Pagan items adopted by Christians

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which seem to be something of a justification of either a false or completely metaphorical claim. The OT was written in a period when times were well established - there is no reason for the Israelites to be using "day" if it wasn't applicable. The could have used cycles or years or lunar cycles - but then without the sun to judge by there was nothing to judge time.

Why not merely say "God created over a long period" - instead they use a pretty much established unit of time (a solar cycle.)

The event of creation did not occur in a period when these cycles were necessarily established. Also, given location, and various other possibilities, perhaps where God resides only a day had passed while a longer period passed on Earth. Given that no man witnessed the creation, we do not know exactly how or even what God gave the person that originally was given the account of the creation. It is possible that this individual was given a visual and audible experience from the position of God, thus all we have is what occurred on his end. There are other possibilities, there is no information as to how the account in Genesis came to be.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But isn't that simply a way of insuring that no matter what turns up one can still say "ah, but that might very well still fit in with what we believe." Certainly I admire open mindedness to the fact we are always learning and might be wrong, but it seems to go a bit to far to be open minded to the point that says "there may have been infinite methods of creation thus will take any possible method as proof we are correct."

Still it is a much better world view then the "poof, there it is" creation.

Yes. I do not believe the Bible to be the end all of God's interaction with man, and I do not believe that it is definitive on most subjects. I believe that the Bible teaches people how to behave morally and in line with God's purpose, not how biochemistry, physics, geology, or any other science works. Science is the area that has purview over these things, and the Bible is not intended to answer these types of questions. I believe that whatever science discovers as fact is how it happened. I don't believe religion should be threatened by science, they are studies in different things.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Once again it seems to be extremely hopeful thinking - and if one accepts God is correct, and the claims many make that "all people are searching for him" it is hard to believe his religion could fail to take off so profoundly outside the garden in a time when religion was a vital part of the ancients world view - the way they explained the world.

And that still suggests that millions of people throughout history lived and died without having any knowledge, nor opportunity, to know of the "correct faith."

The truth isn't always what people want it to be. "All people are searching for him" is true, imo, if an individual is searching for peace, happiness, etc. that individual is in search of the truth, if God is the source of truth, they are searching for him. The problem is preconceptions as to what truth is, or how it should look, or how living in line with that truth should be. If you don't know what truth is, you should not expect to know how one would need to live to be in line with truth.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How is history fiction? History is distinctly non-fiction. History is a narrative built upon textual and artefactual evidence - and history in the modern world is far more stringent - hence the rise of historiography.

Once again I fail to see it as an argument in defense of Biblical claims to say "history being fiction" and that historians "attacks" on the Bible stem from "being biased" I have studied a lot of history, and the reason I see history not agreeing with the Bible is because there is little to agree about. If the Bible doesn't fit in with the evidence then the Bible is wrong. Civilisations didn't go around organising themselves on the principal "3000 years in the future this will really confuse historians as our civilisation totally disagrees with the Bible" - it simply didn't work like that.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Correct - hence historiography - understanding the motives and world view of a historians. And then differentiating - ancient from modern. A ancient historian, writing contemporary to events, will reveal further social context in regards to how he writes.

And it is a gross oversimplification to imply that disagreeing with the concensus is career ending. History doesn't work like that. It encourages new views - hence why the Biblical, romanticised view of the Crusades has fallen out of favor. Hence why we are looking at other cultures in a fairer light rather then simply comparing them with the classical civilisations - a view promoted by Eurocentric dark ages thinking. And so on.

I have never seen a report that saw a historian cast down for his views -unless those views are justifiably bad - like claiming "Blacks were to primitive too build the African monuments of such and such - clearly white people came and did it in an Ancient time" - and you leave out the treatment of historians who disagreed with the Church 100, 200, 500 years ago - they were harmed because they, rightfully, disagreed with the popular Church endorsed view.

"hence historiography - understanding the motives and world view of a historians. And then differentiating - ancient from modern. A ancient historian, writing contemporary to events, will reveal further social context in regards to how he writes." This understanding is entirely drawn from personal interpretation of text. It is assumed as to motives and world view, based on incomplete information that exists, or history that has errors no matter the attempt at accuracy, and translation and interpretation compound these errors.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yet we know there were large groups of people believing other things long before.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Animism...

These are the examples I found by typing "early animism" into my university journal finder. However you can debate interpretation. The dates given are the conservative ones (since it is possible they are older, but thought near impossible they are younger.) Likewise you could debate - "what is religion" - which many do, in a why I believe to try and exclude animism from the religious classification as it is a by product of outdated, discomfort that ancient cultures may have had strong religious beliefs before the Egyptians and Israelites and all the rest.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which is not something many Christians believe. Not many theological historians. They see Christianity more as a child of Judaism - but a separate entity none the less. Despite the inclusion of the OT there are enough differences - both technical and doctrinal and practical to make them two separate religions, not different versions of the same.

Theological historians are individuals indoctrinated in a belief prior to making statements and assertions. Their views are most frequently biased and probably in error due to their beliefs, especially if such beliefs are false.

I realize that many Christians do not believe this. It is sad that they cannot accept the simple fact. Christianity is a sect of the Hebrew Religion (Hebrew religion being pre-Moses, or at least pre-Judaean separation) by definition. It is the same as Protestantism, Mormonism, Evangelism, Catholicism, etc. are all sects of Christianity. They have the same origin, but believe differently about the meaning and intent of that origin.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
However it is true Christians worship the same God as the Jews - but they do so from a different religion. Jesus, his birth and death, are the point at which they split. Most Jewish people remained with Judaism, and Christianity went of of as an independent and separate religion. Christianity did not exist prior to this point Judaism did. And Judaism is not Christianity.

Originally posted by Regret
The event of creation did not occur in a period when these cycles were necessarily established. Also, given location, and various other possibilities, perhaps where God resides only a day had passed while a longer period passed on Earth. Given that no man witnessed the creation, we do not know exactly how or even what God gave the person that originally was given the account of the creation. It is possible that this individual was given a visual and audible experience from the position of God, thus all we have is what occurred on his end. There are other possibilities, there is no information as to how the account in Genesis came to be.

Still historically uncomfortable though - one agrees that it didn't take place in the accepted 24 hour period that constitutes a modern day. Nor a solar cycle, yet the author felt justified claiming it was "a day" - tell me, do you think in the ancient world preachers would have stopped to explain "But it isn't really a day like you or I know it" - but rather have run with the impressive claim of "day" - and without sciences to speak against it people would have accepted the claim "day" as meaning "day"?

Yes. I do not believe the Bible to be the end all of God's interaction with man, and I do not believe that it is definitive on most subjects. I believe that the Bible teaches people how to behave morally and in line with God's purpose, not how biochemistry, physics, geology, or any other science works. Science is the area that has purview over these things, and the Bible is not intended to answer these types of questions. I believe that whatever science discovers as fact is how it happened. I don't believe religion should be threatened by science, they are studies in different things.

An admirable view. I think if a person can reconcile religion and science that is fine - providing the one with the evidence is not suppressed to warped unnaturally to fit in with a religious frame.

Yes. Agreed. Mormons believe everyone will have an opportunity to learn these things. If someone has not learned it, they will have an opportunity prior to Judgement, in the spirit world. That is one of the two main purposes of Mormon temples. Mormon temples are a place where the physical ordinances that are a part of our faith are performed in proxy for the dead. These ordinances can then be accepted or rejected by the individual, and thereby be valid or invalid depending on their choice. We do not believe everyone has the opportunity to learn the truth, as we see it, in this life, but they do have the opportunity at some point.

How do you know the dead are accepting or not? Is it just dead in general, or specific dead (which would be hard, what with the names and knowledge of the majority of past humans lost to time) And if Christianity is true wouldn't it have made more sense for God to insure people everywhere had a chance in life to accept it, rather then live in ignorance and then spend thousands of years in a stop over place waiting for a ceremony to teach them? Isn't that a bit like missing out on a reward due simply to bad luck on where one was born?

The truth isn't always what people want it to be. "All people are searching for him" is true, imo, if an individual is searching for peace, happiness, etc. that individual is in search of the truth, if God is the source of truth, they are searching for him. The problem is preconceptions as to what truth is, or how it should look, or how living in line with that truth should be. If you don't know what truth is, you should not expect to know how one would need to live to be in line with truth.

The thing I have seen is truth is often subjective. There may be broad themes, but at a personal level? People throughout history don't appear to have been searching for the Christian God. When it came to religion they often simply seemed to be searching for an understanding of the world. And with science most of those questions are answered. There is no real theme they are looking for a moral truth derived from God - after all without God they still had them.

Historians try to be unbiased, such is impossible. When referencing peoples in the past and inferring their behaviors, beliefs, etc. one must draw from what one knows, it is biased and not necessarily true. Biblical history, if attacked, is attacked by the same attacks that must hold true for all historians.

Naturally, but bias does not mean something can not be recorded accurately. I dislike SUV's, I see an accident involving one. Is my bias going to necessarily mean I can't give an accurate report to the police based on what I saw? Bias effects tone, bias effects intent - but the materials a historians works with remain what they are. Granted a textual source might be open to interpretation, but it isn't a wild stab in the dark as you imply. Making a history is a complex thing, and a modern historian often endevours to put aside personal things. It might not be completely possible, but that doesn't actually mean a history is incorrect - as with the SUV example - a person can still give an accurate report based on what they see before them.

And as to attacks on the Bible - could this not be because the Bible doesn't show accuracy? A historians dealing with the flood will likely criticise the Bible on that respect simply because it is in no way accurate. Either it is completely wrong, completely blown out of proportion or reveals complete ignorance on the behalf of the author. Is the historian wrong for using critical analysis of something that does not stand well with the evidence?

No - criticism and analyses are an important part of history. A person doesn't just "attack" the Bible out of bias - if the need arises to use it as a source then it gets a fair deal, but none, bar the most oblivious Christians historians, will wave away its flaws or utlra-religious reasoning and claim it is right.

Originally posted by Regret
I am not stating that religious people do not have the same problems as other historians. I am stating that religious historians have the same problems as other historians and historians have the same problems as religious historians. History is a fiction based on events that occur and are then recorded, history is much less fiction than most other works, but historians are unable to describe exactly how things occur, and error occurs due to this and biases.

What a remarkably post modern view, and one that I see no reason is accurate. History is far more like a police report based upon evidence and testimony. It is the historians job to put together a case based upon these two things. It is in no way fictional. Historians can, and do, reveal accurate reports. Some are easier to verify then others - for example WWII history as opposed to history of Sumeria.

And once again this does not defend historical problems with the Bible. If a historian digs through the evidence, reads the testimonies, and puts together a history that does not fit in with the Biblical claims it does not mean he is inaccurate. It means that the evidence supports his history, not the Biblical claims. It is disingenuous (but sadly all to frequent) that the claim arises that when history or science or anthropology or whatever doesn't fit in with a popular view a cry goes up about how "subjective it is" and how history is fundamentally flawed and all the rest. But strangely enough it never happens when history is supporting their view.

This understanding is entirely drawn from personal interpretation of text. It is assumed as to motives and world view, based on incomplete information that exists, or history that has errors no matter the attempt at accuracy, and translation and interpretation compound these errors.

Tch, tch, tch. Once again - fair and valid understanding of past world views can be seen by a modern person. Humanity is not trapped in the present unable to understand the past. I study Tacitus, I can see the motives stemming from his displeasure at the Emperor of his time, detect it in his writings, the things he includes and doesn't. Once again, to say such a thing about history would virtually render the majority of the humanities invalid "since it is simply our translation." I have heard it before, and I have seen the counterargument - there is a reason why post modern historians are often passed over - simply because the only thing they have conviction in is the certainty it is impossible to know anything. God I hated Jenkins.

He didn't even write history, he simply criticised historians on everything from language to education. "The past is in the past, our eyes are in the present. It is impossible to prevent anything but conjecture and theory." And just like science - theory.

Yes, we know that before Moses other people believed various things. But, we don't "know" that Abrahamic or Adamic religion did not precede many of these.

Simply because the lack of evidence fails to support this claim. Is the claim that aliens built the pyrimids justified? Is the claim we were seeded by lizard men justified? Or anything else? One can claim till the cows come home but without evidence these claims are just that. Claims. We know religions existed before Judaism. It is not an argument that "we don't know that Adamic religion" didn't exist before them" because there is no evidence to support it. Nothing found that even slightly indicates Adamic religion existed up to 8,000 years before. Nothing to suggest is isn't in its accurate place now on the time line of religious evolution.

These examples do not necessitate belief. They are merely drawings on walls that may be artistic expression, creative fantasy, fictional narrative, etc. We also, have little information as to who made these paintings, was it a child, an adult, were people that drew on walls considered insane at the time or possessed of demons? There are alternate possible explanations, animism is assumed or inferred in these, but not necessarily fact nor conclusive.

See - there you go. The things, even things historians agree upon as signs of animist beliefs dating to 8,000 years of more are not valid in your eyes. Historians look at questions like those: Children? Have you ever seen how high of the ground they are and the complexity of them? Likewise since the knowledge of children in hunter/gatherer tribes is known, as is the way in which the painting materials aquired this is not even remotly likely.

Insane person? Are you implying thousands of examples of cave art were drawn by insane people? Especially when evidence exists these places were of significant tribally?

And once again - when cave art depicts acts of a religious nature, or depicts supernatural beings (Aboriginal) then it is likely they are indicative of belief. To debunk history a person has to come up with a valid and evidenced counter theory. Simply saying "but maybe an insane child possessed by demons made them" is not a counter argument, especially when historians have found no reason to doubt the images and funerary items are indicative of spiritual belief. Likewise concepts of "fantasy, fictional narratives" - a lot of credit going to the most ancient there. And it is interesting to suggest they wouldn't have had religious belief in their lives but could come up with ones in "fictional images on a cave wall."

As for artistic expression - we know it is artistic expression - expression with a spiritual nature. Study of hunter/gatherers shows that they are not subject to thinking "hmmm, how about some art in between the constant day to day struggle to survive." As I mentioned - up to a certain point in time art was almost always religious in some way or another.

Theological historians are individuals indoctrinated in a belief prior to making statements and assertions. Their views are most frequently biased and probably in error due to their beliefs, especially if such beliefs are false.

Um? A theological historian is just like a Roman historian or an Egyptologist - their field of expertise is religion in and off history. Some might be religious themselves, some might not be. They still have to use texts and artifacts in their history. Not just whatever belief they might have.

I realize that many Christians do not believe this. It is sad that they cannot accept the simple fact. Christianity is a sect of the Hebrew Religion (Hebrew religion being pre-Moses, or at least pre-Judaean separation) by definition. It is the same as Protestantism, Mormonism, Evangelism, Catholicism, etc. are all sects of Christianity. They have the same origin, but believe differently about the meaning and intent of that origin.

I don't think that works. A sect is still a part of a religion. There is no way in terms of definition that Christianity is a sect of Jewish religion. They are two separate entities. They may have had a common ancestor, but they are separate now.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Still historically uncomfortable though - one agrees that it didn't take place in the accepted 24 hour period that constitutes a modern day. Nor a solar cycle, yet the author felt justified claiming it was "a day" - tell me, do you think in the ancient world preachers would have stopped to explain "But it isn't really a day like you or I know it" - but rather have run with the impressive claim of "day" - and without sciences to speak against it people would have accepted the claim "day" as meaning "day"?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
An admirable view. I think if a person can reconcile religion and science that is fine - providing the one with the evidence is not suppressed to warped unnaturally to fit in with a religious frame.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How do you know the dead are accepting or not? Is it just dead in general, or specific dead (which would be hard, what with the names and knowledge of the majority of past humans lost to time) And if Christianity is true wouldn't it have made more sense for God to insure people everywhere had a chance in life to accept it, rather then live in ignorance and then spend thousands of years in a stop over place waiting for a ceremony to teach them? Isn't that a bit like missing out on a reward due simply to bad luck on where one was born?

Mormons believe the spirit world to be much like here. They are not in a state of inaction, they are still existing, still learning, just in a state prior to Judgement. I would wager, if I were a wagering man, that there are religions that have sprung up in the spirit world about existence, philosophies probably abound, it isn't a position of greater knowledge than here other than the knowledge that physical death did not end existence.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The thing I have seen is truth is often subjective. There may be broad themes, but at a personal level? People throughout history don't appear to have been searching for the Christian God. When it came to religion they often simply seemed to be searching for an understanding of the world. And with science most of those questions are answered. There is no real theme they are looking for a moral truth derived from God - after all without God they still had them.

Naturally, but bias does not mean something can not be recorded accurately. I dislike SUV's, I see an accident involving one. Is my bias going to necessarily mean I can't give an accurate report to the police based on what I saw? Bias effects tone, bias effects intent - but the materials a historians works with remain what they are. Granted a textual source might be open to interpretation, but it isn't a wild stab in the dark as you imply. Making a history is a complex thing, and a modern historian often endevours to put aside personal things. It might not be completely possible, but that doesn't actually mean a history is incorrect - as with the SUV example - a person can still give an accurate report based on what they see before them.

And as to attacks on the Bible - could this not be because the Bible doesn't show accuracy? A historians dealing with the flood will likely criticise the Bible on that respect simply because it is in no way accurate. Either it is completely wrong, completely blown out of proportion or reveals complete ignorance on the behalf of the author. Is the historian wrong for using critical analysis of something that does not stand well with the evidence?

No - criticism and analyses are an important part of history. A person doesn't just "attack" the Bible out of bias - if the need arises to use it as a source then it gets a fair deal, but none, bar the most oblivious Christians historians, will wave away its flaws or utlra-religious reasoning and claim it is right.

Like I said, the Bible is not infallible. One must read the text from the perspective of the author. To Noah, what was the whole world? We don't know for sure, thus the text must be open to facts and not to interpretation being held as fact, any one of all possible interpretations may be accurate. I don't claim that any of the Bible is necessarily without some error.

I won't respond to each section of the second post you made, I believe history to be based in various personal interpretations of events. I believe history in general has all the same holes as the Bible. I believe the Bible to be held with more skepticism due to the "supernatural" (hate that word, supernatural things don't exist, God or anything else, everything that exists exists in the same nature we do) content. I see a problem in not accepting that all history is merely a collection of personal interpretations of events, and thus subject to great errors. No matter the attempt at being unbiased and accurate, for a man such is impossible. Man will err to the side of his view of reality.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Sorry used the same post link, didn't feel like getting the real one since this came from the immediately following post.
I don't think that works. A sect is still a part of a religion. There is no way in terms of definition that Christianity is a sect of Jewish religion. They are two separate entities. They may have had a common ancestor, but they are separate now.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't know the reason for the language used. I don't attempt to say I do. I also do not know whether the language is the exact communication the author received from God, I do not know the manner of the communication, there are too many variables to consider. If the Bible is true, then it must agree with scientific fact. Given this, the length of the creation process was not a literal six day period as relative to our days. Regardless of the text, scientific evidence states that the creation period was not six days. So either the communication used "day" in reference to a longer period, or the term "day" was an error by the author. Either one works for me, but scientific fact is still fact.

"If the Bible is true" - that is the crux of the issue. I think it is a work of historical fiction. Ergo it isn't scientific fact for me. As a result I don't thing science has to fit the Bible. In fact I thin there is far to much out there that doesn't fit with it - and evidence is evidence. The Bible doesn't have that much for it bar its own claim.

As for the language - that is exactly what linguists and historians do - workout why what is use is. And at the surface, cynically perhaps, the reason why "day" is used is because the Hebrew religions mythology held that their deity created the world in six days. Just as Mesopotamian myth holds a chap carved the world from the corpse of a primordial god or in Egyptian myth where Atum-Re emerged from a flower on the primordial mound and masturbated.

Names are gleaned through genealogy, members research their families and temple work is done for them. We do not need to know if they accept the work or not, that is between that individual and God. They must only have the opportunity. Agency is important, forcing the possibility would be forcing belief on those that would need to share the information with them. The Millennial reign of Christ will be filled with temple work for those that have not yet had it completed, those whose names have been lost. Spirit world will continue to be as it is now until all have been resurrected, thus not offering an unfair advantage of knowledge to those needing temple work still, an event that will continue until the end of the Millennium.

I am not simply talking about people whose names you can find.

What about an Australian aboriginal in the dream time at 21.000 years ago? Or an Egyptian pot makes out in a desert village who lived and died never hearinga thing? Or of those deep Amazonian villages who have lived in isolation for, well, forever? How does it work for such people? Has it ever been done for Caesar or Socrates?

I believe all history to be under the same skepticism. I do not reserve it to the religious aspects. I am a behavior analyst, and my philosophical stance as to psychology is also my general stance on life. You should study the view of the behaviorist, particularly Skinnerian Behavior, before leading into accusations that are to my view of subjectivity.

I know that, and I was not referring to you alone. I have seen the ethics conundrums and the balances. There is alot of debate, including on subjectivity. The fact a persons world view exists does not mean they can't operated impartially as a physician or a historian or a politician. They can still present accurate outcomes based upon relevant date.

A historian is not a fictional author. They are reporters and researchers, presenting with evidence. They study it, and put together the most accurate report they can based upon what the evidence is saying. This is in no way a fictional work. And if it doesn't agree with the Bible then it is likely because the Bible simply doesn't work with history. Despite what you might think many historians don't set out to attack the Bible. However when a history of the world is written and the Bible doesn't figure highly it isn't because of bias - it is because the Bible doesn't fit. So either most history is wrong and the evidence all misleading, or the Bible is farm from a perfect or accurate work.

Like I said, the Bible is not infallible. One must read the text from the perspective of the author. To Noah, what was the whole world? We don't know for sure, thus the text must be open to facts and not to interpretation being held as fact, any one of all possible interpretations may be accurate. I don't claim that any of the Bible is necessarily without some error.

Which is wise as it certainly isn't. And it is something of a cop out when things are reduced such. When the Bible speaks in absolutes which don't rash with history we get a "to Noah what was the whole world" - it doesn't change the fact it means the Bible was wrong. And if we accept the claim "God was speaking to them" - well, clearly he isn't very good at seeing things recorded accurately.

I won't respond to each section of the second post you made, I believe history to be based in various personal interpretations of events. I believe history in general has all the same holes as the Bible. I believe the Bible to be held with more skepticism due to the "supernatural" (hate that word, supernatural things don't exist, God or anything else, everything that exists exists in the same nature we do) content. I see a problem in not accepting that all history is merely a collection of personal interpretations of events, and thus subject to great errors. No matter the attempt at being unbiased and accurate, for a man such is impossible. Man will err to the side of his view of reality.

I studied a historical texts from the Christian period. Mad - real events in a supernatural setting. People riding on clouds, eyes falling out, out telling conquerers to go here, do that. This is supernatural stuff that exists in Christian texts. It exists in Greek and Egyptian myth - and there is nothing to show it is true. Unless you are suggesting Greek myth get a higher validity rating as true history the criticism of the Bible and other Christian texts stance. When world events are wrongly attributed to divine action.

And history is a constant thing. It changes as we learn. But it is a gradual process. History is not nearly as wrong as you make out, nor nearly as prone to great errors. The fact remains interpretation of evidence can only lead to so many outcomes. Some will be more right then others certainly. But the fact is there will certainly be truth. As I keep saying it is not a defence of the Bible or religious claims to simply say "The history that isn't supporting the Bible is based upon personal interpretation and likely filled with errors." Without evidence to debunk a historical claim it doesn't float. The Bible itself can't debunk them, and ultimately there is more evidence for the current historical views then there is for Christian ones.

Either this is because a. Historians are way off the mark (unlikely) or b. the evidence they use that doesn't fit with the Bible is that way because the Bible isn't an accurate historical text (far more likely.)

Which makes them both sects of the Hebrew religion in the exact same manner that Catholicism and Protestant religions are sects of Christianity, but Protestant beliefs are children of the Catholic religion.

Ah huh. Theoretically then since Mani of the Manichean's drew largely on Christian mythology that means the Manichean's are also Hebrew. It doesn't work

The difference in the examples you gave is that Protestants and Catholics still share the fundamental defining features that put a religion in the Christian catagory. Hebrew and Christianity do not. The fundamental and most basic difference between the two - Jesus - means they are two separate religions. This isn't a question of doctrinal differences (as with Protestants and Catholics) it is a profound difference in the very nature of the two. The holy texts, the Christ, the practices. Hebrew and Christianity are two separate religions. They most certainly have common ground in the past (OT) but that alone is not enough to mean they are both the same religion when one has a defining feature (The Christ) in conflict between the two.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

A few snippets from the link:

About Yeshua of Nazareth: He is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, although Joshua would be a more accurate translation of his first name. "Christ" is not his last name; it is simply the Greek word for "Messiah," or "anointed one." Theologians have discovered about 50 gospels which were widely used by Jewish, Pauline and Gnostic groups within the early Christian movement. Only four of these were chosen by the surviving group, Pauline Christianity, and were included in the Bible. Those four Gospels describe Jesus as a Jew who was born to a virgin in Palestine circa 4 to 7 BCE. He is portrayed as a rabbi, teacher, healer, exorcist, magician, prophet, and religious leader who had a one year (according to Mark, Matthew and Luke) or a three year (according to John) ministry in Palestine, starting when he was about 30 years old. Most Christians believe that he was executed by the Roman occupying army, visited the underworld, was resurrected, spent 40 days with his disciples, and then ascended to heaven. Most Christian denominations view Jesus as God, and as the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity.|

Conservative Christians view the Gospels as being inerrant whose authors were inspired by God. The Gospels and other passages in the Bible are mostly interpreted literally. Muslims revere Jesus as a great prophet -- next only to Muhammad in importance. They regard the assertion that Jesus is God to be blasphemy.

About Horus: Various ancient Egyptian statues and writings tell of Horus, (pronounced "hohr'-uhs;"
a.k.a. Harseisis, Heru-sa-Aset (Horus, son of Isis), Heru-ur (Horus the elder), Hr, and Hrw), a creator sky God. He was worshipped thousands of years before the first century CE -- the time when Jesus was ministering in Palestine. 2 Horus was often represented as a stylized eye symbol, symbolizing the eye of a falcon. He was also presented "in the shape of a sparrow hawk or as a man [or lion] with a hawk's head." 3 He is often shown as an infant cradled by his mother Isis. He was considered to be the son of two major Egyptian deities: the God Osirus and and the Goddess Isis. In adulthood, he avenged his father's murder, and became recognized as the God of civil order and justice. Each of the Egyptian pharaohs were believed to be the living embodiment -- an incarnation -- of Horus. 4

The comparison section is especially interesting. Almost carbon-copyishly interesting.

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Someone should terminate Shakys pm system....lol.... 🤨

Yes horus is everywhere especially the Bible...

spam

Originally posted by TRH
spam

weeeeeeeeeeee

Somebody should post a list or a link to Jesus' similarities with Horus father, Osiris.

...all just forest for the trees fellas (and ladies).

Horus isn't alone. Neither is Osiris. This is common knowledge to a lot of people (except Christians, apparently). Krishna, Shiva, the Buddha ( ✅ ), Horus, Dionysius, Orpheus, Socrates, Odin, etc.

All of those and more share loads in common with the Jesus myth. And it's not so much that "Christianity stole all of that" so much as they all influenced one another, to the point where it's possible to see similar stories, teachings, and motifs in all of them.

So yeah, Jesus wasn't the first to be crucified for the sake of mankind, to walk on water, turn water to wine, be tempted by Satan, be born in a manger, etc. And we have probably 5 dozen threads here to prove as much. But if you see it simply as a metaphor, rather than historical fact, it becomes a healthy model for emulation rather than an obsessive idol for irrational faith.

Christianity is deeply in debt to older mythologies for a lot of its beliefs and ideas - not that you' d ever hear that admitted. Most Christians don' t even seem to realize it at all.

God is really the SUN. Get used to it. It's true..

jacope-owns-xyz

Originally posted by debbiejo
God is really the SUN. Get used to it. It's true..

jacope-owns-xyz

No God is the son . . . 😏

hmmmm the sun got a few billion yrs left, so i'm guessing that's when god will die too????

Yeah.. 🙁