Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven." He was of royal descent. He crushed a serpent's head. He had 12 disciples. He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water. He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness." He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all. He was transfigured on a mount. Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected. He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven." Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd"the "Carpenter", the "Infinite and Everlasting." He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World." The impact of his teachings was felt throughout northeastern India, where they were spread verbally through his interaction with the people. From numerous scriptures available today, it can be surmised that he often expounded his teachings in response to the people's questions.
The thoughts of Chairman Al.
If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men. He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old. Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist." He had 12 disciples. He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead. He walked on water. Horus was transfigured on the Mount. He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected. He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc. He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys"). Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story. In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child"
The thoughts of Chairman Al.
If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.
Mithra was born on December 25th. He was considered a great teacher and master. He had 12 companions or disciples. He is said to have performed miracles. He was buried in a tomb. After three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year. Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd." He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah." He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ. Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
The thoughts of Chairman Al.
If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.
Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") His father was a carpenter. His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh. He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants. He was of royal descent. He was baptized in the River Ganges. He worked miracles and wonders. He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind. Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love. He lived poor and he loved the poor." He was transfigured in front of his disciples. In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves. He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word." He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father. He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," "Alpha and Omega", as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence." Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.
The thoughts of Chairman Al.
If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.
It is wishful thinking to believe you can do whatever you want without a chance of you spending eternity in hell, I could use this to attempt to invalidate your arguments but I won't as jesus instructed me to use logical debate. When you are willing to put aside wrath and mental sloth perhaps you will do the same, be warned, when you do it means you are being christian and will have to cry or something because obviously you have something against the Jesus.
The messiah was prophecised in ancient times also, the difference being Jesus has evidence to back it up. Perhaps you should take a look at the new testament some time, it is a legitimate historical document.
Originally posted by zwaraaaa: The messiah was prophecised in ancient times also, the difference being Jesus has evidence to back it up. Perhaps you should take a look at the new testament some time, it is a legitimate historical document.
Yes but only because it is, in itself, old and therefore historic. The bible contains much which is provably wrong and fictitious so it truly is hard to say it gives any true or accurate picture of actual events. As a collection of the folklore of its time, fine, but that does not make the folklore true.
As for Jesus having evidence. I doubt that very much since the bible shows that he actually misquotes and misrepresents many OT prophecies merely to make his case. And what does the bible say about someone who makes false prophecies?
The pre-bible messianic prophecies were altered in the bible version to accommodate Jesus' failure to deliver on the promise. The bible was written after (not before) the fact to establish Jesus and their truth. Pity then that its inventors were just too lazy or stupid (or both) to check their facts.
FYI, I have read the bible on many occasions and it is so full of obvious error that I find anyone who gives its words credence as "truth" beyond help. If you don't believe the bible is full of error and lies then ask and I'll give you many verses which can be verified as false statements.
Originally posted by zwaraaaa: It is wishful thinking to believe you can do whatever you want without a chance of you spending eternity in hell, I could use this to attempt to invalidate your arguments but I won't as jesus instructed me to use logical debate.
So live up to your words. Where is the logic in your statement. To be logically sound you must prove hell exists. You are using this unproven and mythical place as a false premise. Believing in hell (or heaven, or limbo) is wishful thinking without proof that they actually exist.
You cannot invalidate non-belief in an unproven merely by claiming it is true because you believe in it. Be honest the reason you do not attempt to invalidate the argument is because you know you logically cannot.
Originally posted by zwaraaaa: Perhaps you should take a look at the new testament some time, it is a legitimate historical document.
Care to explain what that means. How is "a legitimate historical document" different to "an old book".
If I had, say, a roman tablet or engraving that said the moon was made of cheese and there were fairies at the bottom of the garden (of the villa), would it be a "a legitimate historical document"?
Care to explain what that means. How is "a legitimate historical document" different to "an old book".
If I had, say, a roman tablet or engraving that said the moon was made of cheese and there were fairies at the bottom of the garden (of the villa), would it be a "a legitimate historical document"?
Sure, the New Testament is comparable to other "historical" documents of the period. The charges of spin and interpretation that have been levelled at the New testament apply just as much to Roman documents or Josephus. Everyone had a reason for writing and a point to prove. History as an academic discipline is all about establishing motives and accounting for bias. The New Testament has numerous cross references to the historical, cultural and geographical context as it is known from other sources. This is why no serious academic historian has ever entertained the "Jesus myth". We can argue about the layers of spin and interpretation but the liklihood is that the origin of the New testament documents is in real historical events.
Originally posted by greenbelt: Originally posted by Freethinker:
quote:
Care to explain what that means. How is "a legitimate historical document" different to "an old book".
If I had, say, a roman tablet or engraving that said the moon was made of cheese and there were fairies at the bottom of the garden (of the villa), would it be a "a legitimate historical document"?
Sure, the New Testament is comparable to other "historical" documents of the period. The charges of spin and interpretation that have been levelled at the New testament apply just as much to Roman documents or Josephus. Everyone had a reason for writing and a point to prove. History as an academic discipline is all about establishing motives and accounting for bias. The New Testament has numerous cross references to the historical, cultural and geographical context as it is known from other sources. This is why no serious academic historian has ever entertained the "Jesus myth". We can argue about the layers of spin and interpretation but the liklihood is that the origin of the New testament documents is in real historical events.
sadly accounts of virgin births, resurrection, walking on water etc let them down somewhat this is why no "serious academic historian" gives them any credibility.
Originally posted by greenbelt: Sure, the New Testament is comparable to other "historical" documents of the period.
Er, no it isn't, except they are about the same age.
quote:
The charges of spin and interpretation that have been levelled at the New testament apply just as much to Roman documents or Josephus. Everyone had a reason for writing and a point to prove.
Sorry, is this a case for it being legit. It sounds like a good case for it being as made up as any other fiction.
quote:
History as an academic discipline is all about establishing motives and accounting for bias. The New Testament has numerous cross references to the historical, cultural and geographical context as it is known from other sources.
Care to list your best examples. Including the names of some towns that existed at the time doesn't exactly lend any credibility at all. Why are there no contemporary references (absolutely none) to either jebus or anything he did. Given what the bible claims he did there would be certain to be independent corroboration.
quote:
This is why no serious academic historian has ever entertained the "Jesus myth". We can argue about the layers of spin and interpretation but the liklihood is that the origin of the New testament documents is in real historical events.
So an omnipotent deity makes such an impact on the planet that believers can only conclude it is 'quite likely' his son is real. Woo, I'm convinced.
Care to list your best examples. Including the names of some towns that existed at the time doesn't exactly lend any credibility at all. Why are there no contemporary references (absolutely none) to either jebus or anything he did. Given what the bible claims he did there would be certain to be independent corroboration.
Ok - off the top of my head: Paul's letters - references to geographical locations and features of cities and towns confirmed by archeology(e.g Ephesus),descriptions of his sea journeys in terms of routes and time taken tie in very well with prevailing weather conditions in the area and the capabilities of ships of the period, listed Roman officials whom he had dealings with corroborated by Roman records. The Gospels: Herod, Caiaphas, Annas, Pilate confirmed as historical figures by Roman or Jewish records. Recent excavations at Nazareth suggest it may have been a Roman garrison town hence: "can anything good come out of Nazareth ?" The garden of Gethsemane is still there with name and location dated back to the first century. The pool of Bethesda has been found, you can walk around the sea of Gallilee and up the Mount of Olives....if I have time I'll try looking some of this stuff up.
What contemporary references would you expect there to be? Books we have from the period would take up a small corner of your desk. Jesus wasn't a significant historical figure at the time. He never travelled outside a small geographical area in a backwater of the Roman empire. He was crucified as a criminal - the ultimate humiliation of the time for both Romans and Jews - a very good reason to be written out of history. Roman authorities would not have been interested in stories of his miracles and they would have thought that the Jewish authorities or his disciples had removed his body from the tomb. The Jewish authorities would have regarded him as just another "false messiah" and would have wanted to suppress stories about him. The only people you would expect to write about him would be his followers and it's likely that they were illiterate. The gospels had to wait for the oral tradition to be handed down to Paul and the first generations of Christians. Bearing all this in mind it is amazing how much we do know about this poor,itinerant Jewish mystic compared to similar figures of the period such as Judas the galilean. Cynical comments about him in Josephus were probably altered by early Christian writers to cast him in a more favourable light but still support historicity. The first Roman records in Tacitus come exactly when you would expect them - when Christianity is spreading widely and coming to the notice of the authorities. History cannot be treated with a "scientific approach". The evidential rigor you demand on this forum would exclude many accepted historical figures such as Alexander the Great! .
The evidential rigor you demand on this forum would exclude many accepted historical figures such as Alexander the Great! .
I personally don't have any emotional investment in the existence or non-existence of Alexander the Great. That he conquered most of the then civilised world seems pretty plausible. That he was a freakin' superhero doesn't. Still, the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies (this follows from any rational definition of "evidence"). We don't need extraordinary evidence that Alexander was a general who had a big army and conquered a lot - why would we? We would need extraordinary evidence if it were suggested he could fly.
-------------------- If you feel like you're always in the dark - switch the lights on!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
