• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bible, Not As Original As You'd Think

sooda

Veteran Member
For starters, Horus was conceived when Isis put together and temporally resurrected Osiris. They also made use of an artificial penis as Isis couldn't find the real one. (Osiris having been eaten by crocodiles).

The two myths of Horus and Jesus are nothing alike. See link above.


I know. That and similar claims have been circulating since the 1800's. It is old obscure quackery resurrected in recent times by credulous atheists on the internet who will swallow, nay guzzle down any nonsense that feeds into their ideological preconceptions when it comes to Christianity.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
For starters, Horus was conceived when Isis put together and temporally resurrected Osiris. They also made use of an artificial penis as Isis couldn't find the real one. (Osiris having been eaten by crocodiles).


I know. That and similar claims have been circulating since the 1800's. It is old obscure quackery resurrected in recent times by credulous atheists on the internet who will swallow, nay guzzle down any nonsense that feeds into their ideological preconceptions when it comes to Christianity.
How is the list false? The myths of Horus are unlike those of Christianity. They did not go through a homogenizing process like Christianity did. Conflicting stories were not removed. The list came about by cherry picking from the various versions. None of them match up nearly that well to your mythical beliefs as the list did, but it still proves its point. Your religion is neither unique not original.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Is "love your enemy" the sum total of what makes "Jesus" so special?

Not to me. His whole teachings in the Bible are what makes him special. One interesting thing is also, he said his teachings are not his, but his who sent him. So, his teachings are actually God’s words, if we believe what he says in the Bible. Which is why it is no wonder why he teaches many same things that had already been in the Old Testament, like love your neighbor. This means, the teachings are much older than the New Testament.

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

That also shows humility that is not often seen in humans.

"Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy."
(the Akkadian "Counsels of Wisdom", circa 2000 BC)

"In this world hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, ancient and inexhaustible."
(The Dhammapada)

"Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? "
(Taoist "T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien", circa 200 BC

Thanks, now, if we assume those are not fabricated claims and that the meaning is the same than what Jesus had, why do you think it is not seen often in this world? If all people have the same ideas, why people don’t live accordingly? Why it seems only disciples of Jesus preach those and live accordingly, and others say them only when they try to make Jesus look less than he is?

You going to try to quibble that the examples are not the EXACT same words?

No need to quibble when we all know that they are not exactly the same, especially if we take the whole thing that Jesus said in Mat. 5:44-45.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Because no one makes money telling puffed up atheists with a delusional confidence in their own objectivity, knowledge and rationality what they want to hear.

Pot meet kettle.


Augustus. New Atheists are never wrong... And that you would challenge any given narrative of theirs is proof that you're a helpless sap under the influence Christian propaganda.

Horus myth is much older than the Genesis myth by more than 2000 years.. and they really are not the same story,

All About Horus: An Egyptian Copy of Christ? Response to Zeitgeist movie
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
How is the list false? The myths of Horus are unlike Christianity. They did not go through a homogenizing process like Christianity did. Conflicting stories were not removed. The list came about by cherry picking from the various versions. None of them match up nearly that well to your mythical beliefs as the list did, but it still proves its point. Your religion is neither unique not original.
Sure, with enough imagination, agenda and a willingness to play hard and loose with the data one could comb the pagan world and find 'parallels' to Jesus. After all, the rock by which Mithra willed himself into existence is in a sense a virgin. But such tactics prove nothing unless you desperately want them to. It is also a mistake to blindly assume that Buddhist and Hindu accounts of their deities that parallel with Jesus actually predate the Gospels. (Especially when it comes to Mahayana writings).

Actually prove your claims instead merely alluding to these other Horus myths. Because otherwise it takes truly mind bending sophistry to argue that the story of Isis inseminating herself with Osiris's resurrected and mangled corpse is a parallel to Christian beliefs about the virgin birth.

Your religion is neither unique not original
I'm not asking you to believe that. But not every spurious claim cooked up by internet quacks is true simply because it happens to confirm you in a rejection of Christianity. Let me rephrase. Not every anti-Christian claim is true. Argue against Christianity all you want. But do better than defending obscure quackery drenched up by that idiotic 'documentary'.

What's next? That Jesus was a Buddhist monk from Kashmir? Or are we just going to claim that Jesus never existed with all the blind dogmatic certitude typical of so many half-informed atheist 'intellectuals' that swarm every corner of the internet these days. (And yes, I used to be one of those people).
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Not to me. His whole teachings in the Bible are what makes him special. One interesting thing is also, he said his teachings are not his, but his who sent him. So, his teachings are actually God’s words, if we believe what he says in the Bible. Which is why it is no wonder why he teaches many same things that had already been in the Old Testament, like love your neighbor. This means, the teachings are much older than the New Testament.

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

That also shows humility that is not often seen in humans.



Thanks, now, if we assume those are not fabricated claims and that the meaning is the same than what Jesus had, why do you think it is not seen often in this world? If all people have the same ideas, why people don’t live accordingly? Why it seems only disciples of Jesus preach those and live accordingly, and others say them only when they try to make Jesus look less than he is?



No need to quibble when we all know that they are not exactly the same, especially if we take the whole thing that Jesus said in Mat. 5:44-45.

I would truly like to see where "Jesus" shines as
a so -special, unmistakeably divine presence, but
nothing in his teachings does that.

You rightly picked out "love thy enemy" as
the only "teaching"that is unique, as the rest
are common as dirt among world cultures.

Rightly, in the sense that you believed it so.
Butwrongly, as that too has been taught
elsewhere. It just plain is not unique.
See "quibble."

Humility? An actual son of god would be far above
such petty silliness as ego.

Your "seldom seen" is ill-considered. Lots of very
humble people to be found.

One who went about now saying he is son of god
gettingconstant messages from "god", representd
god, and will do all the thingsJesus said he would,
we wont call that humble.

Sorry, not impressed with the humility-and it says nothing
about his "divinity" eithrr way.

The quotes I offered are not fake. You had not and
still have not done your due dilligence even after
your incorrect assertion about "love they neighbour"
being unique.

While we are asking questions, why is that?
Seriously, why dont you do some resesrch
before pronouncing what is or is not so?

Your question about why people do not live up
to ideals. Why indeed. Nobody does, it is actually
impossible, though some try, and succeed better
than others. Japanese are wonderfully polite,
and have a very low crime rate.

You try to answer it yourself. Why are Christians
bo better than they are? Atheists have a lot lower
crime rate.



As for your "only disciples of Jesus" and the insulting, totally
fabricated claim that others mention ideals only to try to
make jesus look like less than he is-you diminish only yourself with
such talk.

Luckily for your "faith" (in quotation marks because
of your reckless bearing of false witness ) you cannot
diminish it by your personal failures.

And of course, you likewise cannot diminish people
you do not know, nor the morality of teachings you've
never even heard of, and actually question their very
exidtence because you have not botheted to look.

Some of the things I say, above, are a bit blunt.
They are no less accurate for that, though, and are
said with no personal animus.

We will see your christianity on full display in
your response.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sure, with enough imagination, agenda and a willingness to play hard and loose with the data one could comb the pagan world and find 'parallels' to Jesus. After all, the rock by which Mithra willed himself into existence is in a sense a virgin. But such tactics prove nothing unless you desperately want them to. It is also a mistake to blindly assume that Buddhist and Hindu accounts of their deities that parallel with Jesus actually predate the Gospels. (Especially when it comes to Mahayana writings).

Actually prove your claims instead merely alluding to these other Horus myths. Because otherwise it takes truly mind bending sophistry to argue that the story of Isis inseminating herself with Osiris's resurrected and mangled corpse is a parallel to Christian beliefs about the virgin birth.


I'm not asking you to believe that. But not every spurious claim cooked up by internet quacks is true simply because it happens to confirm you in a rejection of Christianity. Let me rephrase. Not every anti-Christian claim is true. Argue against Christianity all you want. But do better than defending obscure quackery drenched up by that idiotic 'documentary'.

What's next? That Jesus was a Buddhist monk from Kashmir? Or are we just going to claim that Jesus never existed with all the blind dogmatic certitude typical of so many half-informed atheist 'intellectuals' that swarm every corner of the internet these days. (And yes, I used to be one of those people).
One more time since you seem to be having trouble. That all of the elements of the Jesus myth can be found elsewhere tells us that the story is not original. Worse yet we do know for a fact that parts of it are mythical. It is Christians that try to claim his story is not like any other, as if that gave it some legitimacy. We can see that that is not the case.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
One more time since you seem to be having trouble. That all of the elements of the Jesus myth can be found elsewhere tells us that the story is not original. Worse yet we do know for a fact that parts of it are mythical. It is Christians that try to claim his story is not like any other, as if that gave it some legitimacy. We can see that that is not the case.

Mostly he lookin' in the mirror to see a list
of your imagined faults.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Now you are only making excuses for the errors of the Bible. If that gives them "theistic value" then I that is a bankrupt concept. Better to drop it. If someone has to tell tales to sell an idea that tells us that the idea is a bit on the weak side.
At the risk of further conversing with someone like you (and getting trashed), the idea that God descended below everything to help us rise above is far more valuable than saying that someone got Jesus' birth wrong.

If you say the fact that Luke was wrong, what does anyone gain? If you say my theistic idea, how great is that help! Most will never know it is wrong. Remember also that Christians make great Nobel Prize winners!

If it's intellectually bankrupt it's still very far from morally bankrupt.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
At the risk of further conversing with someone like you (and getting trashed), the idea that God descended below everything to help us rise above is far more valuable than saying that someone got Jesus' birth wrong.

If you say the fact that Luke was wrong, what does anyone gain? If you say my theistic idea, how great is that help! Most will never know it is wrong. Remember also that Christians make great Nobel Prize winners!
Then I would suggest that you look for the underlying truth, if any, in the Bible. Trying to defend it against its clear flaws only harms your case. And Nobel Prize winners come from all faiths. Atheists make great Nobel Prize winners too and they are a rather low percentage of the population overall. They and Jews are the two beliefs that are probably most over-represented as winners of that prize.

Blind defense of the Bible only harms it in the long run.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Then I would suggest that you look for the underlying truth, if any, in the Bible. Trying to defend it against its clear flaws only harms your case. And Nobel Prize winners come from all faiths. Atheists make great Nobel Prize winners too and they are a rather low percentage of the population overall. They and Jews are the two beliefs that are probably most over-represented as winners of that prize.

Blind defense of the Bible only harms it in the long run.
I'm only defending it as a book that helps people help each other. You don't need to hang onto every letter. You don't need to be a fundamentalist. You can still be a Christian if you don't believe the Bible literally. Especially if you witness miracles.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
But my point was that some stories might be true. They need not be all just fabricated, which feeling the phase "recycled stories" gave me

Well in the oral cultures the story was the truth. There just was no way to reference any more authoritative source that was accessible. So fabrication was beneath notice and verification way beyond practical. The truth value of any story could not be known then and can only be estimated now barring physical evidence.

I was talking about "events" that might have happened; not about the story. Stories are fabricated, but events NOT.

The story is never the Truth. I see the story as an inspiration to continue my Spiritual Quest
All Masters I have heard/read say that the Truth is beyond Words
So whether story is true or not does not matter to me
It is about the lesson I learn from the story

My Master said about Bhagavad Gita: Most people want to know how old people were, who was married to who, and what dresses they had, and who killed who. Few people search for the inner meaning ... killing ones inner demons. People are too busy with devils outside themselves forgetting the devils in them (desire, jealousy, greed, anger, hate etc).
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Of course! Cognitive Dissonance is the first lesson christianity teaches.
By the way Bob, I would like to tell you I am schizophrenic. So with delusions, hallucinations and thought broadcasting and a lot of other stuff, I'd say I've been forced quite well to handle a little cognitive dissonance!
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Then I would suggest that you look for the underlying truth, if any, in the Bible. Trying to defend it against its clear flaws only harms your case. And Nobel Prize winners come from all faiths. Atheists make great Nobel Prize winners too and they are a rather low percentage of the population overall. They and Jews are the two beliefs that are probably most over-represented as winners of that prize.

Blind defense of the Bible only harms it in the long run.
My religion says that ancient prophets erred and I still believe Luke was a real person trying to tell real things. There were four gospels for a reason, because they would get things wrong.
 
Last edited:

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That is a far more justified belief than those that think the Bible is flawless have.
Thank you. It was nice to hear that from you. I'm glad I didn't get attacked. Yeah, I remembered that there were four gospels for a reason, which reason was that they wouldn't all remember everything accurately.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Thank you. It was nice to hear that from you. I'm glad I didn't get attacked. Yeah, I remembered that there were four gospels for a reason, which reason was that they wouldn't all remember everything accurately.
"Remember" is probably not the best word to use since none of them are thought to be eyewitness accounts.
 
Top