Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forbidden fruit / truth
04-04-2010, 10:27 PM
Post: #1
Forbidden fruit / truth
Here we are going to discuss why the Christian religion is a copy pasted religion bordering the line of plagiarism. This will also address critical problems with the religion that include why it's the worshiping of the Sun, and why Jesus's story is a carbon copy of far more ancient religions than Christianity.

Note: Before you reply, I strongly suggest you read these:

The Forbidden Fruit: The Apple

The Forbidden Knowledge: Truth?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2010, 02:11 PM
Post: #2
RE: Forbidden fruit / truth
OK, I'll discuss this with you, but first you should read this, as we've already had the Jesus discussion here: http://www.religionforums.org/thread-1359.html
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2010, 11:15 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2010 03:55 AM by TheJackel.)
Post: #3
RE: Forbidden fruit / truth
That discussion did not invalidate my arguments Smile.. It's asserting that your prophet is the real prophet without substantiation.. Jesus's story is hardly original for it's era. Before you do discuss this I would hope that you have read my articles completely.. I have done a lot of study on ancient religion while I had been a Christian for 20 some years. Your argument isn't something I haven't used before myself.. And anything in the bible loses all credibility if it couldn't even get Genesis right. And much of genesis is impossible anyways because even if we melted the polar caps the sea level could only rise 250 FT..It would require almost 3 to 4 times the water volume on Earth to reach 1000 FT above sea level. Seriously :/

It really doesn't matter if Jesus really existed, or if any other religious so called prophet existed.. When the bible clearly copies and pastes from other religions far more ancient that itself so obviously, it loses all credibility.. Hence, Jesus really isn't anymore credible than even his own rivals.. And many scholars I have talked to suggest Jesus only became more accepted and popular because his name was more 'House Hold friendly".. Hence, the same reason why brand Names like Nike are so recognizable... Even Newton had argued that Jesus was a false prophet, and he was extremely religious, and faithful to the religion. Newton's secret life as an alchemist was only driven to prove the divinity of his GOD.. hence, the search for the GOD stone hidden within religious scripture..

Hence, it is not the man that is in question sir, it's the obvious borderline plagiarism taken from other religions.. I know them well enough to know that there is no room to even consider that it wasn't..
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 04:52 AM
Post: #4
RE: Forbidden fruit / truth
(04-05-2010 11:15 PM)TheJackel Wrote:  That discussion did not invalidate my arguments Smile..

I didn't say that it did. In fact it supports bits of it, and if you'll notice I started that thread as it's something I'm also interested in. I'm up for talking to you about this, so we can look at your ideas and see which ones we both agree with, and which ones we don't. The very fact that you used Zeitgeist the movie as a reference worries me, as their sources are hardly academic and some are completely New Age rubbish you find in the Mind, Body and Spirit section of a book shop along with Teen Witch Spells and The Holy Blood and Holy Grail.

(04-05-2010 11:15 PM)TheJackel Wrote:  It's asserting that your prophet is the real prophet without substantiation.. Jesus's story is hardly original for it's era.

This shows you didn't read the thread I suggested. I'm an atheist, so you can cut the high horse of being right about 'my prophet'. I'm interested in religious history, that's why I want to discuss this.

(04-05-2010 11:15 PM)TheJackel Wrote:  Before you do discuss this I would hope that you have read my articles completely..

I've glanced over them, and saw nothing that I haven't already read, to be honest.

(04-05-2010 11:15 PM)TheJackel Wrote:  Hence, it is not the man that is in question sir, it's the obvious borderline plagiarism taken from other religions.. I know them well enough to know that there is no room to even consider that it wasn't..

Ok, let's drop the chest beating. Where do you want to go from here? Shall I take parts of your argument and we can examine them closely, or is there a bit in particular you want to start with? I suggested you read that other thread as Parousia is a bit of a knowledge-bucket, so maybe actually read that as I might reference things we discussed; I did you the honour of reading your ideas after all.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 09:57 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2010 10:02 PM by TheJackel.)
Post: #5
RE: Forbidden fruit / truth
Quote:I didn't say that it did. In fact it supports bits of it, and if you'll notice I started that thread as it's something I'm also interested in. I'm up for talking to you about this, so we can look at your ideas and see which ones we both agree with, and which ones we don't. The very fact that you used Zeitgeist the movie as a reference worries me, as their sources are hardly academic and some are completely New Age rubbish you find in the Mind, Body and Spirit section of a book shop along with Teen Witch Spells and The Holy Blood and Holy Grail.

I understand that the bible has some historical value to itself and that some characters of figures may have actually existed in life.. My argument is that this is irrelevant.. You have many good points that make a lot of sense.. however, many Christians will argue that the new Testament is a product of false revision.. Hence where is the scripture that nobody is allowed to read to verify any revisions made to the Old Testament. There are still very problematic issues with Jesus's credibility.

Zeitgeist has a lot of key points that make sense and some that don't.. This is the problem when a religion copies other religions.. You end up with a religion like Christianity that is a complete mess.. Some parts of Christianity make sense historically, and others don't.. And that is because Christianity is in fact an example of religious evolution and speciation.. It's done this to stamp out all the other religions by taking over different aspects of them.. This is why you celebrate Jesus's birthday on Dec 25th and not in March.. This is why Jesus's story is stolen from far more ancient religions. This is however not to say that Christianity doesn't have some of it's own historical value.. I agree with much of what you had to say in your article..


Quote: This shows you didn't read the thread I suggested. I'm an atheist, so you can cut the high horse of being right about 'my prophet'. I'm interested in religious history, that's why I want to discuss this.

my apologies, it was a bit late when i replied and i don't even know why I suggested it was "your" prophet.. But the key note here is that Jesus is just one of many such men during his era.. And his crucifixion is likely the only reason why he became famous or accepted as the "prophet" in Christianity.. However, his basic life story noted in the Bible is practically stripped from other religions as we both agree on.. And there is a reason why this is.. It's to make him more GOD like, and less ordinary.. It's very hard to make people worship and ordinary man.. You have to attach supernatural meaning to the man in order to create a symbol of worship.. Hence, Christianity used Jesus as a symbol of salvation, redemption, love, and forgiveness which may have been projected by his teachings.. Hence, if Jesus had not been crucified he would have likely been just another dime a dozen prophet or self-proclaimed healer, or that one of his rivals would have likely taken his place..

So I don't think I have ever disagreed on whether or not a man named Jesus had ever existed. I don't think that had anything to do with my argument.

* I do however beg to differ in posted argument about bread and whine having to do with people becoming more comfortable with the religion.. It's well known that just the introduction of these will result in the trade of these things regardless of religious symbolism you try to attach to them. If anything being drunk would just make you more open to the idea Smile

Quote:I've glanced over them, and saw nothing that I haven't already read, to be honest.

That is fine, and I would love to read your input on them

Quote:Ok, let's drop the chest beating. Where do you want to go from here? Shall I take parts of your argument and we can examine them closely, or is there a bit in particular you want to start with? I suggested you read that other thread as Parousia is a bit of a knowledge-bucket, so maybe actually read that as I might reference things we discussed; I did you the honour of reading your ideas after all.

There is nowhere really to go from there.. It pretty much show's that the credibility problems with the story of Jesus all on it's own.. I think you are looking for a much deeper discussion than is necessary.. I mean we could go into his failed prophecies, or his own lack of telling the truth, or even his own contradictions.. The more we get into it the more we just validate that Christianity is using an ordinary man as a prophet, or symbol of GOD and that they in fact stole this story from other religions to embellish his own..

I'm curious, have you ever read a book on the mechanics of brainwashing and then read the bible? And then understand what religion is really about?.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 11:18 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2010 11:25 PM by TheJackel.)
Post: #6
RE: Forbidden fruit / truth
I also do think that although that a lot of what you had posted makes sense, I do think you inject your own assertions into it.. Hence, we can only really go by what is written in the Bible and what is commonly believed to be true.. Hence, all we are doing is arguing semantics that don't really change anything because you are asserting to things even though they sound reasonable or plausible..

Quote:The preachings and numerous sayings attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels are entirely believable as representing a Jewish reformer seeking to restore a purer and more spiritual form of Judaism as the necessary precursor to the opening of the messianic age. Various episodes, especially his run-ins with the Pharisees and Sadducees, sound like they originate in the tenure of the literalist Shammai as president of the Sanhedrin (20-30 CE). They do not quite make sense in the era of Gospel writing (after 70 CE) when the Pharisees had evolved well beyond that and the Sadducees were essentially non-existent. If we then consider the tenure of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE) we have a very reasonable timeframe of 26-30 CE for the mission of Jesus.

Here I would disagree, you have not outlined anything that backs up the time line in accordance to Jesus's own activities or whereabouts throughout this time line.. Yes the amount of time can be plausible if all assertions fall into place. However I'm not sure if they do because the Sadducees were still existent.. However, after the fall of the temple Sadducees did become a non-factor but not non-existent.. They simply no-longer controlled the temple or had the power base. People just don't vanish after falling, they tend to hide under conformity.. They simply became a non-factor??
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2010, 08:19 PM
Post: #7
RE: Forbidden fruit / truth
OK, I’m going to quote bits so we don’t get confused about which of your comments I’m referring to. I won’t go through the whole lot as I’m not quite sure how much detail you want to get into, but we’ll come to that. Stop me if you get bored.

(04-06-2010 09:57 PM)TheJackel Wrote:  There is nowhere really to go from there.. It pretty much show's that the credibility problems with the story of Jesus all on it's own.. I think you are looking for a much deeper discussion than is necessary.. I mean we could go into his failed prophecies, or his own lack of telling the truth, or even his own contradictions.. The more we get into it the more we just validate that Christianity is using an ordinary man as a prophet, or symbol of GOD and that they in fact stole this story from other religions to embellish his own..

I am indeed looking for a far deeper discussion, but that’s because I feel there are holes in what you are saying. As I said, I’m interested in religious history, so that’s how I look at this subject. Some of the things you are claiming just aren’t accurate, and so in order for your views to have any real credibility then they need to be water tight. It’s a nice argument, but it’s nothing Christians (Xians from now as it’s shorter to type) over the last 2,000 years haven’t heard before, and haven’t managed to argue with. One I heard was that the ancients were in need of Christ so they invented similar myths to fulfill them until the time of his coming.

If it’s cool with you, I’ll just start, and you just direct the conversation where you’re interested and we’ll see where that takes us. As I said, if you’re not interested just say. You seem hung up on the idea of Christian credibility, and that’s not really my concern; I’m interested how the ideas of Xianity developed.

Oh, and the last bit you quoted was Parousia’s comment, not mine, so I can’t answer you on that yet, but I’ll look at it and go from there if you want.

Right, off the top of my head, here’s a few issues:

Quote:Jesus and Dionysus
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dionysus.html

*Dionysus was the god of wine, agriculture, and fertility of nature
*Divine Father, Mortal Virgin Mother
*Healed the sick
*Turned water into wine
*Killed, and resurrected to immortality
*Depicted on a Donkey
*Death was greatest accomplishment delivering humanity

Dionysus’ mother wasn’t a virgin, and it is in no Greek version that she was. (Mary wasn’t either, but that’s been discussed by Parousia and I). Where are the sources for your other points too? When did Dionysus heal the sick? How did his death deliver humanity? If you read the source you give, Dionysus (as Zagreus) is twice born, not resurrected after being killed by the Titans. The fact that he is god of wine, agriculture, etc is irrelevant to Jesus. Can you find me a source of Dionysus turning water into wine? It’s not in Hesiod or anything else as far as I can remember, so whilst it is sacred to D, that’s a sloppy parallel.

Quote:1. His mother was a virgin woman: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Krishna, Mithra, Zoroaster

Again, Dionysus’ mother wasn’t a virgin, nor was Buddha’s. In fact, I don’t think any of them were virgins, unless you can give me a reference that says otherwise.

Quote:6. He was born in a manger or a cave: Jesus, Dionysus, Mithra

What?!? Can you really suggest a cave is the same as a manger?

Quote:15. He was a traveling teacher of great wisdom: Jesus, Buddha, Dionysus, Mithra

I needn’t even say anything about how crap that one is. I know you didn’t write these, but they are so flawed it makes your argument look amateur. Same with Holy Blood and Holy Grail; even if a couple of ideas are right, the research is so terrible it discredits everything else. You don’t want to fall foul of same thing if you want to look credible to people.

In fact, I’m struggling to find much to discuss now I look at your posts on the atheist forum in detail. I can probably pull apart the documentaries if you want, but I’m not sure I can be bothered. The development of the Christian myth is much more interesting than you are suggesting, and has more to do with Judaic thought and it’s crossing with Hellenistic thought in a big Roman melting pot than to do with trying to tenuously link in Indian myths.

Up to you really, fella. I can go through your atheist forum posts bit by bit if you want, or we can just leave it there. I’m not convinced at all that you are right though, and I think you are taking these ideas at surface value. To be honest, I think your ideas are better than the ones you are quoting, and I’d rather discuss that.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2010, 11:22 PM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2010 12:11 AM by TheJackel.)
Post: #8
RE: Forbidden fruit / truth
It's not a matter if Jesus exactly matches any other example.. The point that is made is the the common use of these attributes are completely unoriginal, and common during those time periods. And some are indeed copy-pasted.. The point of the article was not to say that the writers of the Bible specifically stole from this specific story, god, prophet ectra.. It's key to note that the common uses of these traits show's how irrelevant the story of Jesus really is.. Hence the virgin mother bit clearly was not started with Christianity.. The list I provided in the article shows how unoriginal it all really is.. And you clearly don't understand that the writers of the bible were not completely ignorant of other ancient religion's from which they used to inspire their own.

The story of the ark was indeed copy-pasted, Most of Jesus's story revolves around common folk tales, and common self proclaimed healers.. And if you were interested in religious history you would know this. There is nothing remarkable about it

And I am not an atheist.. I am a realist.. Hence, religion isn't the only fairytale I don't follow
1) Dionysus "was also called Dimetor [of two mothers] .. really hard to have two mothers without 1 being the virgin or delivery vessel.

2) Buddha - Maya was a virgin mother - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28mot..._Buddha%29

3) Attis was born on December 25th of the Virgin Nana. http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms....cybele.htm

4)Krishna - two quotes in the original first volume of Asiatic Researches by Sir Jones stating that Krishna's mother was a "virgin," one of which claimed this contention could be found in "the Sanskrit Dictionary" purportedly compiled 2,000 years previously. Fortunately these quotes and others were preserved by the "heretic" Rev. Robert Taylor, who for his efforts at spreading the message about the patent unoriginality of the gospel story of Jesus Christ was imprisoned twice in Great Britain in the 1820s on charges of blasphemy

Quote:[Krishna] was born from the left intercostal rib of a Virgin, of the royal line of Devaci, and after his manifestation on earth, returned again to his heavenly seat in Vaicontha.

Quote:"In the Sanscrit Dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have the whole story of the incarnate deity born of a virgin..."

5) added bonus : "The Indian incarnate God Chrishna, the Hindoos believe, had a virgin mother of the royal race, who was sought to be destroyed in his infancy about nine hundred years before Christ...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birt...#Zoroaster
6) Mithra - Mirthra being born of "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras". Anahita was said to have conceived the Mithras from the seed of Zarathustra preserved in the waters of Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan. In other, contradictory traditions, he is also born without any sex but from the rock wall of a cave. One must know that there were separate Mithra traditions that may have changed and been adapted over time. This information comes from a Temple that bears this inscription dedicated to Anahita and dated to about 200 B.C.E.. "wiki needs to correct their page on Mirthra btw"

7)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birt...#Zoroaster
http://www.allsands.com/religious/zoroas...swr_gn.htm

Also not that many Christians will argue these figures weren't real or that they try to classify their births as non-virgin births.. however, besides these disingenuous attempts, it wouldn't matter if any were true, real, or false.. Why? because its the folk lore or common beliefs or tales that date back well before the birth of Christ that make them relevant to the unoriginality of jesus's story.. Because Jesus's story can also be considred folk tale in the same sense as "the Virgin Birth".. These types of embellishments and stories were common during that era, and ancient times.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2010, 12:29 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2010 12:53 AM by TheJackel.)
Post: #9
RE: Forbidden fruit / truth
Quote:"What?!? Can you really suggest a cave is the same as a manger? "

A manger is also a Christian symbol, associated with nativity scenes where Mary placed the baby Jesus in a manger. (Luke 2:7).

Example:
Dionysus was born of Semele who was impregnated by a bolt of lightning from Zeus. He was born in a cave. He was also depicted in a manger "nativity" scene that is nearly identical to that of Jesus.

Manger "nativity scene"
http://www.geo-pol.com/god/dionysus.htm

Thus do i need to continue on with this? Seriously?
Quote:I needn’t even say anything about how crap that one is. I know you didn’t write these, but they are so flawed it makes your argument look amateur. Same with Holy Blood and Holy Grail; even if a couple of ideas are right, the research is so terrible it discredits everything else. You don’t want to fall foul of same thing if you want to look credible to people.

The only person losing credibility here is you.. I don't think you understand how these stories influenced each other, or how much of a religious cultural impact these stories had on each other or the people that told them, read them, or followed them during those time periods.. Christianity was hugely influenced by ancient religions, tales, figures, symbols, rituals, ectra..

The story of the Ark being one of the most glaring cases of copy paste here! Put your own twist and ideas here.. Publish!..

In Fact many of Jesus's "Teachings" are also hardly original for the time period or even that far off from his own rivals.. Hell even the Dead Sea scrolls show how unoriginal the bible is, and Christianity is.

And lets dwell deeper shall we?

1) The genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict one another.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/genealogy.html

2) The Virgin Birth is based upon pagan myths and a mistranslation of Isaiah.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/virgin.html

3) Despite what the Catholic Church teaches, Mary was no "perpetual virgin".
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pervirgin.html

4) The stories relating to Jesus' birth in Bethlehem are not consistent.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/birthplace.html

5) The story of Herod's slaughter of the innocents , told in Matthew is a work of pure fiction.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/herod.html

6) The two stories in Matthew and Luke with respect to their (Joseph, Mary and Jesus) settling in Nazareth are not compatible.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nazareth.html

7) Matthew openly relies on Old Testament passages to construct his story of the nativity.[c] In some cases he even twisted the Old Testament passages to fit his story.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/m...ecies.html
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/jesus.html#c

8) Two historical events, the census of Quirinius and the death of Herod, separated from each other by a decade, were presented in the gospels as contemporaneous.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/Quirinius.html

9) The Herod-Quirinius problem means that any attempt to date the birth of Jesus based on the gospel accounts, is predestined to fail.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/birthdate.html

10) Other elements of the Nativity can also be shown to be unreliable. These stories were most likely constructed from the ground up from Old Testament accounts and popular myths.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/n...other.html
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2010, 03:57 AM
Post: #10
RE: Forbidden fruit / truth
basically the bible has literally no consistency of credibility.. It's literally a complete mess. and I don't think we have to get into the boat load of contradictions, hypocrisies, murder, or retards of the mouth strewn throughout the bible.. Even Jesus's crucifixion is nothing special in regards to the fact that he's not the only one who had been placed on the cross to be crucified.. And his resurrection story wasn't even original.. It speaks volumes for what we can best describe as a folk tale, or embellished story of an ordinary man (should he had really existed)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Fruit God Loves You All LovesYouAll 282 10,318 10-17-2016 06:12 PM
Last Post: Caesar Saladin
  How can the Catholic religion charge for indulgencies, when forbidden by the Bible? jetson 17 1,917 05-29-2015 07:30 PM
Last Post: Satyros
  Forbidden Love kevlar 6 1,121 09-29-2011 03:27 PM
Last Post: steveeden



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)