FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-08-2007, 02:05 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Perhaps someone would explain to me how this logic works? -- Is the idea that, if I can show some kind of vague parallel between two things not otherwise known to be connected or identical, that proves connection, indeed identity?

Seems rather like muddy thinking to me.
I don't see what's so vague about Jesus' life as well as many other previous gods mirroring the sun and constellations. I think if it was anymore obvious it would slap you in the face. You don't need ancient manuscripts to figure it out. (ad hominem snipped)
Thank you for your comment. From this I learn only that you like the idea, but are unable to examine it critically. That is not a very good start, you know!

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 09-08-2007, 03:04 AM   #12
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 384
Default

Um, to all who say this is bullshit:
Doesn't it make alot of sense when the sun "dies" three days on the cross?
veclock is offline  
Old 09-08-2007, 03:47 AM   #13
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by veclock View Post
Um, to all who say this is bullshit:
Doesn't it make alot of sense when the sun "dies" three days on the cross?
Ummm, no actually. That makes no sense astronomically and it makes no sense etymologically either. Nor does it make any sense in relation to any earlier myths, unless you define "parallel" in the most comical of New Age senses of the word. Then extrapolate "derivation" from that kind of stupid contrivance.

Which is why this nonsense has been kooky fringe crank theorist crap for about 100 years now. No serious scholar - atheist, agnostic, Jewish or Christian - touches this garbage. So it's not surprising to find it hitched to the wagon of a squirming grab-bag of other ridiculous, crackpot ideas.

Birds of a feather and all that.
Antipope Innocent II is offline  
Old 09-08-2007, 03:49 AM   #14
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley View Post

I don't see what's so vague about Jesus' life as well as many other previous gods mirroring the sun and constellations. I think if it was anymore obvious it would slap you in the face. You don't need ancient manuscripts to figure it out. (ad hominem snipped)
Thank you for your comment. From this I learn only that you like the idea, but are unable to examine it critically. That is not a very good start, you know!

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Starting? I'm already done and over this bullshit you're wasting your life obsessing over.

And why is it an ad hominem to actually say what it is we all know you believe? Other than it looking pretty silly when you shine a light on it, I don't see the problem.:huh:

And to whom it may concern, I'm not in support of the "every god was just like Jesus" idea. But a pizza is still a pizza regardless of if it's pepperoni or Hawaiian.
All this recent Christian nitpicking over Mithra and the other gods of the area seems like a last resort to win any small victory at all. In the end it does absolutely nothing to prove Jesus is real.

What I liked about the video was that it was the first place I've ever seen the movement of the sun and constellations explained so clearly with animations. Quite a bit of the rest was crap.
Yellum Notnef is offline  
Old 09-08-2007, 03:54 AM   #15
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 384
Default

I don't get it. Should all this be a coincidence?
http://www.theosophical.ca/AncientEgyptAppendix.htm

Even Moses is taken from earlier stories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad

"...My high priestess mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and […] years I exercised kingship."
veclock is offline  
Old 09-08-2007, 03:59 AM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
Default

Yes. When it comes to Christianity everything is a coincidence or a trick of the devil. Jesus is special. Didn't you know that?:wave:
Yellum Notnef is offline  
Old 09-08-2007, 04:17 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by veclock View Post
I don't get it. Should all this be a coincidence?
http://www.theosophical.ca/AncientEgyptAppendix.htm
No, they are definitely not coincidences IMHO. There is obvious influence, in one direction or another.

I love how the list of similarities between Horus and Jesus are growing! Most I've seen most that are listed on that website before, but these had me scratching my head:
Horus (Iu), the son of a beetle .... .... .... Jesus, the good Scarabaeus.
Horus (or Ra) as the great cat .... .... .... Jesus as the cat.
Horus as the shrewmouse .... .... .... The mouse of Jesus dedicated to “Our Lady.”
Jesus as beetle, cat and mouse? Anyone heard of those?
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 09-08-2007, 05:18 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Thank you for your comment. From this I learn only that you like the idea, but are unable to examine it critically. That is not a very good start, you know!
Starting? I'm already done ... (snip)
I'm sorry that you dealt with my posts by reflex. Unfortunately any hypothesis that cannot be discussed rationally need hardly be considered by the rest of us.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 09-08-2007, 05:35 AM   #19
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by veclock View Post
I don't get it. Should all this be a coincidence?
http://www.theosophical.ca/AncientEgyptAppendix.htm
I don't get it. We're meant to be taking Theosophist nonsense seriously? What next - phrenology?

How can any reasonable atheist bother with this antiquated and pseudo historical crap? What year is this - 1886?

Give me a break.
Antipope Innocent II is offline  
Old 09-08-2007, 06:56 PM   #20
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by veclock View Post
I don't get it. Should all this be a coincidence?
http://www.theosophical.ca/AncientEgyptAppendix.htm
I don't get it. We're meant to be taking Theosophist nonsense seriously? What next - phrenology?

How can any reasonable atheist bother with this antiquated and pseudo historical crap? What year is this - 1886?

Give me a break.
Don't burst a blood vessel or anything. It's all a game.

After all, a lot of people think the same thing about people who take 2000 year old theological documents seriously, but we try to maintain good relations with some of our fellow citizens who do.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:42 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.