First of all,i've been a christian all my life and we were told to never question the bible because it is the TRUTH. What i found out later just completely destroyed the foundation that was carved in my heart and soul. Realizing what was taught to you was all a lie and you've just found real hard evidence that even the best reasons that the bible has to offer cannot dismiss it as false.
I'm no traitor. What's to betray if you wnt the real truth to come out?
According to experts the pyramids are 4000 years older than when God supposedly created the universe and the earh as some christians insists that the earth is no more than 6000 years old. Facts says that the radio carbon dating of the pyramids suggests that they were built during 10500 BC and the quasi stone age people could not have built it wih their stone age tools. In fact some experts say that the technology usedin constructing these magnificent structures are far more advanced than our own. Yet the bible says that Adam and Eve were the first humans moreoverTHEY WERE STUPID and would not have/could not have known any advanced knowledge such as the knowledge used in building the pyramids.
I'll save the rest of the arguments later...now i dare ny christian out there to prove me wrong.
Re: Re: Re: I don't like to be a christian no more
Originally posted by darkfan76
(1) False. Christianity comes from Jewish religion. Nothing to do with egypt's religion.(2) The tree of Eden was in the Jewish scriptures long before Christianism.
(3) You are just talking about sensational pseudo-theories, which has not been proved at all. In fact, their only based are some resemblances. That's all. You see, some anti-catholic fundamentalist christian actually started this to bash the Catholic Church, in books such as the Babylon connection (whose author later recognized that he took only some assumptions but didn't have any real proof), later the anti-Christian took the same tactics to bash Christianity.
(4) Christianity is the most and better documented religion from the beginning up to date. With the exception of Fundamentalist christians, who think that Biblie fell from the sky, with an Index, chapters and that was written by God himself and think they should take it literally, Most of Christians: Catholics, Orthodox and Historical protestant groups know the documents starting from 1st century besides the Biblie itself, that enlighten about the way Bible should be interpreted, and the teachings first christians received orally from the apostles and his close disciples. We know Bible is God's revelation, and Inspired by the Holy Spirit, but written by men, according to the oral tradition they received from the apostles, and that certainly a book of collection of books is not sufficient for Christians, but they need the living testimony of the church founded by Christ, since Bible itself mentions it. Don't judge Christianity for the Fundamentalists.
1) Which was would mean by default that Jewish tradition is based off Egyptian tradition. Look, the Torah is used by both Christianity and Judaism so I fail to see your refutation.
For this to be correct, you have to argue that Judaism was in place before Egyptian ideals. Yea...
2) Look @ 1.
3) Just because something is supported does not make it true. This is not science or math and the conquerors and telling all the stories.
4) Look @ #3 and #1.
It is a well known fact that Arabs took over Africa before Christians and did as they pleased which would include destroying nice tidbits of information. There is a lot about Africa that is known but not discussed in Academia openly.
You provided no proof either so I really don't see your point, at all.
Re: Re: Re: I don't like to be a christian no more
Originally posted by darkfan76
(1) False. Christianity comes from Jewish religion. Nothing to do with egypt's religion.(2) The tree of Eden was in the Jewish scriptures long before Christianism.
(3) You are just talking about sensational pseudo-theories, which has not been proved at all. In fact, their only based are some resemblances. That's all. You see, some anti-catholic fundamentalist christian actually started this to bash the Catholic Church, in books such as the Babylon connection (whose author later recognized that he took only some assumptions but didn't have any real proof), later the anti-Christian took the same tactics to bash Christianity.
(4) Christianity is the most and better documented religion from the beginning up to date. With the exception of Fundamentalist christians, who think that Biblie fell from the sky, with an Index, chapters and that was written by God himself and think they should take it literally, Most of Christians: Catholics, Orthodox and Historical protestant groups know the documents starting from 1st century besides the Biblie itself, that enlighten about the way Bible should be interpreted, and the teachings first christians received orally from the apostles and his close disciples. We know Bible is God's revelation, and Inspired by the Holy Spirit, but written by men, according to the oral tradition they received from the apostles, and that certainly a book of collection of books is not sufficient for Christians, but they need the living testimony of the church founded by Christ, since Bible itself mentions it. Don't judge Christianity for the Fundamentalists.
I agree. Judaism and Christianity are probably two of the most well documented religions. I recently read somewhere that there are around 10 to 16 historical documents to confirm the existence and activities of the famous Julius Caesar. Most of these documents describe the Gaelic wars (without checking, I think these are in 55 and 54 BC, someone please shout at me if I am wrong.) As for the new testament, there are 25,366 copies from around the 1st century, most historians date the earliest at somewhere between 40/45 to 60 AD and the latest book to be written in 96 AD during times of Christian persecution.
As for references to religions which predate Christianity with similar iconography and symbolism, mainly Emperor Constantine is to thank for that. When the Roman Emperor became the first Christian Emperor, it was a simple matter to replace pagan symbols with Christian ones as Christianity suddenly changed from being heavily persecuted to the main religion of the country.
If you have issues with earlier old testament references then you issue is mainly with Judaism, not Christianity (Where the very recycled arguments arise eg Christianity came from Mithrasism 🙄 )However in defence of the issue some posters had with the lack of Egyptian records pertaining to the plague and exodus of slaves from Egypt is is in fact a fairly logical and simple reason. The Egyptians, very much like the Romans, didn't usually record their defeats, but their victories. If you wanted to look like you had a funky empire, it's best not to mention that the God your slaves worshipped sent plagues until you freed all your slaves. (Although I think that the death of the first born is referred to in Egyptian records.) This is one of the many reasons why many historians, regardless of their beliefs, argue that the Bible has a large degree of historical accuracy for recording many of the defeats of God's people suffered, as well as victories ✅
So, which pyramids in Egypt are we talking about? Because there are hundreds of them.
If you're talking about the pyramids at Giza, they certainly aren't 4000 years older than the biblical creation myths of a global age of 6000 years. That would make them 10,000 years old. And while there are some fringe elements of the academic community that hold to the idea that the pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx are remenants of a far older Nile delta civilization, the vast majority of the "evidence" to support such a claim is baseless conjecture.
As far as the main thrust of the thread topic, the Christian religion IS an amalgamation of many middle-eastern religions. Anyone who believes that christianity fell from the sky as a fully formed religion, uninfluenced by the older religions that surrounded it, would be foolish.
And whoever it was that said there are traces of Christianity taken from "Norse" religions, needs to do a little more study on the themes in mythology. Human involvment in the creation of religions are the reason for many of the similarities between one religion and the next. The same stories we (humans) were telling ourselves 4000 years ago to explain our shared questions are the same stories we tell ourselves today.
Oh, and I think getting caught up in the pyramids is putting the horse before the cart. You don't need pyramids to disprove the judaeo-christian notion of the planet being 6000 years old. I mean, you have the planet itself. It kind of refutes that biblical garbage simply by existing. Or humans, even. The existence of the human animal disproves that the planet is only six thousand years old.
Originally posted by Devil King
So, which pyramids in Egypt are we talking about? Because there are hundreds of them.If you're talking about the pyramids at Giza, they certainly aren't 4000 years older than the biblical creation myths of a global age of 6000 years. That would make them 10,000 years old. And while there are some fringe elements of the academic community that hold to the idea that the pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx are remenants of a far older Nile delta civilization, the vast majority of the "evidence" to support such a claim is baseless conjecture.
Agreed
Originally posted by Devil King
As far as the main thrust of the thread topic, the Christian religion [b]IS an amalgamation of many middle-eastern religions. Anyone who believes that christianity fell from the sky as a fully formed religion, uninfluenced by the older religions that surrounded it, would be foolish.[/B]
Ok now you've gone from one extreme to the other. Whilst its silly to say Christianity fell from the sky, it's just as silly to say it is merely an amalgamation of many middle eastern religions. Whilst similarities occur through symbolism and specific terms used throughout the time (eg "Son of God" is phrase used in numerous religions at the time.) you can't just say that the Christian faith derives from that. In core beliefs and practises, there are numerous differences. I personally feel that the similarities are due to the fact that these sayings merely existed a that time. Like if I were to say "Where there's smoke there's fire." I would be using the phrase but I wouldn't claim ownership of it. Just like this when early Christians were writing scripture, they would use similar phrases to other religions (like "son of God."😉, not because they were merely copying them and so it's therefore all a sham, but they copied them because that was the saying to get the emphasis across at the time. This obviously wouldn't make it any less of a truth because they borrowed a phrase ✅
Originally posted by Devil King
And whoever it was that said there are traces of Christianity taken from "Norse" religions, needs to do a little more study on the themes in mythology. Human involvment in the creation of religions are the reason for many of the similarities between one religion and the next. The same stories we (humans) were telling ourselves 4000 years ago to explain our shared questions are the same stories we tell ourselves today.
Or possibly to merely describe something. I might call a building big, you might call it large, does that make one of us wrong and the other right?
Originally posted by Devil King
Oh, and I think getting caught up in the pyramids is putting the horse before the cart. You don't need pyramids to disprove the judaeo-christian notion of the planet being 6000 years old. I mean, you have the planet itself. It kind of refutes that biblical garbage simply by existing. Or humans, even. The existence of the human animal disproves that the planet is only six thousand years old.
😆 Ah I sense casual stereotyping. I am Christian so I clearly think the world is that specific age right? Perhaps because I'm a Christian you think I get down on my knees and clasp my hands when I pray? 🙄 Or maybe I go to my archaic Church where we sit on dusty old pews???? 😛
Originally Posted by Devil King
So, which pyramids in Egypt are we talking about? Because there are hundreds of them.If you're talking about the pyramids at Giza, they certainly aren't 4000 years older than the biblical creation myths of a global age of 6000 years. That would make them 10,000 years old. And while there are some fringe elements of the academic community that hold to the idea that the pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx are remenants of a far older Nile delta civilization, the vast majority of the "evidence" to support such a claim is baseless conjecture.
Did you just say that the "evidence" is BASELESS? Dear God! You must really be blind to overlook them. Well let me point them out to you as clear as i can, first, the pyramids in Giza to be exact are perfectly aligned to the world's cardinal points(North, East, West, & South). Remember that they are in line with the TRUE NORTH of the world as we know it today, and believe it or not they missed by only 3 arc minutes! Now that's an incredibly small amount for a quasi stone age people to pinpoint with the technology they had don't you think so? There are 60 minutes in 1 degree of latitude or longitude and the earth is divided into 360 degrees of latitude or longitude. Since this is a fact, are you saying then that those stupid egyptians knew how to circumnavigate the world and that they may have already did during their time? Funny they never wrote it down in their history niether did they mention anything about how or why they built those pyramids, just that some years later some people studied a few years on these structures and concluded that they were tombs.
There literally hundreds of facts that can be found by observing these structures carefully. I am basing my argument based on those facts and not just hear says.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yah, there's a 600-page book on the mathematical and astronomical significance of great pyramids. You should read it if you are interested. The Egyptians, or whoever built the pyramids were highly intelligent.
There is an interesting hypothesis about the construction of the pyramids being directed by the Nephilim.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Why not ?If Christians are good people, they should like everybody
It was a joke. We, Or at least I, (because I actually follow what the bible says 😬 ) do love everybody, in the sense that I accept everybody for who they are. For example, despite your being a flaming homosexual I don't hold it against you.
Re: I don't like to be a christian no more
Originally posted by HULKSTER04
The Pyramids in egypt says that the biblical accounts of the creation was a lie.Before posting any questions please check out the pyramids first and then we'll discuss this.
The Bible never claimed to be historically accurate. So, why give it up the good book simply because said tales did not happen?
Originally posted by willRules
Ok now you've gone from one extreme to the other. Whilst its silly to say Christianity fell from the sky, it's just as silly to say it is merely an amalgamation of many middle eastern religions. Whilst similarities occur through symbolism and specific terms used throughout the time (eg "Son of God" is phrase used in numerous religions at the time.) you can't just say that the Christian faith derives from that. In core beliefs and practises, there are numerous differences. I personally feel that the similarities are due to the fact that these sayings merely existed a that time. Like if I were to say "Where there's smoke there's fire." I would be using the phrase but I wouldn't claim ownership of it. Just like this when early Christians were writing scripture, they would use similar phrases to other religions (like "son of God."😉, not because they were merely copying them and so it's therefore all a sham, but they copied them because that was the saying to get the emphasis across at the time. This obviously wouldn't make it any less of a truth because they borrowed a phrase ✅
we aren't talking about words. We're talking about intent. And the intent of christianity is nothing revolutionary.
Originally posted by willRules
Or possibly to merely describe something. I might call a building big, you might call it large, does that make one of us wrong and the other right?
what?
Originally posted by willRules
😆 Ah I sense casual stereotyping. I am Christian so I clearly think the world is that specific age right? Perhaps because I'm a Christian you think I get down on my knees and clasp my hands when I pray? 🙄 Or maybe I go to my archaic Church where we sit on dusty old pews???? 😛
I assure you, there is nothing casual about my stereotyping. And there is none of my stereotyping in your attempt at self-defense.
Originally posted by HULKSTER04
Did you just say that the "evidence" is BASELESS? Dear God! You must really be blind to overlook them. Well let me point them out to you as clear as i can, first, the pyramids in Giza to be exact are perfectly aligned to the world's cardinal points(North, East, West, & South). Remember that they are in line with the TRUE NORTH of the world as we know it today, and believe it or not they missed by only 3 arc minutes! Now that's an incredibly small amount for a quasi stone age people to pinpoint with the technology they had don't you think so? There are 60 minutes in 1 degree of latitude or longitude and the earth is divided into 360 degrees of latitude or longitude. Since this is a fact, are you saying then that those stupid egyptians knew how to circumnavigate the world and that they may have already did during their time? Funny they never wrote it down in their history niether did they mention anything about how or why they built those pyramids, just that some years later some people studied a few years on these structures and concluded that they were tombs.There literally hundreds of facts that can be found by observing these structures carefully. I am basing my argument based on those facts and not just hear says. [/B]
You'll never hear me call the Egyptians stupid. Yourself? That is another matter.