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

rq64qX7bNNU

View, and discuss...

I've seen that video. The Christian guy whups his ass. Doesn't prove anything, however, especially since Callahan did such a poor job of debating. It just means he got pistol-whipped in a single debate.

Originally posted by Digi
I've seen that video. The Christian guy whups his ass. Doesn't prove anything, however, especially since Callahan did such a poor job of debating. It just means he got pistol-whipped in a single debate.

Ahh, well what about the title question?

why didnt the dude point out heracles and his death and ascencion into godhood?

the most obvious roman greek legend closes to jesus time and others like mithra... apollonius

or prometheus chained to a rock get eaten and heal only to die each night..

All the video proves is that skeptics are boring people. I'm fairly sure that there are pre-Christian resurrection stories but the raising of Jesus is hardly "just" a copy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
All the video proves is that skeptics are boring people. I'm fairly sure that there are pre-Christian resurrection stories but the raising of Jesus is hardly "just" a copy.

Christopher Hitchens would say it is...lol

Isn't he infallible?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Ahh, well what about the title question?

Partially. While scattered elements of Christ's resurrection story are unique to Christianity, the overriding archetype is typical of resurrection myths that predate Christianity by millenia, and extend through numerous cultures, even those not directly linked with one another.

Callahan, a far better author than debater, likes to focus on the Mystery Religions, which were contemporaries of Jesus rather than predecessors. They're easier to put aside for Christians because it can't be said that Christianity stems from them. But rather than see the natural tendency to borrow, copy, and "one-up" competing religions of the times by including similar themes, claims, etc. Christians simply pass them off as meaningless in the evolution of their own religion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
All the video proves is that skeptics are boring people.



Not all, certainly. But Callahan, yes. He's about as animate as a corpse.

It's a common archetype, but saying it's just a copy doesn't do it any justice.

Originally posted by Classic NES
It's a common archetype, but saying it's just a copy doesn't do it any justice.

That is correct. It is a bad copy.

Or a common motif, besides it's hard to believe that this theme would not be in the empires many religions. That flooded the empire prior to the canonization of the Christianity.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Or a common motif, besides it's hard to believe that this theme would not be in the empires many religions. That flooded the empire prior to the canonization of the Christianity.

Empire? Like the Holy Roman Empire?

Hm, yeah.

more talk bored.........

Originally posted by Digi


Not all, certainly. But Callahan, yes. He's about as animate as a corpse.

I have a 12th Level Cleric of Vecna here that wants you to apologize for that comparison.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I have a 12th Level Cleric of Vecna here that wants you to apologize for that comparison.



My apologies.

Whether educated or not, we all have opinions regarding the resurrection of Christ Jesus. Fact of the matter is, the video debate posted by Grand-Moff-Gav is wholly sufficient to dissect truth from fiction. Both participants -- Gary Habermas and Tim Callahan -- have written books on the topic. Having said this, both are well, well aware of their arguments. None had a brain-fart or a bad day. The resurrection of Christ Jesus is true or false. For something as absurd as "resurrection" to embrace, Tim Callahan should have had the upper-hand! Instead, Gary Habermas, won the debate. For those who have studied the origin of Christianity, the outcome of this video debate, served as no surprise. No pun intended, honestly.

Faith Under Fire: Part One

gsuczs8BJE8

Faith Under Fire: Part Two

8TBBzTMSUC0

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14 KJV).

Ushome, it's cool to disagree, but try not to insult our intelligences. You essentially just said that a brief debate that can fit on a couple youtube clips ends the debate on the validity of Jesus' resurrection story. Even the most credulous BS-detectors should raise an eyebrow at that.

Yeah, they've both written books. Doesn't make them good debaters. Habermas owned the sh*t out of Callahan because he controlled the debate, covered what he wanted to instead of his opponent, and put Callahan on the defensive in situations where he was guaranteed to look silly. Great debating. But still just a fragmented youtube clip. If you think that settles the matter, I'm sure we could find an opposite-leaning video to refute it. It wouldn't be proof either, but it would be an equal amount to this.

"virtually all scholars agree"

Haha, ask any, they will most likely either say they don't know or they believe so. Only christians will say the latter.

Someone mentioned Hercules in this thread. That's actually a really good well known example. ****ing disney has a cartoon about Hercules.

Son of a God that performed miracles (in this case super strength) and eventually ascended into heaven.

And considering the fact that all these other stories have just as much evidence as the Bible, either they're all true, or none are. Obviously they aren't all true, anyone can see how ridiculous just one is, so why believe another?

faith hope and fear of the unknown... and it was me who posted it..

Originally posted by lord xyz


And considering the fact that all these other stories have just as much evidence as the Bible, either they're all true, or none are. Obviously they aren't all true, anyone can see how ridiculous just one is, so why believe another?

I can't believe Christianity has endured this long.

only religion that i know has fought tooth and nails to stay alive....
gotta admire their commitment, cultural murder, rape of individuality in societies throughout the world...

Originally posted by Fist
I can't believe Christianity has endured this long.

Grace of God, biotch.

i though it was the bloody murder of man and not so much godly grace

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i though it was the bloody murder of man and not so much godly grace

Of course Christianity hasn't been doing that so much recently and is doing just fine. So I really don't see your point.

i saw an episode of bill muer late show about 5 yrs ago where they showed a news report clipping of missionaries going around countries around the globe where disasters struck or diseases plagued the area... and where caught on film withholding aid to ppl unless they converted and were disrespecting their gods and religious believes saying god did it to them for not being christians .......so pretty much alive in one form or the other...

it was a big thing so it is very much alive now the funny part the panel consisted of buhddist rabbi christian and catholic priest.. the most civil ones were the rabbi and the buddhist so much so they could get a word in edge wise might have something to do why the other religion is so dominant.... just saying

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course Christianity hasn't been doing that so much recently and is doing just fine. So I really don't see your point.

When you establish yourself as THE religion of the civilized world (Roman Empire) not much is needed for quite a few centuries.

There's also the whole no-birth-control-and-anti-abortion thing, which helps the procreation totals.

Besides, Christian numbers are mainly on the rise in the Third World, which is where they do use more aggressive recruitment tactics. Mr. Shadow alluded to some of them above. Any modernized country remains fairly stagnant in terms of theistic percentages.

Originally posted by Digi
There's also the whole no-birth-control-and-anti-abortion thing, which helps the procreation totals.

How exactly do you equate that with "bloody murder of man"?

Originally posted by Digi
Besides, Christian numbers are mainly on the rise in the Third World, which is where they do use more aggressive recruitment tactics. Mr. Shadow alluded to some of them above. Any modernized country remains fairly stagnant in terms of theistic percentages.

I've yet to hear reports of outright murder . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How exactly do you equate that with "bloody murder of man"?



I've yet to hear reports of outright murder . . .

I wasn't defending the murder comment. I was responding to your last post with my own. I stand by my points.

srug

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Grace of God, biotch.

I see... On that i'll remain dubious.

a little more science give or take a few decades... and religion will die out.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
a little more science give or take a few decades... and religion will die out.

And a different set of beliefs will take its place. We'll have an entire world of deterministic rationalists that shit themselves whenever they see the number 13.

hopefully it will be a more enlighten belief system.... maybe buddhism with the whole self mental improvement.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
hopefully it will be a more enlighten belief system...

No. It won't.

Christianity has lasted long because of the prinicples it promotes. Peace, love good will to all men, humility, mercy, the sacredness of life. Divinity of man.

Chrisitanity is the youngest of the esablished religions

Originally posted by chithappens
Chrisitanity is the youngest of the esablished religions

Younger than Islam?

I believe so since it borrows stories or shares stores with the Koran. At least the OT figures. Christianity is really about NT scriptures. The Jews only use the OT.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I believe so since it borrows stories or shares stores with the Koran. At least the OT figures. Christianity is really about NT scriptures. The Jews only use the OT.

Are you saying that Islam is older than Christianity? Really?

Originally posted by chithappens
Chrisitanity is the youngest of the esablished religions

Even though Islam was founded later? That's a neat trick.

Then there's Wicca has been around since about 1980 (despite the shameless culture thefts), and I'm pretty sure that is a few years after Christianity was founded.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Even though Islam was founded later? That's a neat trick.

Then there's Wicca has been around since about 1980 (despite the shameless culture thefts), and I'm pretty sure that is a few years after Christianity was founded.

Don't forget Baha'i!

Osiris, Dionysis and Mithra . were all Sacrificed for the worlds sins, the offspring of "GOD the Father" and Resurrected. This is all from Archaeological findings and fact. These story's existed. The Story of Osiris is 2,500 years older than Christianity .

Osiris is based on the observance of Day and Night- the rising and setting sun. Not the theological idea that people are stained with a sin due to the disobedience of man and thus the sacrifice of God's son will redeem mankind.

Reincarnation is nothing new though you are correct- though its not just God's or their sons who are reincarnated- it is millions of people and things.

So the fact that Jesus rose from the dead and there were stories of people rising from the dead before him is next to irrelevant. After all, it is hardly a concept difficult to imagine, think of Zombies and Vampires etc.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
. After all, it is hardly a concept difficult to imagine, think of Zombies and Vampires etc.

LMAO Touche

Your wrong about Osiris though.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
LMAO Touche

Your wrong about Osiris though.

Hit me with some evidence

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Hit me with some evidence

You never heard the Mythology where Osiris was torn to pieces and died and Isis put him back together,resurrected.

You will have to do some research yourself. I read books not Internet so i have no links to give you and the time and effort it would take to go through my Books would be too much . Im sorry Gav, believe it or not or research it. Im done.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
You never heard the Mythology where Osiris was torn to pieces and died and Isis put him back together,resurrected.

You will have to do some research yourself. I read books not Internet so i have no links to give you and the time and effort it would take to go through my Books would be too much . Im sorry Gav, believe it or not or research it. Im done.

lol

how disappointing.

Gav, I think you're thinking of Ra (or Amon) with the rise-setting sun thing. Osiris was killed by his bro Seth then put back together and became lord of the dead.

Dionysus is more interesting as his killing in Orphic sects gave humans their divine, pure aspect which faith in the religion and training could bring out, which isn't exactly like Christianity but is pretty close theme-wise.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
You never heard the Mythology where Osiris was torn to pieces and died and Isis put him back together,resurrected.

That's only tangentially similar to the story of Christ's resurrection. If they stole it why leave out the cool bits . . . and then add in more pieces?

Greek-mythology is not a strong point, of mine, to discuss. However, I am not completely lost in the dark (to note that Lycanthrope's views are wholly invalid, to say the least).

Osiris: Chopped into fourteen pieces and then reassembled -- minus one part -- after his sister Isis found the dismembered "god" at the bottom of the Nile! Further more, Osiris was not a historical figure.

Dionysis: No virgin birth either! As the story goes, Zeus disguised as a human, fell in love with princess Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, and she became pregnant. Hera, who was Zeus's queen, arranged to have her burned to a crisp, but Zues rescued the fetus and "sewed" him into this own thigh. And, no textual evidence of the death and/or resurrection of Dionysis exists. Also, not a historical figure.

Mithras: Born from a rock, fully formed (naked), holding a dagger and torch, and textual evidence of the death of Mithras does not exist -- hence no resurrection. Mithras never sacrificed himself, but killed a bull. Also, not a historical figure.

Yes, Greek-mythology (and their characters) pre-date Christianity, but Greek-mythology evolved. It wasn't until approximately 2 centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus did such stories form, including so-called "virgin-births," but all have absolutely no parallels with Christianity.

Lycanthrope... your opinion is rather pathetic. I'm sorry, bro.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Dionysis: No virgin birth either! As the story goes, Zeus disguised as a human, fell in love with princess Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, and she became pregnant. Hera, who was Zeus's queen, arranged to have her burned to a crisp, but Zues rescued the fetus and "sewed" him into this own thigh. And, no textual evidence of the death and/or resurrection of Dionysis exists. Also, not a historical figure.
In Orphic sects, he was killed by Titans then resurrected. This killing and resurrection gave humans a divine/spiritual quality, which is somewhat thematically similar to Christianity.

I have the Geneva Bible with notes. I have reformer notes. I have the whole Catholic cannon history including meetings. I have the original KJV,which is cool BTW. I have the Gnostic gospels and I have the works of Josephus.

I used to be a Christan but have now changed my mind. I also have an interest in ancient studies, especially ancient religions.

I have found that what Christians believe today are only older versions of the same story and some cohersiveness with the councils for politics.

yes it is a copy of old religion with just a little twist..
the story may change a bit and the characters may have a different name but the motif is still the same

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
yes it is a copy of old religion with just a little twist..
the story may change a bit and the characters may have a different name but the motif is still the same

Easy to say that but where's the proof? If we're going to say it is a copy of old religions where's the proof? Did these old religions share the same principles? Moral teachings?

What about those old religions did Christianity borrow from? I've done some fact finding on similarities of the resurrection and there's no conclusive proof that there was anything exactly like Jesus resurrection in previous religions in fact in many instances there are more dissimilarities not to mention the contemporary writings of those old religions don't support their being any resurrection similarities at all.

Besides the resurrection what similarities does Christianity have with these older religions?

Originally posted by Allankles
Easy to say that but where's the proof? If we're going to say it is a copy of old religions where's the proof? Did these old religions share the same principles? Moral teachings?

What about those old religions did Christianity borrow from? I've done some fact finding on similarities of the resurrection and there's no conclusive proof that there was anything exactly like Jesus resurrection in previous religions in fact in many instances there are more dissimilarities not to mention the contemporary writings of those old religions don't support their being any resurrection similarities at all.

Besides the resurrection what similarities does Christianity have with these older religions?

The motif of resurrection shows up constantly in religion. I believe the point is that the differences are less important than the core concept. The story is not a direct copy and, given the success of Christianity not "just" a copy either, but it is not an original idea.

More to the point, in my infinitely humble opinion, who cares if it's similar to older stories? (besides people that research the stuff for a living)

Resurrection and virgin birth are definite archetypes in religion.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Greek-mythology is not a strong point, of mine, to discuss. However, I am not completely lost in the dark (to note that Lycanthrope's views are wholly invalid, to say the least).

Osiris: Chopped into fourteen pieces and then reassembled -- minus one part -- after his sister Isis found the dismembered "god" at the bottom of the Nile! Further more, Osiris was not a historical figure.

Dionysis: No virgin birth either! As the story goes, Zeus disguised as a human, fell in love with princess Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, and she became pregnant. Hera, who was Zeus's queen, arranged to have her burned to a crisp, but Zues rescued the fetus and "sewed" him into this own thigh. And, no textual evidence of the death and/or resurrection of Dionysis exists. Also, not a historical figure.

Mithras: Born from a rock, fully formed (naked), holding a dagger and torch, and textual evidence of the death of Mithras does not exist -- hence no resurrection. Mithras never sacrificed himself, but killed a bull. Also, not a historical figure.

Yes, Greek-mythology (and their characters) pre-date Christianity, but Greek-mythology evolved. It wasn't until approximately 2 centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus did such stories form, including so-called "virgin-births," but all have absolutely no parallels with Christianity.

Lycanthrope... your opinion is rather pathetic. I'm sorry, bro.

Ha Ha.

I don't post in the religion forum for over 2 years and people are still discussing right were I left off.

I'll just stick like a fly on the wall for now and just sit back and enjoy the debate.

I see the curse only worked for song long that me and debby jo placed on jesusisalive.
I will have to recite the ancient text by myself this time.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Greek-mythology is not a strong point, of mine, to discuss. However, I am not completely lost in the dark (to note that Lycanthrope's views are wholly invalid, to say the least).

Osiris: Chopped into fourteen pieces and then reassembled -- minus one part -- after his sister Isis found the dismembered "god" at the bottom of the Nile! Further more, Osiris was not a historical figure.

Dionysis: No virgin birth either! As the story goes, Zeus disguised as a human, fell in love with princess Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, and she became pregnant. Hera, who was Zeus's queen, arranged to have her burned to a crisp, but Zues rescued the fetus and "sewed" him into this own thigh. And, no textual evidence of the death and/or resurrection of Dionysis exists. Also, not a historical figure.

Mithras: Born from a rock, fully formed (naked), holding a dagger and torch, and textual evidence of the death of Mithras does not exist -- hence no resurrection. Mithras never sacrificed himself, but killed a bull. Also, not a historical figure.

Yes, Greek-mythology (and their characters) pre-date Christianity, but Greek-mythology evolved. It wasn't until approximately 2 centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus did such stories form, including so-called "virgin-births," but all have absolutely no parallels with Christianity.

Lycanthrope... your opinion is rather pathetic. I'm sorry, bro.

All of that is true. The concept of sacrifice is not new or unique to Christianity, but what is, is that Christianity asserts that "no good works" can bring man to God's level; that it's literally impossible to do it on your own, and that he literally had to condescend himself to man's level (Jesus). The main reason Christianity was so attractive to the Aztecs was that it was a radical idea to them that a god would ever sacrifice himself to humanity, as opposed to the opposite which they were used to.

I haven't watched the video, but the answer to the thread question is yes.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
a little more science give or take a few decades... and religion will die out.

Science will never kill off religion forever. Because religion backs up science.

The minute people stop believing in a God and forget about the whole Theist V Atheist issue, people will start questioning atheism and atheistic science instead.

Afterall, atheistic science teaches that there is no governing creator/sustainer, without wondering what the "laws of physics" actually are by religious standards, acting asif they must be 2 seperate things.

Aslong as there is archeaology, people will look back towards the Bible or any religious book and think "Maybe it's true".

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Science will never kill off religion forever. Because religion backs up science.

The minute people stop believing in a God and forget about the whole Theist V Atheist issue, people will start questioning atheism and atheistic science instead.

There's no such thing as "atheistic science" or "theistic science", though. Also, questioning what science already knows is a built in part of science from the get go (we do it now, it's how people learn). I agree that there's no way religion will die out but science is totally unrelated to religion, science has nothing to say on the subject of Gods or souls because they cannot be tested.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
You never heard the Mythology where Osiris was torn to pieces and died and Isis put him back together,resurrected.

You will have to do some research yourself. I read books not Internet so i have no links to give you and the time and effort it would take to go through my Books would be too much . Im sorry Gav, believe it or not or research it. Im done.


Actually Isis put him back together by having sex with his spine ( it was all that was left) as the story goes, an act of necrophilia and incest in the one funnily enough.
For the purpose of defeating seth.
Through that fornication came horus who eventually pwned seth.

Thats my two cents.

But in light of the topic at hand.
It doesn't relate much on why christ died (sins and all that).
So if we can find something reasonably related in Eurasia then i'd say we have a winner.

Well, kinda, yeah.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no such thing as "atheistic science" or "theistic science", though. Also, questioning what science already knows is a built in part of science from the get go (we do it now, it's how people learn). I agree that there's no way religion will die out but science is totally unrelated to religion, science has nothing to say on the subject of Gods or souls because they cannot be tested.

Many claims made by religions are indeed falsifiable. So while it's true in the case of transempirical matters like God and the soul that you mentioned, it's also going too far to say that science has "nothing" to say on the subject of religion. For example, while God itself isn't falsifiable, much of the evidence given by believers for believing in it is, evidence which ranges from the mundane to the wildly paranormal.

Agreed on the rest, especially the self-correcting aspect of the scientific community. Those who think non-thesists accept science as dogma only show that they know very little about the process of refining our knowledge that scientidic tests provide.

Well I would have to say that Yes, the story of Jesus was based off of older myths.
These stories are all tellings of the Hero Archetype,and the case for Christ is no different.
Their's no book i've yet read for the Proof of Jesus that has really impressed me.
I think one of the most damning things against proof for Christ is the fact the the Church has even been accused of creating propeganda in attempts to falsefy a historical account of Jesus.
The simularities between Christ and other God men were so simular that Just Martyr claimed it was the work of the devil in an attempt to sway the faith of Christians.
But to me possibly the biggest blow is the account of Celsus who in one text went as far to comment on Jesus being tortured before the crucifixtion,and even brought up similar god men and how their story was even created better. ( I will quote the text if someone wants me to,though I will have to search through my books)

I can't say in a sense that Jesus didn't exsist,but if the man did exsist I really don't think we know anything of his true life.
Instead, I would consider him an inspiration for the Christian religion that heavily borrowed from older traditions.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav


View, and discuss...

Jesus' story is pretty much a direct copy of Horus from ancient egypt. So yes it is a copy. The story of Horus can be traced all the way back to ancient Sumerian beliefs. I guess maybe every religion has just had a magic guy that comes back to life out of a cave after being murdered though and they're all unique! Or not...

The real problem with making blanket comparisons with the story of any number of Egyptian beliefs is that there are as many different interpretations of Egyptian mythology, it's causes, benefits, moral perspective, etc, as there are different rejected books of the new testament. The story of Horus and Osiris is just as varied from one city to the next as the story of Jesus varies from one text to the next. There are as many as a dozen different creation myths, involving several different creator gods, through out Egypt. The story of Jesus and his divine parentage and resurrection vary from one book to the next, as well. The difference is that one council was convened to agree upon the story that would best benefit the religion and the social implications that came from it being named the state religion. Ra, Ptah, Amon were all national creator gods at one point in time or another in the history of Egypt; it simply depended on which royal family came from which city at any given point. However, the question can be just as easily addressed by remembering that the bible didn't fall from the sky as an agreed upon and fully formed text. Men got together to pick and choose which parts and texts would best serve the mythology as it benefitted the religion they chose to force on people.

Christianity concerns itself primarily with the behavior of it's followers as those actions will ultimately effect what happens to them when they die. The Egyptian religion did exactly the same thing. The Egyptian mythology chose to claim that the divine was the creation of order, morals, justice and what can not be understood as the dividing line between "good" and "evil" and life and death. The Christian religion does basically the same thing. After Osiris died, he descended into the underworld where he served as the king of the dead and thusly also served as the paradise of order from the hell of chaos. This is why the dead Egyptian was judged in order to acheive admission into the kingdom of Osiris or if his soul would be cast into oblivion and true death, meaning the end of existence on all levels and in all forms. The Pharaoh served as the maintainer of order in the Egyptian world, Osiris served that purpose as King of the Dead in the afterlife. Horus was the son of that order, who every king identified himself with since at least the Middle Kingdom. Horus, Osiris, Ra; these are among the oldest gods in Egypt. Sometimes they're grandfather, father and son; other times they were great grandfather, father and son. But almost always Osiris serves as the kinggod, who chose to go and make order for the afterlife, so that the soul of the dead Egyptian had the option to live after dead in this life. But, being among the oldest of gods in Egypt, there is a lot of speculation if these gods were ever real men before being proclaimed gods.

Gary Habermas vs. Tim Callahan

gsuczs8BJE8

8TBBzTMSUC0

Seen it Callahan get mauled. Hardly invalidates his position, though.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Gary Habermas vs. Tim Callahan

gsuczs8BJE8

8TBBzTMSUC0
So that guys argument that the story of jesus was true is all based on some guy said other guys told him it was? Yea....that's a pretty poor argument. Let's not go on the facts, but just take some random guys word for it. Fact: Either way, the story is still almost a direct copy from other religions which predate the story of jesus.

There really truly is, a divine spirit out there. Dont believe me? Thats cool, but peace and love brother

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
There really truly is, a divine spirit out there. Dont believe me? Thats cool, but peace and love brother


I don't deny that at all.

If by spirit you mean the spirit of man then I agree. Unless you think spirit as in a mystical entity inside your body. Then I must disagree.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
There really truly is, a divine spirit out there. Dont believe me? Thats cool, but peace and love brother

What is a divine spirit, and what do you mean by "out there"?

Why should I believe you? You have not given any tangible proof of your opinion.

The idea of a spirit comes from a time when the knowledge about how the human body works was nonexistent. People believed that the body was filled with a liquid hat was called spirit. This comes from the same word used of alcohol "spirits".

Liquid hat = alcohol?

Bless us everyone

Amen. beer



A liquid hat??? Are you sure?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Liquid hat = alcohol?

Bless us everyone

Amen. beer



A liquid hat??? Are you sure?

"filled with a liquid that was called spirit". My "t" sometimes sticks at home.

That's a bit better. I was trying to imagin that hat thing.

Originally posted by Deja~vu


That's a bit better. I was trying to imagin that hat thing.

Don't hurt yourself.

No, you hurt my widdle brain.
bangin

Originally posted by Deja~vu
No, you hurt my widdle brain.
bangin

You put it better then I ever could.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
So that guys argument that the story of jesus was true is all based on some guy said other guys told him it was? Yea....that's a pretty poor argument. Let's not go on the facts, but just take some random guys word for it. Fact: Either way, the story is still almost a direct copy from other religions which predate the story of jesus.

Can you provide some evidence?

As in actual primary or reliable secondary evidence?

It is basically this idea in new clothes:
http://missy.reimer.com/library/scale.html

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
It is basically this idea in new clothes:
http://missy.reimer.com/library/scale.html

No it is not, because he is saying it is a fact that Christ's life is based on the story of Horus...but it isn't.

Speaking of which, even ran Augustus through the list?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No it is not, because he is saying it is a fact that Christ's life is based on the story of Horus...but it isn't.

Speaking of which, even ran Augustus through the list?

Factual speaking aside, what do you know about the life of Horus?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Can you provide some evidence?

As in actual primary or reliable secondary evidence?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm
There you go. If you need more proof read the books that were used as sources there.

Where did you copy-paste that from?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where did you copy-paste that from?
See link above. Darn not being able to use tables in mesage boards.

This one seems like an incredible stretch:

Translated into Hebrew, Asr is "El-Asar." The Romans added the prefix "us" to indicate a male name, producing "Elasarus." Over time, the "E" was dropped and "s" became "z," producing "Lazarus." 5 Jesus is said to have raised his friend Lazarus from the dead.

(reminds me of how the Liberty Bell is really a shrine to Ba'al based on a bunch of verbal juggling)

The others, however, are very cool. I'd like to see a list of differences between the two stories. You can do this process with any two random people (twins and historical figures work very well), if you list all the similarities between them people will be amazed.

I don't fault the author, nor do I dismiss the incredible number of things that are the same between them, but the presentation is inherently skewed by focusing on similarities between them and requires the reader to be very familiar with both Horus and Jesus to make educated use of the information, which I doubt most people are. Personally, I'd toss out the some of the features (angelic heralds, royal blood, resurrecting, exorcism) on the grounds that they're fairly common and don't show a specific connection to the story of Horus.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This one seems like an incredible stretch:

Translated into Hebrew, Asr is "El-Asar." The Romans added the prefix "us" to indicate a male name, producing "Elasarus." Over time, the "E" was dropped and "s" became "z," producing "Lazarus." 5 Jesus is said to have raised his friend Lazarus from the dead.

(reminds me of how the Liberty Bell is really a shrine to Ba'al based on a bunch of verbal juggling)

The others, however, are very cool. I'd like to see a list of differences between the two stories. You can do this process with any two random people (twins and historical figures work very well), if you list all the similarities between them people will be amazed.

I don't fault the author, nor do I dismiss the incredible number of things that are the same between them, but the presentation is inherently skewed by focusing on similarities between them and requires the reader to be very familiar with both Horus and Jesus to make educated use of the information, which I doubt most people are. Personally, I'd toss out the some of the features (angelic heralds, royal blood, resurrecting, exorcism) on the grounds that they're fairly common and don't show a specific connection to the story of Horus.
yea but the reason it matters with egyptian and christian belief is b/c of the history with the two. it's not like comparing christian beliefs with pagain irish beliefs.

Jesus' Resurrection is very much indeed just a copied story from earlier religions.

In fact the story of Jesus was applied to dozens of mythological figures throughout thousands of years before Jesus Christ was even born, if he existed.

I know of is that Odin hung from the tree Ygdrasil for 9 days as a sacrifice of himself to himself and somewhere in the Bible it says Jesus died on a tree.