Jesus vs. Horus

[The_cavalierman]

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."

What does the good book say about waging wars to eliminate other religions and stealing their holidays, customs and traditions?

Got a quote/bible verse for that?:laugh:

[TLusby]

Especially considering that most people these days don't accept the OT prophecies as inspired. :2cents:

..and define "most people"?

[Zguy28]

Proof please....from a credible (non-biased) source

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=1253&display_order=1&sub_display_order=2&mini_id=1290

In Rome, where winters were not as harsh as those in the far north, Saturnalia—a holiday in honor of Saturn, the god of agriculture—was celebrated. Beginning in the week leading up to the winter solstice and continuing for a full month, Saturnalia was a hedonistic time, when food and drink were plentiful and the normal Roman social order was turned upside down. For a month, slaves would become masters. Peasants were in command of the city. Business and schools were closed so that everyone could join in the fun.

Also around the time of the winter solstice, Romans observed Juvenalia, a feast honoring the children of Rome. In addition, members of the upper classes often celebrated the birthday of Mithra, the god of the unconquerable sun, on December 25. It was believed that Mithra, an infant god, was born of a rock. For some Romans, Mithra's birthday was the most sacred day of the year.

In the early years of Christianity, Easter was the main holiday; the birth of Jesus was not celebrated. In the fourth century, church officials decided to institute the birth of Jesus as a holiday. Unfortunately, the Bible does not mention date for his birth (a fact Puritans later pointed out in order to deny the legitimacy of the celebration). Although some evidence suggests that his birth may have occurred in the spring (why would shepherds be herding in the middle of winter?), Pope Julius I chose December 25. It is commonly believed that the church chose this date in an effort to adopt and absorb the traditions of the pagan Saturnalia festival. First called the Feast of the Nativity, the custom spread to Egypt by 432 and to England by the end of the sixth century. By the end of the eighth century, the celebration of Christmas had spread all the way to Scandinavia. Today, in the Greek and Russian orthodox churches, Christmas is celebrated 13 days after the 25th, which is also referred to as the Epiphany or Three Kings Day. This is the day it is believed that the three wise men finally found Jesus in the manger.

By holding Christmas at the same time as traditional winter solstice festivals, church leaders increased the chances that Christmas would be popularly embraced, but gave up the ability to dictate how it was celebrated.

So it seems there is truth to both our statements.

The point being Christianity is claiming more stuff that is not theirs.

I think you are trying to imply that we are stealing other people's beliefs. We are not. The church has not tried to hide the history behind Christmas or other holidays. The mere fact that you know about it, when the church in all of its medieval power could have buried it proves that beyond reasonable doubt.

Just because you refute something does not make your argument true.

Prove it with a credible source please.

Infact I would say the evidence is still heavy against you.

I disagree.

[Zguy28]

What does the good book say about waging wars to eliminate other religions and stealing their holidays, customs and traditions?

Got a quote/bible verse for that?:laugh:

Did we steal or did we replace with something else that became more popular?

[The_cavalierman]

Did we steal or did we replace with something else that became more popular?

killing people that opposed your beliefs helps doesn't it?

:laugh:

[Zguy28]

killing people that opposed your beliefs helps doesn't it?

:laugh:

Don't change the subject.

[Xameil]

Christianity is based an act that occurred which is the resurrection. All other religions are based on a prophet's writings. This is what makes Christianity so different. Christ fulfilled every Old Testament prophecy which were prophesied hundreds of years prior to his birth. The odds of any one man completing all of these prophesies is over 1,000,000,000,000:1. You decide!

Christianity is NOT based on an act...it is based on a person, whom became a martyr.

And seriously....he fulfilled a prophecy that was written years before huh, so the stories that were written about him YEARS after couldn't have been ummm manipulated, or ummmm "mis-translated" to fit that prophecy?

That would be unheard of right? No religious person would lie to fit their personal need or goal would they. No religious person would kill to get rid of....oh nevermind they did didn't they

lol there ya go Z...I linked em

[zoony]

These threads mostly start the same way.

The usual suspects start out by trashing religion & Christianity based on some obscure web link that they saw on their lunch break. Of course it is not their only source... they've also seen Zeitgeist clips, and they are avid Dan Brown readers.

Along comes Techboy and completely overwhelms them with information and resources (of the highly-credible, academic variety) so that they might actually make an informed opinion.

At which point half of the usual suspects are never heard from again (until the next religion thread), or continue to pull their own chatty-cathy string claiming that followers of religion are suckers for bad information from poor sources, as they continue to indirectly make arguments outlined in Angels & Demons and The DaVinci Code.

See everyone on page 12. :ciao:

[The_cavalierman]

Don't change the subject.

Killing people that opposed your beliefs is very much the subject at hand.

Accept our God or die is a pretty potent weapon for conversion don't you think?

[Zguy28]

Christianity is NOT based on an act...it is based on a person, whom became a martyr.

And seriously....he fulfilled a prophecy that was written years before huh, so the stories that were written about him YEARS after couldn't have been ummm manipulated, or ummmm "mis-translated" to fit that prophecy?

That would be unheard of right? No religious person would lie to fit their personal need or goal would they. No religious person would kill to get rid of....oh nevermind they did didn't they

lol there ya go Z...I linked em

What's up X? Haven't seen you around these parts in a while.

[Chachie]

This makes it very hard to legitimize Christianity IMO.

Christianity has begged, barrowed and stolen from so many other religions that I find it amazing people believe any of it.

Amen-RA:laugh:

I very much agree, Cav. In fact, almost all religions are handed down or adopted from an earlier version.

This process could in fact strengthen the validity though, depending on how we look at that. If we are willing to look to a time perhaps even before or very shortly after our biblical flood (which is scientifically accepted as having happened), we might find the one story that begat them all. The closest we can come right now is the Sumerian creation epic. It's currently the oldest recorded version of a "religion" that we've unearthed archeologically.

I think Riggo-toni touched on it in his post when he mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh. This is one of the stories in the Sumerian tablets. "Ziusudra," (sp) an earlier version of the biblical Noah, is another. There is also a "Garden of Eden" recorded there.

[Zguy28]

Killing people that opposed your beliefs is very much the subject at hand.

I thought we were talking about the Roman Catholic church celebrating holidays such as Christmas and All Saints Day around or on pagan holidays for various reasons? :whoknows:

[DGreenistheBest]

Along comes Techboy and completely overwhelms them with information and resources (of the highly-credible, academic variety) so that they might actually make an informed opinion.

While techboy's arguments are not only well-researched and typically much more eloquently formed than any of his opponents' arguments, he has never once provided an argument that has debunked a theory such as the one that spawned this thread. I have high respect for his debating skills as he's developed quite a solid argument for his beliefs, but he has not provided an argument that would convince any of the non-believers on here to change their minds. That is because the non-believers tend to keep an open mind and consider all the facts of multiple religious and historical sources in considering the origins of Abrahamic myth while most of the believers tend to discount anything that is vaguely anti-Christian as heresay without a second thought.

[zoony]

Killing people that opposed your beliefs is very much the subject at hand.

Accept our God or die is a pretty potent weapon for conversion don't you think?

So I guess you would have an enormous amount of respect for early Christians, many of whom heard Jesus' ministry directly, who willingly died for what they believed in?

I watched you in the last thread... I'm not sure if you were molested by a priest or what, but your hatred for religion is beyond what is considered normal. If you don't want to believe, don't. You've heard the word, and there is nothing that says you have to accept it. Move on, maybe?

.....

[Kosher Ham]

Yet Jesus was a Jew.

Enter Jim Jones...

[The_cavalierman]

I thought we were talking about the Roman Catholic church celebrating holidays such as Christmas and All Saints Day around or on pagan holidays for various reasons? :whoknows:

We were???

Ok then...

What are original Christian holidays?

[PeterMP]

While techboy's arguments are not only well-researched and typically much more eloquently formed than any of his opponents' arguments, he has never once provided an argument that has debunked a theory such as the one that spawned this thread. I have high respect for his debating skills as he's developed quite a solid argument for his beliefs, but he has not provided an argument that would convince any of the non-believers on here to change their minds. That is because the non-believers tend to keep an open mind and consider all the facts of multiple religious and historical sources in considering the origins of Abrahamic myth while most of the believers tend to discount anything that is vaguely anti-Christian as heresay without a second thought.

I don't see many people here talking about keeping an open mind. I see a lot of the non-believers here dismissing Christianity as a fraud that was based on previous religions/beliefs and using terms like myth, which, at least implies a fictional story (as it has multiple definitions it is not clear in which manner you've used it here), and not something that I would construe as keeping a completely open mind (i.e. that it is possible that the Bible and Christianity are at least largely based on historical events).

In general, if his arguements are well researched, I fail to understand why they are nonconvincing. If they are flawed, it should be possible for somebody to show where they are flawed and hence why they are not in fact well researched. I guess it is possible to have a well researched arguement that is not convincing on topics that haven't been well researched, but that certainly isn't the case here.

Here's one of the last threads about this topic in which techboy posted extensively. Please, point out what about his arguements are not convincing from a completely historical stand point:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4566161&highlight=Horus#post4566161

Note, I do believe you can find parts of his arguement convincing (e.g. that much of Christianity is in fact original and not borrowed from others) and not believe in the Christian God.

[DGreenistheBest]

I don't see many people here talking about keeping an open mind. I see a lot of the non-believers here dismissing Christianity as a fraud that was based on previous religions/beliefs and using terms like myth, which, at least implies a fictional story...(quote shortened)...I do believe you can find parts of his arguement convincing (e.g. that much of Christianity is in fact original and not borrowed from others) and not believe in the Christian God.

I should have been more specific. I think techboy makes a solid argument for a lot of the biblical stories being based on actual history. However, he does not make a solid argument for christian practice, ceremony or in this case, the resurection story being original and most importantly, he does not make a case for believing in the christian god (which by rule would require the discounting of much of islamic and judaic belief, hence "closed-mindedness).

His arguments are well researched but most of the key points, such as focusing on the eye-witness accounts of the resurection, are entirely circumstantial. Just because the book says there were 40 eye witnesses does not mean there were 40 eye witness in much the same way that Star Wars can claim that Darth Vader lived a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away when we can easily distinguish that it is fiction.

Including a great bit of historically accurate detail in your book does not make it non-fiction. If that was the case, movies like Braveheart and Kingdom of Heaven would be considered documentaries. But large parts of those stories are romanticised and altered to fit the goal of the filmmakers in the same way that many biblical dates and settings are slightly different when compared to other historical research. While the background of those stories is just as accurate as the background of the movies I mentioned, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why the story itself should be considered anything other than just that: a story.

[PeterMP]

I should have been more specific. I think techboy makes a solid argument for a lot of the biblical stories being based on actual history. However, he does not make a solid argument for christian practice, ceremony or in this case, the resurection story being original and most importantly, he does not make a case for believing in the christian god (which by rule would require the discounting of much of islamic and judaic belief, hence "closed-mindedness).

His arguments are well researched but most of the key points, such as focusing on the eye-witness accounts of the resurection, are entirely circumstantial. Just because the book says there were 40 eye witnesses does not mean there were 40 eye witness in much the same way that Star Wars can claim that Darth Vader lived a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away when we can easily distinguish that it is fiction.

Including a great bit of historically accurate detail in your book does not make it non-fiction. If that was the case, movies like Braveheart and Kingdom of Heaven would be considered documentaries. But large parts of those stories are romanticised and altered to fit the goal of the filmmakers in the same way that many biblical dates and settings are slightly different when compared to other historical research. While the background of those stories is just as accurate as the background of the movies I mentioned, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why the story itself should be considered anything other than just that: a story.

So do you want to actually go back to the thread and point to something specific you find not convincing?

I don't see anywhere in that thread he talks about 40 witnesses so I assume that is a generalization. It is hard to have a real discussion based on generalizations.

The most convincing evidence is that the authors of the story were willing to be persecuted and die for it. The exsistance of Darth Vader would be much more convincing if Lucas would have gone to jail for claiming he was real.

[Skins24]

Techboy is going to have a field day.

:laugh:

As he should...

At least with that chart in the OP, which is very flawed. I think it's been posted before....

[Zguy28]

We were???

Ok then...

Yes we were. I'll quote the dialog below in case you're missing it.

What are original Christian holidays?

The Lord's Day (first day of the week)

*********

Christianity has begged, barrowed and stolen from so many other religions that I find it amazing people believe any of it.

Amen-RA:laugh:

You are right...

Jesus Birthday was placed in december to compete with a bigger pagan holiday. The same for pretty much all of the major Christian holidays

X-mas - Winter Solstice/Mithra

Valentines Day - Lupercalia festival

Halloween - Samhain

Even the practices on these holidays mirror the original pagan holidays.

Sorry friend, but you are wrong. The pagan holiday was Saturnalia. And Christian leaders in the Western Roman Empire decided to celebrate the Christ Mass on the 25th because all of the Christian citizens of Rome were already off of work for the national holiday.

I don't know about Valentines (never researched it) but Halloween is not Christian. Its pagan. Now, the day after is a Roman Catholic holiday called All Saints Day.

And Samhain is the Autumnal Equinox I believe, not Halloween.

The point being Christianity is claiming more stuff that is not theirs.

By the 800s, the influence of Christianity had spread into Celtic lands. In the seventh century, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 All Saints' Day, a time to honor saints and martyrs. It is widely believed today that the pope was attempting to replace the Celtic festival of the dead with a related, but church-sanctioned holiday. The celebration was also called All-hallows or All-hallowmas (from Middle English Alholowmesse meaning All Saints' Day) and the night before it, the night of Samhain, began to be called All-hallows Eve and, eventually, Halloween. Even later, in A.D. 1000, the church would make November 2 All Souls' Day, a day to honor the dead. It was celebrated similarly to Samhain, with big bonfires, parades, and dressing up in costumes as saints, angels, and devils. Together, the three celebrations, the eve of All Saints', All Saints', and All Souls', were called Hallowmas.

What does the good book say about waging wars to eliminate other religions and stealing their holidays, customs and traditions?

Got a quote/bible verse for that?:laugh:

(Here is where you tried the first time to steer the discussion off topic. :2cents: )

Did we steal or did we replace with something else that became more popular?

killing people that opposed your beliefs helps doesn't it?

:laugh:

[Xameil]

These threads mostly start the same way.

The usual suspects start out by trashing religion & Christianity based on some obscure web link that they saw on their lunch break. Of course it is not their only source... they've also seen Zeitgeist clips, and they are avid Dan Brown readers.

Along comes Techboy and completely overwhelms them with information and resources (of the highly-credible, academic variety) so that they might actually make an informed opinion.

At which point half of the usual suspects are never heard from again (until the next religion thread), or continue to pull their own chatty-cathy string claiming that followers of religion are suckers for bad information from poor sources, as they continue to indirectly make arguments outlined in Angels & Demons and The DaVinci Code.

See everyone on page 12. :ciao:

I do hope you aren't refering to me, because none of it applies to me...as for techboys "evidence" it is all by HIS sources, of which I do not and have ever found credible. But it is obvious who you are biased towards isn't it...so hows that thumping going...

What's up X? Haven't seen you around these parts in a while.

not much man..just wicked busy lately.

I don't see many people here talking about keeping an open mind. I see a lot of the non-believers here dismissing Christianity as a fraud that was based on previous religions/beliefs and using terms like myth, which, at least implies a fictional story (as it has multiple definitions it is not clear in which manner you've used it here), and not something that I would construe as keeping a completely open mind (i.e. that it is possible that the Bible and Christianity are at least largely based on historical events).

You don't know me very well... I am a believer, just not YOUR or the POPUlAR version of Christianity. yes believe it or not...there other forms of Christianity out there that were not molded by the Roman Catholics.

[DGreenistheBest]

So do you want to actually go back to the thread and point to something specific you find not convincing?

Well, it's a pretty long thread but I don't find any of it to be convincing of the existance of god, so you if you want to pick out a specific part I'll tell you why it doesn't convince me.

I don't see anywhere in that thread he talks about 40 witnesses so I assume that is a generalization. It is hard to have a real discussion based on generalizations.

I'm probably thinking of another thread or possibly a post by a different but equally well-researched poster. I've seen the witness argument in several threads here though.

The most convincing evidence is that the authors of the story were willing to be persecuted and die for it. The exsistance of Darth Vader would be much more convincing if Lucas would have gone to jail for claiming he was real.

Perhaps Scientology would have been a better example. I'm sure Tom Cruise would be willing to die for his belief in Xeni and thetans, and if he had lived in the time of Jesus and expressed his beliefs, he would have.

[Riggo-toni]

Okay, I'm almost worried to step back into this thread, because I actually am Christian, but I don't have any problems taking a secular viewpoint from time to time and discussing historical influences/confluences, etc. I am NOT anti-religion, and certainly not anti-Christian; I simply find certain discussions intellectually stimulating. It's unfortunate how polarizing the tailgate has become in recent years compared to how it was in the beginning when guys like Mardi Gras and Inmate could have leghty scholarly debates without any name-calling or flaming. I miss those days.

One thing I would like to point out is that certain aspects identified with Christianity aren't actually scriptural, but are interpretations/interpolations based on a few phrases. For example, there is nothing in the gospels about Jesus being born in a cave or stable. According to Jesus: A Life, the phrase in the original Greek text is better translated as "there was no place for him in the room" rather than no place at the inn. The implication is that there was no crib for a baby, so his parents improvised and converted a feeding box (manger) into a baby bed. Ergo, the supposed similarity between Jesus' and Horus' birth doesn't exist - any "borrowing" took place by later readers who saw what they wanted to see, and passed down traditions that most churchgoers accepted as biblical what was not. It's sad but most of us probably base our knowledge of the nativity on what we remember from Charlie Brown. The same goes for Dec 25 being Jesus' brithday, or the widely held belief that the Devil has horns and a pitchfork. Likewise, Jesus' father Joseph's occupation was artisan, which would be the Greek translation of an aramaic phrase used for both builders AND scholars. Yet, Christians almost universally believe/accept that the New Testament states his father was a carpenter

[Xameil]

Okay, I'm almost worried to step back into this thread, because I actually am Christian, but I don't have any problems taking a secular viewpoint from time to time and discussing historical influences/confluences, etc. I am NOT anti-religion, and certainly not anti-Christian; I simply find certain discussions intellectually stimulating. It's unfortunate how polarizing the tailgate has become in recent years compared to how it was in the beginning when guys like Mardi Gras and Inmate could have leghty scholarly debates without any name-calling or flaming. I miss those days.

One thing I would like to point out is that certain aspects identified with Christianity aren't actually scriptural, but are interpretations/interpolations based on a few phrases. For example, there is nothing in the gospels about Jesus being born in a cave or stable. According to Jesus: A Life, the phrase in the original Greek text is better translated as "there was no place for him in the room" rather than no place at the inn. The implication is that there was no crib for a baby, so his parents improvised and converted a feeding box (manger) into a baby bed. Ergo, the supposed similarity between Jesus' and Horus' birth doesn't exist - any "borrowing" took place by later readers who saw what they wanted to see, and passed down traditions that most churchgoers accepted as biblical what was not. It's sad but most of us probably base our knowledge of the nativity on what we remember from Charlie Brown. The same goes for Dec 25 being Jesus' brithday, or the widely held belief that the Devil has horns and a pitchfork. Likewise, Jesus' father Joseph's occupation was artisan, which would be the Greek translation of an aramaic phrase used for both builders AND scholars. Yet, Christians almost universally believe/accept that the New Testament states his father was a carpenter

Shhhh..you have an open mind and can put an intelligent argument without quoting Christian sources to back your claims...be careful...they been known to deem people like that heritics. They may take your Christian card away...lol