Apparently it was only a small minority of people that originally believed in Christ, and the rest recognized it as a mish-mash of ancient stories. It makes sense why it's so hard to read and open to interpretation, because it doesn't make any sense. Noah's Ark was a Sumerian story, Christ was modelled after Krishna and so on. A bunch of pagan stories and what-not slewn together.
It was a great tool for controlling the masses and extracting their wealth back then, and it's a great tool now.
very affective....allows people to cope....gives them hope...a way to deal with death...their and their loved ones.....simply brilliant. Not for me..but I'm really glad the masses have it.
Yea, God is the architect of the cosmos, the space in-between the stars, and the Sun of God is obvious.
Apparently these mythos date back to the agricultural age, when humans began studying the sky for agricultural purposes. It makes sense to me that they would fabricate stories to pass the knowledge down to their children.
For example, Christ was born on Dec 25 in the arms of a Virgin.
Dec 25 is after the 3 day winter solstice and a new sun is born to the backdrop of the constellation Virgo.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
very affective....allows people to cope....gives them hope...a way to deal with death...their and their loved ones.....simply brilliant. Not for me..but I'm really glad the masses have it.
It's also a good way of getting people to hate Homosexuality and Abortion. To view reality in black and white, good and evil, pay money to the church, and as mindless robots blindly follow the word of other men.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Why do you want to know if Jesus is black? Why is that the important question that you want answered? It seems that the Jesus "color question" is the one that the "enlightened" love to throw out and just wait for someone to say that Jesus was white. Then they can come in and save the day and enlighten everyone and say that's he's not white.
your and my color have no bearing on the color of jesus, at least it shouldn't.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Why do you want to know if Jesus is black? Why is that the important question that you want answered? It seems that the Jesus "color question" is the one that the "enlightened" love to throw out and just wait for someone to say that Jesus was white. Then they can come in and save the day and enlighten everyone and say that's he's not white.
your and my color have no bearing on the color of jesus, at least it shouldn't.
Then why is it even a topic of contention with you? I said a prayer to Jesus, not to you.
In fact, I haven't looked, but did you answer my prayer? Are you thinking you're Jesus-like, preaching all this no-color crap?
Apparently it was only a small minority of people that originally believed in Christ, and the rest recognized it as a mish-mash of ancient stories. It makes sense why it's so hard to read and open to interpretation, because it doesn't make any sense. Noah's Ark was a Sumerian story, Christ was modelled after Krishna and so on. A bunch of pagan stories and what-not slewn together.
It was a great tool for controlling the masses and extracting their wealth back then, and it's a great tool now.
Yup... that's what it is... and it's hung around for around 2,000 years...
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
where did that say that Jesus was always with God?
Yup... that's what it is... and it's hung around for around 2,000 years...
If only our schools could teach the real history of Christianity. I remember learning Greek, Roman, Native and so on Mythologies, but the Abrahamic myths were left out. It would seem that schools can't teach it as a myth and certainly can't teach it as fact, so it's left out. We then learn about it through Church which is totally bias and teaches it as the absolute history of the universe.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well Ahnimus I'm just glad you could finally admit the truth that there is a God. But I guess this was just pre-determined.
Actually there isn't.
I did ask some question of the faithful for clarification, but it seems even they can't agree on it. I've found much more solid and corroborating evidence that it's a bunch of bunk.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I did ask some question of the faithful for clarification, but it seems even they can't agree on it. I've found much more solid and corroborating evidence that it's a bunch of bunk.
Fiction is fiction. Many people like to roll the Pulp (of fiction), so to speak, into a man called God. And it is bunk. Most people around here aren't that presumptious, even in their adherence to a Faith. But you did draw one or two Vincent Vega's out of the crowd.
In the story regarding the sun god, the moon gives birth monthly and annually to the sun. In The Story of Religious Controversy, Joseph McCabe, a Catholic priest for many years, writes:
…Virginity in goddesses is a relative matter.
Whatever we make of the original myth…Isis seems to have been originally a virgin (or, perhaps, sexless) goddess, and in the later period of Egyptian religion she was again considered a virgin goddess, demanding very strict abstinence from her devotees. It is at this period, apparently, that the birthday of Horus was annually celebrated, about December 25th, in the temples. As both Macrobius and the Christian writer [of the "Paschal Chronicle"] say, a figure of Horus as a baby was laid in a manger, in a scenic reconstruction of a stable, and a statue of Isis was placed beside it. Horus was, in a sense, the Savior of mankind. He was their avenger against the powers of darkness; he was the light of the world. His birth-festival was a real Christmas before Christ. http://www.truthbeknown.com/horus.html
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Regarding the astrotheological nature of the gospel story, including the virgin birth/immaculate conception, the famous Christian theologian and saint Albertus Magnus, or Albert the Great, (1193?-1280) admitted:
"We know that the sign of the celestial Virgin did come to the horizon at the moment where we have fixed the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. All the mysteries of the incarnation of our Saviour Christ; and all the circumstances of his marvellous life, from his conception to his ascension, are to be traced out in the constellations, and are figured in the stars."
As Albert the Great acknowledged, the virgin-birth motif is astrotheological, referring to the hour of midnight, December 25th, when the constellation of Virgo rises on the horizon. The Assumption of the Virgin, celebrated in Catholicism on August 15th, represents the summer sun's brightness blotting out Virgo. Mary's Nativity, celebrated on September 8th, occurs when the constellation is visible again. Such is what these "Christian" motifs and holidays represent, as has obviously been known by the more erudite of the Catholic clergy. Hence, the virgin who will conceive and bring forth is Virgo, and her son is the sun.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ahnimus, you do know Christ wasn't actually born on the 25th of December, right?
What we learn from experience depends on what philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question. - C.S. Lewis, Miracles
Ahnimus, you do know Christ wasn't actually born on the 25th of December, right?
As far as I know, he wasn't born at all.
Do you something to back that up?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
As a tester, evidence for Jesus's birth (and life) resides in the gospels, which are historical documents, and also in several extra-biblical documents, including Roman records.
It is recognised openly by historians that a man named Jesus existed, and was born about 6 B.C.
Actually, it's openly recognized by Christian Historians that a man named Jesus existed. Everyone else doesn't say that. They say Jesus was a myth, just like all the others.
So, if it's to be believable that a man did exist, I require evidence. It follows that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so you must then provide evidence that Jesus was the Son of God.
The gospels are not anymore a historical text than the Sumerian tablets, or any other ancient mythos.
Really, I mean, this is the problem. There is no evidence and plenty of evidence suggesting that the Bible was carefully constructed over centuries to keep the masses en-droned in blind faith in order to manipulate their behavior and extract their wealth.
Unless evidence is really provided to support the Christ myth, I am obligated to request that Christianity be expelled from politics and society.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'll provide secular evidence for Jesus's existence, if you provide reputable evidence for the Bible being carefully constructed over hundreds of years.
How's that?
To set the base information, the New Testament we have today is taken from more than 24,000 manuscripts from between 50 AD and 300 AD. These manuscripts are 99% accurate to each other, meaning there is less than 1% difference between the copies we have, and close inspection of these copies shows that the discrepancies fall in irrellevant areas.
Also, these manuscripts come from accross the middle eastern world, and are still being discovered, as seen in the dead sea scrolls.
There were some 180,000 Sumerian Tablets that date back further than Christianity. But you don't consider those as facts, do you?
But I suggest you simply over-looked the contradictions of your sacred texts as many followers have before you. Meanwhile the contradictions are obvious to the non-believer.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
When scrutinized, the Pauline epistles do not reveal any historical Jesus; nor do they demonstrate any knowledge of the existence of the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. As has been proved repeatedly, the gospels themselves cannot be viewed as "history" written by "eyewitnesses." Besides the fact that they date to much later than is supposed, the gospels frequently contradict each other, and, based on the numerous manuscripts composed over the centuries, have been determined (by German theologian Johann Griesbach, for one) to be a mass of some 150,000 "variant readings." In this regard, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, a Christian book, contains an article written by M.M. Parvis (vol. 4, 594-595), who states:
The New Testament is now known, in whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek manuscripts alone. Every one of these handwritten copies differ from the other one It has been estimated that these manuscripts and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscripts' tradition is wholly uniform.
Some sources place the figure for the "variant readings" even higher, including The Anchor Bible Dictionary On CD-ROM ("Textual Criticism, NT"), which says, "Perhaps 300,000 differing readings is a fair figure for the 20th century (K.W. Clark 1962: 669)." So much for "God's infallible Word" and his "inspired scribes." Apologists have come up with all sorts of excuses for this manmade mess; their excuses only demonstrate further that man's hand--and not that of the Almighty God--has been involved in the creation of Christianity and its texts at every step. http://www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm
Much much more than that.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Both deal effectively with the questions your raising, though both are quite wordy unfortunately.
I would suggest 1 over 2 for conciseness, they both deal specifically with Mithras and Horus.
What we learn from experience depends on what philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question. - C.S. Lewis, Miracles
Both deal effectively with the questions your raising, though both are quite wordy unfortunately.
I would suggest 1 over 2 for conciseness, they both deal specifically with Mithras and Horus.
You know, I thought it was kind of hypocritical that the author said Mithraism is old and out of date and couldn't be considered a reliable comparison to Christianity, when the hebrew texts are also old and out of date. But it seems the author is not exactly defending Christianity, but simply suggesting the evidence for copy-cat theories from Mithraism is speculation. However, the author does suggest:
Mithraic scholars, you see, do not hold a candle for the thesis that Christianity borrowed anything philosophically from Mithraism, and they do not see any evidence of such borrowing, with one major exception: "The only domain in which we can ascertain in detail the extent to which Christianity imitated Mithraism is that of art." [MS.508n] We are talking here not of apostolic Christianity, note well, but of Christianity in the third and fourth centuries, which, in an effort to prove that their faith was the superior one, embarked on an advertising campaign reminiscent of our soft drink wars. Mithra was depicted slaying the bull while riding its back; the church did a lookalike scene with Samson killing a lion. Mithra sent arrows into a rock to bring forth water; the church changed that into Moses getting water from the rock at Horeb. (Hmm, did the Jews copy that one?) Think of how popular Pokemon is these days, and then think of the church as the one doing the Digimon ripoff -- although one can't really bellow about borrowing in this case, for this happened in an age when art usually was imitative -- it was a sort of one-upsmanship designed as a competition, and the church was not the only one doing it. Furthermore, it didn't involve an exchange or theft of ideology.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You didn't answer the question. How long has Jesus been around? Always? Like you said. Then how could he be one with God, he's a separate entity then.
Not sure what Jesus dying has to do with it. But why would it have been harder? And how did Jesus really sacrifice anything, he descended from heaven, died as a man, then returned to heaven. If he'd gone to Hell then I would call that a sacrifice.
It's not just that I don't believe in it, it's just that it doesn't make any sense, and therefor I can't believe in it.
I think it's kind of funny that you have all of these arguments, but you obviously don't even know what's in the Bible. Jesus was in hell for three days. I think the smart thing to do is stop listening to what other people say, and just read it yourself. I hate how "Christians" have given God such a bad rep. Just because they go about saying they are God's servants, doesn't make it true. It doesn't mean what they say is even remotely close to what's in the Bible, because, let's face it, too many people read things the wrong way, and then, they don't even read it all.
Oh, and your question. Jesus has always existed with God, as has God's word. He is one with God. He came to earth in the flesh. If you believe there is a God, then you believe that humans have a soul...and then they have their flesh. Two separate things. You can kill your flesh, but you can't kill your soul. Jesus had a life harder than any other person to walk in this world. Don't downplay that.
When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
Comments
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
very affective....allows people to cope....gives them hope...a way to deal with death...their and their loved ones.....simply brilliant. Not for me..but I'm really glad the masses have it.
you're the one that brought it up. It doesn't matter what color Jesus was
Then why did you ask me?
I'm black, btw.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Apparently these mythos date back to the agricultural age, when humans began studying the sky for agricultural purposes. It makes sense to me that they would fabricate stories to pass the knowledge down to their children.
For example, Christ was born on Dec 25 in the arms of a Virgin.
Dec 25 is after the 3 day winter solstice and a new sun is born to the backdrop of the constellation Virgo.
It's also a good way of getting people to hate Homosexuality and Abortion. To view reality in black and white, good and evil, pay money to the church, and as mindless robots blindly follow the word of other men.
Why do you want to know if Jesus is black? Why is that the important question that you want answered? It seems that the Jesus "color question" is the one that the "enlightened" love to throw out and just wait for someone to say that Jesus was white. Then they can come in and save the day and enlighten everyone and say that's he's not white.
your and my color have no bearing on the color of jesus, at least it shouldn't.
Then why is it even a topic of contention with you? I said a prayer to Jesus, not to you.
In fact, I haven't looked, but did you answer my prayer? Are you thinking you're Jesus-like, preaching all this no-color crap?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yup... that's what it is... and it's hung around for around 2,000 years...
do you often post prayers to Jesus on a public message board? I'm just asking.
Nope, I didn't answer your prayer. And I would love to be considered Jesus like, but I know I'm no where even close.
Jesus is my superman, baby, and he's black and beautiful. Do you have a problem with that?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
where did that say that Jesus was always with God?
NO.
and please tell me why you would think I have a problem with that when I've clearly said I don't...have a great weekend.
If only our schools could teach the real history of Christianity. I remember learning Greek, Roman, Native and so on Mythologies, but the Abrahamic myths were left out. It would seem that schools can't teach it as a myth and certainly can't teach it as fact, so it's left out. We then learn about it through Church which is totally bias and teaches it as the absolute history of the universe.
You.
Too.
Shmoo.
Clue:
have fun.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Actually there isn't.
I did ask some question of the faithful for clarification, but it seems even they can't agree on it. I've found much more solid and corroborating evidence that it's a bunch of bunk.
Fiction is fiction. Many people like to roll the Pulp (of fiction), so to speak, into a man called God. And it is bunk. Most people around here aren't that presumptious, even in their adherence to a Faith. But you did draw one or two Vincent Vega's out of the crowd.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
…Virginity in goddesses is a relative matter.
Whatever we make of the original myth…Isis seems to have been originally a virgin (or, perhaps, sexless) goddess, and in the later period of Egyptian religion she was again considered a virgin goddess, demanding very strict abstinence from her devotees. It is at this period, apparently, that the birthday of Horus was annually celebrated, about December 25th, in the temples. As both Macrobius and the Christian writer [of the "Paschal Chronicle"] say, a figure of Horus as a baby was laid in a manger, in a scenic reconstruction of a stable, and a statue of Isis was placed beside it. Horus was, in a sense, the Savior of mankind. He was their avenger against the powers of darkness; he was the light of the world. His birth-festival was a real Christmas before Christ.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/horus.html
"We know that the sign of the celestial Virgin did come to the horizon at the moment where we have fixed the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. All the mysteries of the incarnation of our Saviour Christ; and all the circumstances of his marvellous life, from his conception to his ascension, are to be traced out in the constellations, and are figured in the stars."
As Albert the Great acknowledged, the virgin-birth motif is astrotheological, referring to the hour of midnight, December 25th, when the constellation of Virgo rises on the horizon. The Assumption of the Virgin, celebrated in Catholicism on August 15th, represents the summer sun's brightness blotting out Virgo. Mary's Nativity, celebrated on September 8th, occurs when the constellation is visible again. Such is what these "Christian" motifs and holidays represent, as has obviously been known by the more erudite of the Catholic clergy. Hence, the virgin who will conceive and bring forth is Virgo, and her son is the sun.
As far as I know, he wasn't born at all.
Do you something to back that up?
Jesus is the word...
first I've heard that
Actually, it's openly recognized by Christian Historians that a man named Jesus existed. Everyone else doesn't say that. They say Jesus was a myth, just like all the others.
So, if it's to be believable that a man did exist, I require evidence. It follows that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so you must then provide evidence that Jesus was the Son of God.
The gospels are not anymore a historical text than the Sumerian tablets, or any other ancient mythos.
Really, I mean, this is the problem. There is no evidence and plenty of evidence suggesting that the Bible was carefully constructed over centuries to keep the masses en-droned in blind faith in order to manipulate their behavior and extract their wealth.
Unless evidence is really provided to support the Christ myth, I am obligated to request that Christianity be expelled from politics and society.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/author.htm
There is one source for you.
There were some 180,000 Sumerian Tablets that date back further than Christianity. But you don't consider those as facts, do you?
But I suggest you simply over-looked the contradictions of your sacred texts as many followers have before you. Meanwhile the contradictions are obvious to the non-believer.
The New Testament is now known, in whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek manuscripts alone. Every one of these handwritten copies differ from the other one It has been estimated that these manuscripts and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscripts' tradition is wholly uniform.
Some sources place the figure for the "variant readings" even higher, including The Anchor Bible Dictionary On CD-ROM ("Textual Criticism, NT"), which says, "Perhaps 300,000 differing readings is a fair figure for the 20th century (K.W. Clark 1962: 669)." So much for "God's infallible Word" and his "inspired scribes." Apologists have come up with all sorts of excuses for this manmade mess; their excuses only demonstrate further that man's hand--and not that of the Almighty God--has been involved in the creation of Christianity and its texts at every step.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm
Much much more than that.
(though both of yours are from the same site)
1. http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
2. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
Both deal effectively with the questions your raising, though both are quite wordy unfortunately.
I would suggest 1 over 2 for conciseness, they both deal specifically with Mithras and Horus.
You know, I thought it was kind of hypocritical that the author said Mithraism is old and out of date and couldn't be considered a reliable comparison to Christianity, when the hebrew texts are also old and out of date. But it seems the author is not exactly defending Christianity, but simply suggesting the evidence for copy-cat theories from Mithraism is speculation. However, the author does suggest:
Oh, and your question. Jesus has always existed with God, as has God's word. He is one with God. He came to earth in the flesh. If you believe there is a God, then you believe that humans have a soul...and then they have their flesh. Two separate things. You can kill your flesh, but you can't kill your soul. Jesus had a life harder than any other person to walk in this world. Don't downplay that.