand column.
My argument is about the point of this debate: "Has Christianity really "borrowed" most of its beliefs from other ancient religions?" You started with Mithra, I've provided refutation on all points you brought up as well as all points asserted by Ms. Murdock and Mr. Graves. I've also provided references to peer reviewed secular sources including the books in which they deities were based off of.
As I said I don't really look at wikipedia much but it appears you kinda quashed your own Horus claim on this one.
1) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
Okay first; 12/25 is irrelevant.(See above)
Second: Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger
Third: Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the East. Some Christ-mythers claim that the "star in the East" is Sirius, but Sirius is not "in the East" in any sense. No stars can reside exclusively in the East or West, due to the rotation of the Earth.
Fourth:"Meri" (technically "Mr-ee") is the Egyptian word for "beloved" and was apparently applied to Isis prior to Jesus' time, as a title, not as part of her name. But since there were probably thousands of women between Horus' time and Jesus' with a name or title that was a variation on "Mary", there's no real reason to suppose that Jesus' mother was named after Isis in particular. Even if, hypothetically, the Gospel authors themselves fabricated Jesus' mother and decided to name her "Mary", it's far more likely that they named her after other women from around their time than it is that they named her after "Isis-Meri".
Fifth: There were no "three wise men" at Horus' birth, or at Jesus' for that matter. You see the Bible never gives the number of wise men (magi) and they showed up at Jesus' home, not at the manger, probably when Jesus was a year or two old.
...and finally Isis was no virgin when Horus was concieved: Set killed and dismembered Osiris, Isis retrieved all his parts and reassembled them. The only part she couldn't find was his phallus which she crafted herself, reattached, and proceeded to have sex with. This is the most common story for Horus' conception...the other simply said that Isis took her husbands seed into her, not as elaborate but still pretty straight forward.
2) His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").
First of all, there is no parallel between the Egyptian name “Seb” and the Hebrew name “Joseph”, other than the fact that they’re common names. Also, Seb was Osiris’ father, not Horus’.
3) He was of royal descent.
This one’s true! But it's not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendent of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.
4) At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
He never taught in any temple and was never baptized. Also, Jesus didn't 'disappear' in the years between His teaching in the temple and baptism. He worked humbly as a carpenter.
5) Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.
Again, Horus was never baptized. There is no “Anup the Baptizer” in the story. Anup however is also known as Anubis who is the god of embalming and is associated with insence and perfumes, no baptism.
6) He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").
Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers or any of them being named “Anup” or “Aan”
7) He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.
He did perform miracles, but he never exorcised demons or raised his father from the dead. There is a version of the story in which Osiris is resurrected, but it happens prior to Horus' birth. Also, Osiris is never referred to as ‘El-Azarus’ or ‘El-Osiris’ (clearly an attempt to make his name more closely resemble the Bible’s “Lazarus”).
8) Horus walked on water.
No, he did not.
9) His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."
Horus was never referred to as “Iusa” (nor was anyone in Egyptian history - the word does not exist) or “Holy Child”.
10) He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."
Horus never delivered such a sermon, and, as pointed out above, he was never referred to as “Iusa”.
11) Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
No, he was not.
12) He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
Horus was never crucified (crucifixion didn't exist until around 600 BC, long after the stories of Horus). There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.
As for resurrected, this one is at best a "maybe". The source for this claim is the Metternich Stela (aka the Magical Stela), which dates to the 4th century B.C. It describes Horus, while hiding in a marsh with his mother, Isis, being bitten by a poisonous scorpion. Isis cries out for help. In the Budge translation of the stela, it says "In answer to these words Thoth, turning to Isis and Nephthys, bade them to fear not, and to have no anxiety about Horus, "For," said he, "I have come from heaven to heal the child for his mother." He then pointed out that Horus was under protection as the Dweller in his Disk (Aten), the Great Dwarf, the Mighty Ram, the Great Hawk, the Holy Beetle, the Hidden Body, the Divine Bennu, etc., and proceeded to utter the great spell which restored Horus to life." While this translation suggests a resurrection, the problem is that other sources disagree with it, saying that the stela claims that Horus was merely sickened, then cured. Even Budge's translation says that Thoth came to "heal the child", and you don't heal a corpse. The website of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (metmuseum.org), which is the museum where the stela is currently located, says the following about the inscription: "Isis speaks and recounts that while she and Horus were still hiding in the marshes, the child became ill. In her despair, she cried for help to the "Boat of Eternity" (the sun boat in which the god travels over the sky), and the sun disk stopped opposite her and did not move from his place. Thoth was sent from the sun boat to help Isis and cured Horus by reciting a catalogue of spells." (source). Other sources also agree that the Stela says "sickened, then cured" rather than "killed, then resurrected", such as this one.
13) He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God’s Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.
The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.
14) He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.
He was never referred to as “the fisher”, and there are no lamb or lion in any of the stories. Acharya S.'s footnotes on this claim only show an association with fish (which is that Horus WAS a fish, unlike Jesus), with no evidence of his being called 'the fisher' or having any association with a lamb or lion.
15) He came to fulfill the Law.
There was no “law” he was supposed to fulfill.
16) Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."
He was never referred to by either of these titles. "Krst", in Egyptian, means "burial", by the way. It wasn't a title.
17) Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."
No mention of this in Egyptian mythology.
You can find this in the Egyptian Book of the Dead (link provided below)
Look in the right hand column...I refuted the rest of Murdock's claims about Mithra, and just below that you'll find information from the Egyptian book of the dead to refute her claims on Horus as well. Any other deities you wish to bring up?
BTW, lets stick to the topic at hand here, stop trying toss out red herrings.
MITHRA:
Born of a virgin:
Born out of stone which left a cave in its place
Mithra was worshipped in Mithraea, artificially constructed caves that represented his birth-cave. The ceiling looked like the starry sky and at the sides benches where placed for the ritual meals. In the center of the Mithraea was a niche which held a relief of the god, dressed in Phrygian clothing (short tunic and cloak, long trousers and a hat with a curled tip), who kills a bull. The Mithraea were spread all over the Roman empire and some 50 of these caves still exist in Rome today.
On December 25th:
This was a date later added by the Vatican in 3rd century AD, nowhere in the Bible does it mention the birth date of Jesus so this date is irrelevant.
He had 12 disciples:
Nowhere in the ancient texts does it say anything to this effect.
And performed miracles:
None of which are close to what Jesus had done. Just because Stalin and Obama had both lead countries doesn’t mean Obama was based on Stalin.
And upon his death was buried for 3 days
And thus resurrected
Never buried or resurrected, nowhere in the old texts is anything even relative to this claim found.
1.
He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah." Acharya now adds in her latest work the titles creator of the world, God of gods, the mediator, mighty ruler, king of gods, lord of heaven and earth, Sun of Righteousness.
We have several titles here, and yes, though I searched through the works of Mithraic scholars, I found none of these applied to Mithra, other than the role of mediator (not, though, in the sense of a mediator between God and man because of sin, but as a mediator between Zoroaster's good and evil gods; we have seen the "sun" identification, but never that title) -- not even the new ones were ever listed by the Mithraic scholars.
There is a reference to a "Logos" that was taught to the Mithraic initiates MS.206, but let it be remembered that "logos" means "word" and goes back earlier in Judaism to Philo -- Christians borrowed the idea from Philo, perhaps, or from the general background of the word, but not from Mithraism.
His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
We'll consider these two together. The Iranian Mithra had a few special celebrations: a festival on October 8; another on September 12-16, and a "cattle-pairing" festival on October 12-16 [MS.59]. But as for an Easter festival, I have seen only that there was a festival at the spring equinox -- and it was one of just four, one for each season.
In terms of Sunday being a sacred day, this is correct [Cum.MM, 190-1], but it only appears in Roman Mithraism, and the argument here is apparently assuming, like Cumont, that what held true for Roman Mithraism also held true for the Iranian version -- but there is no evidence for this. If any borrowing occurred (it probably didn't), it was the other way around.
So then, do you concede on the alleged Jesus/Mithras parallel?
Btw...the indoctrinated comment is an ad hominem attack. Why don't we stick to the topic of these alleged parallels to Jesus and the other deities?
So why is it you choose to attack me instead of supporting your argument? I've cited several sources to refute the first part of your claim yet you have yet to cite anything. I'm sorry but "you're a doo doo head" is not a valid argument in a debate.
According to pantheon.org "Much of the information about Persian (old-iranian) gods can be found in the religious texts from Zarathustra such as the Avesta, and in later sources as the Bundahishn and the Denkard. The original Avesta dates back to 1400-1200 BCE but it was destroyed by Alexander the Great when he invaded Persia. The current version dates from the 13th or 14th century, and contains only a fragment of the original text."
Patheon.org also says this about Mithra:
"An old-Iranian god of light, contracts and friendship. He also maintains the cosmic order. Sometimes mentioned as the son of Ahura Mazda, he assists him in his struggle against the forces of evil, represented by Angra Mainyu. Mithra was born from a rock (or a cave). He fought with the sun and managed to capture the divine bull and slayed it before he ascended to heaven. From the blood of the bull came forth all the plants and animals beneficial to humanity."
You can read the rest of it here if you wish.
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/
According to Hastings, Selbie, and Gray (1908) Mithras once again is born out of a rock 873
Hastings, James. Selbie, John. Gray, Herbert. (1908). Encyclopaedia of religion and ethics, volume 1. New York, NY: Charles sribner\'s sons.
I have many secular sources to cite...as I said once we resolve the Mithra/Mithras claim I'll be more than happy to move on to Horus and any other deity Murdock claims Christ was based off of.
I'm just curious how abortion can be legal and at the same time Laci and Connor's law can be enforced. Talk about some conflicting double standards.
There was actually a movie called Zeitgeist and in one half of the movie it made the exact claim as the assertion as the title of this debate. D.M. Murdock was cited 31 times during this movie. Murdock's works were called into question by numerous people, heck a website was even brought up asking for accurate sources to support her claims and offering a reward to anyone who could.
The aforementioned website is linked to this post and the reward is still available.
I would like to address Mithras first since that is the first deity you brought up. Now then, do you have any sources to cite on this virgin birth issue? You have yet to produce evidence to support it while I was able to cite the rock birth from a credible source.
Unless you wish to concede on the Mithras issue, in which case I'll be more than happy to discuss Horus with you.
Have you only used Murdock and Graves to research Mithras?
As for my resources I used Vermaseren, M. J.. (1963). Studia archaeologica. : Brill. I doubt it is a Christian mis-information site. I prefer to use ebscohost to retrieve peer reviewed books.
On page 93 he also states "Neither in the Western world did the authors conceive Mithras as a child procreated by a father or born from a woman or even from a virgin"
He also adds that the depiction of Mirthras birth from a stone was "not a description of a real birth, but his manifestation of the deity as the giver of light, pouring forth his largess every morning anew and, besides, the feminine name of the mountain were apt to lead to the conception of the brith of the god from a Mother-Goddess. Yet, the idea of Mithras as a son of Ahura-Mazda, the Knowing Lord, or as born naturally from a woman, though attested by some late Armenian writers, did not become traditional. Mithras' birth remained an obscure affair: the principal thing was that he existed and helped anyone who lived in true obedience to his laws."
