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..

[Jester]

I'm going to attempt a full answer of this post. I'll try to be as brief and organized as possible.
I would also like to note, however, that I believe that you do not intend to attack anyone, and thank you for taking such a civil approach.

But, on to the discussion:

Pagan’s/Wiccan’s have been attacked and prosecuted by Christian’s/Catholic’s for many years.

This is quite true, and unfortunate.

Yet, Little do they know, that their whole religion is a plagiarized version of the pagan religion itself

This, however, is not true. The religions are distinct.

The holiday’s, Like Christmas, Easter, Halloween, thanksgiving. They were pagan religion’s long before Christianity was in the thought’s of men..

Not only (as has been pointed out) are the holidays used in a particular tradition unrelated to whether or not the content of a religion is taken from the source of those holidays, but it is a vast oversimplification to claim this. Most holidays are fusions of many traditions. This is no reason to label the holiday according to any one of them.

Now off to another point.. Christian symbol’s.. Christian Symbol’s you see today are also Pagan Symbol’s..

As with holidays, there is no reason to claim that the content of a religion is taken from an earlier belief simply because symbols are borrowed.
Beyond that, there is no reason to assume that symbols are borrowed simply because the same symbol is used by two traditions.

For instance:

Like the Cross that Jesus died on.. The cross is considered to a pagan, as the Cross of the Zodiac,

It seems more plausible that this symbol (which was not used for some time in Christian tradition) is based on the fact that the religion's founder was, in fact, crucified.

The circle around the center point of the cross represents the sun.. Which is where the idea, of the son of god.

Though "sun" and "son" are homonyms in English, they are not so in Latin. They are "sol" and "filius/filium".

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.

There is no record of Jesus drawing a fish on the ground of which I am aware.
Christians do, however, use the fish as a symbol to represent humans in need of God's forgiveness (based on a statement Christ directs toward Peter in the gospels).
As fish were a common item in the relevant cultures, it seems most reasonable that they were simply a handy symbol for the Christians and the pagans alike. To be persuaded from that position, I would definitely need to see a clear connection between their uses of that symbol - as they seem to represent very different ideas.

Of course, as you seem to point out, none of this really regards the content of either Christianity or any particular pagan religion.

Getting to the content:

Horus was also born of the virgin Isis

Isis was married to Osiris. There is no indication that they had a celibate marriage. Isis is said to have conceived miraculously (through intercourse with Osiris dismembered body), but she is not a virgin.
Also, the death of Osiris (and the lack of any parallel death of God in the Christian narrative) is a major issue for this theory - as are many other inconsistencies not mentioned here.

He is the Only Begotten son of Osiris

I don't consider the fact that each figure is an "only-child" to be a significant factor. This could, quite easily, be coincidental.

His Foster father was Seb, Also meaning Jo-seph,

Seb is actually not a foster father or Horus, but his grandfather.
As to the meaning, no name actually "means" another name. Yes, there is a phonic similarity between the two names, but I could not find anything to suggest that either name is based on the other. I did, however, find (as the article I referenced indicates), that the transliteration "Seb" is incorrect in any case. "Geb" is correct.

Him and Jesus are of Royal Descent

This doesn't seem to me to be significant. The idea of a god being of royal descent seems rather obvious in any culture.

Both born in a cave

I've not found any version of the Horus myth in which he is born in a cave. He is usually said to have been born in a papyrus swamp.
My suspicion is that there is a confusion here with Mithras, who has also been compared to Christ and, in some versions of his myth, is born from a mountain.

An Angel came to both, and Warned Isis of her virgin birth

I've not found any reference to an angel in any of my reading on Horus. The entire idea of an angel appearing in an Egyptian myth seems wrong to me. So far as I know, Egyptian mythology has no angels.
And, again, Isis does not experience a 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

Nor have I found any reference to a star heralding Horus' birth. There is a reference to him flying above the constellations shortly after his birth and swearing revenge for his father's murder, but this has almost no connection with anything in Jesus' story.
Nor can I find anything in the myth which references Horus being visited by three solar deities at his birth.
Beyond that, the number of visitors Christ receives is not made clear in the New Testament.

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.".

Joseph did flee with Jesus to Egypt. But he did not do so at the time of birth. This followed the visit of the magi, which (though many traditions fail to recognize it) is actually separate from the birth story, occurring when Christ is a young child.

Both were teacher’s at the age of 12

I've found no reference to Horus teaching as a child.

They were both Baptized at the age of 30, Horus Baptized by Anup, as Jesus baptized by John the Baptist,

I haven't found any reference to baptism in Egyptian mythology.
I also can't find any reference to "Anup", unless this was meant as Anubis. He, however, is not known to have made any use of baptism.

Both Anup, and John were Beheaded.

I can't find any mention of Anubis being beheaded (though I did find a reference to his beheading Seth's followers). Perhaps you are not referencing Anubis?

Horus and Jesus both performed many miracles

This is a staple of myths. As such, it is not a significant matter.

such as Raising the dead, Water to wine, Walking on water, and many more..

I actually haven't yet found any of these in the Horus myth. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that he did raise the dead, as this is rather common in such stories. The others would likely imply something more substantial regarding the claim, but have yet to find Horus doing these things.

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..

This does not occur in any version of the Horus myth. Horus does not die, and certainly is not crucified. As such, he is also not resurrected.
He does, however, ascend into the heavens, but this is not in any way connected with his death and, being a god, there is nothing particularly unusual about his doing so.

Keep in mind, This is only one story that is similar to the story of Jesus..

Indeed. However, the story of Horus, so far as I can tell, is one of the many which is unlike this.

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..

I have read on some of the other connections claimed. Thus far, I haven't found one that is supported.
I would add, however, that this seems to contradict your last point. Claiming that there is no story like Horus', save for that of Christ's is directly opposed to claiming that there is a long list of stories which also have the same narrative.
Surely, I can find many similar details in any two stories (say, the story of Shiva and the origin of Superman), but this does not automatically imply a connection.

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..

It is true that there is some debate about whether or not the ancient Jews believed God to be the only true god, or merely the particular god of the Jewish people.
Even were the latter the case, I don't know that this has much bearing on the truth of the religion (there is clearly a development of understanding throughout the Bible). Nor can it automatically be assumed that references to gods as entities amounts to the claim that such gods are extant.

Off to God and Zues.. The similarities, Both were very vengeful god’s Loving.. and Destructive and angry..

I don't see this as significant. That a particular god would feel this range of emotions seems rather obvious, and parallels seem to be found even between cultures which did not have contact with one another.

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.

It is, of course, true that there are many flood stories. Some Christians argue that this is evidence that such a flood occurred. I do not take that approach myself, though I expect that there is some factual basis for it.

What I would point out instead is something of a tangent, but I think a relevant one.
The assumption here seems to be that the older religion influences the younger in all situations. This is, however, not so accurate as common sense would indicate. Not only have religions always influenced one another, but this assumption clearly comes from those of us immersed in "book religion", which center around a set of scriptures and emphasize correctness of belief to a large extent. Prior to Judaism, however, virtually all religions in the west were "temple religions" which were essentially contractual arrangements with the gods. Proper behavior (such as rituals and sacrifices), rather than beliefs, were paramount.
This is all to say that such religions were much more likely to be influenced by new ideas than modern people tend to assume. The Romans, for instance, saw nothing at all wrong with altering their gods in attempts to absorb foreign deities into them.
As such, we mustn't assume that the older religion is the source of a given idea simply because it is older.

On to Corruption, Control.. And Lie's.. Used for control nation's.. Also used as conversion..

There is definitely a human tendency toward such things.

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.

I'll address the other issues regarding Constantine below, but did want to comment that it is presumptuous to assume either that it was at all inevitable that holidays would determine the future of religious belief in the empire.

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,

Indeed, many people have been killed in the name of religion.
I don't know that this has anything to do with the actual content of the religion in question however. This seems rather like saying that the French revolution proves that democracy is evil because innocent people were killed in the name of it.

And still today, it Is still taught in church..

Most likely, it is taught in some churches.
Most likely, every group has some small faction which teaches hateful things.
This does not apply to the majority, however. Nor are the claims of either the majority or the fringe synonymous with the content of the religion.

They claim everything about Us is evil.. We serve the devil.. And practice black magic..

Those that do are wrong, and I am genuinely sorry that such people are that mislead.

Yet.. Many do not know a single thing of my religion, but that it is the devil..

There is a great deal of prejudice toward pagans within the church. For what it's worth, it drives me crazy.

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..

I agree.

Some ask.. Why does it look like the satanist pentagram? Well.. That is because they stole it from us Wiccan's..

Slight correction:
While it is perfectly true that the Satanists can rightly claim neither that they originated the idea of the pentagram, nor that they transmitted it to Wicca, they borrowed the symbol from earlier pagan religions. Wicca wasn't really developed until the first half of the twentieth century.

They stole our symbol and stuck it upside down.. Their's represent's a bull with horn's..

Second slight correction. The satanic pentagram represents a goat's head.

We have nothing to do with them and their practice's..

I agree.

The bible is a great weapon, A scare tactic to control,

Again I agree with the caveat that you have to keep people from actually doing the things it claims we should do for it to be of any use in this way.

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..

Yes, it is.
Without taking anything away from the fact that this is horrific, I do wonder if this is meant to imply that other religions, and secular ideals, do not suffer from similar effects.

You see my point? The man who wrote this is now your master.. You are his slave, and you dont know it..

This strikes me as a very unbalanced view of western monotheism. It cannot more rightly be said of these worldviews than of any other.

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...

In my reading, I've found no evidence of this ever happening (though I have found many claims to that end).
It is undeniable that Christians have done many evil things over the centuries. This, however, is not one of them.

They were Edited, to gain control over Man..

They may have been edited (I don't know if there is consensus on that), but I know of no evidence that such editing occurred for this reason.

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..

The canonized books were neither found nor chosen by any particular pope.
As to whether or not one should believe what these books claim, that is another topic.

The pope say's they are fake.. and You dont take any consideration that maybe.. This is real?

I'm not aware of anyone on this site who claims to blindly follow what the Pope claims. Perhaps that person exists, but I cannot speak to the issue as I am not such a person.

The book's back then were in consideration at one point..

Yes, the canon was not officially set until the fourth century.

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..

I've not read the whole of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but know of nothing in them that evoked any kind of visceral rejection. Rather, they seemed to be very good copies of the Jewish Bible (among other unrelated things).
I can say, however, that neither they, nor any pre-biblical writings, are Islamic. Islam was not founded until the sixth century.

Ever wonder why they are so Defensive to this? Because it break's off their control..

I agree that the Catholic church was needlessly controlling about the matter. Fortunately for everyone involved, there was no reason for them to be.

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..

No, actually, I don't see anything terribly wrong with that - save that I don't like that motivation (I don't think it was the motivation given in the Bible) and that I don't see the connection between this and giving power to a minister. Surely, this happens in spite of the fact that there is no logical connection. I don't know that this is any different than any other organization, however.
As such, I don't see the reason why we'd single out Christianity regarding this subject.

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 completely agree that the church, like any other group of people, has both good and bad examples within it.

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 wouldn't take quite this cynical a view myself, but that is definitely another topic.

I do not believe in the word perfect, Because it is impossible, no god, man, or being can be perfect..

Again, that's another topic.

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..

I don't know for certain, but the fact that we don't understand God any better than our minds allow us to leads me away from making this kind of judgment.

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..

Among many other ideas, of course, this is very much in line with Christianity.
In fact, on the topic of influence, this view of judgment is most likely due to the Christian influence on western culture. So far as I know, pre-Christian Europe didn't take this approach.

Though, I know most will see what I write, and Claim me evil, They will acuse me of assault, Lie's, Desceit..

I don't claim to speak for most, but I do not.

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..

If for that reason alone, it is good to say it, then.

Thing's that may happen.. But the truth is.. This may be a School assignment, But this is also for the world,

This is an assignment?
That's great! My hat's off to your teacher for that idea.
Also, I wish you great marks on it.

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,

This is excellent. I've run across many who argue these points for selfish or hateful reasons (and, sadly, have even been that person myself). I'm glad that your heart is bigger than that.

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!

Excellent!
I've done my best to give an honest answer. If you can let me know your sources, I will be sure to read them.

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..

I've always suspected as much.
As a Christian, I'm actually not surprised when I see parallels between my religion and others. I feel that we all have a certain tendency to seek the truth. So, naturally, there will be some clear overlap.
One of the overlapping areas I've found in all those I've met (religious or not), is the belief that we ought to love one another and seek the truth together.
With that thought, welcome to the site.

[Tareh]

Your right, but that go's along with Paganism influence. Christian's still celebrate it.. It's more irony I guess..

And you dont expect paganism to have an influence? Im not surprised at all the pagan symbols and such were used in Christianity. Just shows that converts to early christianity brought along part of their old customs and culture. Doesnt prove either side to be right or wrong in any way though.

Well.. my point isnt to prove god's existence wrong.. I believe in god.. I believe in Jesus.. But.. My story destroy's the bible.. Another thing is.. I have so much evidence.. I could have written this thing for a very long time.. and.. Thank's for the debate, Im glad to hear some valid points.

[Tareh]

I am a bible believing Christian so you can add Christmas and Easter also in your not Christian list of events.

I read your post in full. Does not prove anything in relation to Biblical Christianity nor the existance or otherwise of the God of Abraham.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Of course it does! The bible was written thousand's of years after these event's took place.. The Bible take's these old pagan stories and made their own version.. The whole bible is based off of Pagan belief's.. Originally.. Man could not get into heaven.. Everything about the bible Is pagan.. Just made their own way.. Im not saying god or jesus wasnt real.. I believe they were.. But much evidence show's that Even Jesus himself was a pagan... He did not die for our sin's...

[Tareh]

I am a bible believing Christian so you can add Christmas and Easter also in your not Christian list of events.

I read your post in full. Does not prove anything in relation to Biblical Christianity nor the existance or otherwise of the God of Abraham.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Well, it might not be from the bible, but they are still christian holidays.

1. Christ-mas
2. Easter is usually celebrated by Christians for the resurrection.

But your right, just because a new culture formed with parts of other cultures is not proof that Christianity is fake.

What I am trying to get at.. Is the BIBLE is made up.. Everything the bible is, is pagan... And they took old Pagan stories and twisted it.. made lie's about it.. Turned Jesus into something he isnt.. And Also.. The Letter J wasnt even existing then.. They turned God into something he isnt either.. Most of the bible is Broken down updated VERSION'S of Much older event's.. There is no place in heaven for human's...

[Tareh]

I am a bible believing Christian so you can add Christmas and Easter also in your not Christian list of events.

I read your post in full. Does not prove anything in relation to Biblical Christianity nor the existence or otherwise of the God of Abraham.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Well, it might not be from the bible, but they are still christian holidays.

1. Christ-mas
2. Easter is usually celebrated by Christians for the resurrection.

But your right, just because a new culture formed with parts of other cultures is not proof that Christianity is fake.

Well i disagree with you. I am a bible believing Christian and i do not recognise or accept christmans or easter as having anything to do with Biblical Christianity.

Does not matter a jot to me if 99% of people who identify themselves as Christian take part in and consider them to be Christian events.

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..

[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.

Tareh, I would really like to see a response to Jesters post. I think he hit a lot of great points and observations.

[Jester]

What I am trying to get at.. Is the BIBLE is made up.. Everything the bible is, is pagan... And they took old Pagan stories and twisted it.. made lie's about it.. Turned Jesus into something he isnt..

I definitely understood this to be your claim, and tried to write a careful response to each of your thoughts on the matter.

If you are still claiming this (that is, if my response has not changed your mind), I'd like to know the reasons why you did not find my statements convincing.
To be clear, you are allowed not to find my statements convincing. However, a debate requires that, if one is going to continue to claim something, one needs to address the responses previously given. Else, we don't have a debate.

[I AM ALL I AM]

This is my proof of the fraudulent, and manipulation of the bible, ... <snip> ...

G'day Tareh.

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

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."

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

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

The tribes of Israel are split into 12.

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.

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, 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.

The astrotheological viewpoint has been represented in recent times in various documentaries and draws many correlations with 'pagan' rituals/festivals, etc.

There has also been a lot of evidence presented about the actual origins of the bible and christianity.

Here's some information that you might find useful in expanding upon your "proof" ...


Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 14, Number 4 (June - July 2007)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

by Tony Bushby © March 2007
Correspondence:
c/- NEXUS Magazine
PO Box 30, Mapleton, Qld 4560, Australia
Fax: +61 (0)7 5493 1900


[center]The Forged Origins of The New Testament[/center]

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.

What the Church doesn't want you to know
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. The Church agrees, saying:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

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). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ. 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). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. 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.

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

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). They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The "peculiar type of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). 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)

Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8: 5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1: 6). 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). From Constantine's point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilising religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine's problems. 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). 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).

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). 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.).

Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Córdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor. They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, "bound in leather" for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, "Council of Nicaea" entry). Their writings totalled "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them" (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518.).

The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"
Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate. About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598). In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronised the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.

The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620). There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses: Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes (God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).

Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods-Apollo and Zeus-but the great bulk of common people idolised either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanised version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Saviour" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god. Julius Caesar was hailed as "God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race" (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952). Emperor Nero (54-68.), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68.), was immortalised on his coins as the "Saviour of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Saviour and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognised in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion. "As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".

How the Gospels were created
Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organise the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story. Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art" (ibid.). "These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36). They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Saviour God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonising in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.

Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church.Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century. Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as "a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains" (History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871). If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave "legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire" (Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86). Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).

Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). The Latinised name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying "put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven" (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).

The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying, "Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645). Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).

The shock discovery of an ancient Bible
The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an "assemblage of legendary tales" (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380. It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine's Monastery.

During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49). Today it is displayed alongside the world's oldest known Bible, the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library). It was locked away in the Vatican's inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes, but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).

Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.

A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information that disputes Christianity's claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible's New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence. In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus' earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ, saying that "...without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt ... exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God". Dean Burgon's concerns mirror opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current, having by now evolved to a new stage through centuries of tampering with the fabric of an already unhistorical document.

The revelations of ultraviolet light testing
In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and "few scholars had set eyes on it" (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as "the oldest Bible in the world" (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.

Before I summarise its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors. Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).

Forgery in the Gospels
When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognised by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible's version of the New Testament, not modern editions.

Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius), the Missive of Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon. Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.

Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what is not written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions. One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying: "The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour". That is because there never was a virgin birth.

It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was "the first Gospel written" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).

Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first" story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus "at about the age of thirty" (Mark 1:9), and doesn't know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called "messianic prophecies" (51 in total). The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the "raising of Lazarus", and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).

Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of "resurrection" appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story. Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisksÑmarks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.

The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing") of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 5:17). The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons"). Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.

The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples. The Church admits: "The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

"The Great Insertion" and "The Great Omission"
Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of Jesus "and was carried up into heaven", but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today ("Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels", F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.

Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes "The Great Insertion", an extraordinary 15th-century addition totalling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said: "The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).

Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6: 45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission", a total of 1,547 words. In today's versions, that hole has been "plugged up" with passages plagiarised from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke's version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated "word of God" ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", op. cit.)

The "Expurgatory Index"
As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early "Church Fathers" modified in centuries of copying, and many of their records were intentionally rewritten or suppressed.

Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a).

In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of "erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers" that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.

When Vatican archivists came across "genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index" (Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328). This Church record provides researchers with "grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public" (The Propaganda Press of Rome, Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182).

Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: "Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released". It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died. In a chapter titled "The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication", he said this (in part):
"The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history ... her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second or third centuries."
(How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46)

Supporting Professor Bordeaux's findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words, "Church history will be now be established ... we shall seek to print our own account"Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a "New Learning" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376). The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot's Encyclopédie, and it reveals the reason why Pope Clement XIII (1758-69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759.

Gospel authors exposed as imposters
There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:
"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church's shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith. The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.

After years of dedicated New Testament research, Dr Tischendorf expressed dismay at the differences between the oldest and newest Gospels, and had trouble understanding...
"...how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one."
(Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London)

After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern-day editions have "been altered in many places" and are "not to be accepted as true" (When Were Our Gospels Written?, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).

Just what is Christianity?
The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?

Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that "it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions". This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.

Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.

Tischendorf's conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux's Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.

Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism-a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries.

Christianity is an adaptation of Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees, some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis), Greek philosophy and various aspects of Hinduism.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ
It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life. This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence: the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable" (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters..., op. cit.).



Bible Myths And Their Parallels In Other Religions

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

[Chapters Include]

THE CREATION AND FALL OF MAN

THE DELUGE

THE TOWER OF BABEL

THE TRIAL OF ABRAHAM S FAITH

JACOB S VISION OF THE LADDER

THE EXODUS FROM EGYPT

RECEIVING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

SAMSON AND HIS EXPLOITS

JONAH SWALLOWED BY A BIG FISH

CIRCUMCISION

THE MIRACULOUS BIRTH OF CHRIST JESUS

THE STAR OP BETHLEHEM

THE SONG OF THE HEAVENLY HOST

THE DIVINE CHILD RECOGNIZED, AND PRESENTED WITH GIFTS

THE BIRTH-PLACE OF CHRIST JESUS

THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST JESUS

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS

THE TEMPTATION, AND FAST OF FORTY DAYS

THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST JESUS

THE DARKNESS AT THE CRUCIFIXION

"HE DESCENDED INTO HELL"

THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST JESUS

THE SECOND COMING OP CHRIST JESUS, AND THE MILLENNIUM

CHRIST JESUS AS JUDGE OF THE DEAD

CHRIST JESUS AS CREATOR, AND ALPHA AND OMEGA

THE MIRACLES OF CHRIST JESUS, AND THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS

CHRIST CRISHNA AND CHRIST JESUS

CHRIST BUDDHA AND CHRIST JESUS

THE EUCHARIST OR LORD S SUPPER

BAPTISM

THE WORSHIP OP THE VIRGIN MOTHER

CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS

THE BIRTH-DAT OP CHRIST JESUS

THE TRINITY



Dying / Resurrecting Savior Gods
Osiris, Egypt - 1700BC
Atys (Attis), Phyrgia - 1700BC
Bel, Babylon - 1200BC
Tammuz, Syria - 1160BC
Dionysius, Greece - 1100BC
Krishna, India - 1000BC
Hesus, Europe - 843BC
Indra, Tibet - 725BC
Bali, Asia - 725BC
Iao, Nepal - 622BC
Alcestis, Pherae - 600BC
Quetzalcoatl, Mexico - 587BC
Wittoba, Travancore - 552BC
Prometheus, Greece - 547BC
Quirinius, Rome - 506BC
Mithra, Persia - 400BC



Similarities Between Krishna and Jesus
- 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.
- Both were called Saviour, and the second person of the Trinity.
- His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
- A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
- Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
- Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
- 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.
- Both Jesus and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
- Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
- Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
- Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
- Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
- Both were "without sin."
- Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
- They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
- 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."
- Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
- Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
- Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
- Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
- Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
- Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.



Parallels suggested between Jesus & Horus
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm

[Adstar]

I am a bible believing Christian so you can add Christmas and Easter also in your not Christian list of events.

I read your post in full. Does not prove anything in relation to Biblical Christianity nor the existence or otherwise of the God of Abraham.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Well, it might not be from the bible, but they are still christian holidays.

1. Christ-mas
2. Easter is usually celebrated by Christians for the resurrection.

But your right, just because a new culture formed with parts of other cultures is not proof that Christianity is fake.

Well i disagree with you. I am a bible believing Christian and i do not recognise or accept christmans or easter as having anything to do with Biblical Christianity.

Does not matter a jot to me if 99% of people who identify themselves as Christian take part in and consider them to be Christian events.

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..

I am correct with my point on Easter also. Easter is a pagan celebration

From http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/east ... reHare.htm

An Anglo-Saxon goddess named Eostre may have had hares as attendants. If so, the hares may have held her lights, since Eostre was the goddess of Dawn, like Eos (Greek) and Aurora (Latin). The month of April was, among the Anglo-Saxons, called Eostur-monath, and during Eostur-monath, a festival was held to Eostre. This festival has, at least in name, been taken over by the Christian spring festival Easter.

The catholic church gazumped the pagan festival and moulded the story of Jesus death and resurrection into the Eostre celebration of fertility and new life, that’s why rabbits and eggs are a central feature of this pagan festival.

Christians if they are observing the memory of the death and resurrection of the Messiah Jesus will celebrate the last supper on the day of Passover (the night before nisan 14, the true Passover time) by sharing bread and wine in memory of the Messiah.

Passover is not pegged to the days of easter it floats independent of pagan traditions.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[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