Greensboring.com | Greensboro, NC

[floatr][/floatr]
Christians, take a look at the statue to the right. Does it look like your beloved Jesus? A lot of people think it does. The question, is it?

Technically it's RA, the sun god from ancient Egypt. I've always been amazed at the similarities both physically and mythological to religion of ancient Egypt and Christianity. It's almost as if the Bible, and the stories we claim are an innovation of Jesus, might actually be an evolved, mutated version of ancient Egypt. Of course that would mean Christianity would have also had to have derived from the Greek / Roman God Zeus. But then again have you ever seen the face of Zeus? He does remarkably appear very much alike to Jesus and his looks.

Is it the evolution of the Egyptians Sun-Son, Soul-Spirit, God- that gave us the Holy Trinity? Is Ra's voyage to the underworld a parallel for Jesus's visitation?

Not everyone think Ra was Jesus. Some think it was Horus. But when religion was compressed down to one deity, the combination of Ra as a figurehead... as the Sun God, and the stories of Horus, make for a strikingly similar reading.

After all the book of the Dead, gives us the following facts:

His mother was a woman called Meri
His father was called Jo-Sep
His father was of royal descent
His birth was heralded by a star
His birth was witnessed by Shepherds
King Herut tried to have him killed
He was 30 when baptised
His baptiser went on to be beheaded
He was followed by 12 disciples
He walked on water and healed the sick
He gave a 'sermon on the mount'
He was crucified
...between 2 thieves
He was buried in a tomb
He was resurrected after 3 days

Is it coincidence, or are Christians simply practicing a modified version of Egyptian religion?

Christians, take a look at the above statue. Does it look like your beloved Jesus?

I've never seen Jesus and I doubt anyone here has either.

Alot of people think it does.

Who are these "people"?

The question, is it?

Nope.

Technically it's RA, the sun god from ancient Egypt.

Technically its an idol.


I've always been amazed at the similarities both physically and mythological to religion of ancient Egypt and christianity.

Tell me more of this "amazement" and what you have studied so far between the two....

It's almost as if the bible, and the stories we claim are an innovation of Jesus, might actually be an evolved, mutated version of ancient Egypt.

Not likely at all. Hundreds if not thousands of people witnessed Jesus. Even secular historical documents back that up. Top Historians of today do not doubt th existance of Jesus. I'm not aware of massive amounts of historical documents on Ra though.

Of course that would mean Christianity would have also had to have derived from the Greek/roman god Zeus.

You would like that to be true, wouldn't you?

But then again have you ever seen the face of Zeus... he does remarkably appear very alike to Jesus and his looks.

Wow... You've seen the face of Jesus AND Zeus? Incredible. Let's call up the National Inquirer.

Is it the evolution of the Egyptians Sun-Son, Soul-Spirit, God- that gave us the Holy Trinity?

Nope.

Is Ra's voyage to the underworld a parallel for Jesus's visitation?

Nope.

Not everyone think Ra was Jesus.

You say that as if most people DO believe that RA was Jesus.

Some think it was Horus. But when religion was compressed down to one deity, the combination of Ra as a figurehead... as the sun god, and the stories of Horus, make for a strikingly similar reading.

Nothing wrong with reading ancient Egyption fair tales. You could also look in to the Tibetion book of the dead as well and all the other "books of the dead"

After all the book of the Dead, gives us the following facts:

Sounds as if you are reading from a Jehovah Witness's handbook there. That brings a lot of credibility to the table - NOT. What exactly is your SOURCE on this?

Yeah, Liv, you might want to check your source on that, particularly that list at the end. Looking up info for Ra around the web, I didn't see mention of any of that. There's a similar list about Mithra that seems to have pretty weak support as well.

Liv,

the same can be said for many of the religious figures over time. They all tend to have very similar mythological backgrounds. That said, there were of course unique differences as well.

Interesting (although not the best) write up here:
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html

Jesus's life was foretold in the old testament so it wouldn't seem unlikely that other peoples could not formulate their own God from the old testament. Of course thay only used parts of the prophesies. Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies.

Liv wrote:(snip)
After all the book of the Dead, gives us the following facts:

His mother was a woman called Meri
His father was called Jo-Sep
His father was of royal descent
His birth was heralded by a star
His birth was witnessed by Shepherds
King Herut tried to have him killed
He was 30 when baptised
His baptiser went on to be beheaded
He was followed by 12 disciples
He walked on water and healed the sick
He gave a 'sermon on the mount'
He was crucified
...between 2 thieves
He was buried in a tomb
He was resurrected after 3 days

Is it coincidence, or are Christians simply practising a modified version of Egyptian Religion?

Well, there certainly are many coincidences between the Egyptian and Semitic religions of the region. And that's to be expected... there was a lot of trading and wars that went on incessantly for thousands of years.

But Ra = Jesus? Nah. I expect you mean Horus. There were several other man/gods in the region:

Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus, Tammuz. They all came before the Christian religion got started, and they all had many striking similarities to Jesus' story. So yeah, it's pretty clear that most if not all of Jesus' biographies were made up from myths that were lying around at the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Liv wrote:(snip)
After all the book of the Dead, gives us the following facts:

His mother was a woman called Meri
His father was called Jo-Sep
His father was of royal descent
His birth was heralded by a star
His birth was witnessed by Shepherds
King Herut tried to have him killed
He was 30 when baptised
His baptiser went on to be beheaded
He was followed by 12 disciples
He walked on water and healed the sick
He gave a 'sermon on the mount'
He was crucified
...between 2 thieves
He was buried in a tomb
He was resurrected after 3 days

Is it coincidence, or are Christians simply practising a modified version of Egyptian Religion?

Well, there certainly are many coincidences between the Egyptian and Semitic religions of the region. And that's to be expected... there was a lot of trading and wars that went on incessantly for thousands of years.

But Ra = Jesus? Nah. I expect you mean Horus. There were several other man/gods in the region:

Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus, Tammuz. They all came before the Christian religion got started, and they all had many striking similarities to Jesus' story. So yeah, it's pretty clear that most if not all of Jesus' biographies were made up from myths that were lying around at the time.

Well, of all the... I wrote this post and my browser hadn'y logged me in! Bummer...!!!

Jovick wrote:Jesus's life was foretold in the old testament so it wouldn't seem unlikely that other peoples could not formulate their own God from the old testament. Of course thay only used parts of the prophesies. Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies.

So sayeth the people who wrote about him up to a century after his death, knowing that the people who read their tales would have no way of checking, and having a list of the "prophecies" on their desks. Yeah, that's really believable, man.

Tell me... Paul was the one who wrote about Jesus earlier than anyone else in the New Testament. What details did he mention about the man's life?

Virgin birth? Nope
The "flight to Egypt"? Nope
Born in Livlehem? Nope
Grew up in Nazareth? Nope
Baptism by John? Nope
Miracles? Few if any
Triumphal entry to Jerusalem? Nope
Betrayal by a disciple? Nope
Trial before Pilate? One mention, with no details
Appearances before people after resurrection? Yes, but far different than any record in a Gospel or Acts.

Yeah, it looks like an awful lot of the NT was cobbled together from stuff that was made up, not in response to anything that actually happened in reality.

So sayeth the people who wrote about him up to a century after his death, knowing that the people who read their tales would have no way of checking, and having a list of the "prophecies" on their desks. Yeah, that's really believable, man.

Most of the books of the new testament were written before 65AD. Using that as a point to deflect that many people wrote the same things is obvious.

Tell me... Paul was the one who wrote about Jesus earlier than anyone else in the New Testament. What details did he mention about the man's life?

Paul never saw Jesus before he was crucified so he did not have any first hand information to give. Paul met Jesus after his resurrection. In fact Paul was probably the biggest atheist the world has ever seen before he converted. That's good news for people like you.

Virgin birth? Nope
The "flight to Egypt"? Nope
Born in Livlehem? Nope
Grew up in Nazareth? Nope
Baptism by John? Nope
Miracles? Few if any
Triumphal entry to Jerusalem? Nope
Betrayal by a disciple? Nope
Trial before Pilate? One mention, with no details
Appearances before people after resurrection? Yes, but far different than any record in a Gospel or Acts.

Uh... Paul wasn't there dude.

Yeah, it looks like an awful lot of the NT was cobbled together from stuff that was made up, not in response to anything that actually happened in reality.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Especially using the warped reasoning you just posted.

Jovick wrote:

So sayeth the people who wrote about him up to a century after his death, knowing that the people who read their tales would have no way of checking, and having a list of the "prophecies" on their desks. Yeah, that's really believable, man.

Most of the books of the new testament were written before 65AD.

There's a lot of variance in thoughts on this. From the Wikipedia article on the NT:

For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed in the 80 to 95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.

Paul never saw Jesus before he was crucified so he did not have any first hand information to give.

I didn't say he did. However, the NT does say that he met several times with Peter and the other Apostles. Surely when he was writing letters to the Christian churches he was familiar with what people were saying about Jesus. He certainly should have been. But he was curiously ignorant, which tends to indicate that neither he, nor his audience had heard such stories when he wrote his stuff... otherwise, he would have used those stories to illustrate his points, just as any church pastor does today.

Paul met Jesus after his resurrection. In fact Paul was probably the biggest atheist the world has ever seen before he converted. That's good news for people like you.

Uh huh. And all this time, I thought Paul started out as Saul the Pharisee... a devout Jewish legal scholar, who was doing nothing but faithfully carrying out the laws that his God had handed down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. You were aware of that, weren't you?

Saying it doesn't make it so. Especially using the warped reasoning you just posted.

I gave no "warped reasoning." I gave ideas that I can back up with evidence. What about you? You have evidence to back up your claims... as opposed to your other posts?

Religion is a crock, they all have flaws and all have connections between each. The only thing religion has brought is war and hatred to those that dont follow the same path as others. but saying that i find religion to be a very interesting subject to study, but the more i learn the more i relise i am agnostic... meaning i dont believe any religion could possibly know if their is really a god but i dont doubt their could be, but i wont be dissapointed if their aint one! K.S

http://oneutah.org/2007/04/07/then-call-it-god/

[youtube]<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QQ-kvw1fYXs&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QQ-kvw1fYXs&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>[/youtube]
A most enlightening video. It really ties all the savior myths together rather nicely.

If we tied all of the myths of the earth being flat in with the truth of the earth being round does that make the truth of the earth being round any less true? Same thing. Same logic.

The video was very well done. Thanks for posting Rebelsnake, its amazing to me how many people ignore this fact about the Jesus mythology.

Oh yeah.. I said myyyyy....

(Wait for it...)


.....tttthhhhhhhh

(Just pokin at the BHL bear. )

Love it. You rock RS! I really do think that "that" is an interesting way of looking at things.

Liv wrote:Love it. You rock RS! I really do think that "that" is an interesting way of looking at things.

Makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it?

Personally I was guessing the 12 disciples where the "hours" on the clock... oh well.

Jovick wrote:

Christians, take a look at the above statue. Does it look like your beloved Jesus?

Never having laid eyes on Him, I don't know.

I do know, however, that the Roman/Judean historian Flavius Josephus reported on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth; more recently, ossuaries have been found with what may be the names of the Holy Family inscribed on them (not conclusive evidence by a long shot, but suggestive, certainly).

In general, there is more archaeological evidence for some events in the Old and New Testaments than there is for many events in secular history which are accepted as having happened.

I personally do not believe that Scripture is inerrant, or the literal Word of God - the Bible itself does not support that interpretation. I read the Bible on its own terms - as the history (in that sense, the "Word") of the Hebrew community, and in the New Testament, the spread of the Hebrew community's beliefs and ethics to the world at large after the ministry of Jesus.

Did Jesus work miracles? The Gospels give evidence that this happened. Was God sitting at the elbow of the writers of the Gospels and the other books of the Bible and nudging them to get the story just right? I don't see where, in the Bible itself, this is more than implied in passing.

And is Jesus simply a permutation of the Ra myth? There's not even passing evidence or documentation for that story. Simply a coincidence unsupported by anything else.

Jean Lafitte wrote:
Never having laid eyes on Him, I don't know.

I do know, however, that the Roman/Judean historian Flavius Josephus reported on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth; more recently, ossuaries have been found with what may be the names of the Holy Family inscribed on them (not conclusive evidence by a long shot, but suggestive, certainly).

In general, there is more archaeological evidence for some events in the Old and New Testaments than there is for many events in secular history which are accepted as having happened.

Wow...just, wow...

First, your 'evidence' is spotty at best-and I'm being very kind with that statement. It's not only open to interpretation but is not considered true evidence by any respected methodology. And to simply make the grand statement that "there is more archaeological evidence for Old testament than historical events" is just delusional.

Jean Lafitte wrote:And is Jesus simply a permutation of the Ra myth? There's not even passing evidence or documentation for that story. Simply a coincidence unsupported by anything else.

That's about the only thing I totally agree with you on, but probably not for the same reasons.

Jean Lafitte wrote:I do know, however, that the Roman/Judean historian Flavius Josephus reported on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth

This is extremely doubtful. Reading the "report" about Yeshua in the surrounding text, it certainly appears to be a lame insertion rather than part of the flow of the report. The other major problem with Josephus as a recorder of events surrounding Jesus' life is the complete lack of any mention of a slaughter of babies in Livlehem.

...more recently, ossuaries have been found with what may be the names of the Holy Family inscribed on them (not conclusive evidence by a long shot, but suggestive, certainly).

Certainly hard to attempt a conclusion with these ossuaries, considering they're considered fakes.

In general, there is more archaeological evidence for some events in the Old and New Testaments than there is for many events in secular history which are accepted as having happened.

Not from what I've read on the subject. Biblical archeology is constantly discovering facts that contradict the Biblical record, particularly pretty much everything from the supposed split of the Jewish nation, and going back to Genesis.

I personally do not believe that Scripture is inerrant, or the literal Word of God - the Bible itself does not support that interpretation. I read the Bible on its own terms - as the history (in that sense, the "Word") of the Hebrew community, and in the New Testament, the spread of the Hebrew community's beliefs and ethics to the world at large after the ministry of Jesus.

So long as everyone understands that what we, as modern humans consider "history" is a very different matter from the view that the ancients had of the term. For them, it literally was a "story," not a compilation of facts and analysis of those facts.

Did Jesus work miracles? The Gospels give evidence that this happened.

The Gospels claim they happened. That is not evidence.

...And is Jesus simply a permutation of the Ra myth? There's not even passing evidence or documentation for that story. Simply a coincidence unsupported by anything else.

Yes, we've established that Ra is a bad choice for this analysis. Krishna, Horus and Tammuz are better ones, IMO.

Isn't it strange that Christians have to appeal to Joesphus for confirmation of Jesus' existance. If Jesus really was God, you'd think it would be the other way round.

Jovick wrote:Jesus's life was foretold in the old testament so it wouldn't seem unlikely that other peoples could not formulate their own God from the old testament. Of course thay only used parts of the prophesies. Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies.

Who keeps letting these people out of their restraints and allowing them accesss to the internet?

Uh, sorry to have to tell you this, but that's not Ra. That's the Pharaoh Akhenaten. Next time, double check your shit before making yourself look like an idiot.

WTF? Is it Daniel freaking Jackson who posted?