So I don't believe in God...

[Jetavan]

All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate..  

Are you a pantheist?

I used to be a Christian for about 22 years.. I became a Pantheist after I learned a lot more about Christianity..  However, those 3 questions I asked pretty much demonstrated that even Pantheism is really just nonsense..

Would you say that consciousness is entirely a product of matter?

It doesn't change the facts I presented here regarding the Pagan origins of your religion.

The "pagan" origins are well-known. Most definitions of "pagan" define it as a religion that is neither Jewish, Christian, nor Muslim. Since Judaism (i.e., the Mosaic revelation), Christianity (the Nazarene revelation), and Islam (the Qurayshan revelation) appeared roughly around 1200 BCE, 30 CE, and 640 CE, then obviously these religions had "origins" in "pagan" religions, since they all trace themselves back to Abraham, who -- not being Jewish, Christian, or Muslim -- was necessarily "pagan".

 

[TheJackel]

All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate..  

Are you a pantheist?

I used to be a Christian for about 22 years.. I became a Pantheist after I learned a lot more about Christianity..  However, those 3 questions I asked pretty much demonstrated that even Pantheism is really just nonsense..

Would you say that consciousness is entirely a product of matter?

It doesn't change the facts I presented here regarding the Pagan origins of your religion.

The "pagan" origins are well-known. Most definitions of "pagan" define it as a religion that is neither Jewish, Christian, nor Muslim. Since Judaism (i.e., the Mosaic revelation), Christianity (the Nazarene revelation), and Islam (the Qurayshan revelation) appeared roughly around 1200 BCE, 30 CE, and 640 CE, then obviously these religions had "origins" in "pagan" religions, since they all trace themselves back to Abraham, who -- not being Jewish, Christian, or Muslim -- was necessarily "pagan".

That is without a doubt wrong.. They do not trace back to Abraham.. In fact, you can't find El Shaddai traced back the 3rd milenium, and the GOD EL and Shaddai emerged through different paths entirely. And you wont find the Egyptian GOD Yah, or the Egyptian GOD's at all traced back to Abraham either.. Your claim is erroneous in that respect. But yes Christianity is entirely Pagan, and it comes from it's polytheistic mythological roots to which includes much of it from the Egyptians. It's not any less of a myth in usupred monotheistic form than the polytheism it came from..  Please also give us citation showing religion itself evolving out of the Ammorite GOD Shaddai... No? How about Yahweh? No? .. Sorry I can't take that argument seriously.. 

And as far as mainstream anthropology and archeology is concerned, religion evolved out of Africa that came up through the Nile and out through Egypt ect..

 

[Azurestone]

Tell us about Elohim.

 

[Jetavan]

All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate..  

Are you a pantheist?

I used to be a Christian for about 22 years.. I became a Pantheist after I learned a lot more about Christianity..  However, those 3 questions I asked pretty much demonstrated that even Pantheism is really just nonsense..

Would you say that consciousness is entirely a product of matter?

It doesn't change the facts I presented here regarding the Pagan origins of your religion.

The "pagan" origins are well-known. Most definitions of "pagan" define it as a religion that is neither Jewish, Christian, nor Muslim. Since Judaism (i.e., the Mosaic revelation), Christianity (the Nazarene revelation), and Islam (the Qurayshan revelation) appeared roughly around 1200 BCE, 30 CE, and 640 CE, then obviously these religions had "origins" in "pagan" religions, since they all trace themselves back to Abraham, who -- not being Jewish, Christian, or Muslim -- was necessarily "pagan".

Wrong.. They do not trace back to Abraham lol.. In fact, you can't find El Shaddai traced back the 3rd milenium, and the GOD EL and Shaddai emerged through different paths entirely. And you wont find the Egyptian GOD Yah, or the Egyptian GOD's at all traced back to Abraham either.. Your claim is erroneous in that respect. But yes Christianity is entirely Pagan, and it comes from it's polytheistic mythological roots. It's not any less of a myth in usupred monotheistic form and than the polytheism..  Please also give us citation showing religion itself evolving out of the Ammorite GOD Shaddai... No? How about Yahweh? No? .. Sorry I can't take that argument seriously..

Would you not agree that these three religions trace themselves back to Abraham: that is (whether it is historically accurate or not), these three religions see themselves as originating, in a deep sense, with Abraham, that Abraham is a founding figure in their theologies?

 

[TheJackel]

Tell us about Elohim.

That's still Cannanite / Amorite.. Making El Shaddia ones Elohim also had nothing to do with Yahweh.. Abraham doesn't even mention Yahweh. And the the Ammorite Deity was also referred to as the usurper.. So taking on the title EL Shaddai is rather expected from the Amorites.. Hence, they equated 'EL" with Shaddai..  But when you see the "EL" you are dealing with the Canaanite deity / Pantheon.

 The word is identical to the usual plural of el meaning gods or magistrates, and is cognate to the 'l-h-m found in Ugaritic, where it is used for the pantheon of Canaanite gods, the children of El and conventionally vocalized as "Elohim".

You won't find that term used outside the EL pantheon unless it's being usurped, or when someone is trying to equate their deity to that of "EL", or as one of the sons of "EL". And "EL" predates the god of Abraham and goes all the way back to the Eblas in the 3rd millennium.... And there is a link between EL and the Egyptian GOD Ptah..

http://books.google.com/books?id=bJqwWRDOMgEC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=Canaanite+EL+linked+to+the+Egyptian+god+Ptah&source=bl&ots=fdbOk5_JJV&sig=z4JrPPyQ99dLSelVhTT4QQSJiTA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tWDNUMLOLMrN0AGhw4GYBA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Canaanite%20EL%20linked%20to%20the%20Egyptian%20god%20Ptah&f=false

Also supported here:

   A proto-Sinaitic mine inscription reads ʼlḏ‘lm understood to be vocalized as ʼil ḏū ‘ôlmi, 'ʼĒl Eternal' or 'God Eternal'. The Egyptian god Ptah is given the title ḏū gitti 'Lord of Gath' in a prism from Lachish which has on its opposite face the name of Amenhotep II (c. 1435–1420 BCE) The title ḏū gitti is also found in Serābitṭ text 353. Cross (1973, p. 19) points out that Ptah is often called the lord (or one) of eternity and thinks it may be this identification of ʼĒl with Ptah that lead to the epithet ’olam 'eternal' being applied to ʼĒl so early and so consistently.[1]

       ^ Wyatt 2002, p. 43.

It's also important to note that Ptah was not Yah, or Yahweh as separete deities.. Ptah was not a moon GOD. However, if anything, it would traced back to the Egyptians and not Abraham.. If anything, Abraham merely jumped on the bandwagon regardless if he was a fictional or real historical figure.. It doesn't begin with "Abraham" if you go by the real world, main stream anthropology, Egyptology, and archeology ect..  

 

[Azurestone]

Tell us about Elohim.

That's still Cannanite / Amorite.. Making El Shaddia ones Elohim also had nothing to do with Yahweh.. Abraham doesn't even mention Yahweh. And the the Ammorite Deity was also referred to as the usurper.. So taking on the title EL Shaddai is rather expected from the Amorites.. Hence, they equated 'EL" with Shaddai..  But when you see the "EL" you are dealing with the Canaanite deity / Pantheon.

Elohim is the word used by Moses to describe God in the Pentateuch, specifically Genesis. Why then would we expect 'Abraham' to use YHWH when Moses, as the narrator, uses Elohim?

 

[TheJackel]

Tell us about Elohim.

That's still Cannanite / Amorite.. Making El Shaddia ones Elohim also had nothing to do with Yahweh.. Abraham doesn't even mention Yahweh. And the the Ammorite Deity was also referred to as the usurper.. So taking on the title EL Shaddai is rather expected from the Amorites.. Hence, they equated 'EL" with Shaddai..  But when you see the "EL" you are dealing with the Canaanite deity / Pantheon.

Elohim is the word used by Moses to describe God in the Pentateuch, specifically Genesis. Why then would we expect 'Abraham' to use YHWH when Moses, as the narrator, uses Elohim?

So what. We already know the Yahwist cult movement was attempting to usurp the Canaanite Pantheon.. Of course he's going to use it.. And Mosses btw is an Egyptian name. And you won't find Abraham mentioning Yahweh in Genesis.. It's interesting that Yahweh doesn't show up until Exodus.. And we also must remember that the bible was never actually a book. .. You do realize the bible has been heavily edited right?  I gave you one example regarding the dead sea scrolls vs the Duet.. The only way the bible makes sense is if you look at the common practice of usurping...  You can't take the bible to which has been edited to no end as your main source for this subject.  This is why I provided many other sources regarding the subject and Yahweh.  Yahweh and EL are entirely different GODS entirely..  Yawhists equated Yahweh to EL in order to usurp EL.. There is even further evidence of this here:

Giving the Evidence of Yahweh being a moon GOD deriving likely originally from the Egyptian moon GOD YAH, lets begin with the direct evidence of Yahweh being equated with EL in regards to EL's wife Asherah and then move on from there.: Asherah:

* http://www.scribd.com/doc/36144940/Asherah-Consort-of-Yahweh-New-Evidence-From-Kuntillet-Ajrud * http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1357073?uid=3739696&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101168053907

Abstract:

    Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh. For from his enemies by his Asherah he has saved him.

Well, we know for a fact that Asherah was EL's wife, and that the Israelite / Canaanites worshiped them as king and queen of heaven. They had a special love for Ahserah. Odd indeed to see Yahweh with EL's wife, but we may yet unravel that mystery here as the evidence suggests in this already long discussion. This was during when strict yahwists started to have strong influence, and where Yahwism considered all other GODs as false idols to which included Asherah. And they needed to find a means to replace these GOD's, so the classic method typical of taking ones wife is through the conquering and the taking over another mans house hold.  You see this very example in the mythology and even when mosses tells his men to take the women of those he conquered for their wives. This is common in the history of how usurping a GOD, and appears this was used to equate Yahweh with EL.  Professor Bill Dever, discusses archaeological evidence for Asherah as the consort of Yahweh:

    Asherah was, of course, finally driven underground by the reformist parties that :edited the Hebrew Bible. In its final form she is written out of the text. Hence, she :disappeared and all her cult imagery with her when Jewish monotheism at last :triumphed in the period after the Israelites returned from the Babylonian exile. :But Asherah was once alive and well; modern archaeology has in fact resurrected :her. Her "houses," now vacant, were once occupied. Here she was "at home" for :many of the masses in ancient Israel.

- William Dever -

And of course this citation here if you need it:

    Asherah was worshipped in ancient Israel as the consort of El and in Judah as the consort of Yahweh and Queen of Heaven (the Hebrews baked small cakes for her festival):[11]

    "Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." [12]

    "... to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem ..."[13]

    ^ William G. Dever, "Did God Have a Wife?" (Eerdmans, ISBN 0-8028-2852-3,2005) - see reviews of this book by Patrick D. Miller, Yairah Amit.
    ^ Jeremiah 7:17–18
    ^ Jeremiah 44:17

It gets worse because "EL" was actually never a generic term for "GOD".. It was always in reference to the Canaanite Pantheon family of the GOD EL and his sons.. Any use of of EL is in direct relation to EL himself and his sons. And where Christians, and wickipedia get the assertion that it

"could have been a generic term"

was from this Christian apologetic source:

    ^Barrs, Jerram (Spring 2006). http://covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CC310/CC310_T_21.html">"Audio Transcription for Lesson 21: Apologetics & Communication" (PDF, 0.1 MB).

    Abstract:
    El or Elohim, God, the Mighty One, the Great One, could be used of any of the other gods worshipped by the people around Israel. It could be used of Baal or of Moloch.

Now we know how dishonest Christian apologetics are, and this falls right into it because nowhere is "EL" ever used outside the Canaanite/Israelite family Pantheon.. You must remember this is a family structured Pantheon.. And Baal and Moloch are apart of the Canaanite Pantheon as sons of EL.  Using EL's name in generic form by the Cannanites / Israelites would have been using their GOD's name in vain, or anyone else using it in that context would be to try and usurp him and gain his power or power over him. Hence, that name was NEVER used in generic format until the Yahwists began to usurp the pantheon! The source above can not list "EL" in conjunction with GOD's that were not of the El Pantheon, and he knows it..

The Oxford Companion to World Mythology states:

If El was the high god of Abraham - Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh - Asherah was his wife, and there are archeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect 'divorced' in the context of emerging Judaism of the 7th century BCE. (See 2 Kings 23:15)".

^ Leeming, David (2005). The Oxford Companion to World Mythology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 118. ISBN 978-0-19-515669-0. LCCN 2005014216. OCLC 60492027.

Well, we know that Abraham only merely made EL Shaddai his Elohim, and that hes was and Amorite. Yahweh as state before had nothing to do with El Shaddai and Abraham was not a Yahwist, and nor did he worship a moon god.. So the Question remains as to why is Yahweh being equated to the Canaanite GOD EL, and usurping the entire Pantheon into his persona? The following really shows merit of this question:

    Before El's revelation with the name of Yahweh, it is said in Genesis 14:18–20 that Abraham accepted the blessing of El, when Melchizedek, the king of Salem and high priest of its deity El Elyon blessed him.[19] One scholarly position is that the identification of Yahweh with Ēl is late, that Yahweh was earlier thought of as only one of many gods, and not normally identified with Ēl.

    ^Coogan, Michael David (2009). A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 74. ISBN 978-0-19-533272-8. LCCN 2008034190. OCLC 243545942.

And we now know that when trace the origin of Yahweh back to the Egyptian moon GOD, and the Sumerian mood god to which they likely also usurped.. So unless you can show the Dictionary I provided and the evidence provided to be wrong, It's quite clear of the usurping of the EL Pantheon. But I have other sources that back me up:

And we of course have these sources as well to which back up much of what I already discussed above:

    Israel inherited polytheism from late first-millennium Canaan, and Canaanite religion in turn had its roots in the religion of second-millennium Ugarit. In the 2nd millennium, polytheism was expressed through the concepts of the Divine Council and the divine family, a single entity with four levels: the chief god and his wife (El and Asherah); the seventy divine children or "stars of El" (including Baal, Astarte, Anat, probably Resheph, as well as the sun-goddess Shapshu and the moon-god Yerak); the head helper of the divine household, Kothar wa-Hasis; and the servants of the divine household, including the messenger-gods who would later appear as the "angels" of the Hebrew Bible.

Between the eighth to the sixth centuries El became identified with Yahweh, Yahweh-El became the husband of the goddess Asherah, and the other gods and the divine messengers gradually became mere expressions of Yahweh's power. Yahweh is cast in the role of the Divine King ruling over all the other deities, as in Psalm 29:2, where the "sons of God" are called upon to worship Yahweh; and as Ezekiel 8-10 suggests, the Temple itself became Yahweh's palace, populated by those in his retinue.

^ a b Karel van der Toorn, editor, "Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible" (second edition, Eerdmans, 1999)
^ Robert Karl Gnuse, "No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel" (Sheffield Academic Press, 1997)
^ Meindert Dijkstra, "El the God of Israel, Israel the People of YHWH: On the Origins of Ancient Israelite Yahwism" (in "Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah", ed. Bob Becking, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001)
^ Meindert Djikstra, "I have Blessed you by Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah: Texts with Religious Elements from the Soil Archive of Ancient Israel" (in "Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah", ed. Bob Beckering, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001)
^ Karel van der Toorn, "Goddesses in Early Israelite Religion in Ancient Goddesses: the Myths and the Evidence" (editors Lucy Goodison and Christine Morris, University of Wisconsin Press, 1998)

 

[biro]

:

So this is where all those bad specials on the History Channel come from?

 

[Azurestone]

It's like watching a ping pong ball knock every pan off the counter. Lots on nonsense and unrelated tangents.

 

[Cyrillic]

EVERYTHING in the Bible has a hidden, pagan meaning. At least, that's what the Zeitgeist missionaries want you to believe.

 

[TheJackel]

:

So this is where all those bad specials on the History Channel come from?

Sorry, Egyptologists like William Dever are not where you get bad History channel documentaries from.  How about you actually provide an actual argument with citation.. Oh that's right, we can't expect you to do that anymore then asking a Flat Earther to give us a navigable with an accurate coordinate system and scale.. It's like trying to pull your own tooth out with a wrench because you aren't interested in honest discourse. But hey, if it makes you feel better to need that sort of dishonest argument to keep the pillars of faith standing.. After all, reality denial is pretty typical behavior when dealing with religion, or cults ect. .. But in this discussion, your comment is essentially worthless academically...

 

[Cyrillic]

I shouldn't really be commenting in this troll thread, but I'll just leave this here:

"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger. (Jeremiah 7:17-18)"

 

[TheJackel]

EVERYTHING in the Bible has a hidden, pagan meaning. At least, that's what the Zeitgeist missionaries want you to believe.

This has nothing to do with Zeitgeist.  This is just stating facts about your religion.. Feel free to cite me a Hebrew and hieroglyphic dictionary that proves otherwise for starters.. Now that would be impressive vs trying to tag this to some zeitgeist.  Btw, zeitgeist here is a false equivocation, and you would literally need to paint mainstream archeology, anthropology, or even Egyptology as some sort conspiracy while being entirely and woefully ignorant of the dynamics of ancient religion and how culturally intertwined that region of the world was.   But feel free to provide me sources and citations..  

Btw, zeitgeist is specifically about this:

Hegel believed that art reflected, by its very nature, the time of the culture in which it is created. Culture and art are inextricable because an individual artist is a product of his or her time and therefore brings that culture to any given work of art. Furthermore, he believed that in the modern world it was impossible to produce classical art, which he believed represented a "free and ethical culture"

If I were to have made that argument, I would have told you Christianity could never develop, or that classical art in the modern world would be impossible to produce. I've made no such argument. And there are a lot of things wrong in the Zeitgeist movies. However, This isn't about creativity, or art ect.. This is about what we know about the history of your religion..  However the writers of the bible weren't exactly original in their writings, beliefs, oral traditions ect.. But that doesn't prevent them from making classical art or influencing the continued development of..

 

[Cyrillic]

1. What is GOD without existence (this includes all definitions)
2. If Existence is GOD, what in and "OF EXISTENCE" are we to not to consider GOD?
3. If Existence is not GOD, What in and "OF EXISTENCE" are we to consider as GOD?

God is above existence. Hyperousios as St. Dionysius the Areopagite called it. The only thing that's moot is your silly syllogism.

 

[TheJackel]

I shouldn't really be commenting in this troll thread, but I'll just leave this here:

"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger. (Jeremiah 7:17-18)"

"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.  (Jeremiah 7:17-18)

Again not unexpected when dealing with a yahwist monotheistic movement.. The Nova broadcast NOVA: The Bible's Buried Secrets at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html

was an amalgamation of the components that are described at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/

which is also noted in the book "No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel Page 82" to which on the same page also states Yahweh was equated with "EL".. And that had to be done to become GOD of Israel, and the book goes even much deeper into the process of usurping the Pantheon into the persona of Yahweh. And if you don't know, that book is written by

   Robert Gnuse is the James C. Carter, S.J./Bank One Distinguished Professor of the Humanities in the Religious Studies Department. He received his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University in the area of Old Testament, and he is the author of 12 books and approximately 80 articles in the field of biblical studies.

And who cites Henry William Frederick Saggs:

   PhD degree by the School of Oriental and African Studies in London in 1953 and became Lecturer in Akkadian. By the mid-1960s, Saggs's many publications on Akkadian texts, combined with his skill in other Semitic languages made him one of the leading international scholars in the field. He was asked in 1966 to take the Chair of Semitic Languages in University College, Cardiff and was Professor from 1966 to 198

 

[Cyrillic]

It's quite obvious that Judaism was always monotheistic but that some Jews adopted heathenish practices from the people around them which the prophets condemned. Even pagan historians like Tacitus wrote that Judaism was monotheistic from the very beginning.

 

[Achronos]

Information is my GOD. With information overlord I am able to connect with my GOD by infosis.

 

[TheJackel]

God is above existence. Hyperousios as St. Dionysius the Areopagite called it. The only thing that's moot is your silly syllogism.

You can't claim something is above existence while trying to beg everyone it's in and of existence, or exists.. It's an incoherent argument.. But hey if you think it's silly syllogism, show us a god without needing existence as that should be a fun exercise lol.  It's as dumb of an argument as saying GOD is out side existence, and well Atheists agree that your GOD is not in existence. Trying to defect to the other side of the debate to try and win the debate is hilariously a bad argument.. You can believe that if you want to, but any atheist is going to serious laugh at that argument.. You might want to look up what a self-refuting argument is..  You can't even have a religion, or even the idea of the concept of GOD without existence.

 

[TheJackel]

It's quite obvious that Judaism was always monotheistic but that some Jews adopted heathenish practices from the people around them which the prophets condemned. Even pagan historians like Tacitus wrote that Judaism was monotheistic from the very beginning.

Judaism comes from the yahwist cult movement but your claim is erroneous.. And not all Yahwists were monotheistic as the worship of Asherah as Yahweh's consort continued on for quite some time. So you're wrong.. Early Judaism simply made Yahweh their main GOD of worship, but a good number of them were still polytheistic. You can say Judaism as it is today was forged from strict yahwist monotheism that usurped the Canaanite Pantheon. Howev strict monotheistic Yahwism almost went extinct until the Second Isaiah. If it wasn't for the second Isaih and that movement, Judaism probably wouldn't even exist today.  It's a lot more complicated that you think it is.  

 

[Ashman618]

There's no possible way that I could read this entire three from the beginning, and there's no way I could read all the information that you have provided, but from what I have seen I can't tell that anything provided has anything to do with the Christian Faith? Is there something I'm missing?

 

[theistgal]

God is above existence. Hyperousios as St. Dionysius the Areopagite called it. The only thing that's moot is your silly syllogism.

You can't claim something is above existence while trying to beg everyone it's in and of existence, or exists.. It's an incoherent argument.. But hey if you think it's silly syllogism, show us a god without needing existence as that should be a fun exercise lol.  It's as dumb of an argument as saying GOD is out side existence, and well Atheists agree that your GOD is not in existence. Trying to defect to the other side of the debate to try and win the debate is hilariously a bad argument.. You can believe that if you want to, but any atheist is going to serious laugh at that argument.. You might want to look up what a self-refuting argument is..  You can't even have a religion, or even the idea of the concept of GOD without existence.

God is not "outside existence". God is the BASIS for all existence. God IS existence itself. That's why our ideas about God tend to ultimately be somewhat incoherent. The closer you are to someone, the harder it is to see them clearly. (Imagine a child in the womb, trying to describe her mother.)

Also, perhaps you could not start every post with "Sorry, you're wrong", which kinda makes it seem like you're not really looking for a dialogue.  :

 

[Cyrillic]

God is above existence. Hyperousios as St. Dionysius the Areopagite called it. The only thing that's moot is your silly syllogism.

You can't claim something is above existence while trying to beg everyone it's in and of existence, or exists.. It's an incoherent argument.. But hey if you think it's silly syllogism, show us a god without needing existence as that should be a fun exercise lol.  It's as dumb of an argument as saying GOD is out side existence, and well Atheists agree that your GOD is not in existence. Trying to defect to the other side of the debate to try and win the debate is hilariously a bad argument.. You can believe that if you want to, but any atheist is going to serious laugh at that argument.. You might want to look up what a self-refuting argument is..  You can't even have a religion, or even the idea of the concept of GOD without existence.

God is not "outside existence". God is the BASIS for all existence. God IS existence. That's why our ideas about God tend to ultimately be somewhat incoherent. The closer you are to someone, the harder it is to see them clearly.

God is the Creator of existence. He's not identical with His creation but is infinitely above it. At least, that's how I understand it. From St. Dionysius' Mystical Theology:

For this I pray; and, Timothy, my friend, my advice to you as you look for a sight of the mysterious things, is to leave behind you everything perceived and understood, everything perceptible and understandable, all that is not and all that is and unknowingly strive upward as much as you can toward union with Him who is beyond all being and knowledge.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Jackel, I notice you haven't said one word to address my request that you comment on the veracity of our accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[TheJackel]

Jackel, I notice you haven't said one word to address my request that you comment on the veracity of our accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Do you have any contemporary records of said accounts? Supposed 500 people that are as magically non-existent as the character Jesus.. Hey, I have 5,000 witnesses to the Pixie Lords when I was 20 years old.  Thing is veracity of accounts is not determined by unsupported claims. It's pretty interesting that Jesus was essentially non-existent until after the popularity of the Gospels grew.. And Gospels are not contemporary records, or direct evidence of the existence of Jesus, or the resurrection of any more than the book "Harry Potter" is of the existence of wizards with magical wands flying around on broom sticks..

It gets much worse however as we actually evaluate Jesus.. So lets go over some very important details here:

The Jewish Messiah

*Messiah: The Criteria
*The Jewish Concept of Messiah and the Jewish Response to Christian Claims
*Jewish Belief in Messiah and the Messianic Age
*What are the criteria that Judaism has established about the messiah?

http://jewsforjudaism.org.au/resources/articles/short-responses/a-two-minute-counter-missionary-crash-course/

http://shamash.org/trb/judaism.html

http://jewsforjudaism.org.au/

And what about "The Suffering Servant of Isaiah?

While the original Hebrew text clearly refers to the Jewish people as the “Suffering Servant,” over the centuries Isaiah 53 has become a cornerstone of the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Unfortunately, this claim is based on widespread mistranslations and distortion of context.

http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

But moving on from those issues alone to which includes the very problem in dealing with the Canaanite prophecy of Immanuel, we have all of following to consider when trying to address the historical veracity of Jesus.., and I will put these into "Parts" so we can follow along.. :

Part 1:

We can start by understanding the Copts, and what their connection to Egyptian mythology is. This includes some fun little pictures:

The Copts being one of the oldest sects of Christians that heavily took from the Egyptians. The term “Copt,” meaning “Egyptian,” comes from the Latinized term Coptus, from the Arabic Qubt, which is in turn a form of the Greek word Aigyptos. The Greek word originated with the Egyptian term Hikaptah, or “House of Ptah,” or the “Temple of Ptah,” one of the names for Memphis, the first capital of ancient Egypt. Egypt holds a high place in the history of Christianity. the monastic life of Christians developed in Egypt, and hundreds of monasteries were built in the Egyptian desert, and as well as literally thousands more monastic cells and caves scattered throughout the Egyptian hills. You can also see that many of the desert monasteries of the 4th century A.D. are still in use today. Christian monasticism literally developed in Egypt..

And it's why we know Christianity took a lot from the Egyptians themselves as I have already demonstrated in a more visual presentation;

: http://www.whale.to/c/ev219twtoroboros.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/954qoyfhcatholictriad.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/8vguxme7cross.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/church2.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/church21.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.36.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_38.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/church35.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/church64.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_51.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/church41.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.68.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_43.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_44.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_45.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_46.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_47.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_49.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/1i5nd3xt.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.69.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.73.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.74.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.5.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_67.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/ev219twtoroboros.jpg

However, that is just a tip of the Ice burg.. Hence, does the Book of the Dead is saying something similar to Christianity? Well it does.. And it even gets more obvious:

http://www.150.si.edu/150trav/remember/r118a.jpg
Funerary objects attest to ancient Egyptians' sense of the continuity of life through death and beyond. This includes the funerary stela Egyptians placed stele in tombs to ensure the availability of the necessities that a person's ka, or soul, would use in the afterlife. Courtesy of the National Museum of Natural History, presented as a Bicentennial Gift to the American People by the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, July 1976

It's a well known fact that Christianity gets much of what it is as a religion from the Egyptians. Even the Greeks and others used it.. Though we get the term Stela from the Greeks, the concept from the Egyptians. And then you have this, a question scholars are now looking deeper into:

he Merneptah Stele: Earliest evidence for Israel in Canaan?

‘The Merneptah Stele, also known as the Israel Stele, bears the oldest known written reference to Israel. Engraved with its current text in 1207 B.C.E., the 7.5-foot-high, black granite monolith was discovered in the ruins of Merneptah’s funerary temple in western Thebes in 1896. Most of its hieroglyphic text celebrates Merneptah’s defeat of the Libyans and their Sea Peoples allies in his fifth regnal year. The text’s last three lines, however, briefly mention a campaign into Canaan against the background of a pacified eastern Mediterranean political situation: “The rulers lie prostrate saying ‘Peace’; none raises his head among the Nine Bows [Egypt’s traditional enemies, by now a literary convention]. Plundering is for Tehenu [Libya]. Hatti is at peace. Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe. Ashkelon has been overcome. Gezer has been captured. Yano’am was made non-existent. Israel is laid waste, (and) his seed is not. Hurru [Canaan] is become a widow for Egypt. All lands are united in peace.” The mention of Israel appears slightly to the left of center in the second line from the bottom. The glyphs include determinatives—signs indicating a word’s category—that classify Ashkelon, Gezer and Yano’am as city-states; but the determinative attached to Israel identifies it as a people, apparently not yet possessing a distinct city.’, Shanks, ‘Questions & Comments’, Biblical Archaeology Review (17.06), November/December 1991.

‘Merneptah stele (ca 1225 B.C.) obviously establishes the people of Israel in Palestine and shows that they were known by that name in the 13th century. (Though some see here instead a reference to Jezreel, rather than Israel, the reading ya-si-r-˒i-ra seems clearly to indicate Israel; see W. F. Albright, Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography [1934], p. 34.)’,

Part 2:

The name Christ wasn't just used in reference to Jesus.. It was reference to a Messiah or king that leads the Hebrews:

In the Hebrew Bible a messiah (or mashiach) is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil.[1] However, messiahs were not exclusively Jewish kings, and the Hebrew Bible refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah. Following the death of Simon bar Kokhba, a messiah came to be a Jewish king who would rule at the end of history. In later Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, a messiah is a leader anointed by God, and in some cases, a future King of Israel, physically descended from the Davidic line, who will rule the united tribes of Israel[2] and herald the Messianic Age[3] of global peace.

The translation of the Hebrew word Mašíaḥ as Χριστός(Khristós) in the Greek Septuagint[4] became the accepted Christian designation and title of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians believe that prophecies in the Hebrew Bible (especially Isaiah) refer to a spiritual savior and believe Jesus to be that Messiah (Christ).

And that includes the problem in dealing with that Immanuel is not Jesus.. But it goes deeper into the Egyptian religion surrounding Horus than most people realize when dealing with other aspects of Jesus as this concept does not begin with the Hebrews, it's found rooted in the Egyptian religion. As Messiah literally means "anointed king":

In several temple reliefs in Ancient Egypt the Pharaoh is depicted being anointed by Horus (sun god and "father" of Pharaoh) and Thoth (god of wisdom), the oil of which is symbolically depicted as a stream of ankhs (symbols of life). Also, especially from the New Kingdom onward, anointing is often depicted in intimate scenes between husband and wife, where the wife is shown anointing her spouse, as a sign of affection. The most famous example of this is on the

throne of Tutankhamun.


Most famously in Pharaonic Egypt, preparation for burial included anointing human remains with sweet-smelling oils in devotion as well with the practical intent of obscuring the stench of death. In sealing a coffin a ritual, final anointing of the mummy was observed.

This is fundamentally Egyptian rituals and beliefs in origin to which many others such as Christianity had taken into practice. The Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt were said to be incarnations of the gods Horus and Ra. This concept again is largely Egyptian in origin, and one that Christianity has heavily taken from:

The first real king of Egypt, therefore ruling over the unified land, was Menes, who would have ruled Egypt around 3100 BC, but we have little if any archaeological basis for this name. Most scholars today believe that he may have been a king named Narmer, or more likely still, Aha,  two figures that are better attested in the archaeological record.  Kings were not only males, and unlike in modern monarchies, the ruler of ancient Egypt, whether male or female, was always called a king. In fact, Egypt had some very noteworthy female rulers such as Hatshepsut and others. In many if not most accounts, the king is viewed as an incarnation of Horus, a falcon god, and the posthumous son of Osiris,

The king himself was the figure upon whom the whole administrative structure of the state rested. This god-king usually commanded tremendous resources. The Pharaoh was the head of the civil administration, the supreme warlord and the chief priest of every god in the kingdom. All offerings were made in his name and the entire priesthood acted in his stead. In fact, he was himself a divine being, considered the physical offspring of a god

Jesus is even referred to as the "KING" and offspring of GOD, or as King of Kings just as were Kings of Egypt. And such Pharaohs were also buried with thorn olive branches, and sometimes olive branch crowns to mark them as Kings, and express the sorrow of their deaths while representing eternal life after death..Hence to the Egyptians, It was to express sorrow, peace, eternal life, purification, and everlasting power. This very exact same concept used in Christianity with exactly the same purpose and meaning that is applied in the death of Jesus.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Jackel, I notice you haven't said one word to address my request that you comment on the veracity of our accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Do you have any contemporary records of said accounts? Supposed 500 people that are as magically non-existent as the character Jesus.. Hey, I have 5,000 witnesses to the Pixie Lords when I was 20 years old.  Thing is veracity of accounts is not determined by unsupported claims. It's pretty interesting that Jesus was essentially non-existent until after the popularity of the Gospels grew.. And Gospels are not contemporary records, or direct evidence of the existence of Jesus, or the resurrection of any more than the book "Harry Potter" is of the existence of wizards with magical wands flying around on broom sticks..

Okay, I'll take your defiant dodge and dismiss move under advisement that you don't want to be taken seriously. You might actually engage us in a more decent argument if you weren't so damn haughty and condescending.

 

[Azurestone]

Jackel, I notice you haven't said one word to address my request that you comment on the veracity of our accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Do you have any contemporary records of said accounts? Supposed 500 people that are as magically non-existent as the character Jesus.. Hey, I have 5,000 witnesses to the Pixie Lords when I was 20 years old.  Thing is veracity of accounts is not determined by unsupported claims. It's pretty interesting that Jesus was essentially non-existent until after the popularity of the Gospels grew.. And Gospels are not contemporary records, or direct evidence of the existence of Jesus, or the resurrection of any more than the book "Harry Potter" is of the existence of wizards with magical wands flying around on broom sticks..

Okay, I'll take your defiant dodge and dismiss move under advisement that you don't want to be taken seriously. You might actually engage us in a more decent argument if you weren't so damn haughty and condescending.

He doesn't want to engage you on an academic level, he wants to divert you to strawmen and false conclusions.

 

[TheJackel]

Oh I am not done..



So what further connection can we make with Christ and the Egyptian mythology / religion?

Well, we can note the following:

Horus, Osiris and Ra were routinely understood as good shepherd and saviour. Murdock notes the interesting comment from Egyptologist Gerald Massey that the Egyptian term for mummy is krst, so "Christ the anointed is none other than the Osiris-karast" (p313). (Incidentally this illustrates Stuart Mason's point about how the Christ myth derives from both Osiris and Horus). Murdock checked Massey's assertion in Dictionaries of Hieroglyphics, since it is taboo for Christian :theologians, and found that "Massey is correct in his contentions and did not :innovate his transliteration and definition of the Egyptian words karas ... krst :etc..." (p316)

Further, we find that the Egyptian "krst" links to the Christian idea of embalming r anointing with oil as discussed above, as in the Christian motif of the 23rd Psalm, which is redolent :with Egyptian resonance, as are the gifts of the three kings to the baby Jesus.

Murdock points out that the title 'Christos' is used 40 times in the Greek Old :Testament, applied to David, Solomon and Samuel, signifying God's anointed one. :The Egyptian link appears again, with Murdock noting that this 'Christing' or :anointing, also appears with the term 'masu', equivalent to messiah, so that :"Osiris and Horus were Christs and Messiahs" (p319).

Budge notes that Horus and Thoth are equated to the Word (p321) in ancient :Egypt, an idea that carried over into early Christian belief, before the origins of :Christian myth in Egypt was banned from discussion. So it is unsurprising that :early Christian amulets showed belief in both the old Egyptian deities and the new :faith of Christ (p321).

Also, we can note the following:

Murdock states "the 'lamb of God' ... at times refers to the Age of Aries and ... :may be applicable to Horus 'the golden calf' after the end of the precessional Age f Taurus" (p331).

" It is worth pointing out that there is no need to believe anything magical to :understand this idea. The depiction of the constellation Taurus as a bull is very ld, apparently older than the depiction of Aries as a ram. There is no question that supernatural ideas entered the Biblical use of this :zodiac symbolism."

But most importantly here is that On pp. 313-9, It goes into a detailed discussion of the Egyptian word transliterated as "krst," "karast," "krst, "qeres-t," "qrst," etc., providing the Egyptian hieroglyphs in regards to the term "Christ". As it states say here:

Not only is Osiris the "Lord of Truth," the "good shepherd" and "sin-bearer," :but, as the "lord of the tomb," he was essentially also called "Christ," since one :Egyptian term for "tomb," "funeral," "dead body" or "mummy" is qrst, likewise :transliterated as krst, karast, qeres-t, qrs.t and qrst.

You can then relate the contentions about this issue made by lay Egyptologist Gerald Massey as Massey states the following:

We now proceed to show that Christ the anointed is none other than the Osiris-karast, and that the karast mummy risen to its feet as Osiris-sahu was the rototypal Christ. Unhappily these demonstrations cannot be made without a :wearisome mass of detail.... Dr. Budge, in his book on the mummy, tells his :readers that the Egyptian word for mummy is ges, which signifies to wrap up in :bandages…. [The word] ges or kes, to embalm the corpse or make the mummy, :is a reduced or abraded form of an earlier word, karas (whence krst for the mummy). The original word written in hieroglyphics is ---- krst, whence kas, to :embalm, to bandage, to knot, to make the mummy or karast (Birch, Dictionary of :the Hieroglyphics, pp. 415-416; Champollion, Gram. Egyptienne, 86). The word :krs denotes the embalmment of the mummy, and the krst, as the mummy, was made in the process of preparation by purifying, anointing, and embalming. To :karas the dead body was to embalm it, to bandage it, to make the mummy. The :mummy was the Osirian Corpus Christi, prepared for burial as the laid-out dead, :the karast by name. When raised to its feet, it was the risen mummy, or sahu. :The place of embalmment was likewise the krs. Thus the process of making the :mummy was to karas, the place in which it was laid is the karas, and the product :was the krst, whose image is the upright mummy=the risen Christ. Hence, the :name of the Christ, Christos in Greek, Chrestus in Latin, for the anointed, was :derived…from the Egyptian word krst….

And yes that is a Fact:

http://truthbeknown.com/images/krstchampollion80.jpg

Hieroglyph, signifying KRST or Mummy
(Champollion, Grammaire Egyptienne, 80)

-

http://truthbeknown.com/images/krstbirch416.jpg

(Birch, Dictionary of Hieroglyphics, 316)

And I even can quote where you learn where you get Baptism from:

As we discover, the mummy - the deceased as "the Osiris" - is anointed for :burial, a sacred ritual essentially the same as baptism, both of which are for urification. The anointing of the mummy constitutes its purification in order to ass into the desired afterlife. The Osiris is anointed = Osiris is KRST. In my book :I go into detail about how Osiris and Horus are often interchangeable, as one's :death gives rise to the other's birth, with the cycle endlessly repeated. I also :explain more about the purification of the dead, the baptism provided by the :beheaded Anubis the purifier.

And I don't even have to go into the subject of where you get your cross from..  There is nothing to show us that Christ is anything more than a fictional character based on preexisting oral traditions and beliefs... You think this is being blindly dismissive, but it's not.. You can't provide me contemporary records or any information to validate your claims of Jesus's magical resurrection any more than you could the resurrection of Horus or any other GOD figure. And it gets much worse:

Hence, these examples below really make it even more apparent in regards to Christian philosophy and Egyptian philosophy:

* Horus and the Father are one.
* Jesus says, "I and My Father are one. He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me."
-
* Horus is the Father seen in the Son.
* Jesus claims to be the Son in whom the Father is revealed.
-
* Horus was the light of the world, the light that is represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of salvation.
* Jesus is made to declare that He is the light of the world.
-
* Horus was the way, the truth, the life by name and in person.
* Jesus is made to assert that he is the way, the truth, and the life.
-
* Horus was the plant, the shoot, the natzar.
* Jesus is made to say: "I am the true vine."
-
* Horus says: It is I who traverse the heaven; I go round the Sekhet-Arru (the Elysian Fields); Eternity has been assigned to me without end. Lo! I am heir of endless time and my attribute is eternity.
* Jesus says: " I am come down from Heaven. For this is the will of the Father that everyone who beholdeth the Son and believeth in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (He, too, claims to be lord of eternity.)
-
* Horus says: " I open the Tuat that I may drive away the darkness."
* Jesus says: " I am come a light unto the world."
-
* Horus says: I am equipped with thy words O Ra (the father in heaven) (ch.32) and repeat them to those who are deprived of breath. (ch.38). These were the words of the father in heaven.
* Jesus says: " The Father which sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me."

Though I giggle when I go to Carm and read their official statement on Christian vs the Egyptian culture, beliefs, oral traditions, and rituals from which Christianity largely takes from besides the other Pagan sources we already discussed . :

http://carm.org/christianity-egyptian-beliefs

Their argument is avoidance and dogma, and most importantly it doesn't address anything. It's essentially an attack page on Atheism and really nothing more.. This while hilariously linking to a video they would have been better of not linking to.. And often on those forums you see them trying to debunk common mistakes such as Horus being of a virgin birth. Well, none of us that know what we are talking about make such claims as that concept comes from other sources as the Egyptians are not the only ones who have had influence on the evolution of Christianity.. But we can address are such things as:

Barbara G. Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets:

“Of all savior-gods worshipped at the beginning of the Christian era, Osiris may have contributed more details to the evolving Christ figure than any other. Already very old in Egypt, Osiris was identified with nearly every other Egyptian god and was on the way to absorbing them all. He had well over 200 divine names. He was called Lord of lords, King of kings, God of gods. He was the Resurrection and the Life, the Good Shepherd, the God who made men and women to be born again. From First to Last, Osiris was to the Egyptians “the god-man” who suffered, and died, and rose again, and reigned eternally in heaven. They believed that they would inherit eternal life, just as he had done.”

And here is another good source for Horus if you want to read more on Him..:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uTZSlQdevGgC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=I+open+the+Tuat+that+I+may+drive+away+the+darkness&source=bl&ots=mXNCwyi3IX&sig=QwGJcfRM7Ht5p4_yI7eWeJJsLyo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8veAUIrQLKfe0gGv5oHQBg&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=I%20open%20the%20Tuat%20that%20I%20may%20drive%20away%20the%20darkness&f=false

We can even see, just for fun, Egyptian "influence" in our modern culture..You also have "In God we Trust" on the dollar bill, and the Egyptian pyramid on the back with the eye of Horus.. The one dollar bill, the American dollar, is considered the foundation and chief-cornerstone of this nation. That is what it represents. And you can see this pictured here:

But lets take another example in regards to the following image:

Well, if you don't understand what that image is supposed to represent, or mean..., Here you go:

And we can go into the second coming of Christ stuff as well, and about Jesus and the falcon, or birds of prey in relation to the rapture to which is derived from Raptor to which is symbolism for how birds of prey take away their prey. Hence, Jesus has a lot more in common with Egyptians than Christians would have you think:

The Cross and symbol of Horus their Sun god / savior:

Here is a bible depiction:

Which btw tells you where you also get your concept of angels with wings from:

And this video goes much more into the visual religious comparison issue through visual examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1CWBKRWIg0&feature=related

 

[biro]

What a bunch of crap.

 

[Azurestone]

The only one here who's brought up the Egyptians is TheJackel. The same who also assumes we are both ignorant and shocked by apparent parallels. Instead he looks like a screaming fool

 

[TheJackel]

He doesn't want to engage you on an academic level, he wants to divert you to strawmen and false conclusions.

Really, show me contemporary, or more specifically secular contemporary records.. Perhaps provide us where Jesus has written  down his own philosophies and works of literature? Was he illiterate?  How about written documentation from these supposed 500 witnesses? For such an amazing event in human history, it's pretty funny how 500 people haven't written a damn thing, or are even quoted and documented this supposed event themselves..  You want to play on an academic level, I suggest providing academic sources.  There is no strawman in telling you that the Gospels ect are not contemporary records.. Your asking me to comment on the supposed resurrection of Jesus as if you think it's my job to prove your claims wrong even though I am doing a pretty good job of that.. So when I post information that shows Jesus to be a fictional Character it's suddenly a strawman argument because you can't seem to demonstrate and provide any actual evidence... Can you even name me 1/2 the 500 supposed witnesses? 30 or 40 of em perhaps? How about a record of these witnesses outside the bible?  You also have to deal with these problems considering Jesus:

And of course we also have these issues concerning Christianity:

   What maxim does Paul attribute to Jesus?

       "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts xx, 35).

   These are not "the words of the Lord Jesus," but of the Pagan Epicurus, a man whose character Christians have for centuries defamed.

   Concerning the teachings of Jesus, Col. Thomas W. Higginson says:

       "When they tell me that Jesus taught a gospel of love, I say I believe it. Plato taught a gospel of love before him, and you deny it. If they say, Jesus taught that it is better to bear an injury than to retaliate, I say, yes, but so did Aristotle before Jesus was born. I will accept it as the statement of Jesus if you will admit that Aristotle said it too. I am willing that any man should come before us and say, Jesus taught that you must love your enemies, it is written in the Bible; but, if he will open the old manuscript of Diogenes Laertus, he may there read in texts that have never been disputed, that the Greek philosophers, half a dozen of them, said the same before Jesus was born."

       "That the system of morals propounded in the New Testament contained no maxim which had not been previously enunciated, and that some of the most beautiful passages in the apostolic writings are quotations from Pagan authors, is well known to every scholar.... To assert that Christianity communicated to man moral truths previously unknown, argues on the part of the asserted either gross ignorance or wilful fraud"
       -- Buckle, History of Civilization, Vol. I, p. 129

       "It can do truth no service to blind the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected the Christian faith"
       -- John Stuart Mill, Liberty

Yeah, nothing like taking Pagan philosophy and pretending you came up with it. So nothing like riding on the backs of others to build a religion.. :/ Christianity is by understanding a copy paste religion. and we can see this very issue in the Stilling of the Tempest:

Stilling of the Tempest (Mark 4:35ff.)

Well, lets evaluate that shall we?:

   12. The Stilling of the Storm (4:35-41)

   Helms (pp. 76, 77) demonstrates how this story has been rewritten from Jonah’s adventure, with additions from certain of the Psalms. The basis for the story can be recognized in Jonah 1:4-6, “But the Lord hurled a great wind upon the sea, and there was a mighty tempest on the sea, so that the ship threatened to break up. Then the mariners were afraid, and each cried to his god… But Jonah had gone down into the inner part of the ship and had lain down, and was fast asleep. So the captain came and said to him, ‘What do you mean, you sleeper? Arise, call upon your god! Perhaps the god will give a thought to us, that we do not perish.” Once Jonah turns out to be the guilty party, they throw him into the maw of the sea, “and the sea ceased from its raging. The men feared the LORD exceedingly” (1:15b-16a). See also Psalm 107:23-29: “Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the great waters; they saw the deeds of the LORD, his wondrous works in the deep. For he commanded, and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the waves of the sea. They mounted up to the heavens, they went down unto the depths; their courage melted away in their evil plight; they reeled and staggered like drunken men, and were at their wits’ end. Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress; he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.”

   Mark was aware of a similar episode in the Odyssey 10:1-69, in which Odysseus set sail with his dozen ships from the Isle of Aeolus, the god of winds. Aeolus had given Odysseus a bag containing mighty winds in case he should be stalled in the doldrums. Odysseus falls asleep in the hold, and his men sneak a peek into the bag, letting the winds escape. The ships managed to survive the storm, but Odysseus rebuked his crew for their dangerous folly. MacDonald (pp. 68, 174-175) indicates the origin of Jesus’ rebuke to the disciples here (Mark 1:40), as well as the puzzling detail in Mark 1:36 that Jesus and the disciples were accompanied by “other boats.” It makes no sense in Mark and must be understood as a vestige of the Odyssey.

Yeah, again riding on the back others here.. But Lets address another scholar:

   New Testament scholar Robert Price, who argues it is quite likely there never was an historical Jesus, writes that the Jesus myth theory is based on three pillars:

       There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
       The Pauline epistles, earlier than the gospels, do not provide evidence of a recent historical Jesus.
       The story of Jesus shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. He writes that Christian apologists have tried to minimize these parallels.

 

[TheJackel]

The only one here who's brought up the Egyptians is TheJackel. The same who also assumes we are both ignorant and shocked by apparent parallels. Instead he looks like a screaming fool

The parrallels are actually quite factually valid..And way to demonstrate one of Rober Rice's points.  The problem is that some Christians think that when someone points out actual Egyptian influence in Christianity, it must somehow mean that is the only source in being proclaimed from which Christianity stole from.. No Christianity is essentially a mixed mutt of Pagan beliefs, oral traditions, rituals ect from various sources to which includes the Egyptians.. And I gave plenty of direct evidence for that.  There is literally nothing original about the story of Jesus.. And it takes severe woeful ignorance to think Christianity was not influenced by cultures such as the Egyptians, the Cannaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, or the Sumerians ect ect.... Especially when it developed from within those cultures to which actually make the parallels extremely valid...  Even temples to ISIS were converted to that of Mary, and we know very well that Christianity largely developed out of Egypt. Coptics are direct proof of that very fact whether you like it or not..  Christianity didn't just magically pop up as some original belief system / religion..    

Everything from the olive branch crown, the crucifixion, to baptism and literally just every aspect of Christianity derives from preexisting Pagan beliefs and mythology..  It's in the art, rituals, literature, and culture whether you want to admit it or not.. There is no pinning the origins of Christianity on any one particular Pagan source of beliefs as it takes from pretty much all of them..It's like a perfect example of the BORG to which assimilates other cultures ect into that of it's own with the exception here that Christians love to proclaim it was all magically their own as if they magically came up with it...

You would have better luck proving the Game Doom 3 magically has nothing to do with Doom1 or even the first FPS game.

 

[biro]

Yawn. 

Heard it all before.

 

[TheJackel]

Yawn.  

Heard it all before.

So what.. You can yawn, dismiss it, balk at it, or even ignore all the facts presented as you like.. You can go believe what-ever you want but it is not going to magically change the facts, or make the hieroglyphic dictionary, for example, false or any different. Reality doesn't conform to what you want to believe no matter how good you are at denying it. I get the same responses from scientologists, Mormons on their fraudulant religion based on bad archeology, Flat Earthers, Hallow Earthers, UFO buffs, people professing the existence of big foot ect.  All of you use the same arguments to support your positions of belief to which inherently requires denial of facts... I have no more reason to believe the Earth is flat than to believe Jesus magically existed and was resurrected.

So here's the deal.. I shouldn't bother responding here anymore on this subject until you can at least provide a discussion with credible citation.. You can start simple with hieroglyphic dictionary to which I pointed out earlier, and the Hebrew translation and use of Hallelujah / Halleluyah. I will wait here, and take as much time as you need.

 

[biro]

You can't even spell jackal.

Go back to the atheist boards or wherever it is oddballs like you usually hang out.

 

[TheJackel]

You can't even spell jackal.

Go back to the atheist boards or wherever it is oddballs like you usually hang out.

People with dyslexia such as myself have a very hard time with this issue.. It's not about spelling as it is trying to write it out ect.. But hey way to show Christian "love" by attacking someone's disabilities.. Jesus would be proud of you! And it's pretty interesting that us Atheists know more about Christianity than most Christians do.. Difference between me and you, I don't have to deny the hard evidence to uphold my position, or personally attack someone's disabilities to do so either.  And let's face it, you aren't going to provide me anything I asked for simply because you and I know damn well you can't.. You express your belief, but that's really all you can do here. And my positions are far more empirically supported than yours are.  

 

[WeldeMikael]

 

[biro]

I didn't know you were dyslexic until now, so your hyperemotional outburst is irrational. All you can do is continue to ridicule other people and whine about how much better you supposedly are than everyone else. Anyway, since you were only off by one letter, you could just admit you were wrong and fix it, but it's your choice.

Take your ego trip where it's wanted.

 

[TheJackel]

Actually a troll looks to get emotional responses ect.. This discussion had nothing to do with "trolling".. Please look up the definition of internet troll before trying to use it. So you are going to label anyone and everyone a troll to whom comes on your board and puts up arguments that don't coincide or agree with your beliefs? Now that is irony for ya.. :/  

I didn't know you were dyslexic until now, so your hyperemotional outburst is irrational.

The point of me stating that is to show the level of ignorance you set as an example. I know you didn't know, but the fact that you didn't bother to think about that before attacking someone's spelling is the issue. Why would you attack someones spelling as some sort of means of argument on your fora? That internet troll image posted really demonstrates the irony of that as well.  There is no need to go down that road as a civil discussion is far more productive.  All I have asked any of you to do is provide me contemporary records and evidence without absolute negatives or appeals to ignorance.  If you can prove the existence of Jesus for example, that would be one step closer to having a constructive discussion here.  right?  All I did was provide my argument and the evidence I have to which supports me positions I am taking..  I am always open to more evidence should you be able to provide it.

so your hyperemotional outburst is irrational.

And this is projecting here as you are assuming I am even upset or hyperemotional.

 

[Azurestone]

You still haven't directly answered anyone. Perhaps after you start doing that will someone directly answer your hodgepodge on newage semi-intellectual crap.

 

[Tzimis]

The only one here who's brought up the Egyptians is TheJackel. The same who also assumes we are both ignorant and shocked by apparent parallels. Instead he looks like a screaming fool

The parrallels are actually quite factually valid..And way to demonstrate one of Rober Rice's points.  The problem is that some Christians think that when someone points out actual Egyptian influence in Christianity, it must somehow mean that is the only source in being proclaimed from which Christianity stole from.. No Christianity is essentially a mixed mutt of Pagan beliefs, oral traditions, rituals ect from various sources to which includes the Egyptians.. And I gave plenty of direct evidence for that.  There is literally nothing original about the story of Jesus.. And it takes severe woeful ignorance to think Christianity was not influenced by cultures such as the Egyptians, the Cannaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, or the Sumerians ect ect.... Especially when it developed from within those cultures to which actually make the parallels extremely valid...  Even temples to ISIS were converted to that of Mary, and we know very well that Christianity largely developed out of Egypt. Coptics are direct proof of that very fact whether you like it or not..  Christianity didn't just magically pop up as some original belief system / religion..    

Everything from the olive branch crown, the crucifixion, to baptism and literally just every aspect of Christianity derives from preexisting Pagan beliefs and mythology..  It's in the art, rituals, literature, and culture whether you want to admit it or not.. There is no pinning the origins of Christianity on any one particular Pagan source of beliefs as it takes from pretty much all of them..It's like a perfect example of the BORG to which assimilates other cultures ect into that of it's own with the exception here that Christians love to proclaim it was all magically their own as if they magically came up with it...

You would have better luck proving the Game Doom 3 magically has nothing to do with Doom1 or even the first FPS game.

We aren't baking a cake here pal. Add a little of this or that. Our belief is based on a particular person.