Tits to you

I find real, down to earth, logical Christians like Barry and Ian the Poet, bearing personal witness a deal more convincing, than false prophets bearing false witness.

What an odd post davidmabus69, I shall look forward to something with more substance, that we van pick the meat out of the bones.
Just as a matter of interest, Depeche Mode - Enjoy the Silence is well known to me.
My family sing it on the Play Station singstar! - so, thanks for the link, love the song and melody.
What did it have to do with any prophecy? - nothing.

I do believe in prophecy, mind you. Lots of prophecy in the old testament has already come to fruition.

You are trying to disprove atheism by using nostradamus? Looks like the religious types are running out of arguments.


Most of his proposes that supposedly came true were misrepresented or changed to make them appear to have come true.

Originally Posted by Barry

I do believe in prophecy, mind you. Lots of prophecy in the old testament has already come to fruition.

What you have to remember about so-called 'prophecy' is that the words were written (if indeed we do know the accurate original words) relating to the people, society and politics of the time, and were often written in allegorical terms too. We look at them with hindsight of perhaps thousands of years experience and knowledge, so if you're inclined to, you can read pretty much anything you like into anything that's remotely 'prophetic looking' or allegorical. The bible in particular is full of stuff like that, which has no connection whatsoever with current events other than from either sheer coincidence or plain incorrect interpretation - reading into it what you want to believe.

YouTube - The Thing(Part 1)

Originally Posted by Midas

What you have to remember about so-called 'prophecy' is that the words were written (if indeed we do know the accurate original words) relating to the people, society and politics of the time, and were often written in allegorical terms too. We look at them with hindsight of perhaps thousands of years experience and knowledge, so if you're inclined to, you can read pretty much anything you like into anything that's remotely 'prophetic looking' or allegorical. The bible in particular is full of stuff like that, which has no connection whatsoever with current events other than from either sheer coincidence or plain incorrect interpretation - reading into it what you want to believe.

.. and that is the view of the faithless.

Originally Posted by Barry

.. and that is the view of the faithless.

No one is without faith Barry ... It's just where or what we have faith in that differs

Originally Posted by Barry

.. and that is the view of the faithless.

A matter of opinion there Barry, given there's no evidence whatsoever to support 'prophecies' I'd say it was factual, but there we go.........

Originally Posted by Midas

A matter of opinion there Barry, given there's no evidence whatsoever to support 'prophecies' I'd say it was factual, but there we go.........

If I gave you a list of OT prophesies which have been fulfilled, would you rubbish then?

Originally Posted by Barry

If I gave you a list of OT prophesies which have been fulfilled, would you rubbish then?

I'd certainly be interested in hearing what you have to say, however I hope that in return you'll be fully open regarding other explanations as to the what and why of each 'prophecy'.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'd certainly be interested in hearing what you have to say, however I hope that in return you'll be fully open regarding other explanations as to the what and why of each 'prophecy'.

I'll work on a list.

I'm sorry, but I'm a Christian, but I still beleve that a person can have a faith or not if they wish. I don't shove my beliefs down others throats, and I would ask that they don't do the same with their non beliefs. I think it is up to the individual as to whether or not they choose to have belief system.

Personally though I have to say I find all this 'end of days', 'Mayan world end in 2012' and other such stuff total rubbish. I personally think the world/galaxy/universe will end when it's meant to and none of us can predict it. least of a man who says he was a doctor and yet didn't even finish (his version) of medical school; who writes weird and criptic garbage and a calendar that's based on pictures we don't really understand.

LIST OF 'END OF THE WORLD' PROPHECIES THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN:

365 CE: A man by the name of Hilary of Poitiers, announced that the end would happen that year. It didn’t.

375 to 400 CE: Saint Martin of Tours, a student of Hilary, was convinced that the end would happen sometime before 400 CE. Of course it didn't that time either.

500 CE: This was the first year that began with a 'round number' panicing prophecy. The antipope Hippolytus and an earlier Christian academic Sextus Julius Africanus had predicted Armageddon at about this year. Armageddon obviously wasn't copied on the memo as it didn't attend.

1st Jan 1000: Many Christians in Europe had predicted the end of the world on this date as another 'round number' panic set in. Obviously setting a trend... However, the World wasn't impressed by this assumption and carried on regardless.

1179: John of Toledo predicted the end of the world during 1186. This estimate was based on his assessment of the alignment of many planets. However the planets called a meeting and earth said it felt fine to carry on; thus EOW as it was known was postponed.

1346 and later: The Black Plague spread across Europe, killing one third of the population. This was seen as the prelude to an immediate end of the world. Which, when you consider the rampant nature of the disease, this could be understood. Sadly, the Christians had previously killed a many of the cats, fearing that they might be familiars of Witches. The fewer the cats, the more the rats. It was the rat fleas that spread the black plague. Well, I never said we Christians were any brighter than the rest of the world; especially the dark age superstitious ones......

c1669: The Old Believers in Russia believed that the end of the world would occur in this year. 20 thousand burned themselves to death between 1669 and 1690 to protect themselves from the Antichrist. I bet their faces were red when they got to the pearly gates?

1689: Benjamin Keach, a 17th century Baptist, predicted the end of the world for this year. However, Earth flipped him the finger and continued to exist.

1881: in 1600 Mother Shipton ryhmed "The end of the world will surely come in eighteen hundred and eighty one." It didn't; nice little rhyme though.

1940 or 1941: A Bible teacher from Australia, Leonard Sale-Harrison, held a series of prophesy conferences across North America in the 1930’s. He predicted that the end of the world would happen in in either of these two years. However the world sighed and said it was really getting fed up now; it was quite alright to carry on for a good while yet and why was no one listening to it?

August 1953: David Davidson wrote a book titled “The Great Pyramid, Its Divine Message”. In it, he predicted that the world would end at this time. When the World was asked to comment it refused.

April 1957: The Watchtower magazine, the publication of the Jahovah's witnesses, quoted a pastor from California, Mihran Ask, as saying in that in January 1957 "some time between April 16 and 23, 1957, Armageddon will sweep the world! Millions of persons will perish in its flames and the land will be scorched." Like the Christian during the Plague, it was the turn of JW's to look embarrassed now when all this never occured.

2000: Many people believed the 'millenium bug' was going to send the world back to the stone age. As well planes falling from the sky, toasters coming to life and trying to lightly brown your eyebrows some people also felt that it would mistakenly launch nuclear weapons at random thus destroying the world.

2010: Of course the world ending in 2012 is old hat; lots of people think this year is 'it'. Asteroids, super volcanoes, super earthquakes, massive tectonic plate shifts, interplanetary collisions, even the moon exploding and taking us with it (although there's no clue why this would happen) are all being touted. Another favourite amongst the happy band that like to send themselves to sleep at night dreaming of ways fate might annihilate billions of people, is that current favourite......the Hadron Collider - the world, then the moon and finally the universe will all be sucked into a black hole we made because we were too nosey about.....stuff.

2012: and so we come to the current EOW - as with 2010, there are many, many ways we apparently are going to put our heads between our legs and kiss our bums goodbye.....here's a few:

Superwaves - due to superquakes and supervolcanoes.....or indeed as well as; the doomsday jury's still out.

Planetary Collision: another planet not indicating as it tries to affect a right turn in a no turning area and bashing us into oblivion. AKA Planet X or Nibiru.

The Sun: apparently our source of light and heat is going to get very upset due to being menopausal and have a hot flush that will basically reduce us to a floating lump of ash. The Sun will be very sorry and cry a lot about being too short tempered due to its hormones.

Tectonic Plates: this one's a doozy. For some reason (that no one seems to know) the internal core of the planet will suddenly start spinning really, really fast - the outer crust (a bit like skin on a bowl of custard) won't be able to keep up and so will start to fly off....naturally killing everyone and all but destroying the world itself. It will be three millennia before the plates start talking to the inner core again.

Mayan Calendar: no, I don't know why an ancient picture calendar is so important either. Who cares why it ends? Perhaps the poor sod doing all that carving just got fed up and went home for his tea. Maybe he told his wife he'd go back the next day but forgot... Or perhaps he just dropped dead of old age....or overwork, or just plain boredom?

Additionally if the Mayan's were so utterly clever to foresee the end of the world in December 2012 (the actual date is fluctuating), some two thousand years later - then why didn't they foresee their own demise a mere three hundred years later and do something to stop their own extinction? Not so bloody clever are they?

Global warming, Pole reversals: These can be lumped together as they're going to lead to the same thing - the EOW. Only this time we're to blame; not sure how. After all global warming's happened before and I don't recall neanderthal man having 4x4's and inflight entertainment on his boeing aeroplanes?

Likewise pole reversal - it's happened before, so not sure how we're to blame for this; but, apparently, we are. The Greenpeace, Ramblers, and various other tree hugging groups are absolutely certain its because we eat meat and drink milk and the cow farts are killing the planet just as much as your 4x4 and yearly trip to Spain.

So do I believe the world will end this year or next or even in 2012? Given the current track records of all the naysayers up to now.......not bloody likely.

@Midas:
I have loads of prophecies, although I accept that many are a little poetic and open to interpretation. I accept this fact.
However, it seems that minds greater than mine have been carefully researching this, so no point in me doing it all over again.

Prophecies about Israel 1:
http://www.100prophecies.org/page5.htm
Prophecies about Israel 2:
http://www.100prophecies.org/page6.htm

Prophecies about Jesus Christ:
http://www.100prophecies.org/page2.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page3.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page4.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page1.htm

There are plenty more on that website.

Originally Posted by Barry

@Midas:
I have loads of prophecies, although I accept that many are a little poetic and open to interpretation. I accept this fact.
However, it seems that minds greater than mine have been carefully researching this, so no point in me doing it all over again.

Prophecies about Israel 1:
http://www.100prophecies.org/page5.htm
Prophecies about Israel 2:
http://www.100prophecies.org/page6.htm

Prophecies about Jesus Christ:
http://www.100prophecies.org/page2.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page3.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page4.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page1.htm

There are plenty more on that website.

Surely the counter argument is simply that the Second Testament was created by man with the sole purpose of realising the prophecies made in the First? In regards Israel the political motives of the Zionist movement to create the state of Israel were without doubt influenced by the Bible and thus, that it came into existence was of little surprise considering the guilt that Western nations felt immediately after WWII , when the full horrors of the Holocaust were known. The British and Americans gave Israel back to the Jews not God.

If I make a prophecy today and then write tomorrow of an event that either completely, or loosely fits the criteria of that original prophecy am I to be considered highly spiritual? No because to assume that the event I write about the day after was the event from the original prophecy is considerably underestimating the total number of events that take place each and every day and how surprising it would be for a prophecy to not be realised over a reasonable passage of time.

Originally Posted by Barry

@Midas:
I have loads of prophecies, although I accept that many are a little poetic and open to interpretation. I accept this fact.
However, it seems that minds greater than mine have been carefully researching this, so no point in me doing it all over again.

Prophecies about Israel 1:
http://www.100prophecies.org/page5.htm
Prophecies about Israel 2:
http://www.100prophecies.org/page6.htm

Prophecies about Jesus Christ:
http://www.100prophecies.org/page2.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page3.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page4.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page1.htm

There are plenty more on that website.

"The webpage cannot be found" on all of those links

Those website links are back up now.

Originally Posted by Barry

Those website links are back up now.

Thanks Barry. I've just had a quick initial look at the links you provided, and the 'prophecies' are so vague and generalised that they could really apply to anyone saying anything. But I will have a more detailed look through what's there in the next day or so.

On a more general note though, I would also have to say that the basis for all the 'prophecies' is that the bible is correct in what is says; in fact it's known to be incorrect in far more than it's correct, even in the non-religious historical aspects, and that's even allowing for the mistranslations and misinterpretations that are included in it. To base anything contained in a work of such shaky and completely unauthenticated origins as 'evidence' is stretching the limits of credulity to breaking point, but perhaps that's a matter for a different thread at some time.

Originally Posted by Midas

...To base anything contained in a work of such shaky and completely unauthenticated origins as 'evidence' is stretching the limits of credulity to breaking point, but perhaps that's a matter for a different thread at some time.

Nah, I think as this thread has the word atheism in the title, its perfectly reasonable to do it here. New Testement prophecies must be taken with a truckload of salt as those relating to Jesus (such as fortelling his own death) were written 60 to 100 years after the fact. If we take on board First Testement prophecies I have to agree with Midas as to their vagueness, I mean a 'servant of God' could be applied to pretty much anyone, not just Jesus. And what is the point of prophecy anyway? It seems to me that prophecy is only inserted afterwards to add further 'proof' to stories which lack evidence in the first place.

To suggest there is evidence to support prophecy in the Bible is the same as to suggest there is evidence of God in the Bible.

Originally Posted by DTE

To suggest there is evidence to support prophecy in the Bible is the same as to suggest there is evidence of God in the Bible.

Is that why you'd like to explain it away?
Or maybe you'd rather Doctor The Evidence, by saying it was written after the fact!

Originally Posted by Barry

Is that why you'd like to explain it away?
Or maybe you'd rather Doctor The Evidence, by saying it was written after the fact!

It was written after the fact, no doctoring here. The Catholic church enjoy a bit of Doctor(ing) The Evidence too, because Mary Magdelene was a whore...right? Oh actually no. Well maybe. It was redacted. All a big misunderstanding you see. If they constantly update the story, what amount of truth is left?

Maybe you'd like to continue Barrying your head in the sand.

I spent 5 minutes thinking of that pun and its crap I know

Originally Posted by DTE

Maybe you'd like to continue Barrying your head in the sand.

I spent 5 minutes thinking of that pun and its crap I know

HAHA I've seen much worse.

Originally Posted by DTE

It was written after the fact, no doctoring here. The Catholic church enjoy a bit of Doctor(ing) The Evidence too, because Mary Magdelene was a whore...right? Oh actually no. Well maybe. It was redacted. All a big misunderstanding you see. If they constantly update the story, what amount of truth is left?

Maybe you'd like to continue Barrying your head in the sand.

I spent 5 minutes thinking of that pun and its crap I know

Ha ha - I think you have been reading too many Dan Brown books.
The Old Testament was not written after the New Testament, there's a clue.
I provided the links for Midas as something to mull over, and I haven't read through the whole lot myself, yet.

I love the banter, though, I'm just off to join my fellow ostriches, they are all called Barry, too!

Originally Posted by Barry

Ha ha - I think you have been reading too many Dan Brown books.

Never, got half halfway through Da Vinci code and could feel my brain dying. Ever read a book where you are sure the original manuscript is in crayon? I have seen the film though

The Old Testament was not written after the New Testament, there's a clue.

I never questioned that. As you say, the clue is in the name.

I provided the links for Midas as something to mull over, and I haven't read through the whole lot myself, yet.

I read a couple, that bit about 'servant of God' in my previous post was a reference to them. If that fortells Jesus, then the phrase "6 numbers from 1 to 49" fortells this weeks lottery result.

I love the banter, though, I'm just off to join my fellow ostriches, they are all called Barry, too!

Banter on Ostrich Boy!

Only God knows when the World will end, and He ain't telling anyone. What about the nutters who go to the bookies and place money on the end of the world, when will they pick up their winnings? The next day???????

There are many problems with trying to use what's been written in the collection of documents known as The Old Testament for any form of 'evidence' about anything. Yes, it's acknowledged that some of the historical facts, particularly the names of some of the Bronze Age kings and rulers in the Middle East, are true, but others are simply legendary with no evidential basis whatsoever. There are also a considerable number of dating inaccuracies even where true facts (as in able to have been verified from extra-biblical sources) are reported.

But by and large the Old Testament is a mixture of:-

• allegorical tales - such as the story of Genesis, which were never meant to be anything other than metaphors for the cycle of birth, life and death;
• stories revolving round even older myths such as that of Noah's Flood, which in all probability was a rewriting and 'updating' of the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which itself probably based on the flooding which occurred at the end of the Ice Age, in particular that of the Black Sea and the northern end of the Gulf of Arabia;
• myths which themselves were ancient in origin but weren't based on any facts - such as the story of the birth of Moses, which is taken from the myth of Sargon of Akkad, where Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide, and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal mid-wife..... (sound familiar?). Incidentally, also in relation to the various stories of Moses, in India, Manos; in Crete, Minos; in Egypt, Mises... all went up a mountain and brought back tablets of stone with various laws given by god engraved on them - the Christian Moses is simply another incarnation of the same myth, even down to the same name in a different language;
• ancient legends which were based on largely natural events, but which over time became twisted and incorporated into religious texts as illustrations of 'miracles', largely on the basis of the complete naivety of Bronze Age people - such as the part in the (fictitious) story of the Exodus "And The Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light", which is probably based on one of several documented volcanic eruptions in the Harrat Khaybar region of western Saudi Arabia around 1,500BCE, which were both due east and visible day and night in parts of Egypt;

Plus of course the many translations from language to language, some of which lead to accidental mistranslations (perhaps the best known being the mistranslation of the ancient Hebrew 'Yam Suph' (or 'Yam Suf') to 'Red Sea' in Greek, whereas the correct translation should have been 'Reed Sea', which is a region several hundred kilometres to the north, placing a whole new, factually based, interpretation to the parting of the sea story - the tsunami resulting from the eruption of Thira (now Santorini) in the Aegean Sea reached northern Egypt and would have resulted in "...the sea is turned into dry land" and "...burst rushing unawares upon the astonished men"), not to mention the many deliberate alterations to the original texts by various scribes and scholars over the 2,500/3,500 years since the first documents were written, alterations made to suit the political, social and religious views of the time and which have been revealed by textual analysis plus both IR and UV examination of the documents.

How anyone can use such a collection of documents as the basis for truth I really do not know. Perhaps someone will one day be able to explain it satisfactorily, but I won't hold my breath waiting........

Later addition:-

Perhaps a few more words about why the Old Testament came to be written the way it did. Firstly though you need to understand three things:-

• the people of the time (500 to 2,500BCE) were exceedingly naive in virtually all things compared to how we are today, and they had virtually zero understanding of the world of nature, their lives and the daily events such as the sun and moon rising, rain falling, lightening striking..., were still thought of absolutely as 'the work of the gods', entities who were the creation of the human mind to whom those mysteries of nature could be attributed;
• there was no political power such as we know it today. Countries and regions were ruled absolutely by kings and other leaders through a combination of military might and religious fear, instilled in the people by the hierarchy of priests in order to keep them subservient. In fact monotheism was 'invented' in order to centralise people's beliefs in order to enhance that centralised power and control;
• plagiarism was also very prevalent from the time of the Old Testament up until the Dark Ages, and absolutely nothing was thought to either the wholesale copying of historical documents and representing them as original, contemporary, works, or to attributing stories or writings about real events to other people, usually historical, in order to give them a perceived authenticity.

Against this background, and the fact that unlike today the average person had either no reason to question anything other than as true, or even if he did, there was no way of finding out whether any given text was a copy of a similar story told 1,000 years before in another country, the distortions and untruths of the Old Testament become much easier to understand.

Very comprehensive list there Midas. I await the comprehensive dismissal of said list by Barry or other Christian apologist... either that or a 'road to damascus' style conversion to atheism.

Continuing my mini-summary of why the Old Testament can't be relied on for as an authenticated source for history, let alone for the belief in a god, I thought I might as well take the opportunity to continue that into the New Testament. Again some of the conditions which applied to people in the Old Testament period apply, along with a couple of others:-

• they were still very naive about matters of nature and the earth generally, although there was an increasing understanding that many events were no longer 'caused by a god';
• this naivety and an accompanying belief in anything they were told by their religious leaders lead to a belief in so-called 'miracles'; if the priesthood said it was possible, in the minds of the general public it was possible, period;
• plagiarism and the wholesale copying and adaptation of existing documents was still rife and still a quite accepted form of written communication;
• political power in the sense we know it was still non-existent and the Middle East was under almost total military domination by the Romans;
• the Jewish faith, itself an outcome of the amalgamation of the Canaanites and the Israelites several centuries before, which resulted in an outlawing of polytheism and the decree that Yahweh was 'the' god, to maintain the cohesion and control of the newly established nation, was being split into many different sects, Christianity being just one of those.

Against that background we have an intensely religious but naive Jewish nation, keen to believe in and follow their one god, but torn by the competing claims by the various nascent sects such as those of Apollonius of Tyrana, Simon Magus, Simon bar Kokhba, Mythras (also called Mithras and Sol Invictus), the Isis Cult, the Gnostics...

Each of those different sects was marketing their set of beliefs using what we'd today term 'spin', attributing more and more outlandish claims to their leaders; this can even be seen within the bible, where the human attributes of Jesus diminish and the supernatural powers increase as you read through the four included gospels in the order they were written - Mark, Matthew, Luke and John - bearing in mind that even the earliest of these wasn't written until at least two generations after the death of Jesus; in other words without any living eye witnesses or written records being available. The scope for 'spin' was immense.

As we all know, the 'Jesus Sect' won out and became Christianity, however as with all of the Jewish faith, it was based on the false premises of the Old Testament and all it contained, hence the writing and rewriting of stories to record the fulfillment of earlier 'prophecies', which are little more than retrospective story-telling in order to justify earlier writings; plenty of documentary evidence exists for this.

As for Jesus himself, despite the almost universal belief that he existed as a real person, even though many don't believe he had any divine powers whatsoever, there's scant evidence. There are literally just a handful of references to him outside the bible itself, and absolutely nothing in contemporary Roman records of the period, somewhat surprising given his supposed importance and the meticulous nature of Roman record-keeping. Just four historians are referenced to justify Jesus's existence, Josephus, Pliny the younger, Suetonius and Tacitus; however not one of them was alive at the time of Jesus and all had to rely on earlier multi-hand references from a different country to their own; in fact the references made by Josephus have long since been shown to be a later forgery, made by scribes within the Christian faith to try to authenticate Jesus as a real person.

Here it gets a little conjectural, however there is good circumstantial evidence that although the person Jesus was modelled on a real preacher in the right place and at the right time, the entire story of Jesus is nothing more than a repetition of earlier myths, brought up to date (as of 2,000 years ago). If we look back in history as far as the time of the early Egyptians, we see:-

• Horus, the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BCE. His story might sound familiar to all Christians...... Horus was born on December 25th to a virgin, Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and praise the new-born saviour. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptised by a figure known as Anup. Horus had 12 disciples and travelled about performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, remained buried for 3 days and then resurrected. This story is well documented in Egyptian records;
• Attis of Phrygia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, resurrected;
• Krishna of India, born of the virgin Devaki, with a star in the east signalling his coming. He also performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death he was resurrected;
• Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a travelling preacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, and upon his death he was also resurrected;
• Mithra of Persia, also born of a virgin on December 25th, also having 12 disciples and performing miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and guess what, he was resurrected. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was a Sunday....

Coincidence, or could Jesus be little more than the last 'version' of the same mythical person, intended to be the link between the various religious gods and humans?

To me at least, the coincidences are too much for his story to be anything other than mythical 'spin', created by early Christian leaders seeking power and control over their followers in order to provide an authentic sounding, although completely fictitious, base for their beliefs. Especially when taken in the light of the social, religious and military times the stories were written and told, and the naivety of the early followers and believers, the whole foundation for religion generally, in particular that of the Christian religion, becomes increasingly shaky! Add to that the choice of which of the many documents and gospels in existence went into the New Testament, hand selected/rejected by Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325CE in order to harmonise the diverse writings of the early Christian faith, weeding out those which weren't 'acceptable' to the view he and the early Roman Catholic Church wanted to portray, and there's even more grounds for shakiness.

That's far from all the 'evidence' to show that the whole of Abrahamic religion, Christianity in particular, for what it is - something that's all in the mind with no factual basis. For instance the birth sequence of Jesus and his mythical predecessors is completely astronomical. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, 25th and 26th, aligns exactly with the three brightest stars in Orion's Belt. These three bright stars are today called the same as they were called in ancient times, the Three Kings. Furthermore an imaginary line drawn from the Three Kings and Sirius points exactly to the place of the sunrise on earth on December 25th. This is how the story of the Three Kings 'following' the star in the east, in order to locate the 'birth' of the 'saviour', in other words the first sunrise after the winter equinox, arose.

Judge for yourself which sounds more plausible, the Christian version which accepts the bible and its stories at face value or the atheist version which looks to a rational and natural explanation of what's behind it.....

Originally Posted by Midas

• Horus, the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BCE. His story might sound familiar to all Christians...... Horus was born on December 25th to a virgin, Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and praise the new-born saviour. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptised by a figure known as Anup. Horus had 12 disciples and travelled about performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, remained buried for 3 days and then resurrected. This story is well documented in Egyptian records;
• Attis of Phrygia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, resurrected;
• Krishna of India, born of the virgin Devaki, with a star in the east signalling his coming. He also performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death he was resurrected;
• Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a travelling preacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, and upon his death he was also resurrected;
• Mithra of Persia, also born of a virgin on December 25th, also having 12 disciples and performing miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and guess what, he was resurrected. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was a Sunday....

Coincidence, or could Jesus be little more than the last 'version' of the same mythical person, intended to be the link between the various religious gods and humans?

To me at least, the coincidences are too much for his story to be anything other than mythical 'spin', created by early Christian leaders seeking power and control over their followers in order to provide an authentic sounding, although completely fictitious, base for their beliefs. Especially when taken in the light of the social, religious and military times the stories were written and told, and the naivety of the early followers and believers, the whole foundation for religion generally, in particular that of the Christian religion, becomes increasingly shaky! Add to that the choice of which of the many documents and gospels in existence went into the New Testament, hand selected/rejected by Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325CE in order to harmonise the diverse writings of the early Christian faith, weeding out those which weren't 'acceptable' to the view he and the early Roman Catholic Church wanted to portray, and there's even more grounds for shakiness.

That's far from all the 'evidence' to show that the whole of Abrahamic religion, Christianity in particular, for what it is - something that's all in the mind with no factual basis. For instance the birth sequence of Jesus and his mythical predecessors is completely astronomical. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, 25th and 26th, aligns exactly with the three brightest stars in Orion's Belt. These three bright stars are today called the same as they were called in ancient times, the Three Kings. Furthermore an imaginary line drawn from the Three Kings and Sirius points exactly to the place of the sunrise on earth on December 25th. This is how the story of the Three Kings 'following' the star in the east, in order to locate the 'birth' of the 'saviour', in other words the first sunrise after the winter equinox, arose.

Judge for yourself which sounds more plausible, the Christian version which accepts the bible and its stories at face value or the atheist version which looks to a rational and natural explanation of what's behind it.....

Zeitgeist is B-S, Midas. It has been debunked by a Christian friend of mine. Don't use this against Christianity, it's desperate.

All About Horus: An Egyptian Copy of Christ? Response to Zeitgeist movie

Syph

Originally Posted by Syphro

Zeitgeist is B-S, Midas. It has been debunked by a Christian friend of mine. Don't use this against Christianity, it's desperate.

That link you posted is largely nit-picking and making assumptions concerning Horus, and the other mythical characters, that either weren't expressly said, or were slightly incorrect in one or two minor details, in Zeitgeist (which incidentally is only one of many references, some highly reputable, to pick up on the same 'coincidences'). It's a diversionary tactic and does little to prove or disprove the veracity of the story of Jesus. In fact skimming through much of the very lengthy article, there are many incorrect facts there too, as well as a great deal of what can best be described as 'misinformation by perceived association'; it takes a statement made elsewhere, then tries to debunk it by diverting attention away from the context as a whole and focusing on particular words or specific phraseology which can perhaps be 'interpreted' as not meaning something or providing other, in turn, misleading information.

It tries to do what a barrister might; to prove a witness was untrustworthy by saying that because he'd remembered say the colour of a car slightly incorrectly, it should be considered an important enough fact to dismiss a case of hit and run, when really it's irrelevant to the fact that the car knocked down and killed someone.

I'll quite concede that Zeitgeist was a rather brief and generalised review, but having over the years done a considerable amount of my own research into all this, most of the general context is correct to a degree far greater than one could expect by any other means than deliberate copying of the earlier stories to perpetuate a myth; something biblical scholars know happened a great deal. Even dismissing all of what's been drawn from the 'coincidences' in this particular part though, there's still virtually no evidence which goes to show that Jesus was real, and it does nothing to disprove the veracity of either other New or Old Testament stories and consequently of a god.

But given the source of the page you referenced, on a Catholic website, it's of little surprise that it tries to do this....... After all, perhaps of all the Judeo-Christian religions, the Catholics are the 'worst' for clinging onto falsehoods about religion, often ones they've put about themselves, in some cases falsehoods that have been known as such for centuries.

Originally Posted by Midas

... in Zeitgeist (which incidentally is only one of many references, some highly reputable, to pick up on the same 'coincidences').

Zeitgeist has never revealed its primary source. Perhaps you have uncovered it.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'll quite concede that Zeitgeist was a rather brief and generalised review, but having over the years done a considerable amount of my own research into all this, most of the general context is correct to a degree far greater than one could expect by any other means than deliberate copying of the earlier stories to perpetuate a myth; something biblical scholars know happened a great deal.

I can agree that the general context is plausible but little else. The Procession of the Equinoxes is the only semi-plausible part of the whole film.

But why use a copy of the Zeitgeist transcript and not your own research.

Even Michael Shermer, of Skeptic Magazine said that Zeitgeist was nothing more than a conspiracy theory mixed with fact. Dr Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University said that many of the facts presented about other "Messiahs" are without evidence in any archaeology in the regions of Egypt, India etc.

Maybe you have jumped on the militant atheism bandwagon with Dawkin's and his kind.

Originally Posted by Syphro

Zeitgeist has never revealed its primary source. Perhaps you have uncovered it.

I've seen similar comments in many different places over the years; it takes time and effort to collate such information, but it's all out there in the public domain as well as being in many academic publications on religion.

I can agree that the general context is plausible but little else. The Procession of the Equinoxes is the only semi-plausible part of the whole film.

But why use a copy of the Zeitgeist transcript and not your own research.

Mainly because it summarised the points I was intending to make in an easy tabular form - OK, I was being lazy.

Even Michael Shermer, of Skeptic Magazine said that Zeitgeist was nothing more than a conspiracy theory mixed with fact. Dr Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University said that many of the facts presented about other "Messiahs" are without evidence in any archaeology in the regions of Egypt, India etc.

Maybe you have jumped on the militant atheism bandwagon with Dawkin's and his kind.

I don't think that underlying it there really is any conspiracy theory at all, simply a bit of 'over-egging of the pudding' if you like. Even without any of the material published by Zeitgeist there's very substantial factual evidence which demonstrates the mythical and allegorical nature of the Old Testament, as well as the whole life story of Jesus. The very fact that there's such a paucity of information, none of it independent and authenticated, especially the fact that what little there is was written at least two generations after his supposed death (why for instance is there absolutely no Roman record of what should have been a very significant event had it been real?), indicates the mythical nature of the whole story. The 'coincidences' with other mythical stories from other cultures, even the general similarities in their pattern allowing for constant rewriting in different contexts, is merely additional confirmation.

Oh no, not you again!

Originally Posted by Barry

What an odd post davidmabus69, I shall look forward to something with more substance, that we van pick the meat out of the bones.

I wouldn't hold your breath, he is rapidly becoming one of the most famous trolls on the interwebs... google him!

Originally Posted by Rizla

Oh no, not you again!

I wouldn't hold your breath, he is rapidly becoming one of the most famous trolls on the interwebs... google him!

Hi Rizla, and welcome to the Politics Forum!

To start with you might like to read the extended "Welcome" message in the Rules and Guidelines section of the forum, which also includes a full version of the Forum Rules.

Knowing what’s appropriate to say and post and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle, and as such you might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. If you’re unfamiliar with the type of forum software we use here, a brief guide to using it can be found here. Please respect other people’s views here; they mightn’t be the same as yours, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just that they're different.

If you need help with anything at all to do with the forum, feel free to contact me or one of the other moderators via a personal message; our details can be found here, listed as "Minister" and “Junior Minister”.

Perhaps you’d care to formally introduce yourself, which you can do here, or optionally tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

Enjoy the debates

Yep, it wasn't the best opening shot was it. But don't worry, I know how to conduct myself on a forum. As yet I have never had so much as a warning.

Frankly, I think you have covered most of what I would have said if I had been here earlier...

I'll only add that from what I've seen of Zeitgeist (just the part on religion which is on YouTube) They are broadly right, but presented it in a way that sounds compelling but doesn't stand up to scrutiny because it was sexed up. But anyone with even a passing interest in mythology must have noticed 'the facts' which are a little more scattered than presented in the documentary, but no less compelling.

As for that rebuttal website... As an example... "The term "messiah" comes from the Hebrew Moshiach for "Anointed One." It is a Judaeo-Christian concept; it does not go back to ancient Egypt."
Yep, and the word "Christ" comes from Greek for anointed and was applied to just about any priest or priestess long before the time of Christ. The idea of holy people cleaning and anointing themselves goes way back into pre-history, as does the idea of man-god saviours. The author of the website is amazingly selective in their knowledge of ancient history.

The only other thing I'd add regarding biblical prophecy and the accuaracy of the new testiment, is that the best argument for the existance of a historical Jesus goes as follows:- If he was purely mythical, then when he was made up they could have contrived his story to fit old testiment prophesy exactly. The very fact that you have a 'Jesus of Nazereth' in Bethlehem for a bogus census for which there is no historical record and no logical purpose, points to the idea that a historical figure has had a back-story written for him to make him fit the prophesy.

...either way, it says nothing for the accuracy of the bible or it's power of prophesy.