patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Don't know much about Mithras, but the Horus myth is closest to the Jesus myth, way too close for coincident unless you believe in "atheists planting fossils to fool Christians".

Well, I haven't paid a lot of attention to the Horus story since it was taken apart in Internet Infidels. My knowledge of the subject comes from a general background in Egyptology.

But you might like to know that, say five years ago, the Horus argument wasn't really being deployed. Back then it was all "Mithras=Jesus". It didn't survive investigation. So those pushing this -- I don't mean you -- switched to Horus. That shouldn't give any of us confidence.

So, let's see exactly where we disagree on Horus, if at all. I hold the following to be true and verified about Horus, check which ones you think are false and cite why.

1. The Egyptians did have a myth of Horus.
2. The Horus myth predated 1 A.D., i.e., Christianity.
3. According to the myth (assume this for all points), Horus was the son of the god Osiris.

Broadly so.

The Egyptians had several deities known as Horus. To which are we referring?

What ancient source are we using, to verify what the myth of Horus is?

4. Horus was born of a virgin.

Let's recap the myth of Osiris, shall we?

Osiris was married to Isis. His brother Set was jealous, and wanted to shag Isis, so he murdered Osiris, chopped up his body, and scattered it the length of Egypt. Osiris's wife travelled up and down the Nile, collecting the bits. She found them all, apart from his willy, which had been eaten by a crocodile, and for which she substituted an artifical one. She reassembled Osiris, magically partially reanimated him, and had sex with him to conceive Horus. Then Osiris died again, and became -- these people are all gods and goddesses, remember, not mortals -- god of the dead. Horus grew up, and offed his wicked uncle Set.

Some, I admit, may believe that this is what the Christian gospels contain with the names changed. If so, they must have changed what they teach in Sunday school.

So no, the existence of Horus arises from the fact that Isis is NOT a virgin, but a wife.

To get around this, I believe some of the headbangers have taken to looking into Greek texts from the Ptolemaic period. I can't remember whether or not they managed to find one in which Isis -- in the export version -- was described as a virgin. (The claim is made, but I don't recall from Internet Infidels whether the text actually existed, or whether it was made up.) But at this point we're not dealing with the myth of Osiris and Isis and Horus at all, but with something else.

5. Horus had a foster father named Seb, a.k.a. Jo-Seph.
6. Horus was born in a cave.
7. By an angel told Horus's mother she would conceive the son of a god.
8. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice around December 21st.
9. Horus's birth was witness by shepherds.
10. Three stars foretold Horus's birth.
11. Herut tried to have Horus murdered, but failed.
12. Horus came of age at 12 and started teaching in a temple.
13. Horus was baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptizer, who was later beheaded.
14. Horus walked on water.
15. Horus had twelve close followers.
16. Horus was tempted in the desert by Sut or Set, the precursor of the mythological character Satan. Horus resists the temptation.
17. Horus raised Asar from the dead, and Asar is translated as Lazarus.
18. Horus is known to heal the sick, cast of demons, and cure blindness.
19. Horus was crucified.
20. When Horus was crucified, he was accompanied by two thieves.
21. Horus was buried in a tomb but rose three days later after descending into hell.
22. The empty tomb was announced by a small group of women.

This lot is twaddle. Sorry. This is not the ancient Egyptian myth of Horus, son of Osiris, as I have just outlined it. Have a look in any Egyptological reference.

So, ignoring all the connections to astronomy and astrology which explains where ...

Aha! That gives the game away. At this point, I put it to you that you are repeating material by Acharya S. Is this correct?

If so, what do the professional Egyptologists, the scholars who spend all their life in Egyptology, think of Acharya S? (That's a big, honking hint).

And if you give an X, provide some references to back up that the point is incorrect.

Erm, you make any old claim you like, and the rest of us have to research whether you are right? I don't think so! Reference your claims to the ancient sources, if you can. I believe Acharya S gives a lot of references, but you'll find most of them are to secondary sources.

I might start taking some of them apart, actually, if you provide a few. I like tracking down ancient sources.

And the Horus myth alone discredits Christianity as being true.

Assume the statements above were all true (which they are not). What about the material which is not mentioned? What about the parts of the myth which are not included here? Why does this list omit all the key elements of the myth?

And ... how does it "discredit Christianity as being true"? Haven't you skipped a bit in your logic here?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dan8267 says

Roger Pearse says

Hey! I must have been swindled!! I go to church, and I don't have any power. Where do I go to get *my* "power"?!?
You have to be bitten by a radioactive pope.

Call me sceptical, but as a method for acquiring secular power, that would seem to be an unreliable method. How many people get bitten by radioactive popes?

If the answer is zero, that would make the original statement somewhat meaningless.

I prefer to be hit by a power-beam from another world, as a way to acquire super-powers. More likely to happen.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I'm going to have to fade out here, as it's now bedtime, I don't post on Sunday, and my internet access in the week is minimal. This is a pity, as this is becoming interesting. It would be nice to take some of Acharya S' claims on Horus apart (she already hates me anyway, for what I did to her Mithras claims, so nothing to lose).

What I would say to readers is this, whether atheist or Christian.

Check your facts. Never believe any claim, just because it is convenient. When someone comes up with something which is "really great evidence", beware: it is probably too good to be true.

For any statement about antiquity, ask to see the ancient sources which justify it. Then go and look at those sources. Not modern research -- ancient texts. Go and look at the context. Go and see what the author of the modern claim left out. These things are mostly online in English these days.

In short ... be sceptical.

You will find that dross like this is just that -- unscholarly rubbish, made up by people with lots of malice but few scruples, and no hesitation in playing the old "selection, arrangement, omission" game by which a lie is presented as facts.

I don't think anyone benefits from the likes of Acharya S. Whatever our religious opinions, surely we all want to have the raw FACTS right?

Atheists: beware the headbangers. It does atheism no good to advocate stuff that any first year student can see is nonsense.

Christians: never accept any atheist claim about authority, that scholars believe X, or Y, or Z. They rarely know, and they never bother to check. At most they will marshall some quotes selected for use rather than accuracy.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse

Roger Pearse says

The Egyptians had several deities known as Horus. To which are we referring?

Any and all. We're not trying to determine whether or not Horus was a real god. We're trying to determine whether or not the Jesus myth was based on the Horus myth or myths. So if any of the Horus myths match, it counts as plagiarism.

Roger Pearse says

What ancient source are we using, to verify what the myth of Horus is?

All ancient sources that predate 1 A.D. It doesn't matter if it's a scroll, a tablet, a wall carving, a statue, or anything else. Why artificially limit the gathering of evidence?

And remember, we're not verifying if the myth of Horus is true, but what the myth or myths were.

Roger Pearse says

This lot is twaddle.

At this point we're getting into he said / she said. The web is clearly full of sites that support and sites that refute the similarities between Horus and Christ. But are you really willing to make a case that Christianity didn't "borrow" any material from older myths? Even my high school Church History class didn't take that position.

Nevertheless, there is certainly at least some consensus that Christianity was heavily influence by Egyptian and other ancient myths. For example,

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.

http://www.usislam.org/revise/21Egypt.htm

Granted, that was about Osiris rather than Horus, but the whole father/son god myth is the hallmark of the Christian belief as well.

Roger Pearse says

Aha! That gives the game away. At this point, I put it to you that you are repeating material by Acharya S. Is this correct?

I haven't read Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection by D.M. Murdock / Acharya S. But the visual similarities shown in the video

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZZ0LmF4IlkU#!

are quite compelling: the halo, the wall carvings depicting gifts to a child, the repeated dove symbol, etc.

Furthermore, why twelve apostles if not for the 12 signs of the Zodiac? If there were 14 signs of the Zodiac, I strongly suspect that there would have been 14 tribes of Israel and 14 apostles, and we'd have a 28-hour day.

And why is 7 a holy number? There are seven celestial objects that can be seen with the naked eye that are clearly different than the stars: the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. If you could see Uranus with the naked eye, I'm sure that 8 would be the holy number and the mark of the beast would be 777. The "magic" behind these numbers predates Christianity, but was clearly pulled into that religion from others.

We all know that the Christians mixed their myths with pagan myths as a way of converting people. The Christmas tree, Easter at the spring equinox, Christmas at the winter solstice, etc. Some myth mixing came after Christianity was established in the Roman empire, but some myth mixing came from older religions. There were many messiahs in the ancient world, and they all had similar stories: curing the sick, casting out demons, rising from the dead, etc.

Roger Pearse says

Assume your statements above were all true… how does it "discredit Christianity as being true"? Haven't you skipped a bit in your logic here?

If you believe that, then start worshiping the Xenomorphs.

Let's get down to brass tacks. Are you willing to state that you consider it to be factually (not faith-based) true that Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead? If you're that kind of archaeologist, I'd be skeptical of your position.

The Apologetic Press has the best article I can find explaining the similarities and dissimilarities between the Christian myth and more ancient myths. The key parts, in my opinion, are

[T]here are some common threads that weave their way through many of the various legends: a superhuman hero does miraculous things, is killed to save mankind (sometimes even by crucifixion), and is brought back to life in some form or another, thereby defeating death. Although the minute details are quite different, the general similarities are close enough to demand scrutiny—and an explanation.

People around the world—due to a “universal frame of mind”—independently concocted stories that revolved around a god dying and then rising again. These stories span both time barriers and geographical limits; they are—in a very literal sense—“worldwide” and “universal.”

How, then, did the instinct to worship God lead to the concoction of numerous stories about a virgin-born savior-god who dies as a sacrifice for mankind’s wrongdoings? First, it started with the idea of sacrifice.
...
The general rule for the atonement value of a sacrifice was: the more costly and perfect the sacrifice, the more sins it would absolve.
...
A free-will sacrifice of royal blood would come closest to the perfect offering.
...
The only problem with such a concept was the fact that no king ever had lived a perfect life. As the Widdershins writer correctly observed, in an attempt to solve this, “Finally someone came up with the idea of one final sacrifice. One sacrifice to count for all the rest for all time. But who could be offered? It had to be someone very important; even kings were not good enough. Clearly, only a god was important enough to count as the last one” (Andy, 1998). Thus, it becomes clear why even the pagan world demanded a sacrifice that was sinless, royal, and higher in stature than other humans. Doane stated: “The belief of redemption from sin by the sufferings of a Divine Incarnation, whether by death on the cross or otherwise, was general and popular among the heathen, centuries before the time of Jesus of Nazareth” (1882, pp. 183-185).

Once we comprehend the need for the death of the savior-god, it is not difficult to see why humanity would want (and need) to see him defeat death.
…
Death holds more terror for man than perhaps anything else on Earth.
…
So, the idea of a sacrificial savior-god who victoriously defeats death through his resurrection came easily to the minds of people who knew that they needed forgiveness, and who desperately wanted to live past the grave.

The one thing I would add to this analysis is that when people exchange stories, especially orally like in the ancient world, those stories become intermixed by the very nature of being repeated and enhanced by the storytellers. As such, so-called "facts" from one myth can repeated with different details in subsequent myths. The result may be too complicated to untangle, but the process is clear. Every culture's mythology bleeds into adjacent cultures' mythology.

And as the Middle East, particularly the triangle from Egypt to Rome to Jerusalem was a major trading network of roads and sea routes, this mixing of myths was accelerated. The original aspects of Christianity are dwarfed by the influence of far more ancient and universal themes.

Interesting stuff, regardless of one's existing beliefs.

I tend to believe Christianity is too good to be true. And why does god always exist in the past and future, but never NOW when we need him? I'm definitely a "doubting Thomas."

I often hear atheists say "if god exists and is real, why doesn't he give some evidence that he exists? Why doesn't he show up at the U.N. or the White House and do something amazing to prove it?" Well, Christianity claims that god DID JUST THAT (except that it was during the Roman empire and not the U.N.) Essentially, Christianity claims that god is a real historical person, like George Washington or Julius Caesar.

I can't help but find Christianity interesting for those reasons.

wthrfrk80 says

I tend to believe Christianity is too good to be true.

Except the hell part. That's too bad to be true.

No "just" god could ever sentence a human to an eternity of torture and agony. No matter what a human does in life, he can physically only commit a finite amount of evil, and therefore cannot warrant an infinite amount of punishment. Not even Hitler would deserve that.

wthrfrk80 says

"if god exists and is real, why doesn't he give some evidence that he exists? Why doesn't he show up at the U.N. or the White House and do something amazing to prove it?" Well, Christianity claims that god DID JUST THAT (except that it was during the Roman empire and not the U.N.)

Yeah, the whole miracles were routine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, but don't happen today unless they are very subtle and untestable is quite suspicious. That's why the second coming will never happen. Any joker claiming to be Jesus would be laughed at, arrested, or killed.

It's very simple to see when one does not look for the truth with ones eyes. You see and then what? Believe? Do you hear then believe? Or do you read then believe? It's is clear that doubts are many when one does not open the heart to allow the Love of the lamb to bestow it with all the answers one needs. And remember, we are given what we need not what we want when we accept the Love of the Lord. This is far to forgotten in an age of theories and debt in exchange for hedonism. The truth is that Love is for everyone and everyone has and is soon to know of the Lamb. The sooner one accepts him the later down the road one is bestowed with the intelligence of such an incredible Holy one.

Stumbled across here. Only spot checked this long thread. This might help:
God exists. God does not lie and does not change. Bible, his word, says do.
Most do not see God at work because they do not agree with what God's word says. Throughout the Bible, God/His power leaves you be if you do not agree with God's position.
Since Abraham's covenant, man acts in "faith" and then God matches. Examples: Abraham sacrifices his son, God sacrifices Jesus; prophet anoints David in oil, God then anoints David with God's Spirit; John the Baptist baptizes Jesus in water, God then baptizes Jesus with God's Spirit and power (Acts 10:38); Moses raises rod, miracle happens; David speaks Mark 11:23 at Goliath, David/God then slew Goliath.
Jesus defined "gospel" in Luke 4:18-19. Jesus spread the gospel after he was given power to do this work. Jesus did the same to the 12 in Luke 9:1-2 to do the same. Jesus then trained the 70 to do the same (Luke 10:1, 9, 17-19). Jesus then delivered power to the church to spread the same gospel (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8, 2:3, 2:16-17, Matthew 28:18, Mark 16-17-18) to undo devil's work, including sickness.
Jesus healed by using Mark 11:23. After receiving power, the church did the same in Acts 3:6-8, 4:30, 13:11, 16:18. We do the same today. In the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) Jesus taught the church to speak Mark 11:23 for God's will for the church. (God's will is defined by God's word) And to speak Mark 11:23 before the church gets in trouble for the desciples were not hungry when Jesus taught them to affirm that God gives them their daily bread.
If you study Jesus' miracles carefully, you'll see that Jesus said that their (the sick or intercessor) "faith" healed them, and "faith" is Mark 11:23. In Acts 3:16, "his name, through faith in his name" is what makes some people's prayer of faith (James 5:15, Mark 11:24) work quicker than others'. Peter walking on water illustrates this. Peter had a full miracle when he walked on water. Then he saw the waves and was afraid. Then Peter sank gradually. Peter's miracle became a reduced miracle. Jesus said that Peter's doubt was responsible.
Find those who have actual experience with Mark 11:23 to see how it works for us.

It's very simple to see when one does not look for the truth with ones eyes. You see and then what? Believe? Do you hear then believe? Or do you read then believe? It's is clear that doubts are many when one does not open the heart to allow the Love of the lamb to bestow it with all the answers one needs. And remember, we are given what we need not what we want when we accept the Love of the Lord. This is far to forgotten in an age of theories and debt in exchange for hedonism. The truth is that Love is for everyone and everyone has and is soon to know of the Lamb. The sooner one accepts him the later down the road one is bestowed with the intelligence of such an incredible Holy one.

Simplifiedfrizbee says

It's very simple

Simplifiedfrisbee says

It's very simple

Why use two accounts to say exactly the same thing?

wanderer01 says

This might help:
God exists. God does not lie and does not change. Bible, his word, says do.

Wow, such a simple classic example of see circular logic.

Why use two accounts to say exactly the same thing?

Entered wrong email at first(too late at night.)

Simplifiedfrisbee says

It's very simple to see when one does not look for the truth with ones eyes. You see and then what? Believe? Do you hear then believe? Or do you read then believe?

Huh, what? Fuzzy wuzzy was a woman?

Huh, what? Fuzzy wuzzy was a woman?

No more needs be said but this: Faith is not needed to be seen, heard, or read.

What once was a respectable site to come to for housing and some financial news, despite the socialist/atheist-tinge, this is getting offensively ridiculous.

Jesus Christ is Lord. You will be greatly sorry upon the day of your passing if you don't realize it.

All of this talk is pseudo-intellectualism massaging one's ego. All of this talk and accompanying falsehood has been foretold years ago. There is nothing to disprove the Bible and evidence continues to mount in its favor. You have to have more faith to be an atheist.

Gentle Readers,
Are there any Shatnerologists in the Patrick.net readership?
Regards,
Roidy

A comment about my use of circular logic above. Very true. But it is a quick way to set the stage to lay out a way to experimentally confirm whether the God of Bible exists, as I attempted to do after that.
If the God of the Bible exists, then the Bible should be consistent and coherent. When I stumbled across Mark 11:23, I decided to test it experimentally and search the Bible for correlations. What I sketched above is a very brief outline of the theory. Experimentally, I now play basketball with my boys whereas for years I could not run nor jog after hurting my knee in college playing ball. My mom could not move nor talk immediately after her aneurysm stroke. 60 days and 1 brain operation later Mom could do everything again. My Dad had 1 lung lobe cut out due to suspicion of lung cancer. Dad told me that his doctor told Dad that Dad was growing a baby lung when he was 80+ and wanted to have nothing to do with Christians.
Does God exist? If yes, which God is he and why doesn't he show himself are puzzling questions. I outlined a trail that can answer all 3 questions. God left us a big Bible so that we can learn plenty and can analyze/test to prove or disprove.
I think the #1 question for most is why doesn't God show himself? After Jesus was given power to do work, Jesus went back to his home village to heal those he grew up with (Mark 6:1-6). There, some got healed but Jesus could not do mighty healing due to some's unbelief that Jesus was anointed with power to heal them. The same principle applies today.
As a research scientist, I find it interesting that our bodies are smarter than we are. Our body cells replace themselves perfectly. And when they don't, expressed as cancer, leukemia, or alzheimer's, we don't know how to fix the error. To me, gene splicing and stem cell therapy are reshuffling based on an existing architecture that our brightest do not fully understand. What are the odds that random mutation can outsmart our brightest?
The good news is that today there are many who have figured out the Bible well enough to tell you how Mark 11:23 actually works.

savethepopulation says

What once was a respectable site to come to for housing and some financial news, despite the socialist/atheist-tinge, this is getting offensively ridiculous.

Only a fool is offended by truth.

savethepopulation says

Jesus Christ is Lord. You will be greatly sorry upon the day of your passing if you don't realize it.

Only a truly evil god would demand people worship him on penalty of torture and then leave the "evidence" to the smucks who have run Christianity for the past 2000 years. Not to mention being a total dick to all those born in Asia to other faiths.

But there's the rub. Perhaps Shiva is the one true god. Accept Shiva as your savior or your soul will burn in hell. A billion Hindus can't be wrong.

It is offensive not to believe in Shiva. Only the immoral deny his divinity.

savethepopulation says

You have to have more faith to be an atheist.

That is truly backwards reasoning.

savethepopulation says

There is nothing to disprove the Bible and evidence continues to mount in its favor.

Be careful with that theory. There's good genetic evidence that humanity cannot be traced to a single literal "first couple" like Adam and Eve. There's also no evidence for a global flood. Perhaps the flood was local or regional?

Remember that the Bible is a collection of books. Some things in it mesh well with "secular" history and archaeology, but other things (particularly far back in the Old Testament) do not.

wanderer01 says

The good news is that today there are many who have figured out the Bible well enough to tell you how Mark 11:23 actually works.

Be careful with that theory...there's a website called "Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?"

wthrfrk80 says

wanderer01 says

The good news is that today there are many who have figured out the Bible well enough to tell you how Mark 11:23 actually works.

Be careful with that theory...there's a website called "Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?"

Yep it is a very interesting site and discusses in detail the problems with the "god heals" claims.

wthrfrk80 says

Be careful with that theory...there's a website called "Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?"

That would take a miracle.

Roidy says

Are there any Shatnerologists in the Patrick.net readership?

No, but I'm a Nimoyian. Some of the Ambassador's wisdom:

http://trekmovie.com/2011/06/06/leonard-nimoy-invokes-classic-star-trek-episode-in-plea-for-middle-east-peace/

For those too lazy to read the site, here's the summary.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/kbgxUavMq4o

God would have to be a total asshole to cure cancer, AIDS, and infertility, but give a big fuck you to every child and every soldier who ever lost a limb. What an asshole! Unless, of course, god never cured anyone. But then, all those alleged miracles would be bullshit, and Jesus would be a fraud.

There you have it. Either god is a total asshole, or he's a fictional character. Which is worse? Give god the benefit of a doubt that he doesn't exist.

A humorous look at the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/p9izVu_TtAE

wanderer01 says

A comment about my use of circular logic above. Very true. But it is a quick way to set the stage to lay out a way to experimentally confirm whether the God of Bible exists, as I attempted to do after that.

Hmmm... starting by begging the question is not an experiment at all. You have already reached your conclusion before your "experiment" has even begun. It makes you appear very unscientific and very bias. Anything following is more-or-less irrelevant and if you start your statement with a logical fallacy it is very likely that you will continue to support your point with additional fallacies.

Case in point...

wanderer01 says

I decided to test [Mark 11:23] experimentally...

...I now play basketball with my boys...for years I could not run nor jog...

...My mom could not move nor talk immediately after her aneurysm stroke... Later Mom could do everything again.

My Dad had 1 lung lobe cut out...Dad was growing a baby lung when he was 80+...

Your entire support for Mark 11:23 is anecdotal logical fallacies. If you are truly interested in analyzing/testing the "power" of Mark 11:23 then you should checkout why god won't heal amputees. That site give a very different and in-depth perspective on the topic (thanks wthrfrk for bringing it up, I had forgotten about that site).

wanderer01 says

Does God exist? If yes, which God is he and why doesn't he show himself are puzzling questions. I outlined a trail that can answer all 3 questions.

OK, three questions with a trail for us to follow and find the answers.
1. Do/does god(s) exist?
2. Which god(s) is he/her/them?
3. Why doesn't he/her/them appear?

OK, I wait with bated-breath for the answer to those three mysterious questions which man/womankind has wrestled with for a eon.

wanderer01 says

God left us a big Bible so that we can learn plenty and can analyze/test to prove or disprove.

Hmmm... OK, please without using circular logic in a clear logical method explain what you think proves the christian god. Your argument will be more convincing if it can not also be used to prove non-christian gods.

wanderer01 says

I think the #1 question for most is why doesn't God show himself? After Jesus was given power to do work, Jesus went back to his home village to heal those he grew up with (Mark 6:1-6). There, some got healed but Jesus could not do mighty healing due to some's unbelief that Jesus was anointed with power to heal them. The same principle applies today.

OK, here is another example of circular logic that you need to avoid if you want to develop a convincing approach for the existence of a christian god.

wanderer01 says

As a research scientist...

I am curious what your field of expertise is.

The whole "Bible as a magic book that fell out of Heaven" view among some uneducated Christians doesn't portray Christianity in a positive light.

I wonder how many atheists were former "believers" until they prayed for something and didn't get it.

The Bible is a collection of books written over centuries gathered together by the early Christian church. It didn't just come from one guy's claimed vision (like the Koran and the Book of Mormon).

Only one way to the father. That is through the lamb. "Look within and you shall never be without." For the many times I faltered in sin and was led back to the green pastures from the desert I had chosen, it is a commitment to Love. We come from it, and we need it. When it lacks it shows. For the testimony of those before and with me that understand the struggle to believe what we read, teach what we believe, and practice what we preach, the Love of the Lamb is through sacrifice because it purges out the sin in order to receive the holy spirit of the Lord. A host can not be tainted to receive the holy spirit as a closed window can not allow air to enter into the domain. Faith is better felt than seen, for a "sign" to show us that God is real is denying that God is. An "atheist" who are thee? I dare say you too believe in God. The lord will guide you back to where your heart needs be.

Simplifiedfrizbee says

An "atheist" who are thee? I dare say you too believe in God.

Why would you think that an atheist believes in a christian god? Do Hindus believe in a christian god as well? How about scientologist?

wthrfrk80 says

There's a distinction between the Jewish authorities (the Pharasees and Saducees that opposed the early church) and ordinary Jews who joined the Christian movement. Could that account for the difference? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested. This is interesting stuff, at least to me.

Could be, but unlikely, since Jesus himself and most of his followers would have counted as a Pharisee school adherents. I imagine most of the "Jewish Christians" came from the Pharisee school.

Roger Pearse says

Erm, no. First mention of Mithras is 80 AD, in Statius. First archaeology is ca. 100 AD. There is no evidence that Mithras existed prior to this (although of course the cult must have had time to come into being, so say 50 AD).

Hi Roger - I agree with you that Murdock is a bit out there.

"(Bas-relief of the colossal temple built by Antiochus I. of Commagene, 69-31 B.C., on the Nemrood Dagh, a spur of the Taurus Mountains. T. et M., p. 188.)"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/mom04.htm

While this Mithras lacks some of the other details, his name is inscribed along with King Antiochus'.

From looking at various sources, the bulk of definite Mithras-Cult artifacts is from the 1st Century AD, but there are debatable artifacts from Crimea and elsewhere that could be 1st Century BC that fit some of the descriptions of Mithras (Phyrgian Cap) but not others. If we're finding Mithraic stuff all over Pannonia, Germania Inferior, and the Crimea by mid-late 1st C. AD, then I don't think it's a stretch to push it back to the 1st Century BC to allow for time for it to develop and transmit over all this large distance.

Sadly, unlike Christianity, it's not a book religion so I guess it transmitted knowledge very like Masonry, with senior members initiating initiates verbally.

Roger Pearse says

Paganism was syncretic. The temples of Mithras include things borrowed from other pagan cults.

I agree. I wouldn't say like Murdock that Mithraism (or Horus) was THE model for Christianity, but I do believe that Savior and Mystery Cults in the Early Roman Empire era had an influence.

wanderer01 says

God exists. God does not lie and does not change. Bible, his word, says do.

Circular Logic:

The Bible says God is the Truth. God wrote the Bible, and therefore the Bible is True.

Roger Pearse says

Whether Christianity is true or not, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, and every professor of ancient history at every university in the world will tell you so, if you can't work it out for yourself.

Roger, this is a major stretch.

Please provide some Facts about the real, historical (not necessarily supernatural) Jesus that are consensus among historians and/or archeologists - not Bible Scholars.

Where was he born, in what town, when did he die, was he crucified, did he have a beard, etc. - and what evidence backs up these facts? I'm not looking for any supernatural claims. Just verifiable facts of his physical existence somewhere in time.

thunderlips11 says

Roger Pearse says

Whether Christianity is true or not, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, and every professor of ancient history at every university in the world will tell you so, if you can't work it out for yourself.

I've heard this argument before. It's funny, because no one is denying that some guy existed. They are denying that he was the son of god and rose from the dead. So, it is the details that are important. I don't know what difference it would make if some guy 2000 yrs ago was named Jesus or not.

leoj707 says

Simplifiedfrizbee says

An "atheist" who are thee? I dare say you too believe in God.

Why would you think that an atheist believes in a christian god? Do Hindus believe in a christian god as well? How about scientologist?

How about Mormons?

thunderlips11 says

but I do believe that Savior and Mystery Cults in the Early Roman Empire era had an influence.

A huge influence, particularly in the god as a sacrifice part. You know, the whole resurrection myth.

By the way, the whole resurrection part kind of defeats the sacrifice of dying. It's not a sacrifice to die if you rise from the dead. It's only a sacrifice if you stay dead and cease to exist. When you think a moment about it, it's really crappy writing. It's a lousy cliché.

YesYNot says

I've heard this argument before. It's funny, because no one is denying that some guy existed. They are denying that he was the son of god and rose from the dead. So, it is the details that are important. I don't know what difference it would make if some guy 2000 yrs ago was named Jesus or not.

Hey YesYNot! You're on to something here.

Why is it there is no problem placing Abraham and Moses in the myth category, but when it comes to Jesus, there is this serious misgiving about doing the same?

Is Jesus better attested to than Abraham or Moses? Are there artifacts from Jesus' lifetime that we don't have for Moses?

Why do we give Jesus the benefit of the doubt that we don't give to say, Ruth?