Proof Christianity is fake

[Tareh]

This is my proof of the fraudulent, and manipulation of the bible, Don’t get me wrong.. I am not against God, Or Jesus. But, I do believe that these stories were manipulated for the purpose of control, which has succeeded greatly, First of all History back’s me up, for my evidence in my cause.. People will see what I write as an attack.. But I see my report as truth, Enlightenment to the lie’s spreaded around the world, I am not attacking you, I only wish to help, First of all, I am an eclectic wiccan, A form of paganism, Eclectic mean’s that I am open to learn as I will.. I do not follow one’s path.. I follow my own, in what I feel is truth. Pagan’s/Wiccan’s have been attacked and prosecuted by Christian’s/Catholic’s for many years. Yet, Little do they know, that their whole religion is a plagiarized version of the pagan religion itself, Many don’t see this.. The holiday’s, Like Christmas, Easter, Halloween, thanksgiving. They were pagan religion’s long before Christianity was in the thought’s of men.. Samhain, Is today’s Halloween, The pagan’s Yule holiday, is Christianity’s Christmas, Which both coincidentally is the same day.. As is Samhain.. Notice the word Yule used.. A very common pagan word, used for Christmas.. It is The Holiday is a celebration for Rebirth and Life.. The Holiday Imbolic, Is today’s groundhog day.. Still..
The Pagan Holiday Eostara is Christian’s easter.. The holiday is a celebration of rebirth.. Which is a coincidence considering it is considered the day that Jesus Rose again.. Our Religion Mabon.. Is Christian’s thanks’ giving.. Which is also a day for giving thanks’..

Now off to another point.. Christian symbol’s.. Christian Symbol’s you see today are also Pagan Symbol’s.. Like the Cross that Jesus died on.. The cross is considered to a pagan, as the Cross of the Zodiac, The circle around the center point of the cross represents the sun.. Which is where the idea, of the son of god. The Fish.. The fish that Jesus drew on the ground, Is also the same symbol used to represent Pagan astrology’s symbol of the ages.. Which in this case, is the age of Pisces, Which we are still in today.

Now, This is where the real proof come’s in. The story of Jesus, Believe it or not, The story of Jesus has been told Thousand’s of year’s before Christian’s Jesus was born, The list of how many people share the same story and same trait’s is seemingly endless.. Which make’s me believe, that there was a man somewhere that has done the same thing has him.. One example of many.. Horus was also born of the virgin Isis , He is the Only Begotten son of Osiris, His Foster father was Seb, Also meaning Jo-seph,
Him and Jesus are of Royal Descent, Both born in a cave, An Angel came to both, and Warned Isis of her virgin birth, 3 king’s came to Jesus following a star to the east, 3 solar deities, Followed a star to the east, to find Horus, Mother Isis was told at the birth of Horus "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.". As Joseph, Father of Jesus was told "Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.". Both were teacher’s at the age of 12, They were both Baptized at the age of 30, Horus Baptized by Anup, as Jesus baptized by John the Baptist, Both Anup, and John were Beheaded. Horus and Jesus both performed many miracles, such as Raising the dead, Water to wine, Walking on water, and many more.. Later He was Betrayed by A close friend and Disciple, To then be crucified and then cast into a tomb.. Both resurrected 3 day’s later, to then later descend into the heaven’s.. Keep in mind, This is only one story that is similar to the story of Jesus.. And also.. Much Much older.. There are so many, it would take entirely too long to go through it all, Although, if you wish to research yourself.. I will list a few name’s… Odin of the Norse, Mithra, Krishna, Gautama a.k.a.Buddha, Attis , Zoroaster, Dionysus, Quetzaloatl, Tammuz, Alestis, Esus, Bel, Bali, Orpheus, Iao and Wittoba.. Keep in mind. .There are many many more..

Now off to God, In the bible, There are mention’s of other God’s which Christianity say’s they are fake, But if you actually listen without a stubborn mind.. it speak’s of other’s.. as if they are real..

“Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly.� Exodus 18:11

"You shall have no other gods before me."

Exodus 20:3

"Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips."

Exodus 23:13

"What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?"

Deuteronomy 4:7

"Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you;"

Deuteronomy 6:14

"for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you."

Deuteronomy 7:4



"If you ever forget the Lord your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed."

Deuteronomy 8:19

"Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them."

Deuteronomy 11:16

"the curse if you disobey the commands of the Lord your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known." Deuteronomy 11:28

Anyway.. You get the point.. This list can go on a long time..

Off to God and Zues.. The similarities, Both were very vengeful god’s Loving.. and Destructive and angry..
Both at one point were very angry, Angered at man for their sin’s , Gave up on man.. And chose a select few to build an Ark, Collect animal’s.. and then… Flooded the earth. As for a different story, but yet the same.. God Sent Noah to build his ark, and Gilgamesh sent Untapishtim, Both Flood’s were global, both were for the punishment of man’s sin’s, Both were Sent by God/God’s, both build a boat, and both complained, both had at least one window, both held animals, It rained heavily for both of them..
They both released bird’s to find land.

On to Corruption, Control.. And Lie's.. Used for control nation's.. Also used as conversion..
Do you remember Constantine of Rome? He was once a Pagan, Turned to a Christian..
He pulled a stunt very clever.. A tactic of Conversion.. Considering that Constantine had turned to Christian, He knew that most of his follower's were Pagan, To help his follower's and other's become christian, He made up christian holiday's on the same date's as Pagan Holiday's, Which would eventually turn everyone into a Christian. Also Back then.. A pope declared Pagan's as servant's to the devil.. Because of his Status and power, Claiming that God claimed so.. It would be easy for him kill and convert.. He killed Innocent people because of their religion, And still today, it Is still taught in church.. They claim everything about Us is evil.. We serve the devil.. And practice black magic.. Yet.. Many do not know a single thing of my religion, but that it is the devil.. The pentagram, Or Pentacle, Is a sacred symbol of a pagan, It stand's for many thing's.. Nothing to do with evil, not one bit.. The star is a representation of the element's, and also a portrayal of the human body.. The circle is a representation of the shape of the earth, and also a wall of protection around the human body.., It is a holy symbol used by pagan's as protection from evil.. Some ask.. Why does it look like the satanist pentagram? Well.. That is because they stole it from us Wiccan's.. They stole our symbol and stuck it upside down.. Their's represent's a bull with horn's..
We have nothing to do with them and their practice's.. Anyway's on with what I was saying,
The bible is a great weapon, A scare tactic to control, An example is Jonestown.. The man who used this scare tactic to lead so many into a trap.. Then eventually led to a mass suicide.. Thousand's of year's war's fought to claim that their God is the true God, Between Muslim, The Hare Krishna's, Christian's and Catholic's.. Still to this day.. this war is still going.. So much bloodshed, over who's book is right.. It's nonsense.. And after thousand's of year's nothing is changing.. Ever thought that nobody will give up? That you are fighting a war that cant be won? Maybe thought... Wow.. Think of all the live's... For nothing.. They use this tactic to get you to fight war's, for a cause they make up.. For example.. The Taliban, So many go on suicide missions in believe of great reward to do so.. And yet, What is this battle really for? To kill all Infidel's? Why Should I kill all Infidel's? Well.. Because god will give you lot's of women.. You see my point? The man who wrote this is now your master.. You are his slave, and you dont know it.. The book's of the bible.. There are so many book's of the bible, and yet so many did not make it.. They were burned by pope's, to Simply make Jesus and God look more pure... They were Edited, to gain control over Man.. Think about it.. What make's a book found by the pope.. and chosen by the pope, to be any more correct than any other book's found in Ancient time's.. So.. The pope say's they are fake.. and You dont take any consideration that maybe.. This is real? The book's back then were in consideration at one point.. For example... The Dead Sea Scroll's.. Older than the actual bible, These were carried by Men who were fleeing from people trying to kill them off.. These were the book's the Islam's considered the Bible back in those time's.. But Christian's today see them as blasphemy.. As a Lie... Ever wonder why they are so Defensive to this? Because it break's off their control.. Anyone who believe's these thing's are free from their hand's.. They dont like that..
Another Scare tactic I will address.. Hell.. That word is so powerful, Probably the most powerful word in the world.. It is easy to convert someone who is afraid of eternal burning and torture, But then the Bible Addresses free will.. But really how much free will is in, Burn in hell, Or Live in paradise in the heaven's.. Only a fool would choose hell.. So... if you want to go to heaven, Believe in god, Accept Jesus into your heart, Serve his wishes, Become like him, and you will go to heaven.. Not a bad deal, Not a bad deal at all.. Cant see much wrong with that. That is a statement most cant turn down. Then, That give's your pastor power.. Dont get me wrong, I am NOT saying that all Christian's are evil.. Majority of Christian's are the nicest people on earth, Also some of the meanest! I know many great Pastor's with a great and pure cause.. These people do great thing's for the world.. Then you Have the guy who know's what kind of control he can get.. Money, Church Offering's.. Offer your money to god, then you see your pastor with some fancy Jewelry, Some fancy clothe's, and He is telling you, this money is going to Africa, and show's a picture of a white man and some Happy African's... I am a Man that believe's believe's that the greatest of all evil, Will present itself holy and pure.. And That Evil will bring the greatest of people with it, and use their good heart for it's will..

I do not believe in the word perfect, Because it is impossible, no god, man, or being can be perfect..
A good example is God himself, and all of us.. Even the best of us.. He does thing's that are strangely... Human... Murder, Lie's Desciet.. But he also has his loving side.. As all of us do.. We are all capable of Evil.. and Good... We are not to be judged on our past, but what we are now.. and the future of ourselves to come.. Though, I know most will see what I write, and Claim me evil, They will acuse me of assault, Lie's, Desceit.. But know, This is some information I have kept to myself for so long, because I was afraid of what those would say of me.. Thing's that may happen.. But the truth is.. This may be a School assignment, But this is also for the world, I could keep this to myself and let those be blind and controlled, But that would be selfish, This is something I give as a Gift, To help free you, Not hurt you, Those who have read this with an open mind, can not deny what I am saying, But those with a closed mind, likely stopped reading this a while back, Or are thinking of way's to prove me wrong.. and By all means! Do So! I seek the truth! Again, this does not prove god, or Jesus fake, But show's that the bible is fake, Their Story is real, why else would their be so many different versions? Somewhere in all these story's and myth's has to have truth somewhere..

[Kuan]

Jesus was not born on the 25th of December and both christmas and easter are pagan observances gazumped by the catholic church. Who's traditions are played along with by supposed breakaway churches who only feign rebellion against catholicism, while still giving honour to it's traditions.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

You are correct, about Christmas.. Jesus was not born then.. But.. Easter is a representation of Jesus's Raising from the dead.. .. whether it be the correct date or not..

Yes, Jesus was not born on december 25th, but it has become a common practice to celebrate it at that time.

And by allowing it and promoting it as a common practice they have rebelled against Gods will not to mix pagan traditions in with the truth of God.

If a Day is not biblical then it does not matter if 99.9% of "christians" celebrate it. The fact remains that it is not Christian. The Bible determines what Christianity is Not christians.


All Praise The Ancient of Days

So we shouldnt celebrate any holidays unless they are not christian?

[gegraptai]

So we shouldnt celebrate any holidays unless they are not christian?

Sure. There's nothing wrong with Thanksgiving, the 4th of July, etc. Those are secular holidays. The point is that Christmas and Easter are religious holidays.

[Kuan]

So we shouldnt celebrate any holidays unless they are not christian?

Sure. There's nothing wrong with Thanksgiving, the 4th of July, etc. Those are secular holidays. The point is that Christmas and Easter are religious holidays.

Yes, but your not celebrating anything pagan. You celebrating a christian event.

[I AM ALL I AM]

So we shouldnt celebrate any holidays unless they are not christian?

Sure. There's nothing wrong with Thanksgiving, the 4th of July, etc. Those are secular holidays. The point is that Christmas and Easter are religious holidays.

Yes, but your not celebrating anything pagan. You celebrating a christian event.

G'day Mormon Boy 51.

Actually, everyone that celebrates christmas IS celebrating something a LOT different than is commonly perceived of for the festival.

For a start, it is the pagan festival of the summer/winter solstices (depending upon which hemisphere you are in).

Maybe the following information will help you comprehend what it is you are actually celebrating at christmas ...


[center]Father Christmas[/center]

In considering the character of Santa Claus, and given that he is so closely associated with elves and antlered reindeer, the question is often posed as to whether there is a Witchcraft connection here. Also, is the name Santa perhaps a play on Satan (being a straightforward anagram), or does Santa Claus really emanate, by phonetic corruption, from Saint Nicholas as we are led to believe ?

As we have seen, the concept of Father Christmas (with customary holly-sprig in his cap) is a direct representation of the gift bearing Yuletide Holly King, sometimes called Father Winter or Grandfather Frost. His one-time pagan image was brought into line with the Christian festival in the 17th century, whereas Santa Claus first appeared by that name in America as late as the middle 1800s. And then, of course, there is the Kris Kringle portrayal. Are they all the same character and, if so, how can an historical Christian bishop possibly equate with the jolly, pipe-smoking Yuletide Elf ?

Back in the very earliest days of the Roman Church in AD325, one of the bishops at Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicea was a certain Nicholas of Myra from Asia Minor (modern Turkey), who claimed to have a personal dialogue with Jesus and an angel. At this Church conference the bishops were debating the nature of the Holy Trinity - the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - and of how Jesus was not simply the Son of God, but was also God incarnate. There were, nonetheless, some bishops of the pre-Roman school who opposed this new Imperial dogma and averred that Jesus was the Son as created in the flesh by God - but he was not himself God. The leading spokesman for this opposition faction was an aged Libyan priest of Alexandria named Arius, but when Arius rose to address the Council in this regard, Nicholas of Myra punched him in the face - an event which paved the way for the emergent Nicene Trinity Creed.

Other than that, very little is recorded about Bishop Nicholas (Ad 271-343) until a fictitious biography was written by the Greek missionary Methodius in the 9th century. Then, as a direct outcome of this, schoolboys, pawnbrokers, sailors, prostitutes, merchants and apothecaries all claimed the violent bishop as their patron saint ! Methodius reported in his text that Nicholas had given a bag of gold to each of the three girls to save them from prostitution - whence, apparently, the three golden balls used as a sign of pawnbrokers, although the connection is difficult to comprehend. He was also said to have the power to calm the seas, while the story which established his traditional link with children claimed that Nicholas successfully restored to life three boys who had been cut into pieces and preserved in brine by their inn keeping parents !

Following these reports, Nicholas became the elected patron saint of Greece, Apulia, Sicily, Lorraine and Russia - becoming especially popular with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Then, based upon the 'bags of gold' story, a new tradition grew in and around The Netherlands to the effect that St. Nicholas would return each year to bring gifts for well-behaved children on the eve of hid 6 December feast day - a tradition which has long been acted out in places such as Denmark, Holland and Belgium.

The origin of the modern Santa Claus story is often attributed to 17th-century Dutch settlers in America (in New York to be precise, which was called New Amsterdam until the 1700s). They are said to have taken the St. Nicholas tradition across the ocean with them, but tis is completely untrue. The Dutch colonial settlers were, in fact, members of the Protestant Dutch Reform Church, who had no empathy whatever with Catholic saints. Santa actually emerged from a character introduced to Pennsylvania by the German settlers - a character called Pelznichol (meaning Furry Nicholas) and sometimes referred to as Old Nick. He was reckoned to be a mischievous hobgoblin (akin to Hodekin and Robin Goodfellow) and by 1827 he was firmly established in the Philadelphia Yuletide festivals.

Reminiscent of Enkidu in the old Mesopotamian legend of Gilgamesh, Pelznichol was a somewhat wild, hairy individual who was noted for playing tricks on people once a year - a tradition which was transformed into gift giving. The Dutch of Pennsylvania, along with various other settled families, became attached to the custom of Pelznichol (alternatively Belsnickle), but they gave his gifts a Christian flavour by relating them specifically to children and calling them Krist-kindle ('Christ-kin'). By the 1840s this definition was adapted for Pelznichol himself, who became known in some communities as Kriss Kringle. Alternatively, from around 1823, it was reckoned that Kriss Kringle actually was the Christ child who, with no real explanation, appeared as an old bearded twin of Santa Claus. To differentiate between the two, it was said that, while Santa came down the chimney, his Christian twin came in through the keyhole.

To discover the true identity of Santa Claus, we shall return again to Pelznichol. Meanwhile, though, we should take a look at some other events which established the character in the guise that we know him. In doing this, we can go back to early 17th-century England, where we discover the first use of the Father Christmas name in connection with the Holly King tradition. This occurred in the year 1610 when Father Christmas, in a tall hat bedecked with holly, made his first ever appearance by that name in the Christmas Masque productions of William Shakespeare's colleague, the playwright Ben Johnson. Making his stage entry at the same time with a group of children was Cupid - a name eventually used for one of Santa's reindeer.

In 1822 the next major step came when the American writer Clement Clarke Moore penned a Christmas poem for his own children. It drew upon various traditions, especially that of the Russian Grandfather Frost, who had a sleigh and a reindeer (unlike St. Nicholas who always rode a white horse). It related also to the fur-clad German Pelznichol, whose signature was said to be Thunder (Donner) and Lightning (Blitzen), which provided two more reindeer names for Moore's poem - along with Cupid, Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, and Comet. (Rudolph did not appear until as recently as 1939 in a story by Robert L. May) In spite of the anomalies, Moore's poem was entitled A Visit From Saint Nicholas - soon to become widely known in publication as The Night Before Christmas, which begins:

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house,
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

Not only were the now famous reindeer introduced in this poem, but it established the first known link with stockings and chimneys, while giving a description of the newly developing Yuletide Elf character:

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot;
A bundle of toys he had flung on his back,
And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.

His eyes - how they twinkled ! His dimples so merry !
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry.
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow.

The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.
He had a broad face and a little round belly,
That shook when he laughed like a bowlful of jelly.

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself.

Thus, the modern Santa was beginning to evolve, although one would hardly recognise him from the strange little fellow depicted in the 1848 edition of Moore's poem. In 1869 a colour edition was released, with pictures by an unknown artist, which brought the character a little closer to today's image. Oddly, though, this chubby elf with the red bobble-hat and pipe was still called St. Nicholas in the poem, although being as far removed from the historical bishop as one could possibly stray. But nowhere yet was this character called Santa Claus.

The magazine Harpers Weekly had, by that time, commissioned the political cartoonist Thomas Nast to produce a series of drawings of the popular elf for the annual covers of their Christmas editions, and these developed the character still further, making him a little larger and less elfin. Meanwhile, the separate Father Christmas (looking more like a druid with holly in his hair) was pursuing his own rather more wiccan career in England, appearing in 1888 in Thomas K. Hervey's The Book of Christmas not with reindeer, but riding on the back of a goat and carrying a wassail bowl.

To complete the picture of Santa in America, along came Haddon Sundblom who (from 1931 to 1964) created a new representation each Christmas for the Coca-cola advertisements which appeared worldwide in The Post and National Geographic magazines. And so the familiar modern Santa portrayal finally emerged in true Disney style - but why was he suddenly called Santa Claus ? And why were the folk in Denmark now calling their one-time Saint Nicholas by the new name of Sinterklaas ? Had some other tradition perhaps become interpolated during the early decades of the 20th-century ? It certainly had.In fact two other traditions had become merged with that of the American Yuletide Elf - the first being England's own druidic Holly King, Father Christmas. More importantly, though, was the re-cementing of the original Pelznichol culture - by then widely recognised as that of Kriss Kringle - for it was actually Pelznichol, the wild hobgoblin (a counterpart of Hodekin and Robin Goodfellow, or Puck) who carried the alternative name which became Santa Claus.

To understand how this transpired, we need to go back in history again to Europe, where Pelznichol was so called because he was a nick (a sprite). Consequently, one of his familiar names was Old Nick. So, from the moment that Clement Clarke Moore's Christmas character appeared, 'dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot', the beginning of a merger was apparent between his St. Nicholas and the other Furry Nicholas.

Old Nick, meanwhile, had been the very figure most associated with Pope Gregory I's description of the devil, taking over totally from the earlier fallen angel depictions in medieval times, so that the devil was (and still is) often referred to as Old Nick. Where did this devil live ? Apparently, he lived in the far North according to the churchmen who quoted the Old Testament book of Jeremiah (1:14): 'Then the Lord said unto me, Out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land'. So the legendary Old Nick (Pelznichol) supposedly came from the North Pole, just as Santa does today - having no geographical relevance whatever to the historical St. Nicholas.

The rest of the story follows from this very root, and from the appearance of Pope Gregory's Satan (Old Nick) character in European Passion plays from the 12th century. It is, however, from the writings of Jacob Grimm (of the Brothers Grimm fairy tale fame) that the puzzle is finally pieced together. In his comprehensive research work entitled Teutonic Mythology Grimm explains that, in the course of the Christian plays of the Middle Ages, it was common for a famous saintly bishop (generally St. Nicholas) to develop a split personality within the plot. While the traditionally benevolent saint would remain in character, his alter ego would degenerate into an additionally scripted figure of opposition akin to Pelznichol - a wild satanic creature called Claus.

And so it was that, when the Holly King, St. Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kriss Kringle and Pelznichol finally merged into the one all-embracing character, it was the Old Nick alter ego from the Christmas plays who finally reigned supreme. It was he who determined the Yuletide Elf's name for all time - for he was the 'Satan Claus', or as he has become better known (by the way of a strategic anagrammatical switch from the original satanic definition to a more acceptable saintly style), Santa Claus.

Realm of the Ring Lords
Beyond The Portal of the Twilight World
By Laurence Gardiner
(Pages 177-183)

[Adstar]

Jesus was not born on the 25th of December and both christmas and easter are pagan observances gazumped by the catholic church. Who's traditions are played along with by supposed breakaway churches who only feign rebellion against catholicism, while still giving honour to it's traditions.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

You are correct, about Christmas.. Jesus was not born then.. But.. Easter is a representation of Jesus's Raising from the dead.. .. whether it be the correct date or not..

Yes, Jesus was not born on december 25th, but it has become a common practice to celebrate it at that time.

And by allowing it and promoting it as a common practice they have rebelled against Gods will not to mix pagan traditions in with the truth of God.

If a Day is not biblical then it does not matter if 99.9% of "christians" celebrate it. The fact remains that it is not Christian. The Bible determines what Christianity is Not christians.


All Praise The Ancient of Days

So we shouldnt celebrate any holidays unless they are not christian?

We should not be celebrating a day as if it where Christian if it is not Christian. We should not be mixing Christian with pagan.

If people want to take part is something like "thanksgiving day" then celebrate it, But don't go and take the day and say it is a Christian celebration injecting another false tradition of men into Christianity.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[nursebenjamin]

I’m an atheist, but I disagree with almost everything that you wrote.

(A) That the Christians commandeered pagan holidays doesn’t prove that Christianity is fraudulent

(B) The ancient Greek word for fish is "ΙΧΘΥΣ" which is also an acronym for "Ιησους Χ�ιστος Θεου Υιος Σωτη�" or "Jesus Christ God's Son is Savior".[2]

(C) Son and sun are Homophones in English, but this was not the language that the NT was written in.

(D) “Horus was not born on December 25th, he was born on the 5th day of the "Epagomenal Days", which does not even take place in December on the modern or ancient calendars, but rather between August 24th and 28th, but in terms of the rising of Sirius (August 4), they are July 30th through August 3rd. His mother was also not a virgin. Horus's father was Osiris, who was killed by his brother Seth. Isis used a spell to bring him back to life for a short time so they could have sex, in which they conceived Horus.

“I, as well as several others, as well as several Egyptologists you can find on the Internet, know of no reference anywhere to a "star in the east" or "three kings" and "new-born savior"; it is simply made up. I cannot find any source or information proving he was a "teacher when he was 12 years old", that he was "baptized at age 30", that he "walked on water" (but on the Internet, I did find several places that suggest he was "thrown in the water", but I have no direct source at this time for that). More so, I cannot find any evidence he was referred to as "The Truth", "The Light", Lamb of God", "the Good Shepherd", etc.

“Also lacking is any evidence that he was betrayed by Typhon. In fact, Horus never died, at any time, he later merges with the sun god, Ra -- but never dies and certainly never is crucified, and therefore could not have been buried for 3 days and resurrected. If you want to look it up yourself, you can find documentation of Horus and Isis and Osiris here�[1].

(E) The Old Testament is seeped in Polytheism; with this I’ll agree. When the oldest text where written (note that the texts of the Old Testament are not placed in chronological order), the ancient Israelites were clearly polytheistic. According to the Old Testament, the ancient Israelites would always fall back onto worshiping Baal, Asherah, and other “idols� during times of peace. How could they choose between GOD and false idols? The oldest sections of the OT only make sense when you consider the fact that these guys were polytheistic.

In newer sections of the OT, the ancient Israelites become Monolatrist Polytheists. They believe in many gods, but favor one: Yahweh. It wasn’t until about 600 BCE that the Jewish religion became fully monotheistic.

(F) Yahweh was originally a god of war[2]. He’s the ancient Israeli equivalent of Mars, not Zeus.

[Jester]

Okay, I'll attempt this again.

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 283-371 CE) wrote: “The religion of Jesus Christ is neither new nor strange.�

I can actually find no reference to this quotation attributed to Eusebius, save for those attempting to make the exact case you present here.
Perhaps he did write this, but I was actually looking for the context, and can't seem to find it.

However:

St Augustine of Hippo in Retractions wrote: "That which is called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist, from the beginning of the human race until Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion which already existed began to be called Christianity."

This is a genuine quote, so far as I know.
While there are similarities in all religions, I wouldn't take this so far as Augustine seems to, much less to the extent that the article you copy does. I'll address my reasons below.

Both quotes showing the ideology/concepts were ALREADY in existence prior to 'Christianity'.

Rather, both quotations claim a weaker stance than this.

The zodiac is mentioned in the Bible at Job 38:32, where the author refers to the "Mazzaroth"/12 signs.

Job mentions the constellations. That they are mentioned in passing in one place in one book is no reason to assume that this constitutes a major influence on the Bible.

The tribes of Israel are split into 12.

That the same number is used does not automatically infer a connection.

Jesus has 18 years missing, which happen to be between the ages of 12 and 30. 12 astrological signs split into 30 degree segments on the circular zodiac chart. Of course the Sun is placed in the middle of the chart on the cross formed by the solstices and equinoxes.

This is getting almost entirely into speculation. There are also some odd things about the number 23. This does not automatically imply causation or connection between the events related to it.

If you are looking for exact correlations between each apostle and the equivalent star sign, apparently Clement of Alexandria wrote about the Valentian Gnostic Theodotus identifying the 12 apostles with the 12 signs of the zodiac,

Clement of Alexandria did write about Gnosticism, but his reviews were critical. Yes, there were those who sought to combine Christianity with Grecian secret cults. This has been known for some time. As all this post-dates the New Testament writings, however, there is no reason to assume influence - let alone major influence.

also apparently Josephus and Philo equate the 12 apostles with the 12 astrological start signs. It might not be so easy to find those texts though.

Josephus, so far as scholars know, has wrote nothing directly about the apostles.

Extracted from Nexus Magazine

I looked up Nexus magazine. It does not seem to me to be a credible source. Rather, it seems to support a great deal of UFO/conspiracy theories as reliable.

In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine united all religious factions under one composite deity, and ordered the compilation of new and old writings into a uniform collection that became the New Testament.

This is not correct. Constantine definitely asserted Christianity, making it the official religion of the Roman empire. By this time, however, the writings of the New Testament had been completed for over two centuries.

It has often been emphasised that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities.

Many scholars have taken this position in the past (and, I am quick to add, many have taken the opposite position).
I do fully agree, however, with the idea that the validity of Christianity rests on the validity of the claims of New Testament.

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

I actually looked for this quotation in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I cannot find it, or any reference to it outside of web pages arguing this particular point.
If it is there, however, it is wrong. The New Testament books are dated essentially to the second half of the first century. Perhaps this passage is simply referring to the copies in our possession?
If not, there seems to be a continuity error here. If this is "what the church doesn't want us to know", I'm not sure why it would make these admissions, particularly when they are not supported by scholarship.

In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

This is another reference I can't find outside of sources making this case. Is there somewhere online that I can read this particular version of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Until then, any book, regardless of whether or not it is sanctioned by the Catholic Church, which claims these things does so in opposition to scholarship.

There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

Even were everything claimed above true, this does not follow.

It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorised the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament.

First, a slight tangent reflecting (I think) the general credibility of this article: Constantine was not born in Britain, but in Naissus.
More to the point, I suppose it could be said that Constantine "authorized" the canonization process in the sense that he personally approved of it. However, he neither initiated it nor had authority over it.
And, please keep in mind canonization (selecting those books which will be included) is distinct from compilation in the sense of merging pre-existing religions (for a brief outline of the process, go here or simply run a search.)

After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire.

This appears to be the reason why the writer of the article believes Constantine to be British.
Constantine did not, as this implies, conquer the Roman empire. He was the son of the previous emperor, and on a campaign in Britain when his father died. Both he and Galerius claimed the title Augustus, but he proved victorious in battle.

Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him.

I know of no such historian. If one exists, I'd be interested to read, but I'm not aware of any historian trying to make Constantine out to be inhuman - or even particularly nice.
He is simply not in any way the basis of Christianity.

In truth, one of Constantine's main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods.

This definitely needs to be cited. Constantine did make Christianity the official state religion of the Roman empire. Many pagans were incensed, of course, and I am sure that there were many who converted to Christianity for less than altruistic reasons. To this end, it was certainly the case that some tried to practice both religions, thus there would be "Christians" believing in numerous gods.
This would have nothing to do with any forced amalgamation on Constantine's part, but something more like the opposite: The church (not Constantine) trying to assert the particular beliefs of Christianity as many citizens attempted to keep the Roman tradition of absorbing new gods into the old.

The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).

This is one more quotation I cannot find. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that this is a statement made in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Moreover, there are more than enough non-Christian historians for this to have come out, were it the case. It is simply not in the church's power to suppress such a massive event.

They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171;

Who was maddened?
I would need to read the actual text to know what is actually being claimed by Eusebius of Caesarea. As he is one of the church fathers, it seems quite odd that he would claim that Christianity was formed by a contemporary emperor out of madness.

5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they were:
"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."
(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)

I've obviously suspected that the references used by the writer of this article are not accurate. In this case, I did find the source material, but am trying to find anything in it that looks remotely like what is quoted here.

The actual text of section lxii reads as follows:

After the above, this Jew of Celsus, as if he were a Greek who loved learning, and were well instructed in Greek literature, continues: “The old mythological fables, which attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Æacus, and Minos, were not believed by us. Nevertheless, that they might not appear unworthy of credit, they represented the deeds of these personages as great and wonderful, and truly beyond the power of man; but what hast thou done that is noble or wonderful either in deed or in word? Thou hast made no manifestation to us, although they challenged you in the temple to exhibit some unmistakeable sign that you were the Son of God.� In reply to which we have to say: Let the Greeks show to us, among those who have been enumerated, any one whose deeds have been marked by a utility and splendour extending to after generations, and which have been so great as to produce a belief in the fables which represented them as of divine descent. But these Greeks can show us nothing regarding those men of whom they speak, which is even inferior by a great degree to what Jesus did; unless they take us back to their fables and histories, wishing us to believe them without any reasonable grounds, and to discredit the Gospel accounts even after the clearest evidence. For we assert that the whole habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus, in the existence of those Churches of God which have been founded through Him by those who have been converted from the practice of innumerable sins. And the name of Jesus can still remove distractions from the minds of men, and expel demons, and also take away diseases; and produce a marvellous meekness of spirit and complete change of character, and a humanity, and goodness, and gentleness in those individuals who do not feign themselves to be Christians for the sake of subsistence or the supply of any mortal wants, but who have honestly accepted the doctrine concerning God and Christ, and the judgment to come.

Personally, I can't find anything here which looks remotely like the quotation from the article.

If you'd like, however, you may search the text yourself.

Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8: 5)

This line in First Corinthians is specifically referencing the pagans, contrasting them with the Christians, who have only one God.

and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1: 6).

Yes, doctrinal differences existed (as they do in any religion). I don't see how this remotely means that those differences arose from the amalgamation of various religions into Christianity.

Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century).

There is no Optatus of Milevis 1:15 or 19. Section one ends at line ten.
You may view the source here.

The smooth generalisation, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine "embraced the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim).

Again, I cannot find the reference.
In this instance, I'm not sure that I need to do so. I agree that we should reject this view, but have no idea who it is that takes it. Every historian I've read describes this a volatile transition.

Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine's time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his "conversion" and "baptism" are "entirely legendary" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).

Without seeing the original source, I will find it very hard to accept that the Catholic Encyclopedia claims anything of this sort.

Constantine "never acquired a solid theological knowledge" and "depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim).

This, I'd be much more willing to believe (though, at this point, I do not trust the writer of this article). Unless it is accepted that he established Christianity, however, it is not a relevant point.

According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions "strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state", but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8.). His advisers warned him that the presbyters' religions were "destitute of foundation" and needed official stabilisation (ibid.).

Again, I cannot find a source for this.


I must admit, I'm not feeling up to searching fruitlessly for more sources regarding this article. I think I've seen more than enough to seriously doubt its credibility.

That being the case, I'll move to the book you mention:

Bible Myths And Their Parallels In Other Religions

http://ia300027.us.archive.org/2/items/ ... anuoft.pdf

This link appears to be broken. As such, I can't read the book, but will try to address the points you mention.

Dying / Resurrecting Savior Gods

Yes, resurrection is a common event in many religions. I don't see that this is significant. It seems more likely that this is something which fits well with the ideas and themes of religious stories than that first century Jews copied from the story of Quetzalcoatl.

- Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
- Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.

These are also common.

- Both were called Saviour, and the second person of the Trinity.

Krishna was not called "Savior". Nor is there a Hindu concept of the trinity.
Beyond that, as the trinity is not mentioned in the New Testament, which person might be placed as the "second person" is clearly not delineated.

- His adoptive human father was a carpenter.

Nanda Maharaja was not a carpenter.

- A spirit or ghost was their actual father.

As referenced above, a god was their father. I don't know if this might be marginally accepted as true within the Hindu religion. Rejecting the material is a central idea, and I don't claim to know.
In Christianity, Jesus' divine father is not referenced as a spirit or ghost.

- Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.

The idea of a god being of royal descent seems fairly obvious. I don't see that it implies connection.

- Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.

I can find no legitimate reference to any of these things applying to Krishna.
Along the same lines, Jesus was not visited by the magi at his birth, but 2-3 years later. It could be said, I suppose, that not being visited by wise men at birth is something they have in common.

- Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.

Angels do not exist in the Hindu religion, though there is trouble with a local dictator in both cases.
The locations are wrong, however. Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt (the city is unnamed). Krisha's parents did not flee, but remained in Gokul.

Beyond that, there is a vast number of extremely different elements in these birth stories which are unmentioned here.

- Both Jesus and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.

I can't find any reference to Krishna doing this - though it doesn't sound like a significant connection. Saying that ancient sages are copied from one another because both withdrew and fasted seems much like saying that one carpenter must have learned from another because both use hammers.

- Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."

I've not found this reference regarding Krishna.

- Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."

I actually can't find this either, though this also seems insignificant.

- Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."

Krishna never claimed this, so far as I can tell.

- Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.

Incarnation is common in religious stories.

- Both were "without sin."

I'm sure the term "sin" is not used in Hindu writings. But, yes, I'm sure that they were both portrayed as the "good guys".

- Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.

Again, this is common, and a rewording of two of the above comments.

- They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

This is almost the definition of a god.

- Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."

Krishna did not heal a leper.
That they both did miracles seems merely to be saying that they are both gods.

- Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.

I can find no reference to Krishna doing these things. Nor is this much more than claiming that they were both gods.

- Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.

Yes, I'm sure that they both had supporters, as does anyone in even the smallest position of authority.

- Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.

I'm certain "sinner" isn't used in the Hindu scriptures.

- Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.

If Krishna encountered any woman at a well, she would almost certainly be a Gentile, as the word means "non-Jew".
Jesus may have done the same, but we have no record of this. We only have a record of him encountering a Samaritan (half-Jew) at a well.
I'm confident that Krishna did not encounter a half-Jew at any well.

- Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.

Forgiveness is exalted in many cultures.
While I'm sure that one of Krishna's suppers turned out to be his last, there is no mention of him celebrating it. He was also unaware that his death was coming. It seems unlikely, then, that he would do so.

- Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Krishna's doing this does not appear in the text.


In short, there are a great many assertions regarding the origins of the Christian story. They make for interesting reading, and it is perfectly understandable that claiming the same thing about the subject that has been claimed by so many in the past is not terribly interesting.
It is, however, dangerous to assume that some massive inaccuracy has gone unnoticed by Christian and non-Christian scholars alike for many centuries. Much more likely, the articles claiming as much are more interested in novel ideas than accurate reportage.

[Tareh]

It take's 2 to converse you idiot, this is not spamming, It's a debate.. And I made a starting point.. Why dont you go do other stupid thing's.. Instead of leaving stupid comment's...

Starting a conversation by calling someone an idiot will not get you too far on this forum.

From what I read of your post...and i must admit I tired quickly trying to make sense of your take on rather old and well aired arguments...it was more of a speech (diatribe?) than an invitation to discuss.

Please note that, for there to be a debate there has to be a debate question....what is yours?

may you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

Instead of starting with a question, I started with a very broad.. Perhap's I can do this more simple like.. In a broad, less reading way...

[bernee51]

It take's 2 to converse you idiot, this is not spamming, It's a debate.. And I made a starting point.. Why dont you go do other stupid thing's.. Instead of leaving stupid comment's...

Starting a conversation by calling someone an idiot will not get you too far on this forum.

From what I read of your post...and i must admit I tired quickly trying to make sense of your take on rather old and well aired arguments...it was more of a speech (diatribe?) than an invitation to discuss.

Please note that, for there to be a debate there has to be a debate question....what is yours?

may you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

Instead of starting with a question, I started with a very broad.. Perhap's I can do this more simple like.. In a broad, less reading way...

And what would that 'more simple' way be?

My opinion, christianity is not 'fake' - it is a real religion.

Whether or not the religious literature on which it is founded reflects actual events is another question.

Personally i know of no reason to regard foundational christian literature (aka the bible) as anything different to the myriad other religious texts mankind has produced. I know of no reason to regard the JCI god as anything more than the myth that is the myriad other gods concveived of in humankind's spiritual journey. Human history and the many '-ologies' we have established clearly indicate and detail the evolution of the god concept and concomitant religions.

What exactly are YOU trying to say?

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

It take's 2 to converse you idiot, this is not spamming, It's a debate.. And I made a starting point.. Why dont you go do other stupid thing's.. Instead of leaving stupid comment's...

Starting a conversation by calling someone an idiot will not get you too far on this forum.

From what I read of your post...and i must admit I tired quickly trying to make sense of your take on rather old and well aired arguments...it was more of a speech (diatribe?) than an invitation to discuss.

Please note that, for there to be a debate there has to be a debate question....what is yours?

may you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

Instead of starting with a question, I started with a very broad.. Perhap's I can do this more simple like.. In a broad, less reading way...

Please avoid calling other posters or their comments stupid. That is a form of personal attack, and not civil.



Also, as a point of clarification, we do ask that in the debate section of the forum, opening posts present one or more questions for debate. Feel free to consult the Announcements section for advice on this, as well as for the rules.