Hardcore PROOF That Jesus Is Nothing But a Retold Tale: ~~~~

astounding · Post by **astounding** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:21 pm

These video's are based nothing but on facts which you'll find yourself
if you do research.

START BY WATCHING THIS VIDEO: (You gotta download it)
=======================================

The God Who Wasn't There

The movie that has been astounding audiences in theaters around the world is now available on a high-quality, feature-packed DVD.

In this provocative, critically acclaimed documentary, you will discover:

* The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus

* The Jesus of the Gospels bears a striking resemblance to other ancient heroes and the figureheads of pagan savior cults

* Contemporary Christians are largely ignorant of the origins of their religion

* Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes

Dazzling motion graphics and a sweeping soundtrack propel this uncompromising and taboo-shattering documentary that Newsweek says "irreverently lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed."

The God Who Wasn't There includes provocative interviews with:

* Sam Harris, PEN Award-winning author of The End of Faith

* Robert M. Price, Jesus Seminar fellow and author of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man

* Alan Dundes, Professor of Folklore at the University of California at Berkeley

* Richard Carrier, historian and author of Sense and Goodness Without God

Code: Select all

http&#58;//rapidshare.de/files/28138323/The_God_Who_Wasn_t_There.part1.rar.html
http&#58;//rapidshare.de/files/28142834/The_God_Who_Wasn_t_There.part2.rar.html
http&#58;//rapidshare.de/files/28147624/The_God_Who_Wasn_t_There.part3.rar.html
http&#58;//rapidshare.de/files/28151701/The_God_Who_Wasn_t_There.part4.rar.html
http&#58;//rapidshare.de/files/28155817/The_God_Who_Wasn_t_There.part5.rar.html
http&#58;//rapidshare.de/files/28160146/The_God_Who_Wasn_t_There.part6.rar.html
http&#58;//rapidshare.de/files/28134516/The_God_Who_Wasn_t_There.part7.rar.html

PASSWORD IS: www.docs4you.qfhs.org/forum

THEN GO ONTO WATHCING THIS PART WITH UNDISPUTABLE PROOF
THAT JESUS, THE BIBLE AND ALL OTHER RELIGIONS ARE NOTHNIG
BUT RETOLD TALES FROM THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE THEM:
=============================================

Go to http://www.youtube.com

In the search box, type in: The Truth About The Jesus Myth

There are 6 parts in total.

Start from #1 obviously then progress onto other parts.

-A

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:56 pm

Mithra was not born of a virgin, Cmass. In the earliest accounts he emerged from a rock. I think you confuse stories that evolved after the life of Christ, where people blended in their beliefs with Christianity, from those before Christ. Nash and other scholars have investigated stories of simularities to Christ and have found that they appear in history after Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Review the information in the link to see how they differ.

You have not refuted anything. Is that the only story about Mithra's birth?
These stories did not all appear after Christ's death. There is historical evidence of believers equal to Christianity's.
He, Jesus, was not the only one born of a virgin, hung on a stake, raised from the dead and ascended to Heaven among some of the variations and similar gods. There is Osirus, Horus, Sumerian gods as well as many in the mystery religions. Christians were not the only Gnostics. There are common themes and some are so foreign to Jews that they must have made their way into Pauline thinking as his use of Greek stories indicates. The Persians helped shape both Jewish and Christian religion and theology as well as the scriptures as the Canaanites, Sumerians, and Egyptians.
Did the people you quote just mean they never heard of Mithra before they heard of Christ? That I might believe but there is no substance to these religions being after Christ.

Easyrider · Post by **Easyrider** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:06 pm

Cathar1950 wrote: You have not refuted anything. Is that the only story about Mithra's birth?

This is good. Defending Mithra on lesser information while casigating the Biblical accounts. The earliest accounts do not have Mithra being born of a virgin.

Cathar1950 wrote:He, Jesus, was not the only one born of a virgin, hung on a stake, raised from the dead and ascended to Heaven among some of the variations and similar gods. There is Osirus, Horus, Sumerian gods as well as many in the mystery religions.

The link I provided dispells the veracity of what you're trying to argue. Where's your evidence?

Cathar1950 wrote:The Persians helped shape both Jewish and Christian religion and theology as well as the scriptures as the Canaanites, Sumerians, and Egyptians.

While the Bible talks about these groups, I don't see any evidence that they forumated and traditional Biblical doctrines.

Cathar1950 wrote:Did the people you quote just mean they never heard of Mithra before they heard of Christ? That I might believe but there is no substance to these religions being after Christ.

Recommend you read the following:

http://www.whyibelieve.org/Apologetics/Borrow.htm

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:23 pm

Even within Christianity and its traditions we have 4 stories of Jesus birth.
Two say it is a virgin but give different details one doesn’t say and you would think they would have mentioned such an obvious trait. One says he is the creator God become flesh in an additional poetic introduction to the book of John by an unknown author.
Now can you show me that all the stories of Mithra have him being born of a rock?
So if you explain away one hero what about the many others born of a virgin?
How do you account all the other similarities in the many ancient heroes/gods that predate Christ? Finding a trivial (suspected) fault with one tiny mentioned similar trait with little actual evidence does not dismiss the whole thing like you are often prone to do as you claim some shallow victory. It is all right to flush something small down the toilet but you should be careful as you seem to just sample and toss the rest. You must have an excellent sewage system and a large bowl.

This is good. Defending Mithra on lesser information while casigating the Biblical accounts. The earliest accounts do not have Mithra being born of a virgin.

Is this supposed to bother you? It seems like you are trying to say “oh fine, don’t believe my all-sacred Jesus belief that I twist out of the bible at my pleasure, believe some story of mithra”. It sounds whinny and you miss the point. There are many stories that are similar and again you pick on one little aspect of one of the gods Mithra with a opinion from some one that has not presented evidence that Mirtha never had a story about being born of a virgin. Even if some one shows you a story going back does not mater that you are wrong, you missed the point there are others. What evidence did they present that shows no stories go back before Jesus or that Mithra stories only have him coming from a rock? It ignores the other similarities that others were also born of virgins just for starters.
It is like finding a dead cow and thinking and saying you have captured the herd.

I suggest you read about the related material and gods instead of depending on Christian think tanks.

I sugest you read about the

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:36 pm

My father, a retired school principle, is a very well-read man and enjoys books concerning religious and cultural history. A while back he was sharing with me the whole concept of the virgin birth. Two things I recall: 1) Virgin births were common and; 2) The definition of virgin was not set in stone.

I really wish we would stop being so danged anthropomorphic! These people were of a completely different mindset. They thought earth was flat and relatively small. The vast majority of the knowledge you now possess, they did not possess - even simple things like why the sky is blue or that the sun does not revolve around the earth. This knowledge difference is not disputed by most Christians.....but somehow these people who did not really know very much DID know more than us concerning the birth of the universe, evolution and all the other nifty pieces of science Christians pick and choose not to believe.

uwaku · Post by **uwaku** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:19 pm

Apparently, none of you read anything but English. If you did, you'd realize that the original word meant "maiden", not virgin. Look it up, people.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:41 pm

Apparently, none of you read anything but English. If you did, you'd realize that the original word meant "maiden", not virgin. Look it up, people.

I believe most of us know that and it is a point made many times.
This makes the virgin stories about other gods interesting because they used a misunderstanding of the Hebrew words to make a claim in some of the Gospels of the Christian NT that is largely pagan and has pagan precedents.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:53 pm

they used a misunderstanding of the Hebrew words to make a claim in some of the Gospels of the Christian NT that is largely pagan and has pagan precedents.

A lot of 'em.
Christianity did not start from scratch in some vacuum. It, like all other belief systems, evolved over time. During that time knowledge changed, perspectives changed, word definitions changed, everything changed. It is a serious mistake to see it all as static.
A very interesting book that I read before I visited England on business was "A World Lit Only By Fire". I intended to visit some of the Roman ruins on the weekends while there (for 3 weeks) and wanted to know what it was REALLY like back then. I did NOT want to get into the details of who was at war with whom or who begat whom blah blah blah. I wanted to know, given the best scientific data available, what it was like to live back then.
Holy pumpernickel Batman! You would NOT want to trade your current situation with that of a "King"!! People were very, very, very different back then. Everything about them was different. Their entire world view was different. Their relationship with their families was different. Their relationship with rulers, the church and even their animals was different.
Now, you can debate this if you want.....but if you do you better be able to go up against some of the world's best scientists - including some who are from a Christian perspective.

I would probably get kicked off of this (excellent) forum if I described in graphic detail how people back then lived their lives. It was not pretty.
Even little things like how they went poop....or where the animals went poop. Or how they stayed warm at night....or where, when and how they had intercourse etc.... These were NOT Americans in sack cloth gowns waiting for a savior!!! There is NO modern equivalent to these people. If you even wanted some slight, teeny tiny hint, as to what they might look like then you might look at some of the Taliban hiding out in the mountains of Afghanistan. They were gnarly, scrappy, skinny, and superstitious. These were not enlightened people who knew more about the universe than anyone ever in history before or after. That is simply silly.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:17 pm

A lot of 'em.
Christianity did not start from scratch in some vacuum. It, like all other belief systems, evolved over time. During that time knowledge changed, perspectives changed, word definitions changed, everything changed. It is a serious mistake to see it all as static.

Exactly Cmass and even the Hebrew religions were not developed in a vacuum. This is often over looked by many Christians that seem to think their religion is a fulfillment of Judaism.
Thewy never stop to think which Judaism or consider there is more then one Christianity.
Like evolution of biological organisms there is not a best species only what survived is alive and the rest is fossils.

AB · Post by AB » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:23 pm

uwaku wrote:Apparently, none of you read anything but English. If you did, you'd realize that the original word meant "maiden", not virgin. Look it up, people.

So in this context what is the distinction between "maiden" and "virgin"? How are they different?

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:27 pm

there is not a best species only what survived is alive and the rest is fossils

Yes, and that which is alive (us) assume that, because we are alive, everything must have been made for us. My ears must have been "made" for my face because they fit so well....etc..
This is backward thinking but it happens constantly. Christianity is what was presented to us. It was presented in English. It tells me what to do in order to live forever (and that would certainly be great!). So, it must have been made for me. All I have to do is what they tell me to do and I'll be fine. Cool!
- Chris

Debating Christianity and Religion

Hardcore PROOF That Jesus Is Nothing But a Retold Tale: ~~~~

Hardcore PROOF That Jesus Is Nothing But a Retold Tale: ~~~~

It's not a "virgin" birth

Re: It's not a "virgin" birth