Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is the statement, "There are no absolutes," absolute?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Is the statement, "There are no absolutes," absolute?

This is definately a stray from your typical thread topics. And yeah, it is.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Is the statement, "There are no absolutes," absolute?

No. There is an absolute true, but no person (including Jesus) can ever know what it is.


Hey! JIA, why haven't you been Raptured yet?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Is the statement, "There are no absolutes," absolute?
Yes, it is, but it is pointless to argue it.

Similarly, the statement of "there are always exceptions to the rule" is a universe-imploding paradox.

In Soviet Union, there is no absolute you!

Okay. It's not the BEST Yakov impersonation. It might not even be in the Top 1,000,000 but I couldn't resist.

Anyway, man can not know all. So there can not be an absolute truth as far as WE are concerned.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Is the statement, "There are no absolutes," absolute?

In my experience most people who say that do so for the humor.

But, yes, that statement is an absolute.

THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS GOING TO EXPLODE NOW !!! AHHHHHHH !!!!!!!fear

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hey! JIA, have you been Raptured yet? Absolutely not.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Is the statement, "There are no absolutes," absolute? It's a paradox. Kinda like the whole God being all powerful.

I believe there are absolutes, I think also, it is probably an absolute that we can never "know" (in the meaning of being 100% sure) whether something is an absolute or not.

Nothing much could happen
Nothing we can't shake
Oh we're absolute beginners -David Bowie

Originally posted by anaconda
Nothing much could happen
Nothing we can't shake
Oh we're absolute beginners -David Bowie

Absolutely...

.....insanity

No, that's my world.

omg

a semantic argument that plays to the ambiguity of language has just proved the existance of god!!!!

everyone convert now, there is no way to argue with such powerful evidence!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. There is an absolute true, but no person (including Jesus) can ever know what it is.


Hey! JIA, why haven't you been Raptured yet?

I'm writing from Heaven.

I thought that there are no absolutes (according to secular society)?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I'm writing from Heaven.

I thought that there are no absolutes (according to secular society)?

Telling lies will make you fall into hell.

My beliefs are not secular. I am a Buddhist, and that is quite different from secular society. I think that secular society is wrong on a lot of issues.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I'm writing from Heaven.

I thought that there are no absolutes (according to secular society)? Now you know better. It's nice to see how KMC can help ignorance.

help it to blossom???

really ? must be a new place cause it aint on the GPS

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. There is an absolute true, but no person (including Jesus) can ever know what it is.


Hey! JIA, why haven't you been Raptured yet?

Jesus is absolutely the Truth (John 14:6) so that means that Jesus is also Absolute!

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus is absolutely the Truth (John 14:6) so that means that Jesus is also Absolute!

He might be. We can not be sure that he is though.

Absolute vodka gets you drunk, that means Absolute vodka is absolute

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus is absolutely the Truth (John 14:6) so that means that Jesus is also Absolute!

That would mean that the bible is absolute. Something that is absolute cannot change, and the bible has changed over time. Your house of cards has just fallen.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That would mean that the bible is absolute. Something that is absolute cannot change, and the bible has changed over time. Your house of cards has just fallen.

God is absolute. Jesus is God; therefore, Jesus is absolute.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. There is an absolute true, but no person (including Jesus) can ever know what it is.


Hey! JIA, why haven't you been Raptured yet?

I thought that there are no absolutes?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I thought that there are no absolutes?

Did you miss the Rapture bus? Or is it that this Rapture business is an absolute crock?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Is the statement, "There are no absolutes," absolute?
Why do you ask?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This is definately a stray from your typical thread topics.

Originally posted by Robtard
Did you miss the Rapture bus? Or is it that this Rapture business is an absolute crock?

I'm on the Rapture Bus right now.

Originally posted by Mindship
Why do you ask?

Well, many secular people say that there are no absolutes whenever believers tell them what the Bible says concerning all being sinners and lost without Jesus.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus is absolutely the Truth (John 14:6) so that means that Jesus is also Absolute!


Just because Jesus existed does not mean he is the son of God.



The Bible saying he is, is not proof. The Bible is just like the Quran, Vedas Books of Wisdom, and every other religious book in that it was created by mankind.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Well, many secular people say that there are no absolutes whenever believers tell them what the Bible says concerning all being sinners and lost without Jesus.

I have never seen such a stupid reply to that claim.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I thought that there are no absolutes?


Of course there is an absolute. However, you don't know what it is.


Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Well, many secular people say that there are no absolutes whenever believers tell them what the Bible says concerning all being sinners and lost without Jesus.

Why the bible? Why not the Koran?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I'm on the Rapture Bus right now.

You must have a miserable existence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Of course there is an absolute. However, you don't know what it is.




Why the bible? Why not the Koran?



You must have a miserable existence.

Of course there is an absolute. However, you don't know what it is.

I just told you Who it is (hint: Jesus the Christ).

Why the bible? Why not the Koran?

Because the Bible is absolutely the Word of God (YHWH), but the Koran is the word of the moon idol Allah.

You must have a miserable existence.

Negative.

Originally posted by inimalist
omg

a semantic argument that plays to the ambiguity of language has just proved the existance of god!!!!

everyone convert now, there is no way to argue with such powerful evidence!



QFT.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Because the Bible is absolutely the Word of God (YHWH), but the Koran is the word of the moon idol Allah.
COLOR]

You've oviously never opened the Koran, since it claims that it is indeed the book of the god of Abraham, and comdems worshiping visible things like the sun and moon.

Oh, the entire "moon idol" thing was disproved a long, long time ago in a thread he made. He just hasn't admitted it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Of course there is an absolute. However, you don't know what it is.

I just told you Who it is (hint: Jesus the Christ).


No, you told us what you think the absolute is.

the only absolute is that there are no absolutes. i think this takes care of your problem jia{and is it me or are you mellowing?}.

btw, nice to have you back. {n no, im not being sarcastic if thas what ur thinking}

Originally posted by anaconda
Absolute vodka gets you drunk, that means Absolute vodka is absolute Ya know, I was gonna say something like that, but decided not too.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Of course there is an absolute. However, you don't know what it is.

I just told you Who it is (hint: Jesus the Christ).

Why the bible? Why not the Koran?

Because the Bible is absolutely the Word of God (YHWH), but the Koran is the word of the moon idol Allah.

You must have a miserable existence.

Negative.

Jesus was just a man.

There are a lot of people on the Earth that say the Koran is the word of god.

I say, you can't find God in a book.

I would say someone who waits all their life for something that never happens is miserable.

There is one absolute, and it's Mountain Dew

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You've oviously never opened the Koran, since it claims that it is indeed the book of the god of Abraham, and comdems worshiping visible things like the sun and moon.

No, I have read the Qu'ran (Koran). But Allah is not the god of Abraham (YWHW) is.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the only absolute is that there are no absolutes. i think this takes care of your problem jia{and is it me or are you mellowing?}.

btw, nice to have you back. {n no, im not being sarcastic if thas what ur thinking}

But if you affirm that there are no absolutes then you are saying in essence that there is an absolute: no absolutes. Get it? Your statement that there are no absolutes becomes an absolute statement. So there is an absolute, the "no absolute" is the absolute.

But in reference to Christianity unbelievers claim that there are no absolutes.

So have you contradicted yourself?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, I have read the Qu'ran (Koran).

Bullshit, otherwise your posts would show that you have.

FYI: Reading a few verses on the internet doesn't count, I'm talking actually reading it from cover to cover.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Bullshit, otherwise your posts would show that you have.

FYI: Reading a few verses on the internet doesn't count, I'm talking actually reading it from cover to cover.

Queiro Mota, have you read either the Bible or Qu'ran from cover to cover?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Queiro Mota, have you read either the Bible or Qu'ran from cover to cover?

Yes, both. Why?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes, both. Why?

I didn't believe that you did so I asked.

absolutes are the sign of the dark side.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
absolutes are the sign of the dark side.

So then there is an absolute as long as Christians do not say so?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So then there is an absolute as long as Christians do not say so?

Not "say so", but not if they act like they know what it is.

Sorry if the sentence didn't come out right.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So then there is an absolute as long as Christians do not say so? No, imo, there either is an absolute or there isn't, regardless of what Christians say.

But you make a logical mistake her. You are talking about Christians saying there is an absolute truth, while we talk about Christians claiming what that absolute is. Different issues.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, I have read the Qu'ran (Koran). But Allah is not the god of Abraham (YWHW) is.
Allah, MUSLIM NAME FOR THE SUPREME BEING. The term is a contraction of the Arabic al-llah,"the God." Both the idea and the word existed in pre-Islamic Arabian tradition, in which some evidence of a primitive monotheism can also be found. Although they recognized other, lesser gods, the pre-Islamic Arabs recognized Allah as the supreme God.
The complete name of Allah before it is contracted to the shorter form, is "AL-ILAH." "ILAH" is the masculine root word for Allah, or "god", in Arabic. "AL ILAT" is the feminine resulting in Allat. (Hitti, Philip, History of The Arabs, London, 1950, 8)

Originally posted by debbiejo
Allah, MUSLIM NAME FOR THE SUPREME BEING. The term is a contraction of the Arabic al-llah,"the God." Both the idea and the word existed in pre-Islamic Arabian tradition, in which some evidence of a primitive monotheism can also be found. Although they recognized other, lesser gods, the pre-Islamic Arabs recognized Allah as the supreme God.
The complete name of Allah before it is contracted to the shorter form, is "AL-ILAH." "ILAH" is the masculine root word for Allah, or "god", in Arabic. "AL ILAT" is the feminine resulting in Allat. (Hitti, Philip, History of The Arabs, London, 1950, 8)

Allah its not a 'Muslim' name for a God, its an Arabic name, since it existed before Islam. Christian Arabs use Allah to refer to God, as they have no other word.
However if a non-Arab refers to God as Allah is generally understood as Islamic God.

Arabic language borrows a great deal from Hebrew.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But if you affirm that there are no absolutes then you are saying in essence that there is an absolute: no absolutes. Get it? Your statement that there are no absolutes becomes an absolute statement. So there is an absolute, the "no absolute" is the absolute.

But in reference to Christianity unbelievers claim that there are no absolutes.

So have you contradicted yourself?

not at all. i affirm there is only one absolute. that {with the exception of the absolute implied in this statement i.e. that without fail their are no absolutes} there are no absolutes outside this statements.

its a confusion caused by the limitation of language more than the content of this text.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Allah its not a 'Muslim' name for a God, its an Arabic name, since it existed before Islam. Christian Arabs use Allah to refer to God, as they have no other word.
However if a non-Arab refers to God as Allah is generally understood as Islamic God.

Arabic language borrows a great deal from Hebrew. Thanks for the clear up.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
absolutes are the sign of the dark side.



Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Supreme Chancellor: Good is a point of view, Anakin. The Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power.... The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

not at all. i affirm there is only one absolute. that {with the exception of the absolute implied in this statement i.e. that without fail their are no absolutes} there are no absolutes outside this statements.

There are no absolutes.

No, there is only one absolute:
"There are no absolutes."

No, now there are two absolutes:
"There is only one absolute."
"There are no absolutes."
Okay, so there are only two absolutes.

No, now there are three absolutes:
"There are only two absolutes."
"There is only one absolute."
"There are no absolutes."
Okay, there are only three absolutes.

No, now there are four absolutes...

You get the picture.

its a confusion caused by the limitation of language more than the content of this text. Sounds like another absolute.

2xNsR_tTF8I

Originally posted by Mindship
There are no absolutes.

No, there is only one absolute:
"There are no absolutes."

No, now there are two absolutes:
"There is only one absolute."
"There are no absolutes."
Okay, so there are only two absolutes.

No, now there are three absolutes:
"There are only two absolutes."
"There is only one absolute."
"There are no absolutes."
Okay, there are only three absolutes.

No, now there are four absolutes...

You get the picture.

Sounds like another absolute.

Absolutely wrong.

JIA, a few questions:

1. Do you believe the Bible to be an absolute? Or just the God the Bible talks about?

2. If you believe the Bible to be absolute truth - which version is it - or is it just the original Greek & Hebrew with faulty man-made translations?

3. Is it possible that YWHW and Allah are the same God, but viewed by different perspectives (remember until Isaac and Ishmael, Christians consider Jews and Muslims to have been the same group of people)?

I have more questions about your belief in hell, but I'll save them for later - or maybe a more appropraite thread...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus is absolutely the Truth (John 14:6) so that means that Jesus is also Absolute! No. That means the Bible is lying.

Originally posted by ushomefree
2xNsR_tTF8I He makes very good points. But then he ****s up by not thinking it through. Even if God exists, his earlier points apply. There just are NO objective morals.


His axioms are wrong too.

Originally posted by ushomefree
2xNsR_tTF8I

Objective moral values??????????? No such thing. However, I've noticed a lovely thread that flows through many different religions - the idea of "harm none" - in wicca, "do as you will, but harm none" (& the law of threefold return/karma)...in christianity "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" & "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial" (yes that's in the bible, too)...and I've seen this ideology in other teachings as well - basically try to live as peacefully as you can with others, but there really isn't a plumbline - a definitive moral compass to go by. If you say the 10 Commandments, maybe if you are Jewish, but not according to Paul!

Originally posted by Bardock42
He makes very good points. But then he ****s up by not thinking it through. Even if God exists, his earlier points apply. There just are NO objective morals.


His axioms are wrong too. I very strongly agree.

Originally posted by julibug
Objective moral values??????????? No such thing. However, I've noticed a lovely thread that flows through many different religions - the idea of "harm none" - in wicca, "do as you will, but harm none" (& the law of threefold return/karma)...in christianity "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" & "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial" (yes that's in the bible, too)...and I've seen this ideology in other teachings as well - basically try to live as peacefully as you can with others, but there really isn't a plumbline - a definitive moral compass to go by. If you say the 10 Commandments, maybe if you are Jewish, but not according to Paul! Great points.

If we're talking about moral values, my philosphy is:

Do whatever you want, aslong as it's beneficial to most people.

Originally posted by julibug
JIA, a few questions:

1. Do you believe the Bible to be an absolute? Or just the God the Bible talks about?

2. If you believe the Bible to be absolute truth - which version is it - or is it just the original Greek & Hebrew with faulty man-made translations?

3. Is it possible that YWHW and Allah are the same God, but viewed by different perspectives (remember until Isaac and Ishmael, Christians consider Jews and Muslims to have been the same group of people)?

I have more questions about your belief in hell, but I'll save them for later - or maybe a more appropraite thread...

JIA has been Raptured.

Or ruptured.

Originally posted by lord xyz
If we're talking about moral values, my philosphy is:

Do whatever you want, aslong as it's beneficial to most people.

So....not "do what you want" at all? Much more..."do what is beneficial to most people".

It's in my opinion, very hard to evaluate such situations and to decide where to draw the line.

true there are no objective morals. because we humans are by nature subjective{as we should be}, biased towards hapiness, existance, self preservation etc. we often forget that it also part of our nature to be able to love others/care for them and hence its very easy to create morals based on logic which acknowledges these biases.

on the ther hand there practically no truth to dogmatic morals not directly based on the above and mutually benefitial humanistic things. morals are subjective, but the subjectivity doesnt have to come from relegion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So....not "do what you want" at all? Much more..."do what is beneficial to most people".

It's in my opinion, very hard to evaluate such situations and to decide where to draw the line. Do what you think is best then?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Do what you think is best then? I don't know what you actually mean. I assume it is neither of the things you said.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God is absolute. Jesus is God; therefore, Jesus is absolute.

Syllogism?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive


God is absolute. Jesus is God; therefore, Jesus is absolute.

Syllogism?


Considering everything you believe about God is based only on faith:

Belief in God is based on faith; faith lacks proof; therefore, there is no proof of God.

That's a more accurate syllogism.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering everything you believe about God is based only on faith:

Belief in God is based on faith; faith lacks proof; therefore, there is no proof of God.

That's a more accurate syllogism.

Not correct. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).



Hebrews 11:1 (New King James Version)
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1 (Amplified Bible)
1NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, (the title deed) of the things hope for, being the proof of things do not see and the conviction of their reality .



From a believer's perspective faith is the evidence (i.e. proof) of what he/she cannot perceive through the senses.

Hence, Belief in God is based on faith; faith is the evidence/proof; therefore, there is proof of God (again, based on faith which is the evidence)

Syllogism reloaded.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus was just a man.

There are a lot of people on the Earth that say the Koran is the word of god.

I say, you can't find God in a book.

I would say someone who waits all their life for something that never happens is miserable.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Jesus was just a man (based on what others have said about Him and witnessed first-hand).

jesus is alive. i saw him........... at home depo

lol ima let that one stay i wont edit it. sorry just my beliefs that a written document that has no real origin cant be trusted. i could write a "bible" and have ppl believe it. does that make it true or in any way correct? no it doesnt

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Not correct. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).



Hebrews 11:1 (New King James Version)
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1 (Amplified Bible)
1NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, (the title deed) of the things hope for, being the proof of things do not see and the conviction of their reality .



From a believer's perspective faith is the evidence (i.e. proof) of what he/she cannot perceive through the senses.

Hence, Belief in God is based on faith; faith is the evidence/proof; therefore, there is proof of God (again, based on faith which is the evidence)

Syllogism reloaded.





You sir, are WRONG. If you believe in something because you have proof, then your belief isn't based on faith (which is to a word, belief in something that lacks proof), it's based on proof.

Quote scripture all you like, but faith does not equal proof; quite the opposite, as fact.

Edit: By your disgustingly skewed definition of the word "faith", any idiotic line of thought could therefore have evidence.

"I have faith that the Earth is cube shaped; therefore I have evidence (my faith), so now it's true." See how rediculously dumb your definition of the word "faith" is?

Faith is believing in something without tangible proof.

Originally posted by Storm
Faith is believing in something without tangible proof.

This is what Microsoft Word says.

Faith

1. Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.

2. A system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it.

3. Belief in and devotion to God.

4. A strongly held set of beliefs or principles.

5. Allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
especially without logical proof. lol

Great choice of words!

Originally posted by Robtard
You sir, are WRONG. If you believe in something because you have proof, then your belief isn't based on faith (which is to a word, belief in something that lacks proof), it's based on proof.

Quote scripture all you like, but faith does not equal proof; quite the opposite, as fact.

Edit: By your disgustingly skewed definition of the word "faith", any idiotic line of thought could therefore have evidence.

"I have faith that the Earth is cube shaped; therefore I have evidence (my faith), so now it's true." See how rediculously dumb your definition of the word "faith" is?

My faith is based on the authoritative Word of God (which was given by inspiration of God) not some capricious thought (there is a huge difference). Morevoer, I cannot say that I have faith that earth is triangle-shaped based on the Word of God because the Bible does not claim this. But if I say that Jesus Christ is Lord, my statement is well-founded and legitimate to base my faith on (which is the evidence until I see Jesus with my own eyes crowned King of Kings and Lord of Lords).

Originally posted by Storm
Faith is believing in something without tangible proof.

True.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My faith is based on the authoritative Word of God (which was given by inspiration of God) not some capricious thought (there is a huge difference). Morevoer, I cannot say that I have faith that earth is triangle-shaped based on the Word of God because the Bible does not claim this. But if I say that Jesus Christ is Lord, my statement is well-founded and legitimate to base my faith on (which is the evidence until I see Jesus with my own eyes crowned King of Kings and Lord of Lords).

But the bible does say that the Earth has 4 corners.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My faith is based on the authoritative Word of God (which was given by inspiration of God) not some capricious thought (there is a huge difference). Morevoer, I cannot say that I have faith that earth is triangle-shaped based on the Word of God because the Bible does not claim this. But if I say that Jesus Christ is Lord, my statement is well-founded and legitimate to base my faith on (which is the evidence until I see Jesus with my own eyes crowned King of Kings and Lord of Lords).

Listen, I am not doubting your faith, as that would be foolish, I am no judge of what you have faith in or not. But your definition of faith, as being "evidence" in of itself is absurd. Faith is faith, simply that; no need to add or take away from what it is.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My faith is based on the authoritative Word of God (which was given by inspiration of God) not some capricious thought (there is a huge difference).

I asked you " What makes you think they are right?". I'm still waiting for that answer.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I asked you " What makes you think they are right?". I'm still waiting for that answer.

That's because mommy and daddy are always right.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I asked you " What makes you think they are right?". I'm still waiting for that answer.

I took the Pepsi challenge and discovered the Truth for myself (Truth is a Person i.e. Jesus Christ).

Besides, what makes you think that they are wrong?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I took the Pepsi challenge and discovered the Truth for myself (Truth is a Person i.e. Jesus Christ).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I took the Pepsi challenge and discovered the Truth for myself (Truth is a Person i.e. Jesus Christ).

Besides, what makes you think that they are wrong? It's based upon faith, and so many things contradict it.

Also, new evidence shows that the whole Bible story is actually astrology.

I've read that too. Astrology.

Jesus is the Sun.

On the night of Dec. 24th, three stars known as the three kings point to Sirius, the East star, which then point to where the sun will rise on Dec. 25th. the day the sun raises north by one dgree since the solstice (3 days ago). However, it isn't until the Spring equinox when the days are longer than the nights.

This explains Christmas and Easter.

"The SUN of Righteousness" As mentioned in the OT. Malachi 4:2


You might find it interesting that in the Book of Genesis, it says God created "Light" on the first day. But the Sun and the stars had not been created yet. They are given special mention in a passage which follows later. In Chapter 1, Verse 14, God is said to have made the sun and moon and stars "for signs" on the fourth day of Creation. For thousands of years, astrologers have been doing just that - looking "for signs" in the heavens as a way of understanding what is happening, or will happen, on Earth....ie Astrology.

http://www.astrologyzine.com/astrology-bible.shtml

Oh, found another good one.

http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/bible_astrology.htm

Originally posted by lord xyz
Jesus is the Sun.

On the night of Dec. 24th, three stars known as the three kings point to Sirius, the East star, which then point to where the sun will rise on Dec. 25th. the day the sun raises north by one dgree since the solstice (3 days ago). However, it isn't until the Spring equinox when the days are longer than the nights.

This explains Christmas and Easter.

Except that the dates used for Christmas and Easter have nothing at all to do with Jesus . . .

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Bible and the Koran are just two different views of the same god.

That is not possible.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is not possible.

They're both descendant from Abrhamic tradition, so it is very possible.

Actually, IIRC, Islam is just seen by Muslims as a superior "revision" of Judaic/Christian doctrine, and think that they are perceiving God's true word, while earlier stories were inherently flawed.

Heck, the Koran mentions Jesus, and the Muslims regard him as a prophet but not the savior.

thats true. i dont completely understand the sectarian violence of the muslim religion. it had to do with when the caliphs split after muhammads death right? youd think itd be over by now..........

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That's because mommy and daddy are always right. That's what I thought.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that the dates used for Christmas and Easter have nothing at all to do with Jesus . . . Ermm, yeah they do. Christmas is said to be the Birth of Jesus, and Easter is said to be the rebirth of Jesus. However, they are wrong as they are to do with the sun.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
They're both descendant from Abrhamic tradition, so it is very possible.

Actually, IIRC, Islam is just seen by Muslims as a superior "revision" of Judaic/Christian doctrine, and think that they are perceiving God's true word, while earlier stories were inherently flawed.

Heck, the Koran mentions Jesus, and the Muslims regard him as a prophet but not the savior.

The Bible preceded the Koran by thousands of years. The Qu'ran mentions many Biblical persons including Jesus and Mary. However, the Bible never mentions Allah or Mohammed.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Bible preceded the Koran by thousands of years. The Qu'ran mentions many Biblical persons including Jesus and Mary. However, the Bible never mentions Allah or Mohammed.

There are other books much older then the bible. Does the age of a book make it more valid?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Bible preceded the Koran by thousands of years. The Qu'ran mentions many Biblical persons including Jesus and Mary. However, the Bible never mentions Allah or Mohammed. That's because the Quran came after the Bible.

The Quran is basically an expansion to the story, but sees Jesus as a false prophet, which makes sense, since he doesn't exist.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That's because the Quran came after the Bible.

The Quran is basically an expansion to the story, but sees Jesus as a false prophet, which makes sense, since he doesn't exist. Evidence that Jesus didn't exist please?

Also, Islam doesn't consider Jesus a false prophet. He is the second greatest prophet in Islam.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Evidence that Jesus didn't exist please?

Also, Islam doesn't consider Jesus a false prophet. He is the second greatest prophet in Islam. Well, first you prove that Jesus exists. Show me just one historian that documents Jesus' existance.

Also, explain why Jesus shares the same characteristics as many messiahs before it like Horus, who ultimately, is the human form of the sun, which makes sense as the story is based off of Astrology and Jesus is a representation of the sun. Not only is he sun, but he also represents the sun during the age of Pisces. Now ages are every ~2150 where the Earth wobbles on it's axis.

4300BC -- 2150BC, age of Taurus which in 2150BC Moses told the Jews to stop worshiping the Bull, symbolising the end of the age.

2150BC -- 0AD, age of Aries which is where Moses said for his people to blow the ram horns and other scripture shows Moses talking about sheep, which is Aries.

0AD -- 2150AD, age of Pisces, this is also the age Jesus was born. Remember Jesus befriending two fisherman, feeding his people with two fish and the JESUS LIVES fish? It symbolises Jesus is the age of Pisces.

2150AD -- 4300AD, age of Aquarius, when asked who to worship when he is gone, he asked them to wait for a man bearing a pitcher of water. He is Aquarius. Also, Jesus said he'll be with us to the end of the world, which is actually a mistranslation, what it originally said was end of the age, the age of Pisces.

Now, unless you have an explanation of that, we'll have to go with the assumption that Jesus is a symbol used for the Sun in the age of Pisces. Remember, Jesus is the light, the saviour, is reborn. That is all symbolism for the Sun.

As for Islam, they do not acknowledge Jesus as an important part of Islam. They see the three main people of finding the truth are Abraham, Moses and Muhammed.

Christ was mentioned in Tacitus? No way. Not in the first century CE. What passages are those?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Bible preceded the Koran by thousands of years. The Qu'ran mentions many Biblical persons including Jesus and Mary. However, the Bible never mentions Allah or Mohammed.

If you include the New Testament, then the Bible is only about 500 years older. It doesn't mention Mohammed, because he wasn't born, and "allah" means "god" in Arabic, so yeah, it mentions him.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is not possible.

Both books claim to be the book of the god that revealed scripture to Abraham and created Adam, so yeah, it's possible.

Originally posted by Alliance
Christ was mentioned in Tacitus? No way. Not in the first century CE. What passages are those? I'm looked for a good source. I know it was in Annals and so was probably written in the early second century.

Yes, he was described as a man.


But see how in the 2nd centuries on he was changed into a deity, or starting to be worshipped? The first hand accounts never mentioned that.

Um...you know, "the Christ" happens to be a title of Jesus. Jesus the Christ, shortened to Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Um...you know, "the Christ" happens to be a title of Jesus. Jesus the Christ, shortened to Jesus Christ. No, "the Christ" means "The annointed one". Yes, the title is given to Jesus, but because these historians only refer to that title, they could have been talking about anyone, also, their evidence of there being an annointed one, is the christians themselves.

Also, there is documentation. It's in four books that have been compiled into one known as the Bible.

John 9:3-5

Speaking metaphorically = lol wut?

Holy crap, twelve disciples, just like there are twelve days of Christmas...MY CONSPIRACY SENSE IS TINGLING.

Also, rising from the dead might be similar to the rising of the sun, but one could say the same thing about anything that goes in cycles. JESUS THE MOON GOD, JESUS THE SEASONS GOD, etc.

See the above.

If you'll notice, Jesus's phrasing of this confused a man because he thought he had to go back inside his mother's womb.

Holy shit, more symbolism. MY MIND IS IMPLODING.

The rest of that verse kind of negates the idea that Jesus is the sun, unless, of course, the Rapture is occurring on a day-to-day basis. (Oh, snap.)

Really? Are you sure that they weren't just really long thorns that stabbed into his skull?

And since when is the sun crucified? Or stabbed? Or whipped, beaten, and spit upon?
Originally posted by lord xyz
No, "the Christ" means "The annointed one". Yes, the title is given to Jesus,
...Therefore, it is a title of Jesus. QED.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Also, there is documentation. It's in four books that have been compiled into one known as the Bible. I already stated the Bible is false and should not be used as a real sorce.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
John 9:3-5

Speaking metaphorically = lol wut? How does that debunk Jesus saying he's the light of the world? IE THE SUN!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Holy crap, twelve disciples, just like there are twelve days of Christmas...MY CONSPIRACY SENSE IS TINGLING. 12 is repeated throught the Bible. Why all those references to 12? Unless it's based off of the 12 months, 12 zodiac signs.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Also, rising from the dead might be similar to the rising of the sun, but one could say the same thing about anything that goes in cycles. JESUS THE MOON GOD, JESUS THE SEASONS GOD, etc. Might be? Open your ****ing eyes! The evidence is overwhelming.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
See the above.

If you'll notice, Jesus's phrasing of this confused a man because he thought he had to go back inside his mother's womb. So his double talk being confusing means he isn't speaking metaphorical? Oh wait, you just proved me right.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Holy shit, more symbolism. MY MIND IS IMPLODING. All these coincidences, a little suspicious don't you think?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The rest of that verse kind of negates the idea that Jesus is the sun, unless, of course, the Rapture is occurring on a day-to-day basis. (Oh, snap.) And what evidence is there of a rapture? That's right, the same bullshit book I am debunking. Nice one Zeal.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Really? Are you sure that they weren't just really long thorns that stabbed into his skull? Sarcasm I'm sure. Likely because you're afraid to admit it means the sun's rays.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And since when is the sun crucified? Or stabbed? Or whipped, beaten, and spit upon? In astrology, it being in the lowest point of the sky (Winter solstice (Dec 22nd (3 days before Dec. 25th))) is known as the "crux" and the symbol for the sun's position, is a cross.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
...Therefore, it is a title of Jesus. QED. No. It is a title for whoever lead the Christians. Doesn't say Jesus lead the Christians, or Jesus is Christus, or Jesus performed miracles, or Jesus rose from the dead. Just, "the christians were lead by the annointed one". Your argument is a series of delusions, look at the bigger picture -- outside the room of Christianity.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, first you prove that Jesus exists. Show me just one historian that documents Jesus' existance.

Also, explain why Jesus shares the same characteristics as many messiahs before it like Horus, who ultimately, is the human form of the sun, which makes sense as the story is based off of Astrology and Jesus is a representation of the sun. Not only is he sun, but he also represents the sun during the age of Pisces. Now ages are every ~2150 where the Earth wobbles on it's axis.

4300BC -- 2150BC, age of Taurus which in 2150BC Moses told the Jews to stop worshiping the Bull, symbolising the end of the age.

2150BC -- 0AD, age of Aries which is where Moses said for his people to blow the ram horns and other scripture shows Moses talking about sheep, which is Aries.

0AD -- 2150AD, age of Pisces, this is also the age Jesus was born. Remember Jesus befriending two fisherman, feeding his people with two fish and the JESUS LIVES fish? It symbolises Jesus is the age of Pisces.

2150AD -- 4300AD, age of Aquarius, when asked who to worship when he is gone, he asked them to wait for a man bearing a pitcher of water. He is Aquarius. Also, Jesus said he'll be with us to the end of the world, which is actually a mistranslation, what it originally said was end of the age, the age of Pisces.

Now, unless you have an explanation of that, we'll have to go with the assumption that Jesus is a symbol used for the Sun in the age of Pisces. Remember, Jesus is the light, the saviour, is reborn. That is all symbolism for the Sun.

As for Islam, they do not acknowledge Jesus as an important part of Islam. They see the three main people of finding the truth are Abraham, Moses and Muhammed.


"HISTORICAL RECORDS

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city."

--Harry V. Martin. (1995). Proving the historic Jesus. http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

Originally posted by lord xyz
This has been proven to be a false historian, IE they made him up. Sad, how people still don't know that.

Referring to Josephus there - can you provide more information on this? I'm curious - in discussions I have with someone in person, Josephus is who they usually refer to as proof...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If you include the New Testament, then the Bible is only about 500 years older. It doesn't mention Mohammed, because he wasn't born, and "allah" means "god" in Arabic, so yeah, it mentions him.

The Bible still predates the Qu'ran (which quotes the Bible). However, the Bible never quotes, mentions, cites, nor alludes to Mecca, Mohammed, or Allah. There cannot exist such Grand-Canyon size contradictions between the Bible and Qu'ran if they were from the same Source. But they are not from the same Source. Allah may mean god (one among hundreds of thousands), but Allah does not mean YHWH (Who is the God of the Bible and Who is second to none).

The Qu'ran egregiously conflicts with the Bible on key (not trivial) points, so there is no way possible that they are from the same Source. Again, Allah is, and has always been associated with an idol: the moon god. The God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus the Christ, the Sender of the Holy Spirit, the First Person of the Triune God (i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is not, has never been, nor ever will be represented by an idol--unlike the god of the Qu'ran. They are not one and the same.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Both books claim to be the book of the god that revealed scripture to Abraham and created Adam, so yeah, it's possible.

No, one claims (i.e. the Qu'ran) and one is (i.e. the Bible). Actually, God (YHWH) never revealed Scripture to Abraham (per se), He revealed His will to him. But what God revealed to Abraham has been recorded as Scripture.

Make sense?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Bible preceded the Koran by thousands of years. The Qu'ran mentions many Biblical persons including Jesus and Mary. However, the Bible never mentions Allah or Mohammed.

Hundreds, not thousands, but ok. And I never said the Bible mentions Allah or Mohammed...it obviously wouldn't because it historically preceded it. What does that have to do with anything? They're still both Abrahamic religions descendant in the same line.

Originally posted by julibug
Referring to Josephus there - can you provide more information on this? I'm curious - in discussions I have with someone in person, Josephus is who they usually refer to as proof... There is controversy about that one Josephus paragraph. Many stating that it was a later insertion.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"HISTORICAL RECORDS

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city."

--Harry V. Martin. (1995). Proving the historic Jesus. http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html If you actually read that, you will see that it doesn't actually prove Jesus' existance. Nice try though.

Also, there is about 20 -- 30 historians within that time and region, and all there is to offer is...4? Who only very briefly mention this wonderful saviour at best?

Originally posted by julibug
Referring to Josephus there - can you provide more information on this? I'm curious - in discussions I have with someone in person, Josephus is who they usually refer to as proof... Well first I'll admit he wasn't a false historian. I meant to say his reference to Jesus is a forgery. My bad.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars." -- Dr. Gordon Stein

http://mwillett.org/atheism/jesusmyth.htm

"Earlier in the work of Josephus there is clear evidence of Christian tampering."

And many more sources.

huh? does the old testament mention jesus? NO. not any more than the NT mentions mohammad.a SPIRIT OF TRUTH{claimed by muslims to be mohammad} is mentioned one way or another in both so this discussion is useless.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Bible still predates the Qu'ran (which quotes the Bible). However, the Bible never quotes, mentions, cites, nor alludes to Mecca, Mohammed, or Allah.


Your point?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Allah may mean god (one among hundreds of thousands), but Allah does not mean YHWH (Who is the God of the Bible and Who is second to none).


Yeah, it does actually. "allah" means god, and could be any god. Arabic speaking Christians called the god of the Bible "allah", why? Because they're speaking Arabic. Just like you call him "god" because you're speaking English.

It's really that simple.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Qu'ran egregiously conflicts with the Bible on key (not trivial) points, so there is no way possible that they are from the same Source. Again, Allah is, and has always been associated with an idol: the moon god. The God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus the Christ, the Sender of the Holy Spirit, the First Person of the Triune God (i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is not, has never been, nor ever will be represented by an idol--unlike the god of the Qu'ran. They are not one and the same.

Yes they are. You just don't like the idea of it, so you're ignoring a fact.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, one claims (i.e. the Qu'ran) and one is (i.e. the Bible). Actually, God (YHWH) never revealed Scripture to Abraham (per se), He revealed His will to him. But what God revealed to Abraham has been recorded as Scripture.

Make sense?

That's what I meant, revealed his will. The Koran also talks about Noah, Moses and how God (not "allah" created Adam from clay.

Just 2 different views of the same god.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hundreds, not thousands, but ok. And I never said the Bible mentions Allah or Mohammed...it obviously wouldn't because it historically preceded it. What does that have to do with anything? They're still both Abrahamic religions descendant in the same line.

Exactly.

god and allah are one and the same. the stories are different.

There is only one entity....call it what you want.










Hey, SPOT!

Originally posted by lord xyz
I already stated the Bible is false and should not be used as a real sorce.
Excellent. Your statement negates mine.

Because it's not literal light.

The number seven is also repeated throughout the Bible. The seven spirits of God and whatnot.

Christianity = HEPTAGON CONSPIRACY

...The point of that was to show that you have no more closely proven that Jesus is a sun god by the idea of cycles than you have proven that Jesus is a god of the seasons.

See the above. Again.

There are also a number of coincidences behind 9/11. That doesn't make them mean anything.

...The fact that there is no Rapture on a day-to-day basis actually disproves your attempts to associate the Rapture with Jesus being a sun god.

...Or it could just be really long, sharp thorns that were braided about Christ's head to mock his alleged kingship.

Ergo, crucifixion was based not on the word "cross," but on astrology.

And I said that Christ was a title for Jesus. You said, "Nuh-uh." Then you agreed with me.

Your arguments are a series of debbiejo thoughts.

Originally posted by lord xyz
This has been proven to be a false historian, IE they made him up. Sad, how people still don't know that.

Christus and Chrestus are a title, not a name. They say the christians worshipped someone, but that does not document the actual person. What about a historian saying "There is/was a man who could turn water into wine, and his name was Jesus" that would actual be a documentation of the actual person. But no, there is nothing like that. No documentation of Jesus Christ, you failed.

That does not matter.

It does not matter when the Bible said Moses was born. Moss talked about destroying the Bull(calf) which is Taurus.

And the age of Taurus is 4300BC -- 2150BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Taurus#The_Great_Month_of_Taurus_.28Taurus-Scorpio.29

...The people also don't exist. The fact that they're shepheards strengthens my theory that it's about the age of Aries.

See, you keep claiming these people are real. Where's the proof? From a non-christian point of view, the Bible being astrology makes much more sense.

Being a saviour does have to do with the sun. The sun gives life, light and warmth to the world. Jesus is the sun.

"Aslong as I am in the world, I am the light of the world" JOHN 9:5
"And go quickly, and tell his disciples (12 disciples, just like there's 12 constellations, foretelling the sun's mythological journey through the year), that he is risen from the dead" MATT 28:6
"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you" (Just like he does, every morning) JOHN 14:3
"Verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom." JOHN 3:3
"Let us cast off the works of darkness and let us put on the armour of light" ROM 13:12
"They shall see the son coming in the clouds" MARK 13:26
"Jesus came forth, wearing a crown of thorns (or sun rays)" JOHN 19:5

Ressurection is the same symbolism. The sun comes back to life (is ressurected (by god)) every morning to save us from the darkness and the cold. Sound familiar? Josephus is not a false historian. There are corrupted Christian documents yes, but the original form is well known by scholarly opinion. It does not mention his deity but mentions his existence. Therefore, you fail because 90% of scholars on the issue agree with the authenticity of the passage as it was quoted by Agapius of Manbij. Which you probably didn't know about. You also probably haven't considered that a lot of literary analysis has gone into that passage and that it's core was determined to be genuine. We also know that Josephus talks about Jesus's brother James:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."

Yes, it does mention a man existing and his crucification. Read Tacitus again and read Pliny who talks about the Christian worshiping Christ. Read Lucian who says, "the Christians, you know, worship a man to this day". This is called an epic fail.

Yes, it does, you are being ignorant.

This isn't when the Bible says Moses was born. Ramses II was pharaoh then. Ramses II reigned 1279 BC to 1213 BC. Remember me saying that 1500BC was the latest date. Circa 1250BC is what most scholarship says. Which makes you even farther off. Nearly a thousand years off by any means. Thanks for playing that game.

Really? The Jews never existed in ancient times... I'm not even sure what to say to that other than that there is proof in Egypt of the stay of the Semitic people (ie. Jews) in Egypt. So that is a fail. Also, we must still be in the age of Aries then because there are still many shepherds and cattle herders in Israel and worldwide. That is some of the crappiest logic I ever heard.

The proof for the fisherman is that one was Peter. Peter's tomb is well known and lies under the Vatican. That in itself is evidence of Jesus's existence considering Peter is always known as the leader of the early Christians and himself proclaims to be a follower of Jesus in three separate accounts.

Really? English Bible quotes. The Greek word means "manifest". It is only figuratively that it is used to refer to light. More specifically is should be "shine" and generally refers to artificial light. It is very distinct from the word used for sun. If that had been the purpose, the word for sun would actually have been used in some shape or form. It is not.

Also, that is so different by your own admission it hurts. Jesus died one day and was resurrected more than a full day later. A day and half or three Hebrew days later. Also, Jesus was permanently resurrected. By your logic every story of returning to life must a reference to either the seasons of the sun. And while it is occasionally true (and in such cases the person always dies again) it is completely false in the vast majority of cases.

Also, is for the twelve tribes of Israel. Twelve tribes for the twelve sons of Jacob. Again, this is not associated with astronomy.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ergo, crucifixion was based not on the word "cross," but on astrology.
I'm sure the Romans never crucified anybody. I mean, like who does that amirite?

And to Lord xyz:
December 25 means absolutely nothing because Christians do not actually hold that Jesus was born then. Actually, nobody does because that would be stupid and ignorant... Kinda like your sources which are thus proven to be stupid.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm looked for a good source. I know it was in Annals and so was probably written in the early second century.

Ah. That makes more sense. I still wonder if Tacitus was told about it or actually had historical reliability.

Originally posted by Nellinator
And to Lord xyz:
December 25 means absolutely nothing because Christians do not actually hold that Jesus was born then. Actually, nobody does because that would be stupid and ignorant... Kinda like your sources which are thus proven to be stupid.

Well, the'res nothign like a belated birthday party just in time for the Satunalia and the winter solstice

Originally posted by Alliance
Ah. That makes more sense. I still wonder if Tacitus was told about it or actually had historical reliability. He seemed to know about Pontius Pilate, which makes sense. I'd gander that he had access to reports of crucifixions, but I'm not sure if the Romans kept track of that. I would think they would have in domestic cases, but definitely not in war.

Really what it boils down to for me is that the whole idea of Jesus never existing originated in the 19th century. If Jesus had never existed the Jews would have simply said: "Umm... he never existed". And there would have been ridicule from the Romans from that angle because they certainly didn't like Christians for those first few centuries. But no one questions his existence. That's kind of an argument from silence, but I think it is still pretty valid. I mean Justin Martyr debated with Trypho the Jew and it never came up. The only issue was the divinity.

Originally posted by Nellinator
He seemed to know about Pontius Pilate, which makes sense. I'd gander that he had access to reports of crucifixions, but I'm not sure if the Romans kept track of that. I would think they would have in domestic cases, but definitely not in war.

Really what it boils down to for me is that the whole idea of Jesus never existing originated in the 19th century. If Jesus had never existed the Jews would have simply said: "Umm... he never existed". And there would have been ridicule from the Romans from that angle because they certainly didn't like Christians for those first few centuries. But no one questions his existence. That's kind of an argument from silence, but I think it is still pretty valid. I mean Justin Martyr debated with Trypho the Jew and it never came up. The only issue was the divinity.

Needless Roman numerals aside, I don't think anyone questions the existence of Jesus. But even Justin Martyr, whom you mentioned, questioned his divinity on the grounds that his stories bore a striking resemblance to other myths circulating the area.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Needless Roman numerals aside, I don't think anyone questions the existence of Jesus. But even Justin Martyr, whom you mentioned, questioned his divinity on the grounds that his stories bore a striking resemblance to other myths circulating the area. Sadly some few do. Those similarities are very tame when compared the to the falsehoods conjured up nowadays. Generally, I'd merely say that religions tend to have similar themes. Though, perhaps he questioned similarities in rituals. I'm not entirely sure, I haven't read anything about his doubts as of yet.

Originally posted by Alliance
Well, the'res nothign like a belated birthday party just in time for the Satunalia and the winter solstice I think it was kinda stupid to create a Christian festival on December 25th just to be contrary to the pagans. It almost makes it look like the celebration was stolen. But then again, not for those that understand how these things work.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Sadly some few do. Those similarities are very tame when compared the to the falsehoods conjured up nowadays. Generally, I'd merely say that religions tend to have similar themes. Though, perhaps he questioned similarities in rituals. I'm not entirely sure, I haven't read anything about his doubts as of yet.

Yeah, Martyr's objections were fairly tame compared to the wealth of knoweldge we currently have. If you need somewhere to go to read about this stuff from an informed but not religiously slanted persepctive, mythologist Joseph Campbell is an amazing author.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I think it was kinda stupid to create a Christian festival on December 25th just to be contrary to the pagans. It almost makes it look like the celebration was stolen. But then again, not for those that understand how these things work.

Actually, in the early days of Christianity, Mithraism was in direct competition with it for followers. The date was chosen to compete with Mithraism (both inherited the date from the much-earlier Egyptian savior Horus), and was never meant to be Jesus' literal birthday. The Magi that visit Jesus' manger are priests of Mithra (Magi was the name for them in those days, which later faded into obscurity along with Mithraism in general) and it was to directly undermine Mithraism by saying "Look, even your own priests say he is the Lord"

The wealth of knowledge we know have is 99% crap and fallacies.

Oh, I know about the Mithraism thing.

Horus wasn't a savior.

And the Magi were like Zoroastrian magi.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The wealth of knowledge we know have is 99% crap and fallacies.

Oh, I know about the Mithraism thing.

Horus wasn't a savior.

And the Magi were like Zoroastrian magi.

Alright. I wasn't trying to disagree with you, just add to the discussion.

Horus was the earthly incarnation of the chief Egyptian god (and sun god) Osiris (also referred to as Osiris' son). He slew the god of the underworld, Set, who had to that point bested Osiris (his "victory" every night came at sunset...which is also where the name derives from). Whether or not he has "savior" prefacing his story is irrelevant, because he was a savior of the people in that respect.

And yes, Zoroastrian Magi were priests as well...the name isn't exclusive to Mithraism, but I was just discussing how it relates to the Jesus story.

And if you're inclined to think that we were more prepared to discuss theological/scientific matters in the year 30 A.D. than today, that's your call. I agree that a lot of it is crap, but it's our inability to sift through it to find truth that leads to fallacious religions. But simply calling everything crap and not expressing what is and isn't crap gets us nowhere, and is just pointless negativity.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The wealth of knowledge we know have is 99% crap and fallacies.

Oh, I know about the Mithraism thing.

Horus wasn't a savior.

And the Magi were like Zoroastrian magi.
know = now
like = likely

... needs English 101

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Alright. I wasn't trying to disagree with you, just add to the discussion.

Horus was the earthly incarnation of the chief Egyptian god (and sun god) Osiris (also referred to as Osiris' son). He slew the god of the underworld, Set, who had to that point bested Osiris (his "victory" every night came at sunset...which is also where the name derives from). Whether or not he has "savior" prefacing his story is irrelevant, because he was a savior of the people in that respect.

And yes, Zoroastrian Magi were priests as well...the name isn't exclusive to Mithraism, but I was just discussing how it relates to the Jesus story.

And if you're inclined to think that we were more prepared to discuss theological/scientific matters in the year 30 A.D. than today, that's your call. I agree that a lot of it is crap, but it's our inability to sift through it to find truth that leads to fallacious religions. But simply calling everything crap and not expressing what is and isn't crap gets us nowhere, and is just pointless negativity. If that is what you meant by saviour, then yes, I can agree with you. It merely seemed that your were pulling a "Horus is exactly like Jesus with the beheaded baptizer and all lol" thing, which gets irritating. My apologies.

Actually, I have heard some interesting theories on the magi. Usually Zoroastrian magi, but there is an interesting story about a Chinese astrologer near that time. I'm not sure if there is any weight to that argument though.

I can honestly say I've gone over a lot of the so-called Jesus parallels. There is little substance to any of them, especially in the areas of crucification, resurrection, baptism, and virgin birth. The similarities that I've seen to exist only seem to be on trivial matters that don't have any effect on the foundations of the religions. I know that other religions get the same "criticisms", but I also think a lot of those are fallacious as well. In the case of Justin Martyr I would surmise that he would know a lot more about Mithraic and other religions' rites and practices than us as he lived at that time. Considering there are no texts of Mithraism it is hard to say. Once again, I'm not sure what religions he actually saw parallels in, so that is hard to say.

Originally posted by Nellinator
If that is what you meant by saviour, then yes, I can agree with you. It merely seemed that your were pulling a "Horus is exactly like Jesus with the beheaded baptizer and all lol" thing, which gets irritating. My apologies.

Actually, I have heard some interesting theories on the magi. Usually Zoroastrian magi, but there is an interesting story about a Chinese astrologer near that time. I'm not sure if there is any weight to that argument though.

I can honestly say I've gone over a lot of the so-called Jesus parallels. There is little substance to any of them, especially in the areas of crucification, resurrection, baptism, and virgin birth. The similarities that I've seen to exist only seem to be on trivial matters that don't have any effect on the foundations of the religions. I know that other religions get the same "criticisms", but I also think a lot of those are fallacious as well. In the case of Justin Martyr I would surmise that he would know a lot more about Mithraic and other religions' rites and practices than us as he lived at that time. Considering there are no texts of Mithraism it is hard to say. Once again, I'm not sure what religions he actually saw parallels in, so that is hard to say.

Mithraism came into being around the same time as Christianity. The two competed and borrowed, but it's actually one of the more easily debunked "predecessors" to Christianity, so I normally don't bring it up. Martyr's writings, when they talk of Christianity, are basically saying "Why this religion and not one of these others?" Mithraism was popular in the first century AD, as were a few other "mystery religions". None provide good templates for questioning Christianity however.

I usually use Horus as my primary example, because there's more similarities than normal and it preceded Christianity by centuries in the same region of the world. It's where we get December 25th, Horus was born in a manger (cave/manger births are a common motif) to a virgin, was tempted by Set in the desert (Satan predecessors), repeated some of the miracles such as walking on water (common of sun-related deities, because one only has to look at sunlight reflected off a water surface near sunset/sunrise to see the god "walking" on the water).

Others are obvious like Krishna having to avoid infant slaughter to live (the King killing innocent youths in an attempt to destroy a potentially threatening savior is another recurring theme). Jesus avoided this same mythological fate. And the body/blood motif was inherited from Dionysius, who was also depicted as crucified every year when the harvest crops died out. Drinking the wine, then, was drinking the blood of their god. Consuming a deity occurs in other traditions as well, notably American Indian tribes. The resurrection and crucifixtion itself is also repeated by deities such as Odin (yes, this was a surprise to me), Dionysius, and dying to atone for wrongdoing was common as well even if the death wasn't by crucifixtion (Krishna, Horus, Mithra, etc).

I'm careful not to get my knowledge from random websites and such, but from credible sources that can be documented and verified, so this isn't just rambling. I'll admit to using mythologist Joseph Campbell heavily (but not exclusively), but as he was the world's foremost expert on comparative religion and mythology up to his death, I feel like this is fully credible.

And I realize that not every claim of mythological ancestry is credible, but there's so much of it that can be verified that it becomes next-to-impossible to ignore it all or rationalize it away somehow. These examples are only that...examples. There's much more that I can't remember off the top of my head, and it gives you an idea of the large mythological argument stacked against Christianity and all Abrahamic religions.

Lately it seems that Mithraic scholars are against the idea of Christianity borrowing from it. I find it kinda funny though, it almost seems to be like they want to be rid of the stigma surrounding Mithraism after all the conspiracy theories surrounding it. However, in art there is an undeniable influence. But that's cultural I suppose, not religious. People always seem to be forgetting that research is still going on and we shall see where that one heads.

The virgin birth of Horus is one I cannot find any evidence for at all. I looked very hard. I know for a fact that there is an ancient Egyptian relief depicting his conception with Isis in falcon form hovering over the at attention and dead Osiris. There is another story that I have heard of Isis trying to put Osiris back together and was missing one piece, so she created a substitute penis and then they conceived Harpocrates (Horus). The only virgin birth account is from a 6th century AD document and it's pretty sketchy. The argument is basically "Isis is the constellation of Virgo the Virgin, as well as the Moon, which becomes a 'virgin' during when it is new. The sun god - in this case, Horus - is born of this Virgin goddess." It's quite the stretch. I'd be interested to know Campbell's source for that though. Also, I've never heard anything about a manger or a cave outside of conspiracy sites and if it was a cave I'd say that's a desperate stretch. As for walking on water, I haven't heard of him physically doing it (he was thrown into water though) from anything credible and if the explanation you gave is it then that would be quite the stretch to say that is copied. I'm unsure as to the temptation part because that is one I haven't even heard on the parallelomania sites. You did miss the one that is definitely true though. That Horus was of royal descent. Which I find amusing when it is used to prove a copy and I felt like mentioning for giggles.

I haven't seen a rebuttal of the Krishna one, but I haven't seen solid evidence of it either. But assuming it's true I think that if that is all there is nothing to really be worried about. Coincidences definitely do happen and many people have had to escape murder plots as children. I know Cyrus the Great, king of Persia did so. I'd also say that the slaying of children by Herod is a prophecy from Wisdom of Solomon 11:7-8. As for crucifixion I hadn't heard the Odin one and I find it interesting, but I think that is one of things that we can establish as a fact. That Jesus was crucified is widely accepted in the scholarly world and we all know that the Romans were crucifixion happy for a while. I say that suffering and atoning is rather vague and would need to explored to see if it is a stretch or not. I know that in Dionysus's case it was his own wrongdoing. Also, symbolism and motivations need to be examined. I mean, people are martyred all the time, so it's the details that need to be looked at.

Consuming a deity is a theme in several religions yes. If an apologetic were necessary I would point to the vast difference in symbolism though.

I whole-heartedly agree with the last statement. There is a rare smattering and it's never core issues. When things have to stretched as far as they are I think that it is more grasping at straws. As per usual, I don't find that Christianity can be invalidated by anything I've seen. People may find insufficient evidence for it's truth which I can accept even though I believe they are wrong.

Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces and, more succintly (though less thoroughly) Thou Art That are good references. Also of note is the Lightworks Audio & Video documentary "The Naked Truth", which features several prominent mythologians. I also borrow from James Frazer's "The Golden Bough" though reading the entire work is exhausting and not needed.

Horus didn't literally walk on water. It's the sun's rays (the god was the sun) that "walk" on it. It is simply a metaphoric story that took on literal meaning in Jesus' case. And I think the conception of Horus was via the sun's rays, not a bodily Osiris conceiving him....thus a virgin birth. In ancient times, virgin birth would sometimes simply refer to a fatherless child, usually the father was lost to war or sickness. And there's even scholarly debate over the interpretation of Mary as a virgin (the word used in the Hebrew text of some of the Gospels simply means "young woman".

Mithraism is always trotted out by Christian apologists, while ignoring the others. It's easy to debunk compared to the others.

But to ignore all of this (again, my examples are only a small sampling) seems ridiculous to me. It's still espousing faith in a book that is suspect, at best, and the entire Old Testament God and books like Revelation are just bat sh*t crazy and morally reprehensible in many cases. Most denominations tell only certain stories, interpret goodly meanings, and they think all is well. But the Bible taken as a whole, written over a period of centuries, is quite literally incomprehensible as an objective source of truth....both mythologically and morally.

I'm at a point where I refuse to use secondary literature when comparing "Saviour myths" because I've seen books like The Pagan Christ getting published with the main source being a 19th century poet, that was a practicing druid and told people he taught himself to read hieroglyphs.

And that is why the premises need to be examined first. I heard lots of comparisons called virgin births that really weren't. The significance of Jesus was that He was to born of a virgin, which is something I haven't seen elsewhere. But yes, there have been plenty of miraculous births. Yes, there is scholarly debate because the OT uses a word literally meaning "young woman". The flip side being that the word in no instance is used to refer to a woman that isn't a virgin. I think it's obvious that I'm in the latter camp, but there you have it. I've been meaning to delve into the rabbinical literature as late as I can date it to see what the Jews believed considering those prophecies prior to birth of Jesus, but there time restrictions and whatnot.

Personally, I prefer some of the Horus parallels. Like the ones about him being baptized and then the baptizer being beheaded etc. Because those are much more idiotic imo.

Some denominations are dumb and some Christians don't like telling people about some things that are less flattering to the Bible. I'm not adverse to discussing them as I think sometimes there is misinterpretations. Personally I don't pretend that Christianity is all lovey-dovey, but I do know it's a fact that the good things mainly put forth by the evangelists (not the fire and brimstone type) are central themes. In the case of Revelations I think people forget that it was intended as a metaphor is stated to be metaphorical in nature and that to try and interpret it is folly. Usually, I simply suggest that reading Revelations for spiritual growth is pointless. But I whole-heartedly disagree with the last statement again. But then again you would need to define what you mean by "objective source of truth".

By objective source of truth, I mean that most Christians derive their morality from the Bible and consider it a sacred source, but it is every bit as arbitrary and eclectic as any other system of beliefs and morality, and worse than most.

Even categorizing things as metaphoric doesn't escape some of the moral atrocities of the OT (and occasionally NT). The asinine rules littered throughout Job, Judges, and Deuteronomy. The testing of Abraham by making him sacrifice his children (he later relented), the testing of Jephtheh via sacrifice in the book of Judges (no pulling back that time...Jephtheh burned his daughter alive in sacrifice to a pleased God). Moses slaughtering Amianites for no better reason than they didn't believe in his God. God Himself slaughtering the entire world besides Noah's family, including a fair number of innocent animals. Then destroying entire cities in Lot's tale of Soddom and Gammorah (which also advocates prostitution of one's daughters and incest).

Metaphors, right? But what are we supposed to get out of these stories at all, metaphors or not?! Personally, I'm intimidated and scared by them.

Ah, but that's not Jesus! Then why the hell is is still in the Bible? And heck, Jesus treated Mary like trash ("What have you to do with me woman? Send her away!" and told his followers to leave their children and families because the end times were coming.

Speaking of the OT, it's not immune to predecessors. Job has a Babylonian counterpart that preceded him by centuries, and is the exact same story (boils are substituted for leprosy however). And influences of the Zodiac and Zoroastrianism are abound, though I've not as versed in them as the Jesus myths (again, refer to the references I mentioned for further information).

So here's an idea: Jesus as metaphor, not literally a god. It cuts through so much negativity and still allows us to see the good in his story without creating dogmatic divisions between religions. Believing it as factual is...sketchy...to me (to put it mildly).