Jesus vs. Horus

[mad4comp]

One problem, as I understand it, is that much of our understanding of Horus comes from manuscripts that are dated AFTER the New Testament manuscripts. This makes it difficult to understand who might be borrowing from whom.

I think the whole things moot though. The comparison between Horus and Jesus seem to be weaker than the original post implied.

Sorry for the late responses

Where's your source for this?

As far as I know, most of the sources for the story of Horus comes from the Book of the Dead, some from later on Greek Mythology. But you cannot definitively say that the source for the Horus/Jesus Comparisons rests squarely on some material written after the inception of Jesus Christ/Christianity. Egyptian Mythology is based on other sources such as hieroglyphics such as the pictures of Horus being born to a virgin on the Walls of the Luxor Temple etc.... (which predate Christianity by almost 2-3 thousand years)

And in any case, my argument is about Christianity borrowing most of its beliefs from pagan religions, not just Egyptian mythology, but rather other sources such as Mithras, Hinduism (Krishna) etc... There are just too many parallels between them for Christianity to claim to be the "original."

[Zguy28]

And in any case, my argument is about Christianity borrowing most of its beliefs from pagan religions, not just Egyptian mythology, but rather other sources such as Mithras, Hinduism (Krishna) etc... There are just too many parallels between them for Christianity to claim to be the "original."

If this is your argument, which is valid by the way, would you mind bringing forward some detailed background info or citing academic and/or peer-reviewed sources/articles to support your case?

[mardi gras skin]

Where's your source for this?

As far as I know, most of the sources for the story of Horus comes from the Book of the Dead, some from later on Greek Mythology.

I'm not an expert in this field at all but, best I can tell, Plutarch's work from the second century CE is vital to our understanding of Egyptian Mythology.

[mardi gras skin]

Where's your source for this?

As far as I know, most of the sources for the story of Horus comes from the Book of the Dead, some from later on Greek Mythology.

Ok, after looking around a bit more, I can't find one coherent account of the Isis/Osiris/Horus mythology that doesn't depend on the work of Plutarch. His text is dated around 100 CE, 40 to 50 years after the first written accounts of Jesus. If there is a developed account of Horus that doesn't somehow depend on manuscripts written after Jesus, I haven't found them.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/D.html

But you cannot definitively say that the source for the Horus/Jesus Comparisons rests squarely on some material written after the inception of Jesus Christ/Christianity.

I didn't say that. I said, "much of our understanding of Horus comes from manuscripts that are dated AFTER the New Testament manuscripts." This is true.

And in any case, my argument is about Christianity borrowing most of its beliefs from pagan religions, not just Egyptian mythology, but rather other sources such as Mithras, Hinduism (Krishna) etc... There are just too many parallels between them for Christianity to claim to be the "original."

I understand this thread to deal with the comparisons between Horus and Jesus as outlined by the original poster. Your argument sounds like it has the makings of a good discussion, but it would probably be best if you gave your arguemnt its own thread. Maybe multiple threads. I suspect each comparison to Christianity will have its own evidence and its own problems, such as the problems found in the current comparison with Horus.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So if Christ would not have risen (act) would we have Christianity? No! You are totally incorrect!

Without the Resurrection story, there is likely still Christianity, but it is probably more of a Jewish sect than it its own separate religion.

[The_cavalierman]

Sorry for the late responses

Where's your source for this?

As far as I know, most of the sources for the story of Horus comes from the Book of the Dead, some from later on Greek Mythology. But you cannot definitively say that the source for the Horus/Jesus Comparisons rests squarely on some material written after the inception of Jesus Christ/Christianity. Egyptian Mythology is based on other sources such as hieroglyphics such as the pictures of Horus being born to a virgin on the Walls of the Luxor Temple etc.... (which predate Christianity by almost 2-3 thousand years)

And in any case, my argument is about Christianity borrowing most of its beliefs from pagan religions, not just Egyptian mythology, but rather other sources such as Mithras, Hinduism (Krishna) etc... There are just too many parallels between them for Christianity to claim to be the "original."

100% Agreed...

Christianity is a mixture of so many religions they should call it morphianity. I asked what does Christianity have that is not borrowed from other religions and the responses have been short on substance.

To say the Egyptians borrowed from Christianity when the Eygptians were around thousands of years before Christianity was even accepted as a religion is ridiculous and it shows a clear bias by the posters making these claims.

When his sources are questioned he refers to his pro-christianity experts....

[techboy]

Christianity is a mixture of so many religions they should call it morphianity. I asked what does Christianity have that is not borrowed from other religions and the responses have been short on substance.

First, this is exactly backwards. It's up to people who think that Christianity did any borrowing at all to prove it.

Second, to answer the question with "substance", let's look at Mettinger's conclusion, after carefully and meticulously poring over the evidence. Again.

(1)The figures we have studied are deities. In the case of Jesus, we are confronted with a human (for whom divinity was claimed by himself and by his followers). For the disciples and for Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time, historical event that took place at one specific point in the earth's topography. The empty tomb was seen as a historical datum. (4)

(2) The dying and rising gods were closely related to the seasonal cycle. Their death and return were seen as reflected in the changes of plant life. The death and ressurection of Jesus is a one-time event, not repeated, and unrelated to seasonal changes.

(3) The death of Jesus is presented in the sources as vicarious suffering, as an act of atonement for sins. The myth of Dumuzi has an arrangement with bilocation and substitution, but there is no evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods as vicarious suffering for sins.

There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions. The riddle remains.

Again, the emphasis is mine. No prima facie evidence. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Bupkus. Zero.

While Jewish influences can be seen all over Christianity, which is logical, since Jesus and His followers were all Jews, and Christianity is an extension of traditional Judaism, there is no evidence of pagan influence. Which, again, is logical, given Judaism's antipathy towards other supernatural beliefs. This antipathy wasn't minor, either. What are the only two religions the Roman Empire ever had trouble with? Christianity (of course) and Judaism. Why Judaism? Because Jews refused to worship the emperor, like all the other well-behaved syncrectic pagan religions. What did it get them? In AD 70, their Temple was destroyed, their people were enslaved, and they were scattered to the 4 winds for nearly 2000 years. It is in this context, Judaism, that Christianity should be seen, and there is no way that Paul (a self-described "Jew's Jew") or Peter or James or Jesus Himself, all devout Jews, would borrow from pagan beliefs. Jews would have rather died. And they did. Horribly.

To say the Egyptians borrowed from Christianity when the Eygptians were around thousands of years before Christianity was even accepted as a religion is ridiculous and it shows a clear bias by the posters making these claims.

Please quote the person that claimed that Egyptian myths borrowed from Christianity.

When his sources are questioned he refers to his pro-christianity experts....

In this regard, Mettinger has shown, without the pro- or anti-Christian biases of his forebears, the historical existence of some ancient gods apparently believed to die and to be resurrected.

Emphasis mine. Further, if you think that people like Ehrman, Crossan, and Sherwin-White are "pro-Christian" sources, it just shows that you don't have a clue who those people actually are.

Finally, I'll ask you the same question I asked mad4comp. Do you have anything beyond fallacious arguments (look up the genetic fallacy) to impeach the experts I have cited or their evidence? Especially since in several of the cases, like Mettinger, even the fallacious argument isn't right?

[techboy]

Without the Resurrection story' date=' there is likely still Christianity, but it is probably more of a Jewish sect than it its own separate religion.[/quote']

Again, I don't think this is accurate. The history of Judaism (especially around that period, when people were looking for a Messiah that would free them from Rome) is littered with people that claimed to be the Messiah, gathered large followings, only to have those followings literally wither away upon their deaths. People like Simon ben Kosiba, Simon bar Giora, Athronges.

This really isn't surprising, when we consider that Jews of the day expected the Messiah to be a political and military leader, like David, who would restore the Jewish people to glory and their rightful place. The Messiah wasn't supposed to die, he was supposed to be triumphant over all of Israel's enemies. So, when a Messiah died, he was rejected as a fake, and people moved on to the next one. (Life of Brian quote: "I've followed a lot of Messiahs in my time, and let me tell you, you're the real thing!" :laugh: )

You can see this in the behavior of the Apostles, as well. After Jesus was executed, they were beaten, broken, and scared to death, hiding in a tiny attic. Only later did they become the triumphant messengers of the Good News, willing to suffer torture and death to spread it.

Something had to seperate them from all the other followers of all the other Messiahs that were killed. Something had to cause the amazing transformation from cowards in hiding to bold proclaimers of the faith in defiance of the authorities.

That something, logically, is that they came to believe they had encountered the risen Jesus. Nothing else really accounts for it, and I don't think Christianity would exist at all, in any form, had this belief not taken root.

[boobiemiles]

Don't tell the Chrsitians that their religion is based on the religion from other cultures. Shoot Jesus could walk on water, heal the sick, and raise the dead, but he couldn't get off the cross, go figure. As a contigent to Jesus lack of power at the time of death, we are to believe he died for our sins. Well ladies and gentlemen that is none sense. We are all going to be judge. Maybe if we conduct our selves like Jesus we will find what he was looking for: enlightenment and understanding.

I appluad this thread. Most of post are conservative in one fashion or the other.

The real tragedy is that most people do not know the history behind their religion. I guess you can call them ignorant, or just mislead.

I was raised to be Baptist, but that dogma that left to many questions unanswered. I started to study Islam, but that religion is to restrictive. You have to pray to the west at certain times, walk around the Kabala, yada yada yada. As I have said before all the religions got it wrong.....well maybe the Tibetan Book of the Dead might be on point. But to me the true miracle is a being that can conctruct Space Ships, Bridges, The Pantheon, World Trade Centers, Pyramids, and Computers, is compelled to understand that all of this spawned from someting greater than ourselves. And we pay homage to that being. Sure we are human, so we try to possess that being by giving it a name, God, Jehova, Ra, whatever. But in the long run we know that we are part of something, there is a reason for being that is greater than ourselves. Doesn't that feel good. I mean doesn't it feel good that life isn't about just comsuming things, but enlightenment, understanding, and eventually coming to grips with our death? I think Jesus would like that to be the legacy he left behind. I mean we are all going to die, it would be nice if we could die smiling.

Oh yeah. I know the story of Jesus was derived from other stories.....I was thinking maybe he was suppose to be the Imhotep of A.D. era.

[Xameil]

You said:

What are you talking about? What cases of a few left up for only a few hours?

And Jesus died because of trauma to his heart, but not from the spear.

http://brainshavings.com/supplements/crucifixion/

You said:

What are you talking about? What cases of a few left up for only a few hours?

And Jesus died because of trauma to his heart, but not from the spear.

http://brainshavings.com/supplements/crucifixion/

First yeah you're right who cares that Cruxifiction did not mean death...who cares about others...But my point was...it was not a death sentence and since neither of us lived in those times, we have no idea what was prevelant do we?

Interesting....I was always taught it was the spear...so can we find the medical examiners report that it was his heart....ya got that for me?

waiting...ya got that medical examiners report yet...because according to that article...it's INTERPRETATION. I don't seem to remember anyone doing an actual autopsy....come on waiting.

I swear speaking to you ubers and thumpers is like speaking to a closed door....hell more like a wall, at least a door can be opened. And MH you're right...this thread does go the way of all the religious threads. An idea is thrown up and the ubers limp along spewing the same rhetoric until Techboy comes with the same long winded posts from the same religious backed sources, then the other ubers and thumpers jump in and argue amongst themselves till the rest of us just don't care anymore. Then they go around carry the cross up high claiming they win...

ok I'm off my soapbox...carry on spewing your manipulated references and biased opinions...

[Xameil]

Techboy wins again.

All I see in this thread is the classic moving target strategy. They put up some article claiming Jesus was this, techboy smashes that to pieces,

more like bores us to death....sorry when I see him quoting things now, I just skim right over it since it bears no weight to me since it is written by a fellow uber. That would be like reading a review of a new drug that is a mircacle medical cure for all ailments that was put out by the company itself...sorry but thaths the way it is.

[boobiemiles]

Again, I don't think this is accurate. The history of Judaism (especially around that period, when people were looking for a Messiah that would free them from Rome) is littered with people that claimed to be the Messiah, gathered large followings, only to have those followings literally wither away upon their deaths. People like Simon ben Kosiba, Simon bar Giora, Athronges.

This really isn't surprising, when we consider that Jews of the day expected the Messiah to be a political and military leader, like David, who would restore the Jewish people to glory and their rightful place. The Messiah wasn't supposed to die, he was supposed to be triumphant over all of Israel's enemies. So, when a Messiah died, he was rejected as a fake, and people moved on to the next one. (Life of Brian quote: "I've followed a lot of Messiahs in my time, and let me tell you, you're the real thing!" :laugh: )

You can see this in the behavior of the Apostles, as well. After Jesus was executed, they were beaten, broken, and scared to death, hiding in a tiny attic. Only later did they become the triumphant messengers of the Good News, willing to suffer torture and death to spread it.

Something had to seperate them from all the other followers of all the other Messiahs that were killed. Something had to cause the amazing transformation from cowards in hiding to bold proclaimers of the faith in defiance of the authorities.

That something, logically, is that they came to believe they had encountered the risen Jesus. Nothing else really accounts for it, and I don't think Christianity would exist at all, in any form, had this belief not taken root.

If it wasn't for Mary Magedellon, Peter, and Paul there would be no Christanity period. Mary saw Jesus first and told the disiples to stop being a bunch of ****es, Paul gave the church structure, and Paul walk the roads in Rome, and because he was a citizen he could not get executed. Well until he kept talking smack and the Emperor said off with his head. Then this guy what is his name, oh yeah, Constantanople (sp?) got high, saw a PX in the sky before battle, and declared the Chritians God had helpedd them win the battle. Then instead of burning the Christians, and feeding them to lions, they actually didnt think they were to bad. That Ben guy he was cool. He was the guy that lead the only successful Jewish revolt, but that ended in Messada.

[techboy]

more like bores us to death....sorry when I see him quoting things now, I just skim right over it since it bears no weight to me since it is written by a fellow uber.

Well, I can't say that I blame you for skimming, but again this is an example of the genetic fallacy. Try pointing out where the sources are in error, preferably with some qualified sources of your own.

Also, in this thread, you're not even on the right track, as my primary source is Mettinger, and not an "uber" at all (to say nothing of Ehrman, Crossan, Sherwin-White, etc.).

[Mooka]

The NT isn't as fun an argument. We're talking about Gospels and Acts written in relatively modern times, describing relatively modern events.

The OT is where the fun stuff is.

[Chachie]

The NT isn't as fun an argument. We're talking about Gospels and Acts written in relatively modern times, describing relatively modern events.

The OT is where the fun stuff is.

I agree. The OT is one long extraterrestrial visitation.

(Ducking for cover.)

[Zguy28]

First yeah you're right who cares that Cruxifiction did not mean death

Apparently you since you are the one who itnroduced it.

...who cares about others...But my point was...it was not a death sentence and since neither of us lived in those times, we have no idea what was prevelant do we?

Cop out. You made the claims, back them up.

Interesting....I was always taught it was the spear...

By whom?

The gospel narrative doesn't agree with you.

The Death of Jesus

28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," 37and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."

so can we find the medical examiners report that it was his heart....ya got that for me?

waiting...ya got that medical examiners report yet...because according to that article...it's INTERPRETATION. I don't seem to remember anyone doing an actual autopsy....come on waiting.

Now your being obtuse, probably because you have no answers.

Using your criteria, where's the report saying it was spear thrust that killed him?

I swear speaking to you ubers and thumpers is like speaking to a closed door....hell more like a wall, at least a door can be opened.

Willingness to discuss competing opinions is open-mindedness. Belligerent attitudes and not wanting to even discuss the merit of your own claims is closedmindedness and fundamentalism. Which are you?

And MH you're right...this thread does go the way of all the religious threads.

Indeed.

Somebody throws out an unresearched idea usually based on speculation or an internet movie, the Christians come out to correct factual errors in the idea, and then scoffers come out high-fiving each other because the Christians can't prove that God exists with the Scientific Method (as if we are trying, which we're not ).

An idea is thrown up and the ubers limp along spewing the same rhetoric until Techboy comes with the same long winded posts from the same religious backed sources, then the other ubers and thumpers jump in and argue amongst themselves till the rest of us just don't care anymore. Then they go around carry the cross up high claiming they win...

Nothing else to add huh? When all else fails just throw out baseless attacks and angry rhetoric. Maybe if you say it enough people will believe you, right? Yep, par for the course for the religious threads indeed.

Its sad really that nobody wants to actually discuss subjects at hand. Instead, if Christianity doesn't match up to your view of the world, that must mean we're a bunch of closeminded bigots.

ok I'm off my soapbox...carry on spewing your manipulated references and biased opinions...

At least we produce references and opinions to back up the claims that demand it.

[Xameil]

Apparently you since you are the one who itnroduced it.

Cop out. You made the claims, back them up.

By whom?

The gospel narrative doesn't agree with you.

The Death of Jesus

28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," 37and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."

Now your being obtuse because you have no answers.

Using your criteria, where's the report saying it was spear thrust that killed him?

You need to look in a mirror my friend.

Willingness to discuss competing opinions is open-mindedness. Belligerent attitudes and not wanting to even discuss the merit of your own claims is closedmindedness and fundamentalism. Which are you?

Indeed.

Somebody throws out an unresearched idea usually based on speculation or an internet movie, the Christians come out to correct factual errors in the idea, and then scoffers come out high-fiving each other because the Christians can't prove that God exists with the Scientific Method (as if we are trying, which we're not ).

Nothing else to add huh? When all else fails just throw out baseless attacks and angry rhetoric. Maybe if you say it enough people will believe you, right? Yep, par for the course for the religious threads indeed.

Its sad really that nobody wants to actually discuss subjects at hand. Instead, if Christianity doesn't match up to your view of the world, that must mean we're a bunch of closeminded bigots.

At least we produce references and opinions to back up the claims that demand it.

lets see...your references are baseless...thats my point. Just like whenever I threw one up you said the same thing. So...I stopped. I don't feel like wasting my time. As for your "Instead, if Christianity doesn't match up to your view of the world, that must mean we're a bunch of closeminded bigots."

lol again thats like you guys saying you are the most prejudiced against in the US...funny...

and lest you forget I AM A CHRISTIAN!!! except I don't fit your little mold. My Mind IS OPEN...thats why my view is now different...I was an alter biy, told the same BS year after year, then..I questioned something...IMMEDIATELY I got in trouble, so lets see...that made me want to know more...so I read outside the "required" texts and look towards 3rd party views...do I still believe in Christ..yup. Do I think he is the Son of God...yup....do I think the bible is filled with lies to fit an agenda...yup...do I think the BS you guys spew make you lemmings...yup...do you think I am less Christian because I don't "thump" the same bible...yup, because you guys told me so.

Anways again, I have run out of my internet time for this break...and I am done in this thread..you want to continue to debate...we can take it to PMs because honestly theres no need for the he said she said BS pissing match that you are getting me into to be for everyone.

[Zguy28]

lets see...your references are baseless...thats my point.

Then respond to them if that's the case. Call each one out. I would be happy to back them up.

Just like whenever I threw one up you said the same thing.

No, you made a claim about crucifixion not being a form of execution, but just punishment. I disputed it with a legitimate reference. I'll go back a read through the thread to make sure, but I don't recall you being able to (or maybe unwilling) back up your claim. What is funny is that its not even something that important in the scheme of things that your ticked about.

So...I stopped. I don't feel like wasting my time.

You barely spent any time to begin with.

As for your "Instead, if Christianity doesn't match up to your view of the world, that must mean we're a bunch of closeminded bigots."

I wasn't just referring to YOU. It was in the general sense, but yeah, you are whining a lot.

lol again thats like you guys saying you are the most prejudiced against in the US...funny...

Just to clarify, neither I nor TB believe Christians suffer persecution in the USA.

and lest you forget I AM A CHRISTIAN!!! except I don't fit your little mold.

What mold is that?

My Mind IS OPEN...

Sure doesn't seem like it. :2cents:

thats why my view is now different...

Me too. I was agnostic til 6 years ago.

I was an alter biy, told the same BS year after year, then..I questioned something...IMMEDIATELY I got in trouble, so lets see...that made me want to know more...

Sorry to hear that. Didn't know the Episcopal church was so controlling like that.

I thought they were fairly liberal.

so I read outside the "required" texts and look towards 3rd party views...

I've done the same. It's interesting, but ultimately it doesn't convince me.

do I still believe in Christ..yup.

Good.

Do I think he is the Son of God...yup....

Good.

do I think the bible is filled with lies to fit an agenda...yup...

That's your choice. Do you feel the same about the gnostic texts that "enlightened" you?

How do you know that what you believe about Christ is correct? Where is the authority in what you believe?

How do you know with authority what Constantine did or didn't do?

Please excuse me if I would like legitimate answers from you.

do I think the BS you guys spew make you lemmings...yup...

Nice. Whose open-minded again?

do you think I am less Christian because I don't "thump" the same bible...yup, because you guys told me so.

Nope, I just think your wrong. I've said it before. Nothing has changed.

Anways again, I have run out of my internet time for this break...and I am done in this thread..you want to continue to debate...we can take it to PMs because honestly theres no need for the he said she said BS pissing match that you are getting me into to be for everyone.

No need. I'd rather discuss it in public. Unless of course there is something very personal to you that you'd rather not. Then I understand.

[jaxskinsville]

Without the Resurrection story' date=' there is likely still Christianity, but it is probably more of a Jewish sect than it its own separate religion.[/quote']

Without the story of the Resurrection, Christianity is quite literally...dead.

[jaxskinsville]

I agree. The OT is one long extraterrestrial visitation.

(Ducking for cover.)

Although I would disagree with that statement, that my friend, is very funny!

:laugh:

[Chachie]

Although I would disagree with that statement, that my friend, is very funny!

:laugh:

Why?

[jaxskinsville]

Why?

Why?...to which part?

I find your phrasing funny because I have never seen the OT described that way.

Isn't it odd how two - polar opposite subjects - like the Bible and Aliens, when combined in a phrase like yours, makes both subjects so amazingly, incredibly, absurdly......real?

The Bible teaches us that God created the heavens and the earth and created man in his own image. Among the many teachings of Jesus we learn to be humble and meek.

And yet, to believe that we are the sole "owners" of this universe; that we are the end all-be all that has ever exited; that God created all of this for us and us alone is the height of arrogance.

Arrogance is a polar opposite of humble and meek.

[Chachie]

Why?...to which part?

I find your phrasing funny because I have never seen the OT described that way.

Isn't it odd how two - polar opposite subjects - like the Bible and Aliens, when combined in a phrase like yours, makes both subjects so amazingly, incredibly, absurdly......real?

The Bible teaches us that God created the heavens and the earth and created man in his own image. Among the many teachings of Jesus we learn to be humble and meek.

And yet, to believe that we are the sole "owners" of this universe; that we are the end all-be all that has ever exited; that God created all of this for us and us alone is the height of arrogance.

Arrogance is a polar opposite of humble and meek.

:applause:

For the record, Jax- the bible teaches us that THE GODS created us in THEIR own image.

And I agree that when one combines these two subjects, they fall into a much more "realistic" or at least comprehensible concept. If one were to re-read Genesis and Exodus with an eye toward the paranormal rather than the divine, they may agree. Not many here will though and I can't complete belief in this scenario so I'm not gonna push it.

P.S.- Ezekiel, Elijiah, and Elisha may have had close encounters of the third kind.

[mardi gras skin]

100% Agreed...

Christianity is a mixture of so many religions they should call it morphianity. I asked what does Christianity have that is not borrowed from other religions and the responses have been short on substance.

I would be interested in hearing about these. The specific comparisons offered up in this thread have proven to be unreliable, but I believe there to be more accurate comparisons. Do you have any specifics? If so, it would be great for you to include source material. ie. original manuscripts like the Plutarch source I posted rather than some random claim made based on someone elses random claims.

[mardi gras skin]

the bible teaches us that THE GODS created us in THEIR own image.

You sure about that? In Genesis 1:26, God says "let us make man in our image" but in the very next verse it says "and God created man in His image." If you are right, why isn't there a consistent use of the plural? The multiple God idea only works if you ignore the very next verse.

Christians say this references the Trinity. I don't buy that either. At least, I don't buy that Israel lived with the tension for thousands of years without some other explanation.

We have another example of God using the plural in Isaiah 6 where he is clearly reference angles. "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" So my thought is, ancient Israel would read Genesis 1:26 and say "There God goes again, including the angles when he uses the word us."

Don't you think that makes the most sense? Surely its not as scandalous as the polytheistic idea and not as poetic as the trinitarian idea, but it is the theory that accounts for the all the problems.

Sometimes the right answer is the most boring one.