So Jesus was a Capricorn???

[Moose]

With enough weed this theory makes alot of sense.

That would certainly explain it!

[KenzieAbsolutely]

That would certainly explain it!

 

that isn't very fair, considering that what you believe may, and does, sound just as ridiculous and impossible as anything else. it doesn't seem that way to you only because you believe it.

 

it's fine to say 'i don't believe that's true.' but to make out someone else's thoughts and beliefs like they are a drug-induced, idiot's thoughts, that's pretty hypocritical...not to mention pretty rude.

 

just sayin'. don't hate.

Edited December 26, 2007 by KenzieAbsolutely

[shadowofman]

Where in the world did this come from? The disciples asked Christ where He wanted them to prepare for the passover, and Christ told them.

 

I'd be interested to know where, (more so "HOW"), you came up with the above.......

 

This is the Jesus Mythisist position. An interpretation of history.

Jesus is a fictional charactor based on previous fictional characters.

The story was simply rewritten, not just once in palestine, but dozens of times from ancient Egypt to India to Macadonia.

 

The story of the life of Jesus is not an original idea in religious accounts. Horus, the egyptian Sun god was said to have been born on

Dec. 25th, accompanied by a star in the east, of a virgin, adorned by three kings, became a teacher at 12, baptized at 30 by Anop, travelled with 12 disciples, and preformed healing miracles. Even known as the "lamb of god".

 

Dozens of other fictional characters have the exact same story, and all were written before Jesus' supposed time.

Attis

Krishna

Dyonysus

Mithra

 

Some even died on a cross and most were resurrected after three days of being dead.

 

Jesus is a personification of the sun. The disciples are the 12 signs of the zodiac. The cross is a pagan symbol used to represent the four seasons and the course of the sun across the signs of the zodiac. This is why the Jehovas Witnesses don't use the cross. They believe that Christ was killed on a pike, or crux simplex, which is consistant with Roman tradition at the supposed time. But of course, they are wrong as well.

 

The Vatican was even built over a destroyed temple to Mithras.

[underpants]

I think that is interesting Shadow.

 

So of course I am interested to know the signs of the disciples. What was Judas?

 

Also, I apogize for my weed joke. Sometimes my humor can be offensive. If I offended anyone I do apoligize.

[shadowofman]

Oh no need!

The only thing that would be offensive is if you don't share!

 

The disciples of Jesus were not directly written to represent the signs of the zodiac. Maybe Horus's were. He seems to be the origional story as far as we have record (That's not to say that he wasn't based on a character from oral storytelling traditions possibly dating back to the first humans to look at the sky). Then Horus's story was rewritten with different names. Then again. Then again. Until we get to the newest revision starring Jim Kavisel. The concepts and what linked the charaters to their specific constellations were lost in each new plot.

 

The biblical story seems to be an elaborate web of hundreds of different stories from India to Europe. Dyonysus was the one to turn water into wine, being the Greek god of wine (also born of a virgin, died on a cross and was resurrected after three days).

[Moose]

that isn't very fair, considering that what you believe may, and does, sound just as ridiculous and impossible as anything else. it doesn't seem that way to you only because you believe it.

I seriously meant, where'd he get that from? I've never heard this account and I couldn't find anything to back it up. I've done the research and found all I need about it.

it's fine to say 'i don't believe that's true.' but to make out someone else's thoughts and beliefs like they are a drug-induced, idiot's thoughts, that's pretty hypocritical...not to mention pretty rude.

Tell that to EVERYONE, and not just me.

just sayin'. don't hate.

It was funny. I laughed at it. I wasn't, "hatin'"....

This is the Jesus Mythisist position.

 

Exactly....."myth"

[CaliGuy]

This is a fact that you can find plenty of info on. The pagan people wanted to hold onto their previous holidays and rituals, so they relabeled them as Christian. Almost every current 'Christian' holiday has pagan origins.

 

This is quite true.

 

That's why I don't celebrate Christmas. I just don't think God would appreciate the sentiments of the season when they're based on worship or other gods, seeing what He made the first commandment and all. Of course, I'm not going to try to stop anybody from celebrating it or tell them they shouldn't. Just giving the facts.

 

Very well said, CG!

[shadowofman]

It's called the Jesus Mythisist position, because we believe that Jesus was a Myth. Not much different then the original Gnostic Christians, who believed in Jesus Christ, but believed he was a spritiual being, not a man.

 

Mythistists however interprets the history of Jesus as just another name on a long list of Mythical characters. One of which includes Joseph of the old testiments (who was born of a miracle birth, and eventually sold for 20 silver by Judah)

 

Even promient Christian historians from the 2nd century agreed and are on record as saying that the story of Jesus is nothing new.

 

This historical perspective is quite understood. I don't know how you could be having a problem finding anything on it. Just the other day I was watching the History Channel and they were talking about the story of Cain and Abel. This story is just a rewrite of the Eygptian story of Osirus and Seth. Which was just a rewrite of the story of the shepards vs. the farmers from Summarian tablets. Which may have been rooted in an actual event, certainly not concerning the first people on earth, but possibly the first people to form agricultural cities.

 

As far as the name Jesus having roots in an actually event or person, it is possible, but there is no contemporary evidence of a whom this man was. Jesus, Mary, Joseph, these were all extremely common names at the time, as they are now. No grave, no bones, no Palestinian records until 60 AD, no Roman record of his execution (and there would have been).

 

I believe the Gnostic Christians on this matter, seeing as how they started the Christian Religion. And they would say, "Jesus who?"

[shadowofman]

That's why I don't celebrate Christmas. I just don't think God would appreciate the sentiments of the season when they're based on worship or other gods, seeing what He made the first commandment and all.

 

Then you should probably look into Judaism, seeing as how Jesus is based on the stories of other gods as well. This mentality is exactly why most people in the first century, stuck to Judaism. They all new that Christianity was a mystical cult of a false idol.

 

But of course Judaism is just a monotheistic version of the ancient Eygptian religion as well. The commandments (and there are way more than ten) are pretty much ripped off from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

 

You can follow any story back to the beginning if you like. If you prefer an older version, and think that the original idea is closer to the divine, then you might as well go all the way back to animism. Worship the animals, rocks and wind. Or the Sun itself, since most of you are already.

 

"The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun." -Thomas Paine

You know, one of those christian founding fathers.

Edited December 31, 2007 by shadowofman
sp

[JamesM]

Then you should probably look into Judaism, seeing as how Jesus is based on the stories of other gods as well. This mentality is exactly why most people in the first century, stuck to Judaism. They all new that Christianity was a mystical cult of a false idol.

 

But of course Judaism is just a monotheistic version of the ancient Eygptian religion as well. The commandments (and there are way more than ten) are pretty much ripped off from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

 

 

 

"The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun." -Thomas Paine

You know, one of those christian founding fathers.

 

Do you have some credible websites that could back up your assertions?

 

As for Paine, I don't think anyone mentioned he was a Christian...but I could be wrong. However, not all of the founding fathers WERE Christians if we go back to a link posted earlier.

[shadowofman]

Do you have some credible websites that could back up your assertions?

Haven't really looked at too much on the web as far as this topic is concerned. And I'm also not claiming that any of this is fact. Can we really know what inspiration an author used to write a story was without asking them personally? We don't even really know who the true authors were. Any respectable historian will tell you though, that most biblical stories have roots in previous cultures. The story of the biblical flood is basically The Epic of Gilgamesh from Summarian culture.

 

Do we have proof of that? Well no, but any school would concider it plagiarism. Other than that, it's well founded speculation. This is one reason that history pales compared to the scientific method.

Edited March 7, 2008 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[JamesM]

Any respectable historian will tell you though, that most biblical stories have roots in previous cultures.

 

I am not certain how you would define a "respectable historian," but there are many historians that do not agree with this assertion that you have made. Again, am I guessing that perhaps you have some website or book that could show this statement to be true, or is just a "gut instinct" that you have?

 

And I'm also not claiming that any of this is fact.

 

Good, but your information is interesting. It would be nice for us that read it to have some idea if you have something to verify it, or did you just see it on You Tube? Oh, wait...

(That was meant as humor.)

 

The story of the biblical flood is basically The Epic of Gilgamesh from Summarian culture.

 

Not quite true, but this assertion has been made. The question becomes who came first, or do both explain the same event...just from different cultures. There are many websites that take one side or the other to this. Here is one that you could read...with an open mind...because it gives both sides of the issue:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm

 

And here is one which gives a good defense for the Biblical version being the first and real one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp

 

Here is a good presentation of the historical perspective I've been talking about. Watch with an open mind and do your own research.

 

That was an interesting video. Thank you for the link. I am always amazed at what is on You Tube. It discussed the comparisons (alleged) of Horus and other "gods" to Jesus. Having heard that before and having done my own research, let me give you a couple of links that show how this comparison is not exactly accurate. I could take up space and show many of the similarities are not really similarities, but two come quickly to mind...December 25 is NOT Jesus' birthday, nor do Christians say that it is. Sun set is opposite of sunrise...not somehow named after Set. And Hours = Horus? Interesting play on words, but probably not much more than that. I am going to look if there is any validity to that.

 

Here is some links that show that these "god" comparisons are not quite accurate:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html (Horus, Osiris)

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html (Mithra)

 

I doubt that any of this will convince you, but hopefully, you will take some time to educate yourself in the other side. If you choose to remain an atheist, then this further education can be nothing but helpful. The Bible is not easily dismissed as a book of myths. It has survived for centuries for a reason.

[shadowofman]

As I have said, these historical perspectives are not facts. It is impossible for anyone to know what inspired an author, or if a charactor is based on another previously invented. We can only speculate. That being said, our specualtions can be quite convincing with such a wealth of story to break down.

 

I will totally admit that many of the points in this particular video are a reach, such as the relation between the words son and sun. This was offered as evidence of the link between Jesus and the sun, but it is only one point out of many more convincing points.

 

I looked into some of your links and I have found a serious flaw in logic. One site's example, that states....

 

Many conservative Christians believe that the flood occurred in 2349 BCE, and that the account in Genesis was written by Moses in the 1450's BCE, shortly before his death. 5,8 Thus, the Babylonian text must be a corrupted version based on a Paganized adaptation of the true story in Genesis. Alternatively, it might be an independent attempt at describing the world-wide flood.

 

...and the site suggests that this is an opinion that should be taken seriously, as if it is just as likely. It is in fact less likely. Even if we assume that a large flood happened in 2349 BCE and the Babylonian story was recorded around this time, it is a total leap and unlikely that Moses, writing in 1450 BCE, had the story more accurate. It requires a preconceived notion and faith in that notion. The simpler explaination is that this is an old, old story, possibly fading into prehistory, that was an oral tradition, and occationally written to fit the contemporary culture of the author.

 

In the case of Jesus being a man or a myth, we must use an unbiased reason. Christians and non-christians alike can do this quite easily. As a non-christian, I have no stake in the claim. Either way, there is no messiah to me. Jesus could have been a dude or not, it makes no difference. The evidence points to a myth. A Christian can just as objectively read the gospels of Paul and the other gnostics. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Look at the inconsistancies in the biblical gospels, and compare the stories of earlier myths to the stories of Jesus. All this and come up with the same conclusion as I have.

 

Oh, and

December 25 is NOT Jesus' birthday, nor do Christians say that it is.

You know as well as I do, almost all Christians believe this is true. Movies are made about it. Songs written. The images are burned into childrens minds from birth. They are forced to sing of the three wise men, the lambs and the drummer boys. Maybe you are smart enough to see that this story has been distorted, but I know many Christians personally that would call you a liar.

[JamesM]

shadowofman, thanks for responding, but I see a couple of points to mention.

 

First, you seem to think that all history is suspect. History is simply a retelling of the past. Yes, historians in many cases have a bias as to how they interpret the facts, but the facts are there. As someone who is fascinated by history, this caught my attention. Do you not "trust" history? Did The American Revolution happen...do you think and why?

 

I looked into some of your links and I have found a serious flaw in logic.

 

I am not sure how this is a flaw in logic , but...I do agree it seems hard to believe that Moses wrote history that much after the fact. Yet again we look at it from our perspective in history.

 

How was this history passed down to Moses? No matter who you are, Moses was obviously not alive at the time of the flood. To think that he sat down one day and wrote the story of how the world began with nothing more than his mind seems less likely. But it could be more likely that

 

"the book of Genesis consists of a set of tablets, each of which was written by an actual eye-witness to the events described therein. These tablets were finally compiled by Moses."

 

Here is an article about that very topic of your question.

http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm

 

This link will give you more info than you need on that topic.

http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp

 

In the case of Jesus being a man or a myth, we must use an unbiased reason.

 

The evidence points to a myth.

 

Yes, we must. And no, IMO and many, many others... it doesn't.

 

"Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field."

 

"The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven."

 

For you reading and further education....

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

 

You know as well as I do, almost all Christians believe this is true.

 

Maybe you are smart enough to see that this story has been distorted, but I know many Christians personally that would call you a liar.

 

I am not familiar with the Christians that you know, so I do not speak for them. And I have no doubt that there are people who believe this to be the actual birth date. But that does not make it the actual birth date.

 

I do know many Christians, and I do not know of any that actually believe that December 25 is the real date of Jesus' birth. Yes, as a child, we assumed that the celebration is the birthday, but I was taught that this is simply a celebration day. We are taught that the actual date is not known.

 

Here are links that supports the idea that the date was in September.

http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/sukkoth.htm

 

All this and come up with the same conclusion as I have.

 

While I respect your conclusions, many of us do come up with different ones.

[Moose]

You know as well as I do, almost all Christians believe this is true. Movies are made about it.

WHAT???!!!

I do know many Christians, and I do not know of any that actually believe that December 25 is the real date of Jesus' birth.

I don't know of any Christians who believe that either.....young or old....

[shadowofman]

The reason for the season!

The War on Christmas!

 

Seems we are both astounded. I will conceed that the average lay Christian is beginning to learn that the Catholic Church fudged all this long ago. I still personally know several Christians that still believe. Don't know where you hail from, but I'm in Southern Baptist country.

 

First, you seem to think that all history is suspect. History is simply a retelling of the past.

 

Of course I find all history suspect, and you should too. History is completely imperfect because we have to rely on your eyewitness accounts, and if you don't have many of those, who is to say that the account isn't a lie, forgery, etc.

 

"the book of Genesis consists of a set of tablets, each of which was written by an actual eye-witness to the events described therein. These tablets were finally compiled by Moses."

 

I don't understand this quote. Is it saying that Moses found some tablets from actual eyewitness' to the events of Genesis? So the tablets were written by Adam and his decendents? And how do stories such as the epic of Gilgamesh fit into this?

 

I am suggesting, as do most historians, that the Epic was inspiration for the Hebrew story of Noah. The timelines agree with this scenario. Historians could have it wrong because history is flawed like that, but there is no reason to believe anything other than what the evidence points to. What is more likely, is that we both have it wrong.

 

While I respect your conclusions, many of us do come up with different ones.

 

Don't repect my opinions please! If you think they are wrong, tell me why and try to give me evidence. That's what debate is.

[Moose]

If you think they are wrong, tell me why and try to give me evidence.

Producing evidence won't do a BIT of good with you.

 

Don't be offended. Millions of people will still reject Him even when He's standing nose to nose to them.

[JamesM]

Of course I find all history suspect, and you should too. History is completely imperfect because we have to rely on your eyewitness accounts, and if you don't have many of those, who is to say that the account isn't a lie, forgery, etc.

 

So why should I believe you that you were born? Why should you believe that the attacks happened on the Twin Towers? Why should we believe that World War 2 happened? And did man REALLY land on the Moon?

 

I am guessing that you use a different standard for Biblical history as compared to all other history. Yet historians find much in the Bible that is actual history...and proven to be accurate.

 

Is it saying that Moses found some tablets from actual eyewitness' to the events of Genesis? So the tablets were written by Adam and his decendents? And how do stories such as the epic of Gilgamesh fit into this?

 

Take some time and read the article I quoted. It explains how the history was passed from generation to generation via tablets (or books as we have today) and then compiled by Moses. This relates to the Epic in that the Flood had been recorded on tablets for generations before Moses wrote Genesis. Your claim that Moses sat down at the dinner table and composed the story is refuted. This shows that the Flood story was written years before the Epic was.

 

Don't repect my opinions please! If you think they are wrong, tell me why and try to give me evidence. That's what debate is.

 

No, I DO respect your opinions and those of others. I am not that arrogant and bigoted to believe that others are silly or delusional. I find the fact that others are different challenging and educational. I will show you why I believe I am right, and you can show why you think you are right. Then hopefully we both can learn something...either why the opinion we hold is correct or why it is incorrect.

 

Debate is different. It is about winning or losing. Discussion here on LS (IMO) is about learning and education...or it should be.

[justpassingthrough]

What, exactly, is a myth?

[disgracian]

Producing evidence won't do a BIT of good with you.

Translation: you have none. So you excuse yourself from responsibility with an ad hominem. We both know that producing actual evidence would do every bit of good with somebody like shadowofman, as he is somebody who, by every indication given on this forum, holds evidence in high regard.

Don't be offended.

We've come to expect it from you now.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

Translation: you have none. So you excuse yourself from responsibility with an ad hominem.

Speak for yourself. This is the oldest arguement on the planet. (pretty soon on this forum).

We both know that producing actual evidence would do every bit of good with somebody like shadowofman, as he is somebody who, by every indication given on this forum, holds evidence in high regard.

If shadowofman, (and many others), don't respect what we believers hold as obvious, there's nothing any of us can do, period.

We've come to expect it from you now.

I'll take that as a compliment. Simply because I've found, through my experiences, that what I hold as Truth usually is offensive to those opposed to it.

 

No skin off my back.....so why can't you both just move along?

[underpants]

If shadowofman, (and many others), don't respect what we believers hold as obvious, there's nothing any of us can do, period.

 

I respect people of many faiths and their right to believe whatever they want. I do hope that in return they will respect me and my right to practice my own beliefs (or to choose not to believe some things).

 

Wouldn't that be fair?

 

I probably feel the same way about Jesus as say you might feel about a Pagan god. If you read the bible and say I was to grow herbs and pray to the moon. Couldn't there be a mutual respect?

 

As far as the original topic though thanks to everyone for giving such insight.

 

In my experiences most of practicing Christians do celebrate 12/25 as Jesus's birthday and to my knowledge they really do believe that is the day their saviour was born. At least that is what I have noticed.

[JamesM]

 

I probably feel the same way about Jesus as say you might feel about a Pagan god. If you read the bible and say I was to grow herbs and pray to the moon. Couldn't there be a mutual respect?

 

 

As a gardener, I found this humorous. So, if I grow herbs, this is on level with praying to the moon? Can one read the Bible and grow herbs?

 

Okay, I know what you meant, but it did give me a laugh.

[Moose]

I probably feel the same way about Jesus as say you might feel about a Pagan god. If you read the bible and say I was to grow herbs and pray to the moon. Couldn't there be a mutual respect?

YOU BET YOUR RED BEHIND THERE CAN BE......

As far as the original topic though thanks to everyone for giving such insight.

As any religous discussion, all aspects are needed to be dealt with. What you've experienced isn't what the, "norm" should be in my opinion. But yes, there are many Christians, I'm sure, that hold to this 12/25 date.

 

If so, they haven't matured enough in the Faith in my opinion.

[Lovelybird]

Lord ever said "worship God in spirit and truth", if you act honorably and obey God, that is to honor God and worship God; if you appreciate God each day, and give thanks to God, that is worship God; if you honor others, that is to honor God

 

Is a date really that important? If a person celebrate 25/12, and appreciate God what He did and does; a person inspires others by giving and invites others to his house to celebrate and happy about what God did and appreciate what sacrifice Jesus did for us, then, he is really to worship God, all his heart is to worship God, not other gods

 

the most important is heart, not a form or a date

Edited January 5, 2008 by Lovelybird