Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
It is far more speculative to conclude that there could not have been a guy called Jesus.

Yep.

We have about as much evidence that Socrates existed, and no one really questions that. Of course, no one tries to claim that Socrates was the son of Zeus, so that may be part of it.

We have proof that plenty of people existed, some of whom claimed divine forbears. However, historians of the period in that region did make note of Christ, though at the time he was mentioned once in a three page part of the 20 volume Antiquitates Judaicae, which was specifically about Judea...

BaronIveagh wrote:
We have proof that plenty of people existed, some of whom claimed divine forbears. However, historians of the period in that region did make note of Christ, though at the time he was mentioned once in a three page part of the 20 volume Antiquitates Judaicae, which was specifically about Judea...

I was speculating as to why Jesus' existence, in particular, is so often disputed when compared to other figures with similar levels of evidence establishing theirs.

BaronIveagh wrote:We have proof that plenty of people existed, some of whom claimed divine forbears. However, historians of the period in that region did make note of Christ, though at the time he was mentioned once in a three page part of the 20 volume Antiquitates Judaicae, which was specifically about Judea...

But it still isn't a first hand account, as it was written a hundred years after the death of Jesus. Nor do we have a first hand copy of this book, all we have a copies taken by Christian scholars.

It's fair to say we don't have a direct, first hand evidence of Jesus, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a guy called Jesus who led a small group of followers and gave subversive speaches about religion, because there were loads of folk doing exactly that at the time, odds are one of them was called Jesus and that he was crucified for it.

sebster wrote:
But it still isn't a first hand account, as it was written a hundred years after the death of Jesus. Nor do we have a first hand copy of this book, all we have a copies taken by Christian scholars.

It's fair to say we don't have a direct, first hand evidence of Jesus, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a guy called Jesus who led a small group of followers and gave subversive speaches about religion, because there were loads of folk doing exactly that at the time, odds are one of them was called Jesus and that he was crucified for it.

Well, no, the only first hand accounts we have are the gospel of Mark. Mark had met Jesus, but had not been present for the entire ministry, and so interviewed Peter some time later to fill in the blanks. This book is thought to have been written before 54 AD, as it's refereed to by Paul in Corinthians.

I hate to say it, but finding period documents even well preserved ones is rather hit or miss. Even books that did see a lot of copying at the time have not come down to us. The church, during the middle ages, made a very firm point to obliterate a whole lot of stuff (Sappho of Lesbos, anyone?). It was, after all the Church that arraigned for the final destruction of both the Library and Museum of Alexandria.

Those documents that we find secreted away in desert caches and graveyards and peat bogs tend to be rather fragmentary:



A part of the so-called Gospel of Mary as an example. Even if you have all the pieces, reassembling them is a time consuming process.

BaronIveagh wrote:Well, no, the only first hand accounts we have are the gospel of Mark.

True

I should have said 'we have no independant, first hand accounts' or something like that.

I hate to say it, but finding period documents even well preserved ones is rather hit or miss.

Absolutely. Survival of evidence of any kind through the ages is very hit or miss, and there's whole periods where we have a scratchy idea about the identities of kings, let alone wandering rabbis.

Well if you break down the parallels from Horus and Jesus, it is quite astonishing. They have these things in common:

* immaculate conception from a virgin mother
* Father was God (Osiris or Yehova ((Holy Spirit)) )
* Mother's names were Mary
* Father's name was Joseph
* Birth heralded by a star
* Born during Winter solstice
* Birth witnessed by Shepherds and wise men
* Both lack any data between the ages of 13 and 30
* Both had 12 disciples
* both performed miracles
* healed the sick
* both were baptized at age of 30 and their baptizer was executed
* both were killed and resurrected 3 days later
* both were killed by crucifixion


The parallels are pretty uncanny. To say they had a little in common is an understatement. In reality, they are the exact same person with the same mythos. Since the story of Jesus is pretty much a carbon copy of Horus, I can find it harder to believe he existed. Furthermore, the lack in evidence from historians, philosophers and scholars never ever wrote about a man who had such an impact just as reassuring as his story was made up. Now, I think there could have been a guy named Jesus, well technically I think Jesus was a title not a name, but was it the Jesus from the Bible? I am going to say, most likely it was not.

Crom wrote:Well if you break down the parallels from Horus and Jesus, it is quite astonishing. They have these things in common:

* immaculate conception from a virgin mother
* Father was God (Osiris or Yehova ((Holy Spirit)) )
* Mother's names were Mary
* Father's name was Joseph
* Birth heralded by a star
* Born during Winter solstice
* Birth witnessed by Shepherds and wise men
* Both lack any data between the ages of 13 and 30
* Both had 12 disciples
* both performed miracles
* healed the sick
* both were baptized at age of 30 and their baptizer was executed
* both were killed and resurrected 3 days later
* both were killed by crucifixion

In the original texts that do survive, Jesus

1) Was not born during the winter solstice (was actually in the summer, but changed to help co-opt existing festivals)
2) was not literally the son of God, this is a mistranslation between an Aramaic phrase meaning a righteous person, and the Greek.
3) Number of disciples was unclear (as low as five, as high as 70, depending on the source)
4) Mark does not mention the nativity or the virgin birth. This was added later in Luke and Matthew, both have slightly contradictory versions of events. It's likely that the names were right, however.


In the original texts Osiris (not Horus, this is an error from Massey that gets bandied about a lot) outside of archeological circles, and is dismissed within them.

1) Osiris was not raised from the dead in the same manner as Jesus. He never returned to what we would recognize as 'life'.
2) He was sealed in a box and thrown into the Nile, afterwards his wife found him and used magic to beget him a son. His brother, enraged at being thwarted, chopped him into bits. He was then reassembled and given a proper burial, at which point his spirit went on to it's new 'life' in the afterlife as a god of the underworld.
3) Joseph, taken from the Hebrew, literally comes out as 'he will add' or 'he will increase'. While Osiris was a god of the cycle of rebirth, his name is derived in part, from usr, or 'strength', representing his position as Pharaoh before his death.


Connection to Horus
1) Early Christianity seized on the image of mother and child present in art depicting Isis and Horus and recycled it.
2)Mary, or Meryt in Egyptian of the period, means 'beloved'. Interestingly, the only Mary in the Old testament is Moses sister, who was quite probably named by the Egyptians. Isis is a very different thing altogether.
3) there is no ancient source or period writing that states Horus had 12 followers. This is a modern fiction.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Crom wrote:Well if you break down the parallels from Horus and Jesus, it is quite astonishing. They have these things in common:

* immaculate conception from a virgin mother
* Father was God (Osiris or Yehova ((Holy Spirit)) )
* Mother's names were Mary
* Father's name was Joseph
* Birth heralded by a star
* Born during Winter solstice
* Birth witnessed by Shepherds and wise men
* Both lack any data between the ages of 13 and 30
* Both had 12 disciples
* both performed miracles
* healed the sick
* both were baptized at age of 30 and their baptizer was executed
* both were killed and resurrected 3 days later
* both were killed by crucifixion

In the original texts that do survive, Jesus

1) Was not born during the winter solstice (was actually in the summer, but changed to help co-opt existing festivals)
2) was not literally the son of God, this is a mistranslation between an Aramaic phrase meaning a righteous person, and the Greek.
3) Number of disciples was unclear (as low as five, as high as 70, depending on the source)
4) Mark does not mention the nativity or the virgin birth. This was added later in Luke and Matthew, both have slightly contradictory versions of events. It's likely that the names were right, however.


In the original texts Osiris (not Horus, this is an error from Massey that gets bandied about a lot) outside of archeological circles, and is dismissed within them.

1) Osiris was not raised from the dead in the same manner as Jesus. He never returned to what we would recognize as 'life'.
2) He was sealed in a box and thrown into the Nile, afterwards his wife found him and used magic to beget him a son. His brother, enraged at being thwarted, chopped him into bits. He was then reassembled and given a proper burial, at which point his spirit went on to it's new 'life' in the afterlife as a god of the underworld.
3) Joseph, taken from the Hebrew, literally comes out as 'he will add' or 'he will increase'. While Osiris was a god of the cycle of rebirth, his name is derived in part, from usr, or 'strength', representing his position as Pharaoh before his death.


Connection to Horus
1) Early Christianity seized on the image of mother and child present in art depicting Isis and Horus and recycled it.
2)Mary, or Meryt in Egyptian of the period, means 'beloved'. Interestingly, the only Mary in the Old testament is Moses sister, who was quite probably named by the Egyptians. Isis is a very different thing altogether.
3) there is no ancient source or period writing that states Horus had 12 followers. This is a modern fiction.

A lot of this is debatable, but with in the framework given. It is said that Horus had more followers as well, and so did Jesus, however there is a common ground where each is said to have 12. This of course, conflicts with other studies. No matter how much you want to nitpick it, the parallels are there and in some cases are the exact same. The Church recognizes December 25th at the birth of Christ. However, I won't argue with you that every Christian holiday is a recycled pagan/Norse and/or other religious holiday.

Regardless of how accurate it all may be, since we are discovering it's inaccuracies later on in our lives, it still draws almost near exact parallels. Hell, a lot of the bible is debatable since of course there is conflicting evidence you know, all over the place. Just like there is with some other forms of mythology. The fact we can draw parallels, which in some cases are an exact copy of Horus nearly 5,000 years later in Jesus tells me it is recycled. Even if it turns out to only be 50% true, or whatever, I still think it is obvious.

The Church, which is the authority on a lot of what is to be interpretted from the Bible probably disagrees with a lot of what you posted. Then again, they are an old archaic bunch that think in very unilateral lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My main point is, Horus probably did not exist either and he probably wasn't born on Winter Solstice, and he was probably loosely based off of a person that didn't do the things he did, but rather grew from urban legend to myth.

**edit again**

Another thing is the complete contradictions about Jesus' life. Bethlehem wasn't even a city until years after his death. It makes sense to me that Jews, took ancient Egyptian beliefs and amalgamated them to their own, then later in life a traveling monk from Asia met a jew and they exchanged ideas and thus was the birth of the new testament. Since it has a very Buddhist outlook compared to the old testament. The Egyptians borrowed from the Babylonians and we can even find common stories all the way back in the epic of Gilgamesh.

How hard is it to see that it has all been recycled and a lot of these people probably did not ever exist, and if they did, all information on them is pure urban legend turned into myth over time.

Crom wrote:

A lot of this is debatable, but with in the framework given. It is said that Horus had more followers as well, and so did Jesus, however there is a common ground where each is said to have 12. This of course, conflicts with other studies. No matter how much you want to nitpick it, the parallels are there and in some cases are the exact same. The Church recognizes December 25th at the birth of Christ. However, I won't argue with you that every Christian holiday is a recycled pagan/Norse and/or other religious holiday.

Regardless of how accurate it all may be, since we are discovering it's inaccuracies later on in our lives, it still draws almost near exact parallels. Hell, a lot of the bible is debatable since of course there is conflicting evidence you know, all over the place. Just like there is with some other forms of mythology. The fact we can draw parallels, which in some cases are an exact copy of Horus nearly 5,000 years later in Jesus tells me it is recycled. Even if it turns out to only be 50% true, or whatever, I still think it is obvious.

The Church, which is the authority on a lot of what is to be interpretted from the Bible probably disagrees with a lot of what you posted. Then again, they are an old archaic bunch that think in very unilateral lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My main point is, Horus probably did not exist either and he probably wasn't born on Winter Solstice, and he was probably loosely based off of a person that didn't do the things he did, but rather grew from urban legend to myth.

**edit again**

Another thing is the complete contradictions about Jesus' life. Bethlehem wasn't even a city until years after his death. It makes sense to me that Jews, took ancient Egyptian beliefs and amalgamated them to their own, then later in life a traveling monk from Asia met a jew and they exchanged ideas and thus was the birth of the new testament. Since it has a very Buddhist outlook compared to the old testament. The Egyptians borrowed from the Babylonians and we can even find common stories all the way back in the epic of Gilgamesh.

How hard is it to see that it has all been recycled and a lot of these people probably did not ever exist, and if they did, all information on them is pure urban legend turned into myth over time.

Um, Horus was born a God to two other gods. His claim to fame was he replaced his father and got revenge on Seth by tearing off one of his balls, losing an eye in the process. In no story does he have any disciples. The problem is it's something like a 3% similarity in that his mother got pregnant without sex. Christ didn't go around tearing other deities balls off.

This links between Horus and Christ were originally proposed by this man, Gerald Massey.



He, by the way, wrote quite extensively on other subjects such as spiritualism and further insisted that regardless of things such as dates and facts, that Egypt was the first and most perfect civilization 'And to my fellow-men I must recall
The memory too; that common motherhood" - (Massey, 'Egypt', from A Book of Beginnings, 1882)

Jean-Baptiste Pérès submitted a pamphlet called "Grand Erratum" that showed that Napoleon Bonaparte was a mythological figure, based off Apollo, using the same arguments.

The only reason Massey's work gets dragged up is Tom Harpur and conspiracy theorist D.M. Murdock (aka Acharya S) use it to try and breath life back into what Dunn politely refers to as a "thoroughly dead thesis" in his Death of Jesus.


One must remember too that terms like 'city' and 'town' had much different meanings when there might be only one million people in the entire country. Bethlehem was, however, a large town, having been retaken several times at different points, starting in 1400 bc. It was rebuilt several times, and occupied by the Romans in 100 ad who made a point to build a temple to Adonis on the site of the nativity as an insult to the inhabitants, who were driven out of the city.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Crom wrote:

A lot of this is debatable, but with in the framework given. It is said that Horus had more followers as well, and so did Jesus, however there is a common ground where each is said to have 12. This of course, conflicts with other studies. No matter how much you want to nitpick it, the parallels are there and in some cases are the exact same. The Church recognizes December 25th at the birth of Christ. However, I won't argue with you that every Christian holiday is a recycled pagan/Norse and/or other religious holiday.

Regardless of how accurate it all may be, since we are discovering it's inaccuracies later on in our lives, it still draws almost near exact parallels. Hell, a lot of the bible is debatable since of course there is conflicting evidence you know, all over the place. Just like there is with some other forms of mythology. The fact we can draw parallels, which in some cases are an exact copy of Horus nearly 5,000 years later in Jesus tells me it is recycled. Even if it turns out to only be 50% true, or whatever, I still think it is obvious.

The Church, which is the authority on a lot of what is to be interpretted from the Bible probably disagrees with a lot of what you posted. Then again, they are an old archaic bunch that think in very unilateral lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My main point is, Horus probably did not exist either and he probably wasn't born on Winter Solstice, and he was probably loosely based off of a person that didn't do the things he did, but rather grew from urban legend to myth.

**edit again**

Another thing is the complete contradictions about Jesus' life. Bethlehem wasn't even a city until years after his death. It makes sense to me that Jews, took ancient Egyptian beliefs and amalgamated them to their own, then later in life a traveling monk from Asia met a jew and they exchanged ideas and thus was the birth of the new testament. Since it has a very Buddhist outlook compared to the old testament. The Egyptians borrowed from the Babylonians and we can even find common stories all the way back in the epic of Gilgamesh.

How hard is it to see that it has all been recycled and a lot of these people probably did not ever exist, and if they did, all information on them is pure urban legend turned into myth over time.

Um, Horus was born a God to two other gods. His claim to fame was he replaced his father and got revenge on Seth by tearing off one of his balls, losing an eye in the process. In no story does he have any disciples. The problem is it's something like a 3% similarity in that his mother got pregnant without sex. Christ didn't go around tearing other deities balls off.

This links between Horus and Christ were originally proposed by this man, Gerald Massey.



He, by the way, wrote quite extensively on other subjects such as spiritualism and further insisted that regardless of things such as dates and facts, that Egypt was the first and most perfect civilization 'And to my fellow-men I must recall
The memory too; that common motherhood" - (Massey, 'Egypt', from A Book of Beginnings, 1882)

Jean-Baptiste Pérès submitted a pamphlet called "Grand Erratum" that showed that Napoleon Bonaparte was a mythological figure, based off Apollo, using the same arguments.

The only reason Massey's work gets dragged up is Tom Harpur and conspiracy theorist D.M. Murdock (aka Acharya S) use it to try and breath life back into what Dunn politely refers to as a "thoroughly dead thesis" in his Death of Jesus.


One must remember too that terms like 'city' and 'town' had much different meanings when there might be only one million people in the entire country. Bethlehem was, however, a large town, having been retaken several times at different points, starting in 1400 bc. It was rebuilt several times, and occupied by the Romans in 100 ad who made a point to build a temple to Adonis on the site of the nativity as an insult to the inhabitants, who were driven out of the city.

There are many scholars that draw the same parallels. There are many scholars that say Jesus was born in a cave. There will always be discrepancies in different people's findings, some with bias. You read the copy of Darwin's book that the creationists put out? They handed it out for free and it came with a 50 page preface to the book about how bad of a person Darwin was.

There are many different scholars on ancient religion and while some of these may be a stretch, I would say form what I read the general consensus is the parallels are greater than 3%.

Or you could ya know look at the historical records of census that the Romans did...

Oh wait did that census thing actually happen?

frgsinwntr wrote:Or you could ya know look at the historical records of census that the Romans did...

Oh wait did that census thing actually happen?

Well that brings up my other question. Why is there no mention of Jesus until way after he died, and why are his stories parallels to other religions?

frgsinwntr wrote:Or you could ya know look at the historical records of census that the Romans did...

Oh wait did that census thing actually happen?

According to discovered Egyptian papyri, yes, it did (more then once), however, no copy of the one from Judea for that period appears to have survived the Romans destroying Jerusalem around AD 70, when most of the records were lost. So many records were destroyed that the only evidence we have that Pilate was a real person, for example, are a few inscriptions on public buildings and being mentioned in Tacticus Annals and Philo's Legatio ad Gaium.

One key problem is that during Jesus time, practically anyone who was anyone was declaring themselves to be Gods and the sons of Gods. After all, the Emperor Caligula ruled Rome. And Rome was struggling with Judeaism all acrossed the eastern Empire. initially, Rome viewed Christianity (and, indeed, the Christians themselves shared this view at the time) simply as another Jewish sect.

An Ironic note: The only surviving contemporary histories of Rome under Caligula at this time also mention Jesus or other persons mentioned in the New Testament. Are we to assume that Caligula was also a mythological figure? After all, he himself noted the similarities between his own life and the tale of Castor and Pollux.

Crom wrote:Well that brings up my other question. Why is there no mention of Jesus until way after he died,

Because, as was explained earlier, we have nothing like a complete record of history, and there's nothing remarkable in the story of a rabbi wandering the region giving politically charged sermons.

It would be very odd for us to have anything like

and why are his stories parallels to other religions?

Because things commonly parallel other things. The fact that WWII played out with largely the same factions as WWI doesn't mean WWII didn't really happen.

The similarities with Horus are certainly interesting, and worth thinking on. But they aren't evidence of anything, and they certainly aren't a reason for believers to stop believing.

sebster wrote:
Because, as was explained earlier, we have nothing like a complete record of history, and there's nothing remarkable in the story of a rabbi wandering the region giving politically charged sermons.

It would be very odd for us to have anything like

Yet there are people who made less an impact who we know a lot more about.

Because things commonly parallel other things. The fact that WWII played out with largely the same factions as WWI doesn't mean WWII didn't really happen.

The similarities with Horus are certainly interesting, and worth thinking on. But they aren't evidence of anything, and they certainly aren't a reason for believers to stop believing.

The WWI and WWII analogy don't really fit. Perhaps we are creatures of habit, and that is why we repeat everything. The parallels are there, some are the exact same. We can draw other parallels and common themes from all forms of mythology into Christianity. Which then makes Christianity very unoriginal and very recycled. I mean we all know Christianity stole all it's holidays, why can it not also steal it's mythology? Back when mankind created the religion and wrote the bible they had no idea what the future would bring. They probably all assumed people would still take the book as fact.

My 2 cents, arguing history is pointless because no one was there. You'll believe what you want to believe regardless of proof.

That's a typical young cynic way to put it.

I disagree.

While changing anyone's mind in an online debate is often a fool's errand, that's not to say that no one ever does or that arguing history is pointless. People learn stuff in these discussions all the time, and that may shape their evolving views over time. It certainly has mine.

The same old model of debate is used by pro-religious and creationists. If they cannot disprove something they attack the person who pioneered the science or history. Already proven in this thread, when I brought up the parallels of ancient egyptian religion to that of Christianity. There are plenty of scholars who subscribe to those ideas. Though there is also now publications on such people trying to discredit them, but not as scientists or scholars but as people. So, when Darwin's anniversary of the Origin of Species was about they decided (Christian organization) that they were going to give the book away for free, but with a 50 page preface written by some Christian moron and wanted to attack Darwin. It was a 50 page assault on his personal character, not his scientific findings. They made him out to be a womanizer, a sinner that committed constant debauchery, that he was pro slave ownership, and so forth.

Most of the time these scientists and scholars have no agenda rather than a deeper understanding and when the religious mongers of society cannot disprove them, or even come close to debating them or their subjects they attack them on a personal level. Which in return really just admits defeat in any form of debate.

http://vimeo.com/6513208

The things that are wrong wit this video....

1) Your liberties are written by man and found in the constitution, not anywhere else
2) You can pray in public, in fact, it is your 1st amendment right to do so
3) You can pray in school, open up a bible in school, hell you can have a bible group in school, but religion cannot be taught in schools

So, this is where they fear monger, and talk about a loss of freedom, when in fact no freedom has ever been taken from them. They are not being persecuted, they are not being oppressed, and at the end what do they ask for? Money, yup that is right, they ask for money. Of course, though it is for a good cause.

The problem I have with trying to tie in religion to history, is in fact, there are things in the bible that we know did happen. Empires did fall, certain figures mentioned have historical records and so forth. What I don't like is when anything conflicts that person must've had an agenda, they must have been a horrible rotten down right dirty bastard of a person. A total rogue and deadbeat of society. Instead of using study, logic, reasoning, and building facts to back their case they do things like personal attacks. They love to bring up the fact Darwin apparently cried for Christ on his death bed. Just like every other historian or scientist was crazy, or to their standards an ass of society.

Then they love to bring up how they are being oppressed, but in that video link, Cameron couldn't be any more wrong. You are allowed to pray in public, you can read the bible in public, you can even peacefully assemble in the public. However, religion cannot be taught in public schools via the separation clause. The Christian right uses things like intelligent design to get their agenda back into academia, just like they are trying to debunk evolution by handing out free copies of the Origin of Species with a crappy non scientific 50 page foreword in the book with zero science trying to debunk Darwin.

History can be brought up and discussed, but it is hardly ever taken with serious points.

Crom wrote:The same old model of debate is used by pro-religious and creationists. If they cannot disprove something they attack the person who pioneered the science or history. Already proven in this thread, when I brought up the parallels of ancient egyptian religion to that of Christianity.

You brought up Massey. His work is and has been repeatedly refuted by historians, archaeologists, AND religious scholars.

Let's try logic for a moment: Tacticus, who decries Christianity as a 'most mischievous superstition' in his Annals, goes on to ad, on the spread of Christianity from 'Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular." and writing within a few decades of the Crucifixion, recognizes Jesus as having been a real person, some decades earlier. Given the more or less anti-Christian stance he took, I suspect if Christ was fictional, he would have been quick to pounce on this, having lived at a time when witnesses and records might still be had.

Crom wrote:
There are plenty of scholars who subscribe to those ideas. Though there is also now publications on such people trying to discredit them, but not as scientists or scholars but as people. So, when Darwin's anniversary of the Origin of Species was about they decided (Christian organization) that they were going to give the book away for free, but with a 50 page preface written by some Christian moron and wanted to attack Darwin. It was a 50 page assault on his personal character, not his scientific findings. They made him out to be a womanizer, a sinner that committed constant debauchery, that he was pro slave ownership, and so forth.

Most of the time these scientists and scholars have no agenda rather than a deeper understanding and when the religious mongers of society cannot disprove them, or even come close to debating them or their subjects they attack them on a personal level. Which in return really just admits defeat in any form of debate.

While I can't comment on the 50 page slam of Darwin, as I don't have that edition, I will point out the vicious attacks by the magazine Punch against Richard Owen, one of Darwin's foremost opponents at the time. While I decry slander in general, I would suggest that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. There has been a long history of venom on both sides of the issue, further complicated by the fact that Huxley, Darwin's bulldog, was also the source of the term 'agnosticism'.

Personally, I believe that schools need to stick to facts, or at least political fictions, and there are, in fact, facts that support the idea of evolution. As far as 'intelligent design' goes, I think it's a load of excrement, but the idea that life, like certain crystals, has a self organizing element is, actually, a good theory to explain certain aspects of natural selection, though it is not currently mainstream.

@Baron

I am not a historian or a theist scholar. What I do fine extraordinary about the claims being made and sometimes they do lack citations, however, when I search for any debunking of such claims I find tons of religious gibberish, and petty arguments. They like to argue that the Egyptian word for virgin can also mean young woman, well which is it? Is it virgin, or is it young lady? While I do agree with you, that there are definitely inconsistencies in such claims I still draw parallels. Like for example Horus being a Sun god, is true, that was one of his forms, but he also had many others. So, in some cases it may not be true. Regardless of how accurate each parallel is, you can still draw it out to other mythos, including Christianity. While in some cases the direct parallel may not be applicable, but the theme or concept is. Death and resurrection, immaculate birth miraculous birth, the number of disciples is debatable on both sides, yet they still had them.

I am not set in stone on some of the claims, never was, simply just pointing them out. However, I do think they actually do merit some validity in paralleling with other mythos. Ideas are changed, sometimes slightly, sometimes more so, but still in the end recycled. How many archetypes and parallels can we draw from other mythologies before Christianity? Are they also false?

i need to brush up on Egyptian mythology I did read a bunch of it back in the day but it was never my favorite. I was more of a Greek/Norse student than I was any other mythology. Perhaps I made such claims in haste, but I still stand by the fact that there are parallels and common themes recycled throughout the ages on religion.

Crom wrote:Yet there are people who made less an impact who we know a lot more about.

Yes, but as I've explained several times now his impact came almost entirely after his life. In his lifetime Jesus was very obscure. Societies don't keep track of every wandering preacher just in case a religion might spring up aroudn their life decades and centuries afterwards. Even if they do keep track, there's no certainty of those records surviving until the modern age.

Do you get that now?

The WWI and WWII analogy don't really fit

It was a deliberately loose analogy.

Perhaps we are creatures of habit, and that is why we repeat everything.

And why wouldn't such parallels extend to religion? Hey, given the nature of the coming of a God, why wouldn't it be foretold in earlier myths?

I'm not a Christian. I just think it is important to realise that the presence of similarities in earlier myths doesn't count as evidence that the story couldn't have happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My 2 cents, arguing history is pointless because no one was there. You'll believe what you want to believe regardless of proof.

So that's it? All those scholars attempting to piece together different theories about how things worked, then looking for evidence to support it... that's all just people arguing whatever they want to believe?

Crom wrote:@Baron

I am not a historian or a theist scholar. What I do fine extraordinary about the claims being made and sometimes they do lack citations, however, when I search for any debunking of such claims I find tons of religious gibberish, and petty arguments. They like to argue that the Egyptian word for virgin can also mean young woman, well which is it? Is it virgin, or is it young lady? While I do agree with you, that there are definitely inconsistencies in such claims I still draw parallels. Like for example Horus being a Sun god, is true, that was one of his forms, but he also had many others. So, in some cases it may not be true. Regardless of how accurate each parallel is, you can still draw it out to other mythos, including Christianity. While in some cases the direct parallel may not be applicable, but the theme or concept is. Death and resurrection, immaculate birth miraculous birth, the number of disciples is debatable on both sides, yet they still had them.

It's highly contextual, which one they mean. In the case of Isis, it probably means she got pregnant without having had sex, not that she had never previously had sex. (having had four other children, all minor deities, previous to this) Remember that Isis and Horus were both composite deities, Isis having merged with Hathor, Horus having merged with Ra, due to the very late rise of the cult of Ra during the late dynasties. The problem here is that Hathor was originally Ra's mother, Isis Horus' wife. So to make them interchangeable, Horus became Osiris reborn. However, this did not happen until the Greco-Roman period.

Crom wrote:
I am not set in stone on some of the claims, never was, simply just pointing them out. However, I do think they actually do merit some validity in paralleling with other mythos. Ideas are changed, sometimes slightly, sometimes more so, but still in the end recycled. How many archetypes and parallels can we draw from other mythologies before Christianity? Are they also false?

i need to brush up on Egyptian mythology I did read a bunch of it back in the day but it was never my favorite. I was more of a Greek/Norse student than I was any other mythology. Perhaps I made such claims in haste, but I still stand by the fact that there are parallels and common themes recycled throughout the ages on religion.

You're basically describing Jungian Archetypes. There are a great many themes which recur throughout all belief systems. After all, there are only so many ways to be 'reborn', for example.


An interesting note: you aren't entirely off base with the idea of Egypt influencing Christianity, however, you need to look back further. There has been a theory floating around for a while now that Moses was one of the fleeing Egyptian nobility after the death of Akhenaten, and brought the idea of monotheism to Judea. It really has never gained much traction, but hasn't really been disproved, either.

lol the first one was hilarious

did you make those CTU?

Yeah, boredom lol.

i was going to find a google pic i was going to request you to work on but then i stumbled on this:

http://www4.shopping.com/T-Rex-T-Rex-Coconut-Bark-Chips-10-Quart/prices

PROOF!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Yeah, boredom lol.

Great work, that first one is hilarious.

I don't know how this could -ever- be relevant, other than the fact it has a T-Rex, but I do want to name a horse "Horseasaurus Rex" now...

http://www.quickmeme.com/Advice-God/