I know alot of people believe in the biblical character Jesus, but how about this. I was reading a book the other day and the author began to talk about the origins of Judaism and Christianity. Here is a summary of what he said.
The story of Jesus is a mythical story based on esoteric symbolism of the Sun God. Hence Jesus is the "Son of God". The crown of thorns that he wore on the cross is symbolic of the rays of Sun, and is also seen on the Statue of Liberty (which is another symbolic figure). The cross itself comes from the Egyptian Ankh, which represents life and light, the Sun.
The trinity Jesus-God-Holy Spirit parallels many other mythical stories such as Horus-Osiris-**** (Egypt). Similarities between Horus and Jesus?
Jesus was the way, the truth and the life. Horus was the truth and the life.
Both the Good Shephard
Both were the lamb
Both are identified with a cross
Both were baptised at 30
Jesus was child of a virgin, Mary. Horus was the child of a virgin, ****.
The birth of both are marked by a star
Both were the child teacher in the temple
Jesus had 12 disciples. Horus had 12 followers
Jesus was the Morning Star. Horus was the Morning Star.
Jesus was the Christ. Horus was the Krst
Jesus was tempted on a mountain by Satan. Horus was tempted on a mountain by Set (Egyptian god of darkness, hence sun-Set)
Jesus was said to be judge of the ****. This was also said about ****, Krishna, Buddha, Ormuzd, Osiris, Aeacus and others.
Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last. So was Krishna, Buddha, Lao-Kiun Bacchus, Zeus and others.
Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick, raising the ****. So did Krishna(Hindu), Buddha, Zoroaster, Bochia, Horus, Osiris, Serapis, Marduk, Bacchus, Hermes and others.
Jesus was born of royal blood. So was Buddha, Rama, Fo-hi, Horus, Hercules, Bacchus, Perseus and others.
Jesus was born to a virgin. So was Krishna, Buddha, Lao-kiun, Confusius, Horus, Ra, Zoroaster, Prometheus, Perseus, Apollo, Mercury, Baldur, Quetzalcoatl (Mexican not mayan though) and far more.
Jesus will be born again. So will Krishna, Vishnu, Buddha, Quetzalcoatl and others.
The story of Jesus was created/recycled and used as a tool to enslave people's minds through a dictatorial religion, Christianity. This religion is not unique in any way.
The twelve disciples are symbolism for the twelves solar bodies (yes there are twelve) and twelve astrological signs. 12 is all over the place.
During Easter, the summer solstice, the sun begins to stay out shorter and shorter until its shortest length of time in December. Jesus was born on December 25th. It takes the Sun three days to recover from the winter solstice from December 21st/22nd to December 25th. He dies in March on Easer. Hence Jesus died and rose on the third day. The same length of time it took the Babylon Son of God, Tammuz to rise again.
Also March is during the astrological sign of Aries, the Ram or... the lamb.
Jesus is associated with the fish because that is when he was supposed to have been born. During the entering of the astrological house of Pisces not the sign. Astrological houses last somewhere around 2000+ years. We are now entering the house of Aquarious.
The Christian religious day is... SUNday.
The author then speaks about who the true authors of the New Testament are. Let me assure you they are not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul or any of these Biblical characters.
As a matter of fact there is no documentation of anybody by these names ever to have been in these places at this time outside of the Bible. There is nobody named Pontius Pilate except in the Bible.
There is no written history of anybody named Moses, King David, King Solomon or most of the Biblical characters you read about except in the Bible. These are characters aer more symbolism that I could get into.
I have no problem with anybody's religious beliefs I just think it's necessary to do the research before you make that comittment.
So did Jesus really live? Or is he a biblical character that has been created and so hyped up that the whole world accepts him as LORD without looking at background information. Jesus was a duplicate, myth, and he has been used to control the populations to this day. Have you ever thought about where these religions came from? and why is Bush claiming to be a Christian? And why have so many wars been started in the past because of religion? And why was there centuries of Dark Ages when knowledge was suppressed because of religion? And why were so many people slaughtered at the inquisition because of RELIGION? It's because religion is a tool, a quite effective one at that.
provAKAtive Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 3:22 pm Post subject:
I refuse to simply believe in a book or just what Ive been taught.
Ok Provakative, so are you saying you refuse to believe in the Bible? And are you saying that Christianity the belief in Jesus not God, was something you chose for yourself? Nobody taught you about Jesus, you just decided to believe in him on your own.
If this is the case please tell me where you learned about Jesus. Where did the idea of Jesus come from if you don't believe books and nobody taught you?
the problem is youre taking what I say twisting it up :roll: ....The bible is simply not enough to convince you that GOD EXIST RIGHT!?!?!?! Thats why I said it more than just a book.Its a way of living.
What do you all have to say about Vodun...matter fact if anyone has ever did any research on the subject of Vodun (not voodoo) them they would learn that majority of the belief systems in a way have a parallel to this ancient African religion.
the problem is youre taking what I say twisting it up :roll: ....The bible is simply not enough to convince you that GOD EXIST RIGHT!?!?!?! Thats why I said it more than just a book.Its a way of living.
First, he already said that he's not refuting the existence of God. Many religions believe in God. It is the Christian religion that believes that the man they now call "Jesus" is their personal savior, and is equivalent to God based on the trinity.
When you say "it's more than just a book", are you referring to the Bible? If so, what makes it so? I can understand that it is a religious text (as contradictory as it may be :? ), but it is a book based on beliefs (not facts) like many other books, whether they be religious or historic in nature. Just because it is a book based on YOUR beliefs doesn't make it any more of a credible source. Not to down your beliefs, but geez..... :idea: don't you see how hypocritical and close-minded that is? You can't criticize someone for citing another book that doesn't coincide with YOUR particular beliefs, while you of course cite the book of your choice......that's just not a plausable argument.
The Bible is YOUR way of living, it is not the way of living for billions of other people who live on this Earth and hold different beliefs (and even some who claim to hold the same beliefs :? .......they can't truly believe it is a way of living if they don't adjust their lifestyles to it). Most of the people who claim the Bible as their way of living have never even read it in its entirety (nowadays, people are either too lazy or too dumb to read )......not to mention that numerous books have been taken out the Bible, so that no one can ever read it in its entirety (that's why Jesus' life is fast-forwarded :idea: ).
*key words in today's discussion:
~ belief: (n) 1. any cognitive content held as true; 2. a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof; 3. a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; 4. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in something
~ faith: (n) 1. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; 2. Loyalty to a person or thing
~ fact: (n) 1. a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; 2. a concept whose truth can be proved
^^^Hopefully everybody read this in its entirety.
With that said is somebody going to make a comment about the Sun-Worship Symbology within the story of Jesus?
Basically Jesus' life (or the story told of him) is symbolic of the Sun god.
this is the way i think of the Bible...
its like a research paper. When you initially start out,maybe you have around 12 or 13 sources that you are considering to use in that paper. But at the end of it all for one reason or another, only 9 were used. It doesnt mean the paper is less valid, and it doesnt mean the sources not used were not good, it just means that the one putting together the research paper favored 9 above the rest.
Thats basically how the Bible is. It wasnt written fluidly. All the books in the Bible were put there to make the Bible no one sent out a memo that these authors need to write X amount about this event so that a Bible can be made. So, you cant really say that books were taken out of the Bible, they just were not initially included in the canon that we all are familiar with. The Ethiopian canon of the bible includes things like the book of enoch, which wasnt included in the one we are familiar with for many reasons im sure. Basically, there are many many texts that were not included, some, because they were not considered authentic, just corroborations of things already told, and some were left out just because the people putting it together felt that it wasnt something the people should know.
^^^I somewhat disagree. I believe that the books were taken out. If they were originally in the book (or "Bible"), but now cannot be found in the Bibles widely used by Christians, it can only lead to one conclusion.....they were taken out.
The true reason as to why they were taken out can only be speculated (like most of history). However, to say that it is because those books may have been just a corraboration of things already told doesn't make too much sense. The fast-fowarding of "Jesus" life makes it very obvious that some things aren't told. It is speculated that people followed this man who was supposed to be the son of God his entire life. So how is it that the Bible goes from him barely being a teenager to him being a grown man? Did they figure that almost 10 years of his life was too repetative to put into the Bible?
You say yourself that it could have been because the people putting it together felt that it was something that people shouldn't know. I think you're right about that. But, if the people who put the Bible together (the people in power) felt that it was okay to leave certain information out, what stops them from adding on information? It all sounds a little odd to me :?
^^^I somewhat disagree. I believe that the books were taken out. If they were originally in the book (or "Bible"), but now cannot be found in the Bibles widely used by Christians, it can only lead to one conclusion.....they were taken out.
The true reason as to why they were taken out can only be speculated (like most of history). However, to say that it is because those books may have been just a corraboration of things already told doesn't make too much sense. The fast-fowarding of "Jesus" life makes it very obvious that some things aren't told. It is speculated that people followed this man who was supposed to be the son of God his entire life. So how is it that the Bible goes from him barely being a teenager to him being a grown man? Did they figure that almost 10 years of his life was too repetative to put into the Bible?
You say yourself that it could have been because the people putting it together felt that it was something that people shouldn't know. I think you're right about that. But, if the people who put the Bible together (the people in power) felt that it was okay to leave certain information out, what stops them from adding on information? It all sounds a little odd to me :?
ok this is what your not understanding, nothing was an "original book of the bible" constantine and his people, decided that they needed one religious text, so they began to put together the bible. they put it together. that is my main point. it was put together from several different sources that they felt were important. But there were other religious texts at the time which were also widely read, but that were not included in the bible. But, they are included in other canons, just not his. There is no one version of the bible that included every religious text, therefore, again, you cant say that something was taken out. You can say that things were added, since constantine put together the first one, and over time, some of the other religious texts that were seen as important but were not included in the original one were added. Just because people in another part of the world have more books in their bible then we do doesnt mean that something was taken out of ours (ours being the one we are all familiar with) because for something to be taken out, it had to have been there originally.
^^^I somewhat disagree. I believe that the books were taken out. If they were originally in the book (or "Bible"), but now cannot be found in the Bibles widely used by Christians, it can only lead to one conclusion.....they were taken out.
The true reason as to why they were taken out can only be speculated (like most of history). However, to say that it is because those books may have been just a corraboration of things already told doesn't make too much sense. The fast-fowarding of "Jesus" life makes it very obvious that some things aren't told. It is speculated that people followed this man who was supposed to be the son of God his entire life. So how is it that the Bible goes from him barely being a teenager to him being a grown man? Did they figure that almost 10 years of his life was too repetative to put into the Bible?
You say yourself that it could have been because the people putting it together felt that it was something that people shouldn't know. I think you're right about that. But, if the people who put the Bible together (the people in power) felt that it was okay to leave certain information out, what stops them from adding on information? It all sounds a little odd to me :?
ok this is what your not understanding, nothing was an "original book of the bible" constantine and his people, decided that they needed one religious text, so they began to put together the bible. they put it together. that is my main point. it was put together from several different sources that they felt were important. But there were other religious texts at the time which were also widely read, but that were not included in the bible. But, they are included in other canons, just not his. There is no one version of the bible that included every religious text, therefore, again, you cant say that something was taken out. You can say that things were added, since constantine put together the first one, and over time, some of the other religious texts that were seen as important but were not included in the original one were added. Just because people in another part of the world have more books in their bible then we do doesnt mean that something was taken out of ours (ours being the one we are all familiar with) because for something to be taken out, it had to have been there originally.
Are you sure about who you think wrote the Bible? Do you think Moses wrote the first five books? Do you think the apostles and Paul wrote the New Testament? This is what needs to be discussed.
Some religious texts were seen as unimportant? That sounds suspicious.
I think what Coco means by "taken out" is that the texts were taken out of the doctrine that was preached. If you used to preach all of these seperate texts, and then at one point you compile most your texts and don't include some. Then the stuff that you don't preach has now been taken out of your doctrine, right? They didn't summarize the ideas within these texts and add them to another one. They simple didn't preach it any more.
^^^Exactly! It seems odd that some of the texts are disregarded and nowadays people pick and choose what they want to preach and learn from the Bible. If it was ALL the word of God, then why not include everything? Why let other people tell you what you should and shouldn't know about who you believe to be your God and your savior. The Bible is supposed to be a book of sacred texts of the "word of God", not a research paper in which one can choose which sources they wish to cite. And even in a research paper you have to cite enough sources in order to support your thesis......so, why not include all of the texts of the Bible so that people may get a better understanding of what they're supposed to believe in?
)......not to mention that numerous books have been taken out the Bible, so that no one can ever read it in its entirety (that's why Jesus' life is fast-forwarded :idea: ).
*key words in today's discussion:
~ belief: (n) 1. any cognitive content held as true; 2. a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof; 3. a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; 4. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in something
~ faith: (n) 1. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; 2. Loyalty to a person or thing
~ fact: (n) 1. a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; 2. a concept whose truth can be proved
