Hi, has anybody seen the videos on youtube from Jordan Maxwell about the myth of Jesus. Pretty interesting and convincing.

There is a whole series on there, I think 10 of them. Type in Jordan Maxwell or "Jesus Myth".

He argues that the bible stories are just older stories (of other "prophets", astrology, etc.) all put together. He also makes a great case for the "sun of god" as "son of god". AND IT IS NOT JUST because "son" and "sun" sound familiar!! Tell me what you think.

He argues that the bible stories are just older stories (of other "prophets", astrology, etc.) all put together. He also makes a great case for the "sun of god" as "son of god".

He is doing far, FAR more than just *making an argument* about those things.

Is is a matter of historical record, one that not even the believers of the Bible will bother trying to refute or deny, that the Bible 'stories' --those concerning Jesus and his supposed attributes-- are nothing but retellings of myths that existed (again, it is a matter of historical record that these myths were being widely disseminated and promulgated) long before the tale of "Jesus" was created.

He also makes a great case for the "sun of god" as "son of god". AND IT IS NOT JUST because "son" and "sun" sound familiar!! Tell me what you think.Good, 'cause I don't think wordplay crosses language barriers well.

He is doing far, FAR more than just *making an argument* about those things.

Is is a matter of historical record, one that not even the believers of the Bible will bother trying to refute or deny, that the Bible 'stories' --those concerning Jesus and his supposed attributes-- are nothing but retellings of myths that existed (again, it is a matter of historical record that these myths were being widely disseminated and promulgated) long before the tale of "Jesus" was created.

How come no believers are responding to this or the video series?

How come no believers are responding to this or the video series?

Not being a member of any organized religion I can not speak for "believers," but I would think that no one is responding because long ago we have gone over the ancient stories that could have led to some of the later beliefs.
This is nothing new that this guy is rehashing.

How come no believers are responding to this or the video series? Because most of the believers and even non-believers will either bash you are just make idiotic post that have nothing to do with your original posting. So consider yourself lucky-so far. And if you do get a response it is usually that you are taking it out of context or something alone those lines. But don't try to defend yourself or might get scolded by the moderator(s). Does not matter if they bash the hell out of you it will be your fault for bringing something up that stirs up peoples emotions. Welcome to allforums. :@@:

How come no believers are responding to this or the video series?

I tried to debate it once with facts proving it to be a load of crap.
But no one debating it with me could get past the fact that I was a christian.
So, my facts were ignored.

Its very frustrating to see 4 years of school get flushed down the toilet because people cant look past whos debating them.

Where did you go, Inviolable?

Where did you go, Inviolable?
For school? or the debate?

I actually went to 2 different schools to get to the school I wanted.

First I went here.
http://www.rc.edu/academics/choice.php

Then I went here
http://www.oaklandcc.edu/Catalog/

And finally here.
http://www.msu.edu/academics_research/index.html

I had to pay for it myself, didnt want to take out a loan, so I was only able to spend 2 years at Michigan.

Is is a matter of historical record, one that not even the believers of the Bible will bother trying to refute or deny,...
Not even the Bible believers will bother trying to refute or deny? Freethinker, why would you say that after being on allforums for so long? Are you saying that you've never seen a Christian denying or refuting the Jesus myth claim?

I believe.. but I can't say for certain he existed... and I doubt that the "historical record" is 100% evidence that he didn't exist.

I havn't seen the video series.. so i can't really comment on it.

I believe.. but I can't say for certain he existed... and I doubt that the "historical record" is 100% evidence that he didn't exist.

I havn't seen the video series.. so i can't really comment on it. So in essence, what you are saying is that you believe you can't say for certain the he existed. But at the same time you believe and don't even need to know if he really existed to believe. Wow!:confused:

I wonder if there are any historians who say that Jesus didn't exist.

I wonder if there are any historians who say that Jesus didn't exist.


None that I know of.
The problem with the video is that it directly relates to the Holy Bible.

The Torah, has anyone knows is the Jewish bible. Which of course is generally known to have only 4 books in it, which isnt actually accurate.
At any rate those 4 books come from the Old Testament of the Holy Bible.
Its hardly ever debated against because it can not be denied has being writen by Jews specifacally for Jewish law.

That in and of itself doesnt mean a thing to the new convent and therefor doesnt normally reflect the New Testament from the Holy Bible which is whats being said to be made up of older religions.

However, Jewish law is also recorded in a Talmud, which is taken from the Torah. Original documents from different Talmuds date back as far as 70 AD.
Some of which describe Jesus has a Rabbi.

Most of the Talmuds we have currently have been translated at the University of Oxford.
So there is record outside of the Holy Bible and it orginates from another source other then the New Covenant. Which also explains the exact origin of christianity.

So in essence, what you are saying is that you believe you can't say for certain the he existed. But at the same time you believe and don't even need to know if he really existed to believe. Wow!:confused:

How can anyone know if he REALLY existed or not? Were they there?

I believe based on faith.. I don't need 100% factual evidence to believe in God... That's just how I roll.. you do what you do and I'll do what I do.

So in essence, what you are saying is that you believe you can't say for certain the he existed. But at the same time you believe and don't even need to know if he really existed to believe. Wow!:confused:

That is what faith is... belief despite an absense of proof.

That is what faith is... belief despite an absense of proof.

I believe faith is generally a good thing.
Especially, when it sparks a mixture of curiosity and anticipation; these two actions can bring about many discoveries, when an open mind is incorporated.

Take this Biblical story that is in question in this thread, for example.
"Where there is smoke, there is fire," comes to mind. Regardless of where the original stories originated, what was the reason that it took its particular order of information? What was its original source? These questions are of particular interest to anyone attempting to explain, to themselves, occurrences that happen in their personal experiences that are not explainable by ordinary, natural, explanations.

There is a chance that Jesus did exist and spread information that he had gathered from existing oral and written material, mixed with his personal experiences. His attempts to share his discoveries may have been interpreted as either political or religious threats by some and revelations of a religion to others.
Either way, as time progressed, many took the power ball and ran with it. A religion was born and opportunities arose to mix mans personal quest for private likes and dislikes with orders from a god that was both vengeful and rewarding. Hence, most of mans' religions.

However it may fall, the words attributed to the story are profound-when curiosity and an open mind are used in conjunction.

Hopefully, one day more information will be located that will put more light on the subject.

That is what faith is... belief despite an absense of proof. I prefer Mark Twain's definition-"Faith is believing what you know ain't so".

Not even the Bible believers will bother trying to refute or deny? Freethinker, why would you say that after being on allforums for so long? Are you saying that you've never seen a Christian denying or refuting the Jesus myth claim?

No.

I am saying that not even the Bible believers will bother trying to refute or deny the fact that there were religions that existed prior Chirtianisty whose "gods" had virtually all the same attributes that Jesus was said to possess.

"Son of god", "born of a virgin", "mother named Mara/Maya/Mary", "bringer of light", "had twelve disciples", "died but arose three days later", "The Redeemer", "born at the winter solstice", etc, etc, etc.

Take one god for instance; Buddha.

Buddha reputedly lived about 500 BC. Notice how many of the story lines are similar to that of Jesus: Buddha’s mother was a Virgin named Maya, he walked on water, battled serpents, had 12 followers, healed the ill & wounded, fed multitudes with a small basket of biscuits, taught love & equality, was against idolatry, was assumed upon a mountaintop, died, spent 3 days in hell, was resurrected to Nirvana, and was known by many appellations such as ‘The Light of Nirvana’, ‘The Good Shepherd’, & ‘He Who Is Everlasting’.

Yet another deity (among the many) precursor of Jesus that provided the Christian religion all the myths they needed to invent a "god"........ Heracles.

Look at Heracles’ similarities: he was both a man & a god, born of a mortal/immortal coupling, persecuted at birth by Hera (it was Herod who wanted to off Jesus- notice the similar names?), achieved godhead after death & resurrection to 'Heaven'. Still, there is not a single contemporary account for Heracles -- just as there is none for Jesus.

To deny Heracles’ existence, yet endorse Jesus' existence is an act of willful blindness & prejudice toward one belief system, & against another --nothing more.

What about Mithra. Mithraism existed centuries before Christianity, & celebrated its Sabbath on Sunday- not the usual Saturday of other contemporary religions. Mithra himself --according to the myth-- had 12 disciples, died & was resurrected in 3 days, was born on 12/25, was called ‘The Good Shepherd’, ‘The Redeemer’, ‘The Savior’, & ‘The Light’, was symbolized by both the lion and the lamb, & held a ‘Last Supper’ before his death.

This demonstrates that Jesus is an invention; there were gods prior to Jesus that Christianity borrowed from --HEAVILY-- in order to flesh out their own mythical deity -- Jesus.

The Bible belivers will not bother denying that all those prior gods (invented gods) existed and were said to have had those attributes, because they CAN'T deny it. It is a matter of historical record.

No.

I am saying that not even the Bible believers will bother trying to refute or deny the fact that there were religions that existed prior Chirtianisty whose "gods" had virtually all the same attributes that Jesus was said to possess.

"Son of god", "born of a virgin", "mother named Mara/Maya/Mary", "bringer of light", "had twelve disciples", "died but arose three days later", "The Redeemer", "born at the winter solstice", etc, etc, etc.

Take one god for instance; Buddha.

Buddha reputedly lived about 500 BC. Notice how many of the story lines are similar to that of Jesus: Buddha’s mother was a Virgin named Maya, he walked on water, battled serpents, had 12 followers, healed the ill & wounded, fed multitudes with a small basket of biscuits, taught love & equality, was against idolatry, was assumed upon a mountaintop, died, spent 3 days in hell, was resurrected to Nirvana, and was known by many appellations such as ‘The Light of Nirvana’, ‘The Good Shepherd’, & ‘He Who Is Everlasting’.

Yet another deity (among the many) precursor of Jesus that provided the Christian religion all the myths they needed to invent a "god"........ Heracles.

Look at Heracles’ similarities: he was both a man & a god, born of a mortal/immortal coupling, persecuted at birth by Hera (it was Herod who wanted to off Jesus- notice the similar names?), achieved godhead after death & resurrection to 'Heaven'. Still, there is not a single contemporary account for Heracles -- just as there is none for Jesus.

To deny Heracles’ existence, yet endorse Jesus' existence is an act of willful blindness & prejudice toward one belief system, & against another --nothing more.

What about Mithra. Mithraism existed centuries before Christianity, & celebrated its Sabbath on Sunday- not the usual Saturday of other contemporary religions. Mithra himself --according to the myth-- had 12 disciples, died & was resurrected in 3 days, was born on 12/25, was called ‘The Good Shepherd’, ‘The Redeemer’, ‘The Savior’, & ‘The Light’, was symbolized by both the lion and the lamb, & held a ‘Last Supper’ before his death.

This demonstrates that Jesus is an invention; there were gods prior to Jesus that Christianity borrowed from --HEAVILY-- in order to flesh out their own mythical deity -- Jesus.

The Bible belivers will not bother denying that all those prior gods (invented gods) existed and were said to have had those attributes, because they CAN'T deny it. It is a matter of historical record. That's because they suffer from the god dellusion!

No. ...This demonstrates that Jesus is an invention; there were gods prior to Jesus that Christianity borrowed from --HEAVILY-- in order to flesh out their own mythical deity -- Jesus.

The Bible belivers will not bother denying that all those prior gods (invented gods) existed and were said to have had those attributes, because they CAN'T deny it. It is a matter of historical record.

If one is to accept that there is some truth to this historical record, one might also accept the possibility of repeated occurances of similar events in other times and locations.

I know I'm not the only one to see this.

Thats not just a call to the bathroom, its a clan meeting.

I have entertained the possibility that all religions are directed toward the same almighty being or energy... Perhaps the story of Jesus is true, and also are the stories from other religions

I have entertained the possibility that all religions are directed toward the same almighty being or energy... Perhaps the story of Jesus is true, and also are the stories from other religions But most likely they are all just myths!

But most likely they are all just myths!
Would you agree that myths are based on some actual thing(s)?

If one is to accept that there is some truth to this historical record, one might also accept the possibility of repeated occurances of similar events in other times and locations.

Here is the problem with that.

According to Christianity, Jehovah/Jesus is the ONLY god to have ever existed.

All those prior "gods" were false. According to Christianity, they never existed. (On that much, the rational people in the world agree with what Christians believe.)

Hence, according to Christianity all those attributes ---"Son of god", "born of a virgin", "mother named Mary", "bringer of light", "had twelve disciples", "died but arose three days later", "called The Redeemer", "was born at the winter solstice"-- of those religions and those deities were purely human inventions.

The god Mithra that was worshipped 500 year prior to Christ was not real, hence, he did not actually possess ANY of those attributes.

THEN, centuries later, along comes Jesus; and <gasp!!> he DOES have all those attributes.

?!?!?!?!!!!

That would mean that --if we were to go along with what Christianity is telling us-- in remembering the numerous gods that existed prior to Christ and who had all those attributes, that it is pure coincidence that Jesus had all the same attributes of the supposedly "false" gods that preceeded him. Wow!! What an amazing coincidence!!


There is another possible explanantion; and that is that all the attributes that this "Jesus" invention had were borrowed directly from the 'gods' ---the human invented, nonexistant gods-- that preceeded him.

Would you agree that myths are based on some actual thing(s)? Well if they were not then why even have them?

Well if they were not then why even have them?

I suppose one could make the point that myths can serve some purpose in human society.

But what we have with the various sky-god religions is the attempt to elevate myth to the level of fact; as if it were something concrete, something verifiable, (when it is anything but) and something one should base one's life and existence as a human being on.

Sad.

____________________________

Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.__________ Mike Huben

Here is the problem with that.

According to Christianity, Jehovah/Jesus is the ONLY god to have ever existed.

All those prior "gods" were false. According to Christianity, they never existed. (On that much, the rational people in the world agree with what Christians believe.)

Hence, according to Christianity all those attributes ---"Son of god", "born of a virgin", "mother named Mary", "bringer of light", "had twelve disciples", "died but arose three days later", "called The Redeemer", "was born at the winter solstice"-- of those religions and those deities were purely human inventions.

The god Mithra that was worshipped 500 year prior to Christ was not real, hence, he did not actually possess ANY of those attributes.

THEN, centuries later, along comes Jesus; and <gasp!!> he DOES have all those attributes.

?!?!?!?!!!!

That would mean that --if we were to go along with what Christianity is telling us-- in remembering the numerous gods that existed prior to Christ and who had all those attributes, that it is pure coincidence that Jesus had all the same attributes of the supposedly "false" gods that preceeded him. Wow!! What an amazing coincidence!!


There is another possible explanantion; and that is that all the attributes that this "Jesus" invention had were borrowed directly from the 'gods' ---the human invented, nonexistant gods-- that preceeded him.


What would be the proper alternative for man? To live in a world that is void of anything that is not before your eyes? How long would man, as an organized society, continue to exist, as we know it, without the rules and regulations of organized religions. Do not say that the laws would prevail. These are mostly common laws passed to us by handed-down religious beliefs.

What would bind enough people to maintain control of the masses other than religion? Fear? I doubt that. Dictatorships are usually limited to the leaders lifespan. I do not believe that
I do not see how pure logic would bind millions of people. What point in time would it no longer be logical for one to abide by the rules of another? When would it be logical to eliminate the other's competition entirely.

Although, I am not a follower of any particular religion, I do feel that religion serves a need to the majority of individuals. A need, that if not fulfilled by religious beliefs, would manifest itself in negative forms that would be detrimental to having a society.

It seems that when an individual quits a particular religion, it does not entirely quit them. It lingers with certain view points that may effect them the rest of their life, whether they realize it or not.
Often, when a person quites a religion, it is replaced with another religion or supernatural belief.

Religious belief may be a necessary part of having a somewhat successful society structure.

But what we have with the various sky-god religions is the attempt to elevate myth to the level of fact; as if it were something concrete, something verifiable, (when it is anything but) and something one should base one's life and existence as a human being on.
You err here on the side of ignoring the many liberal Christian bodies which are not tied to the notion of literalism. Unfortunately, it is the screamers who get all the attention.

What would be the proper alternative for man? To live in a world that is void of anything that is not before your eyes? How long would man, as an organized society, continue to exist, as we know it, without the rules and regulations of organized religions. Do not say that the laws would prevail. These are mostly common laws passed to us by handed-down religious beliefs.



Laws did not came "from" religion, but rather "through" religion. The laws were man made and brought to people through "religion" and "fear" so people would obey them. They are good laws of course and we need them. I am not arguing the laws themselves, but how they were "brought" to the masses.

So, i don't think laws came "from" religion, but religion was used to bring the laws to the people.

I have entertained the possibility that all religions are directed toward the same almighty being or energy... Perhaps the story of Jesus is true, and also are the stories from other religions

I always enjoy your insight to the discussions on these boards. So, please watch the videos and comment on that.

You err here on the side of ignoring the many liberal Christian bodies which are not tied to the notion of literalism. Unfortunately, it is the screamers who get all the attention. So what they still believe in the supernatural. And they are just enablers!

So what they still believe in the supernatural. And they are just enablers!Enabling people to do what, exactly?

I think before we truly consider debating this topic we should first take a look at who we're debating. To see if their motives could be unbiased. It would also help to know if what they'er debating can be seen has sound.


This will allow us to understand the kinds of poeple who are most interested in his work.

First off, we're talking about Jordan Maxwell and a video he made.
By knowing what Jordan Maxwell believes we can get a closer look into his motives.
I'll start with a link from Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Maxwell
Wherein it states,

"Maxwell also believes that his research reveals a secret society which controls government and major religious institutions in concert with organized crime. This secret society, he believes, practices ancient Caananite religion in secret and is revealed through various Caananite symbols used by government, religious institutions, and even Hollywood (like Spock's "live long and prosper" hand gesture as a masonic gesture stemming from the Jewish priestly blessing).[7]"

I'm not going to make any claims here. I feel I should just leave this information to be viewed by an unbiased eye.

For a slightly deeper look into Jordan Maxwell I offer a link to his site.
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/index.html
Within Jordans site there are pages highlighting Jordans thoughts.
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/articles/index.html
Some of which seem that Jordan himself has made an effort to show off a little with humor.

With this link there are several videos about Jordan, some of which Jordan himself has made.
The one on the page playing is describing how Jordan has boldly exposed the Illuminati. Jordan himself goes where few dare go!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8394844811105390386

Finally I brave the forbidden fruits of Jordan Maxwell and show you his online store. I know of two special people who would most assuredly love to see Jordans fruits. So it is for them that I leave this link.
http://www.sovereignearth.org/catalog/official-jordan-maxwell-store-c-2.html

I think before we truly consider debating this topic we should first take a look at who we're debating. To see if their motives could be unbiased. It would also help to know if what they'er debating can be seen has sound.


This will allow us to understand the kinds of poeple who are most interested in his work.

First off, we're talking about Jordan Maxwell and a video he made.
By knowing what Jordan Maxwell believes we can get a closer look into his motives.
I'll start with a link from Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Maxwell
Wherein it states,

"Maxwell also believes that his research reveals a secret society which controls government and major religious institutions in concert with organized crime. This secret society, he believes, practices ancient Caananite religion in secret and is revealed through various Caananite symbols used by government, religious institutions, and even Hollywood (like Spock's "live long and prosper" hand gesture as a masonic gesture stemming from the Jewish priestly blessing).[7]"

I'm not going to make any claims here. I feel I should just leave this information to be viewed by an unbiased eye.

For a slightly deeper look into Jordan Maxwell I offer a link to his site.
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/index.html
Within Jordans site there are pages highlighting Jordans thoughts.
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/articles/index.html
Some of which seem that Jordan himself has made an effort to show off a little with humor.

With this link there are several videos about Jordan, some of which Jordan himself has made.
The one on the page playing is describing how Jordan has boldly exposed the Illuminati. Jordan himself goes where few dare go!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8394844811105390386

Finally I brave the forbidden fruits of Jordan Maxwell and show you his online store. I know of two special people who would most assuredly love to see Jordans fruits. So it is for them that I leave this link.
http://www.sovereignearth.org/catalog/official-jordan-maxwell-store-c-2.html


Sure. He does seem like a little bit of a quack. But, I was only referring to his videos on Jesus myth, which he backs up with facts. Also, there are numerous other vidoes by other people on the same subject on youtube. After doing more research, I found that there are books on this "myth" issue.

I have always thought that all religions come and go and Christianity will be the same.These vidoes prove that Christianity and other religions are just a "retelling" of old stories.

Sure. He does seem like a little bit of a quack. But, I was only referring to his videos on Jesus myth, which he backs up with facts. Also, there are numerous other vidoes by other people on the same subject on youtube. After doing more research, I found that there are books on this "myth" issue.

I have always thought that all religions come and go and Christianity will be the same.These vidoes prove that Christianity and other religions are just a "retelling" of old stories.


No they dont.

Let me point something out really quick here.
If Stephen Hawkings first book highlighted a secret group of caananite worshipping people who ruled the world unknown, do you think he would be taken seriously?

I've seen quite a few of the videos youre talking about, its people feeding on hype to get paid.
Jerry Springer does the same thing.

There are actual theologians who are hardcore/diehard atheist.
Who don't agree with Jordan Maxwell. At all.

It's like a Creationist arguing Evolution.
Most of their arguments are laughable, but they still debate it because they see what they want to see.
Same thing is happening here and people are buying into it because they want to.
Its ignorance at its most high.
If you want a good argument educate yourself instead of buying into the hype.

No they dont.

Let me point something out really quick here.
If Stephen Hawkings first book highlighted a secret group of caananite worshipping people who ruled the world unknown, do you think he would be taken seriously?

I've seen quite a few of the videos youre talking about, its people feeding on hype to get paid.
Jerry Springer does the same thing.

There are actual theologians who are hardcore/diehard atheist.
Who don't agree with Jordan Maxwell. At all.

It's like a Creationist arguing Evolution.
Most of their arguments are laughable, but they still debate it because they see what they want to see.
Same thing is happening here and people are buying into it because they want to.
Its ignorance at its most high.
If you want a good argument educate yourself instead of buying into the hype.


Again the thread is not about Jordan Maxwell. It is about the Bible as a myth!

How can anyone know if he REALLY existed or not? Were they there?

I believe based on faith.. I don't need 100% factual evidence to believe in God... That's just how I roll.. you do what you do and I'll do what I do. But why exactly do you think you have faith? And do you not question important things in your life or do you just let it slide and say I don't know but I believe and that's good enough for me?

No they dont.

Let me point something out really quick here.
If Stephen Hawkings first book highlighted a secret group of caananite worshipping people who ruled the world unknown, do you think he would be taken seriously?

I've seen quite a few of the videos youre talking about, its people feeding on hype to get paid.
Jerry Springer does the same thing.

There are actual theologians who are hardcore/diehard atheist.
Who don't agree with Jordan Maxwell. At all.

It's like a Creationist arguing Evolution.
Most of their arguments are laughable, but they still debate it because they see what they want to see.
Same thing is happening here and people are buying into it because they want to.
Its ignorance at its most high.
If you want a good argument educate yourself instead of buying into the hype. You mean like buying into the hype of religion like you do. Unquestioning it? And how is Jerry Springer getting paid for feeding on hype?

You mean like buying into the hype of religion like you do. Unquestioning it?
Exactly, how can you debate what you think of as hype by using hype to debate it?

And how is Jerry Springer getting paid for feeding on hype?
You havent seen his talk show? Its exactly like Jordans books, only they'er about 2 different things.
Let me quote a friend of yours to help illustrate Jordan Maxwell.

"Behold!...........the result of being indoctrinated to regard superstition as reality."

Again the thread is not about Jordan Maxwell. It is about the Bible as a myth!


Maybe you can give other links to other videos?
Or show some examples from other authers.

These vidoes prove that Christianity and other religions are just a "retelling" of old stories.

No they dont.

Let me point something out really quick here.
If Stephen Hawkings first book highlighted a secret group of caananite worshipping people who ruled the world unknown, do you think he would be taken seriously?

Get back to the heart of the matter.

The fact that Maxwell wrote a book about a secret society has NOTHING to do with, takes nothing away from, the fact that Christianity is simply a "retelling" of the myths --with all the attached attributes of their gods-- on which other, older religions were based; religions that the Xtians will readily agree were FALSE.

It flies in the face of reason to believe --as Xtians would have us do-- that the gods that pre-dated Christianity --being false religions as they were-- would have had so many attributes ("the son of god", "born of a virgin", "mother named Mary/Mara/Mira", "bringer of light", "had twelve disciples", "died but arose three days later", "called The Redeemer", "was born at the winter solstice") that this "Jesus Christ" fellow would later be said to possess.

The Xtians are adamant that when the much older gods were said to have these attributes we're talking about, they were false. That they were human inventions. And they WERE.

But wait!.....

.....500 or 1000 years later, another "god" comes along and (surprise surprise!!! wonder of wonders!!!) he has virtually all the same atributes, and we are supposed to believe that THIS new "god", Jesus, is real but all the others that came before him were false.....?!?!?!?!?!?

:rolleyes:

Those who have the power to reason will readily understand how the above explanantion demonstrates that Christianity had to have borrowed the attributes of older religions and attached them to their invention, to "their" new god.

Unfortunately, Christians --who are willfully blinding themselves-- do not have that power to think logically and to reason. If they did, their belief in this "Jesus" person would end up being overturned, and they will not allow that.

Get back to the heart of the matter.

The fact that Maxwell wrote a book about a secret society has NOTHING to do with, takes nothing away from, the fact that Christianity is simply a "retelling" of the myths


Why wouldnt it?
Thats where youre getting your information from. Thats your source.

Its exactly like getting your information from mothergoose and telling me its has good if not better then Einsteins theory.

Why not draw from the work of someone who has something to lose for looking like an idiot?
Why must you tell me the retellings of a person who gets paid to look like an idiot is true?

It's this simple, Christianity came from Judaism and until someone with a better intellect then Heraldo Rivera argues it. I'm going to think of the argument has nonsense.
Has should anyone who doesnt wish to believe in nonsense should.

The ancients believed that to name something called it into being.

Perhaps the old gods ceased to exist when people no longer believed in them.



PS Inviolable, didn't the true Illuminati die out in the 1500's? I know some people think they used the Freemasons as a front since then....IMO, this is absolutely unprovable.

Can a theologian be an atheist? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call these people religious anthropologists?

The ancients believed that to name something called it into being.

Perhaps the old gods ceased to exist when people no longer believed in them.



PS Inviolable, didn't the true Illuminati die out in the 1500's? I know some people think they used the Freemasons as a front since then....IMO, this is absolutely unprovable.

Well, a lot of people dont realise that the Illuminati can stand for quite a few different names that are purely fictitious.
Sadly its an easy ploy to use because there is such a broad range of uses for the name.

Here is the one true Illuminati, the Bavarian Illuminati.
The only one that has any historical background at least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

If you notice, Jordan Maxwells Illuminati has a very close resemblence to the fictional work of Dan Brown's novel, Angels & Demons.
http://www.danbrown.com/novels/angels_demons/reviews.html

Can a theologian be an atheist? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call these people religious anthropologists?

It could be, I know of one that gives a really good argument, I wouldnt have known of him had it not been for Blob.

He's a pretty nice guy to, seems to of answered any question I send his way so far.
Bob Price.

Bob Price isn't an atheist. And I get very wary of anyone who is a proponent of Gnosticism.

Bob Price isn't an atheist. And I get very wary of anyone who is a proponent of Gnosticism.


Youre right, Im sorry.

I know a lot of atheist get their arguments from him. I sometimes forget that he isnt one.

Get back to the heart of the matter.

The fact that Maxwell wrote a book about a secret society has NOTHING to do with, takes nothing away from, the fact that Christianity is simply a "retelling" of the myths...

Why wouldnt it?
Thats where youre getting your information from.

Because he could be wrong about his presumptions in the book he wrote........but when he speaks of the older religions having the attributes in question and this "Jesus" person later winding up with the same attributes, he is recounting something that is historically documented.

There is NO refuting the fact that the gods that pre-dated Christianity (Mithra being a prime example) had many, many attributes ("the son of god", "born of a virgin", "mother named Mary", "bringer of light", "had twelve disciples", "died but arose three days later", "called The Redeemer", "was born on the winter solstice") that this "Jesus Christ" fellow would later be claimed to possess.

You cannot refute it.

All that you can do is what you're doing; turn a blind eye to it.

Because he could be wrong about his presumptions in the book he wrote........but when he speaks of the older religions having the attributes in question and this "Jesus" person later winding up with the same attributes, he is recounting something that is historically documented.

There is NO refuting the fact that the gods that pre-dated Christianity (Mithra being a prime example) had many, many attributes ("the son of god", "born of a virgin", "mother named Mary", "bringer of light", "had twelve disciples", "died but arose three days later", "called The Redeemer", "was born on the winter solstice") that this "Jesus Christ" fellow would later be claimed to possess.

You cannot refute it.

All that you can do is what you're doing; turn a blind eye to it.

How does any of that prove Christianity didnt come from Judaism?
All youre doing is telling me they have things in common, thats it.

Using any common sense will tell you they'er bound to be similar some where
With such a wide range of religions there was bound to be similarities between them.
Pick something from four thousand years ago, anything. I'm sure I can show you how anything you pick out has similarities to everything else.

Any idiot can take advantage of that fact and use it and all you can do is turn a blind eye to it.
See?
I can do and say the exact same thing you are.
Where does that get us?

Master teacher,master carpenter and reported to be the son of God.

Not recorded to have ever written anything with no one on earth having any idea as to what he may have looked like.

(Jesus the Christ.)

Man,myth,or legend???

Maybe you can give other links to other videos?
Or show some examples from other authers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj6tQNWuGJ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIQyzsbcQ3c&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1FdtpH8lSI&mode=related&search=

Tell a lie loud anough and often enouh and it will become a religian.

Can a theologian be an atheist? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call these people religious anthropologists?One doesn't have to be a dog to be a vet. Theology and religious anthropology are differant disciplines.

Not recorded to have ever written anything...The peasent or craftsman class at the time/place was largely illiterate, so one would not expect Jesus to have written anything. His was an oral tradition in action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj6tQNWuGJ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIQyzsbcQ3c&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1FdtpH8lSI&mode=related&search=

I cant refute any of those author's has they havent really given their names, just a general view on what they believe.
It does bring a quote to mind.

"I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy."

Hoyle, Sir Frederick


I'll have to address the videos personally because there are no videos defending it. I also have to address it personally because you yourself cant take the time to learn what you can, but instead rely on propaganda.

Take into account, what a legend is. Which the video does.
Now take into account of what history is, which for some reason "unlikely unknown" doesnt do.

The document itself is never wrong, its up to the person to prove its wrong.
In other words, if its writen in history we have to assume it happened.
Thats what biblical text is, old historical documents.

Almost everything in our history books can be taken as legend.
Gorge Washington has several hero qualities about him that can be found in Joseph Campbells book, A hero with a Thousand Faces.
The movie 300, did actually happen, almost the way the movie said it did.
William Wallace was a real person.
I can sit here and point out the hero qualities of people writen in our history books all day, fill 10 or 20 pages up.
It still wont take away from the truth.

If it did our history books would be considerably smaller.

1 John 1
The Word of Life
He says, "which we have heard, which we have seen."

One of twelve witnesses who wrote down history.

Later Luke writes.
"I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you,"

Its up to us to say they'er wrong. The videos you have shown dont give us reasons to believe they'er wrong. It gives us parallel's, which can be easily dismissed.

One doesn't have to be a dog to be a vet. Theology and religious anthropology are differant disciplines.
Bad analogy, and yes, I know. It's the difference between being a Porsche mechanic and loving to drive fast cars.

Bad analogy.Just for kicks, why do you say this?

How does any of that prove Christianity didnt come from Judaism?

No one here has forwarded anything whatsoever to do with "Christianity didnt come from Judaism".

You're either trying to obfuscate the issue, or you're simply very ignorant.


All youre doing is telling me they have things in common, thats it.

Yes.

I am telling you, for the umpteenth time, that religions that predated Xtianity by five hundred or a thousand years --that Xtianity correctly claims were false religions-- had many of the same attributes that would later be ascribed to the new god, "Jesus".

You seem incapable of grasping the ramifications of that fact, or of making the logical deduction that folows

Using any common sense will tell you they'er bound to be similar some where
With such a wide range of religions there was bound to be similarities between them.

How can religions that were completely false, with gods that never existed, have possessed so many of the same attributes of a religion --a new and supposedly "true" religion-- that would come hundreds of years later??................There is one way. The "new" religion borrowed the attributes of the older religion and claimed them as their own. Period.

again; it flies in the face of reason to believe that the gods that pre-dated Christianity would have had so many attributes ("the son of god", "born of a virgin", "mother named Mary/Mara/Mira", "bringer of light", "had twelve disciples", "died but arose three days later", "called The Redeemer", "was born at the winter solstice") that this "Jesus Christ" fellow would later be said to possess.

No one here has forwarded anything whatsoever to do with "Christianity didnt come from Judaism".

You're either trying to obfuscate the issue, or you're simply very ignorant.




Yes.

I am telling you, for the umpteenth time, that religions that predated Xtianity by five hundred or a thousand years --that Xtianity correctly claims were false religions-- had many of the same attributes that would later be ascribed to the new god, "Jesus".

You seem incapable of grasping the ramifications of that fact, or of making the logical deduction that folows



How can religions that were completely false, with gods that never existed, have possessed so many of the same attributes of a religion --a new and supposedly "true" religion-- that would come hundreds of years later??................There is one way. The "new" religion borrowed the attributes of the older religion and claimed them as their own. Period.

again; it flies in the face of reason to believe that the gods that pre-dated Christianity would have had so many attributes ("the son of god", "born of a virgin", "mother named Mary/Mara/Mira", "bringer of light", "had twelve disciples", "died but arose three days later", "called The Redeemer", "was born at the winter solstice") that this "Jesus Christ" fellow would later be said to possess.

Why is it you make this reply after I have expalined it?
I have answered every question you have asked here, addressed every speculation you make.

Please! Stop being an asshole long anough to look beyond your narrow minded view of the world.

Once again for the speculative challenged.

'll have to address the videos personally because there are no videos defending it. I also have to address it personally because you yourself cant take the time to learn what you can, but instead rely on propaganda.

Take into account, what a legend is. Which the video does.
Now take into account of what history is, which for some reason "unlikely unknown" doesnt do.

The document itself is never wrong, its up to the person to prove its wrong.
In other words, if its writen in history we have to assume it happened.
Thats what biblical text is, old historical documents.

Almost everything in our history books can be taken as legend.
Gorge Washington has several hero qualities about him that can be found in Joseph Campbells book, A hero with a Thousand Faces.
The movie 300, did actually happen, almost the way the movie said it did.
William Wallace was a real person.
I can sit here and point out the hero qualities of people writen in our history books all day, fill 10 or 20 pages up.
It still wont take away from the truth.

If it did our history books would be considerably smaller.

1 John 1
The Word of Life
He says, "which we have heard, which we have seen."

One of twelve witnesses who wrote down history.

Later Luke writes.
"I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you,"

Its up to us to say they'er wrong. The videos you have shown dont give us reasons to believe they'er wrong. It gives us parallel's, which can be easily dismissed.

The only reason you love to argue this is because you fall under the assumption it will be an easy debate.
Real men laugh at your short comings and go where you fear to go.

Its up to us to say they'er wrong. By this do you mean historically wrong in parts, ie documentable inaccuracies?

How does any of that prove Christianity didnt come from Judaism?


This is not the issue at hand...

Dear Invioable,

You have just told me to educate myself. But I can see from your posts that you have not educated yourself on anything. The only education you have is the blind following of the bible.

Just try to see that facts presented...just try..

The only education you have is the blind following of the bible.
More correctly: following of a specific school of thought regarding the Bible.

Personally, I doubt that he was a real person. Just a myth. But that's just my opinion.

Personally, I doubt that he was a real person. Just a myth. But that's just my opinion.

Did you watch all the videos?

hi.. my thread is "dyiiiiiinnnnggg"... just thought I'd bring it back to life.

just reading the GOD DELUSION by Dawkins..anyonelse read it?

hi.. my thread is "dyiiiiiinnnnggg"... just thought I'd bring it back to life.

just reading the DOG DELUSION by Dawkins..anyonelse read it? Yes, I read it a while back. I really like him a lot and his writing style. Great book!

Yes, I read it a while back. I really like him a lot and his writing style. Great book!

I meant GOD DELUSION and not DOG Delusion..:lolhit:

How come no believers are responding to this or the video series?

We don't watch this crap.

If you don't believe that is fine w/me. But why do you have to trash another's belief? Make yourself feel good? What? Just curious...

Jesus existed. He DIED on the CROSS for all of us.... even you non-believers. Yes, he was seen as a prophet back then. So wasn't Leviticus, etc. Why don't you trash him?

Pretty pathetic when you have to single out the Savior for your venom. Enjoy... your day will come...

We don't watch this crap.

If you don't believe that is fine w/me. But why do you have to trash another's belief? Make yourself feel good? What? Just curious...

Jesus existed. He DIED on the CROSS for all of us.... even you non-believers. Yes, he was seen as a prophet back then. So wasn't Leviticus, etc. Why don't you trash him?

Pretty pathetic when you have to single out the Savior for your venom. Enjoy... your day will come...

He did NOT die on the Cross for all of us. It does not even make sense. Also, you don't watch "this" crap, because you are afraid of the truth. The truth will mess up your deep beliefs that you have been brainwashed into believing.

Yes don't watch and don't learn. People like you are taking this country into the dark ages. No education, no science, etc. Wake up!

He did NOT die on the Cross for all of us. It does not even make sense. Also, you don't watch "this" crap, because you are afraid of the truth. The truth will mess up your deep beliefs that you have been brainwashed into believing.

Yes don't watch and don't learn. People like you are taking this country into the dark ages. No education, no science, etc. Wake up!

I'd like to quote the author, Richard Dawkins.

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus,
"mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the
world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox but harder to eradicate."

Dawkins, Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science,
Oxford University], "Is Science a Religion?" The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1.,
January/February 1997.

Richard Dawkins makes it obvious in his books that he isn't a fan of religion, although
the above quote may not be entirely talking about religious faith. It does give us an
idea behind the direction Dawkins would like to see the world turn.
For some reason Dawkins seems to be focused on a single school of thought when it comes
to humanity. We get the idea that he understands the world could be better without
religion in it. That some how this would make us all more understanding.

What the assumption of understanding leaves out, is that we are all creatures of habit.
Born into our culture. Those of us that are religious, would only turn the ideas
Dawkins holds true into a form of superstition. That is, if there were no religions
in the world. We would make his ideas our own and the faith left out of them would be
reborn in the form of superstition regardless of how rational the ideas themselves are.
The only thing to keep superstition seperate from the rational views of any idea is
diversity.

In other words, stop being stupid enough to think the ideas you cherish aren't
being used to manipulate your dumbass and watch out before someone turns what you like about them into something they like about them.

Your grasp on reality is limited.

Hey Inviolable! Hope you're well.

Thank you Blob, I am fine. Kind of taking a break here and there from the internet. I hope you're doing well yourself.

He did NOT die on the Cross for all of us. It does not even make sense. Also, you don't watch "this" crap, because you are afraid of the truth. The truth will mess up your deep beliefs that you have been brainwashed into believing.

Yes don't watch and don't learn. People like you are taking this country into the dark ages. No education, no science, etc. Wake up!

Well, I will have to disagree yet again with your post. Jesus existed and history tells us that. On the other hand they are still looking for the missing link to Darwin's Theory (science).

No one has brainwashed me. I went away from religion for years. I did not find a better answer and went back. The more I read the more I understand that some things cannot be explained and that is why it is called faith.

People like me are not taking this country into the dark ages. The worlds problems today are a direct result of a corrupt government, no morals what-so-ever, a lack of religion in most peoples lives, etc. People have nothing to guide them. Religion did that and I don't mean these born again Christians who think they can do whatever they want, say I'm sorry God, and still go to heaven. They too will learn one day the God is JUST, and they will receive their punishment BEFORE they enter heaven because HE is also forgiving. But we will pay...

I find people who put such faith in science amusing... ask a doctor why something is not right. They will tell you medical science is not perfect!

Science is just another belief... it too has its issues and an "educated person" knows that...

Have a great day... God bless!

I understand that some things cannot be explained and that is why it is called faith.You make faith sound like willful stupidity, if I may say so. I'd always imagined religious faith to be a much more personal thing. Not faith that this or that must be The Truth, but faith in the sense of trust and love in a personal God.

Perhaps I was wrong.

You make faith sound like willful stupidity, if I may say so. I'd always imagined religious faith to be a much more personal thing. Not faith that this or that must be The Truth, but faith in the sense of trust and love in a personal God.

Perhaps I was wrong.

whatever you like...

Faith is not willful stupidity... it is the belief that plain bread and wine are turned into the BODY & BLOOD of Our Lord, Jesus Christ during the consecration at Mass. That is faith... there is nothing stupid about it to a person of faith. Only to those who have none.

Anyone who believes will trust God. In HIS love. In HIS forgiveness. In his JUST punishment.

It is personal. You believe or you don't. I pray for those who don't and those that do. Everyone needs prayers said on their behalf. And I don't believe for one instant that you would understand that concept but have FAITH... as there are many people praying for people like you...

Faith is not willful stupidity...I never said it was, I said that's how you make it sound.
it is the belief that plain bread and wine are turned into the BODY & BLOOD of Our Lord, Jesus Christ during the consecration at Mass. That is faith...There you go again.

It seems to me you are using two quite different meanings for the word faith. One meaning, such as when you talk about water into wine, is a kind of "factual faith". The other, which I used when I talked of trust and love for God and that you have now started using too, is a "personal faith". Personal faith is the kind meant when two people swear to be faithful to one another.
there is nothing stupid about it to a person of faith. Only to those who have none.Here you are implying the non-religious have no faith. Yet in your last post you implied they have faith in science.

So which is it - do the non-religious have faith or not?
as there are many people praying for people like you...People do pray for me, and I find it quite touching.

Anyone who believes will trust God. In HIS love. In HIS forgiveness. In his JUST punishment.

Right.

"JUST punishment"

Riiiiiiight.

I mean, gee whiz. Everyone KNOWS that all those helpless infants that He ordered hacked to death with swords richly deserved the *JUST punishment* that BibleGod handed out to them.

<sigh> I guess they were just too darned evil to be allowed to live.

[/sarcasm]

I never said it was, I said that's how you make it sound.
There you go again.

It seems to me you are using two quite different meanings for the word faith. One meaning, such as when you talk about water into wine, is a kind of "factual faith". The other, which I used when I talked of trust and love for God and that you have now started using too, is a "personal faith". Personal faith is the kind meant when two people swear to be faithful to one another.
Here you are implying the non-religious have no faith. Yet in your last post you implied they have faith in science.

So which is it - do the non-religious have faith or not?
People do pray for me, and I find it quite touching.

We are talking in circles. I believe we have differnt definitions of faith. Faith to me is religion. Trust is what I give my spouse not to screw around on me, not faith. To me your definition of faith is trust. Your definition of "personal faith" to me is trust.

I've never known a non-religious person to have faith in God. It just doesn't happen. Hence this tread.

You can have faith and trust in God/Jesus. You can have a trust in God which (to me) means you have faith (religion). You also can have faith and trust in people but no faith in religion. Does this explain better where we differ?

I objected to your original message because you showed no faith in Jesus (religion). Not because you don't have personal faith in people.

This is all about respect. My spouse will tell anyone (nuns, priest, etc.) that they are a pagan. On the other hand I try to practice my faith/religion and we attend functions together that are religious in nature. No one thinks anything ill of my spouses statements of being a pagan. They do admire the fact we attend these together. We have a mutual respect. No faith vs. faith (religious). It has nothing to do with our personal trust other then we respect each others opinions on faith.

Jesus did exist. History states so. Science is not infalliable - talk to any doctor. I just don't understand why some folks are bent on destroying (trying, they never will) Jesus.

Think about this: Are we born, live, and die for no reason? Is there not a purpose to our life? Those of faith will tell you it is to make the best of what God gave you to help yourself and others.

IF you don't believe in GOD, Heaven, etc. why are you here? Do you just exist for a short period of time and then disappear? ... Maybe this is why we have so much crap in our society today? So you can beat up an elderly women or rape an innocent child and there will be no penalty. After all you only exist for the moment so what does it matter? I don't believe that for an instant. I do believe you will pay for those deeds. BUT you have to have faith that you are here for a reason... people w/no faith don't believe these actions will come back at them. After all they just "exist" for no reason at all. I don't buy that....

Right.

"JUST punishment"

Riiiiiiight.

I mean, gee whiz. Everyone KNOWS that all those helpless infants that He ordered hacked to death with swords richly deserved the *JUST punishment* that BibleGod handed out to them.

<sigh> I guess they were just too darned evil to be allowed to live.

[/sarcasm]

All those helpless infants have not received GOD's just punishment. THAT WAS DONE BY MAN! MAN (those who did this) will RECEIVE GOD's JUST PUNISHMENT.

Good Lord, you are too ignorant of religion for words. Please don't post if YOU don't understand the concept!

Once again, a non-believer trying to justify MANs EVIL actions by putting the blame of MAN on God. GOD does not do these EVIL things. MAN has FREE WILL. MAN does these things and GOD WILL make HIS JUDGEMENT at their death.

Those kids are in heaven. The folks who did what you say have a long way to go....

All those helpless infants have not received GOD's just punishment. THAT WAS DONE BY MAN!

Men who were directly orderd by their deity to do it.

MAN (those who did this) will RECEIVE GOD's JUST PUNISHMENT.

The men who did as BibleGod ordered, and hacked the infants in question to death, not only are in no danger of "punishment"......they were considered to be good and faithful servants of said deity.

Please don't post if YOU don't understand the concept!

Please try READING the Bible some time.

In it, you will find where the God you praise and make excuses for ordered infants hacked to death with swords. The same "god", the god of your Bible, ALSO ordered all women, men and animals to be hacked to death. Thousands of them. Wholesale slaughter.

How proud all adherants of this "god" must be.

GOD does not do these EVIL things.

I beg to differ.

You are obviously unaware of what the book of I Samuel in the Bible says.

Allow me to relieve you of your ignorance of the actions of the Biblical "God";

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, childrem and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." ________I Samuel 15:2-3

Now. Go ahead. I anxiously await your inevitable myriad excuses for why your BibleGod committed such an atrocity.

Jesus existed and history tells us that.

Can you give an example of this "history"?

We are talking in circles. I believe we have differnt definitions of faith. Faith to me is religion. Trust is what I give my spouse not to screw around on me, not faith. To me your definition of faith is trust. Your definition of "personal faith" to me is trust.

I've never known a non-religious person to have faith in God. It just doesn't happen. Hence this tread.

You can have faith and trust in God/Jesus. You can have a trust in God which (to me) means you have faith (religion). You also can have faith and trust in people but no faith in religion. Does this explain better where we differ?Yes that's an interesting perspective.


In the rest of your post you express incredulity about your own mortality, and I'm not particularly interested in such conversation.

Try reading I Samuel 15:1 before going to your passage I Samuel 15:2-3. It states the reason for God's punishment of the Amalekites. Why did you skip I Samuel 15:1 to begin with? Couldn't support your argument with it?

Here's the link for anyone who cares to actually READ the bilble and all of I Samuel 1-15.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=1&version=31

LOL. I was wondering when one of you guys would come along. Always happens... the bible needs to be read in sequence... page by page just like any good book.

Nice try... next time try reading from the beginning and perhaps you'll understand the end...

Yes that's an interesting perspective.


In the rest of your post you express incredulity about your own mortality, and I'm not particularly interested in such conversation.


As is your perspective and I can respect that.

Thanks for the thought provoking conversation.

The Hebrew religion was really an amalgam of earlier religions, particularly the religions that the Hebrews had been in close contact with. That is primarily the Egyptian religion, at the time when the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt, and the Canaanite religion after the Hebrews left Egypt.

The two primary gods of the Egyptians were Isis and Amen Ra (or just "Ra"). One of the primary gods of the Canaanite's was called "EL".

"Israel" then is Is (Isis) Ra (Amen Ra) and EL. The Hebrews basically borrowed from the three gods of their experience and created the word "Israel".

Of course, Israel is not a word for "God", but for a place, a homeland. The idea then is that when the early Hebrews settled in a new land, they formulated life in that land based on the concepts of those three gods.

From wiki:

El, and the plural form Elohim, is used frequently in Hebrew texts. El was originally a Canaanite god whose name, meaning powerful one, became generic for all god(s) and mighty men in Hebrew. It also is used in reference to deities of other religions, to angels, and to human judges.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b222/godsandmen/religion/russells%20Teapot/mithra2.jpg

Can you give an example of this "history"?

still waiting..

still waiting..

Mesk, honey... does it ever bother you that you demand proof that someone you don't believe in actually existed?

Guess I just can't see how people believing in Jesus has any negative impact on you. But to watch how desperate you seem to prove them wrong, it doesn't look like you're too secure in your own beliefs.

To each his own... unless of course, somebody is holding a gun to your head and making your sing Jesus Loves Me?

SMW

The Hebrew religion was really an amalgam of earlier religions, particularly the religions that the Hebrews had been in close contact with. That is primarily the Egyptian religion, at the time when the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt, and the Canaanite religion after the Hebrews left Egypt.

The two primary gods of the Egyptians were Isis and Amen Ra (or just "Ra"). One of the primary gods of the Canaanite's was called "EL".

"Israel" then is Is (Isis) Ra (Amen Ra) and EL. The Hebrews basically borrowed from the three gods of their experience and created the word "Israel".

I've never seen nor heard this before. Thank you for the information.

Try reading I Samuel 15:1 before going to your passage I Samuel 15:2-3. It states the reason for God's punishment of the Amalekites. Why did you skip I Samuel 15:1 to begin with? Couldn't support your argument with it?

Prior to this post of your, you were emphatically stating in no uncertain terms that your god ***does not do*** such evil things.

""All those helpless infants have not received GOD's just punishment. THAT WAS DONE BY MAN!....GOD does not do these EVIL things.""

NOW, when trapped by the facts, you have suddenly change the argument to --"Well, yeah, BibleGod did it, but he had a reason to do it!".

Two totally different arguments.

As I predicted before; as soon as I proved beyond all doubt that your Biblical 'god" did order those infants to be slaughtered, you would begin trying to put forth obfuscations and excuses.

Thanks for proving me right. Again.

Prior to this post of your, you were emphatically stating in no uncertain terms that your god ***does not do*** such evil things.

""All those helpless infants have not received GOD's just punishment. THAT WAS DONE BY MAN!....GOD does not do these EVIL things.""

NOW, when trapped by the facts, you have suddenly change the argument to --"Well, yeah, BibleGod did it, but he had a reason to do it!".

Two totally different arguments.

As I predicted before; as soon as I proved beyond all doubt that your Biblical 'god" did order those infants to be slaughtered, you would begin trying to put forth obfuscations and excuses.

Thanks for proving me right. Again.

First of all you JUMPED into a conversation I was having w/Blob. We were talking about what is happening today to the elders, kids, etc., NOT thousands of years ago!

What I was saying to Blob is people today believe they can do whatever they like... kill, rape, lie, cheat, steal, abortion, abuse (child or elderly), etc. Then say sorry God and they'll go to heaven. That is incorrect. If you do these things to man, woman, or child you will receive God's just punishment and it will be in purgatory. There is no direct path to heaven for mortals because mortals are not perfect. We all sin. AND we will all pay for that sin through God's JUST PUNISHMENT! Get it?

Going back to your heap of misconceptions.... GOD did give the Amalekites just punishment (I believe) for what they did to the Israelites. Do you think the Amalekites only killed adults? Yeah, right. Read the rest of Samuel and you might get the picture...

I did not prove you right. You proved yourself to be a complete fool. First jumping into a conversation you didn't even understand, nor took the time to read. Next by taking the Bible out of context as it is the only way you can prove your argument. Are you literate? I mean, like can you read? Posts? Bible? In their entirety? Just wondering...

Those are the FACTS. Anyone w/a half a brain can read my previous posts and the Bible and figure out where your head is at! Sun don't shine down there does it?

Yeah, two totally different arguments... and you lose both!:lolhit:

Have a great day!

Interesting origins of certain words:

Amen -
Comes from "Amen Ra", one of the earliest Egyptian sun-gods. "Ra" means sun. We are told that "amen" means so let it be. But "Amen Ra" means so let it be hidden. The word actually is rooted in the idea that when the sun rises, the stars are hidden. It's a very astrological word.

Hour -
Denotes the name of the sun god Horus. He was the rising sun.

Horizon-
The zone of Horus rising in the eastern sky.

Easter-
Easter is compression of the words "eastern" and "star". Easter therefore is a celebration of the eastern star, which of course, happens on a Sunday.

Pastor-
From "Pa", whcih means father, and "stor", which means "star". Pastor means father star.

Minister-
"Min" was a common name for the moon. So "minister" means moon star.

Monastery-
"Moon", plus "aster" (meaning star). A "monastery" is a place of the moon and stars.

Solomon-
"Sol" (sun) and "Mon" (moon). But it can also be expressed as SOL-OM-ON, giving the name of the sun in three sacred ancient languages. SOL is Sumerian, OM is Brahmain (Hindu) and ON is Egyptian.

Helios-
The Greek word for "sun". It is also the word from which the word "holy" is derived. The "Holy Bible" would lierally be the Sun Book!

Interesting origins of certain words:

Amen -
Comes from "Amen Ra", one of the earliest Egyptian sun-gods. "Ra" means sun. We are told that "amen" means so let it be. But "Amen Ra" means so let it be hidden. The word actually is rooted in the idea that when the sun rises, the stars are hidden. It's a very astrological word.

Hour -
Denotes the name of the sun god Horus. He was the rising sun.

Horizon-
The zone of Horus rising in the eastern sky.

Easter-
Easter is compression of the words "eastern" and "star". Easter therefore is a celebration of the eastern star, which of course, happens on a Sunday.

Pastor-
From "Pa", whcih means father, and "stor", which means "star". Pastor means father star.

Minister-
"Min" was a common name for the moon. So "minister" means moon star.

Monastery-
"Moon", plus "aster" (meaning star). A "monastery" is a place of the moon and stars.

Solomon-
"Sol" (sun) and "Mon" (moon). But it can also be expressed as SOL-OM-ON, giving the name of the sun in three sacred ancient languages. SOL is Sumerian, OM is Brahmain (Hindu) and ON is Egyptian.

Helios-
The Greek word for "sun". It is also the word from which the word "holy" is derived. The "Holy Bible" would lierally be the Sun Book!

This is awesome. Thank you. I am always willing to learn. Yes, I have been brought up in the Catholic faith, went away, and have come back. But some of this stuff I have never heard and hence find fascinating!

Again, thank you... enlightenment... it is good!

Mesk, honey... does it ever bother you that you demand proof that someone you don't believe in actually existed?

Guess I just can't see how people believing in Jesus has any negative impact on you. But to watch how desperate you seem to prove them wrong, it doesn't look like you're too secure in your own beliefs.

To each his own... unless of course, somebody is holding a gun to your head and making your sing Jesus Loves Me?

SMW

Firstly, I only asked for proof because the poster said "history proves it". (read the older posts before jumping into a conversation). I didn't just jump on this board asking for proofs. (so please make sensible and relative posts)

Secondly, Well I am on a discussion board about religion. Its not like I am on a street corner yelling out my beliefs (sound familiar)? I think we are all here for discussion.

If we can't have a discussion here, then what's the use?