"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus Horus is one of the most ancient deities of the Ancient Egyptian religion, who appears in his earliest form in late Predynastic Egypt. Represented as a falcon, his name is believed to mean 'the high' or 'the far off'and his earliest connections are to the sky and kingship, derived from being the son of Hathor or Nut, as a sun god." He was related to the sky. Nut, his mother was the Sky God. http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/nut.html I admit that there are many versions of Horus, Osiris, and Isis so we're both right and wrong depending on who believes what. And when characters such as the various Gods of egypt come into play the number of possibilities rise because science no longer applies. "Acharya S. quotes priest and author Joseph McCabe's: Whatever we make of the original myth…Isis seems to have been originally a virgin (or, perhaps, sexless) goddess, and in the later period of Egyptian religion she was again considered a virgin goddess, demanding very strict abstinence from her devotees. It is at this period, apparently, that the birthday of Horus was annually celebrated, about December 25th, in the temples. As both Macrobius and the Christian writer [of the "Paschal Chronicle"] say, a figure of Horus as a baby was laid in a manger, in a scenic reconstruction of a stable, and a statue of Isis was placed beside it. Horus was, in a sense, the Savior of mankind. He was their avenger against the powers of darkness; he was the light of the world. His birth-festival was a real Christmas before Christ." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis Isis was a mortal. Her husband Osiris was the God (of the underworld). You can see how that could make Isis a virgin. And if Horus was the reincarnation of Osiris, that would still make Isis a virgin... To say Osiris, god of the underworld, impregnated Isis resulting in her no longer being a virgin is to say Mary, mother of Jesus Christ wasn't a virgin either. The documentry was wrong about Princess Divaki from what I can find but I feel uncomfortable arguing with the findings of D. Murdock since she's an expert. How does a God have intercourse with a mortal? Does a God have to actually partake in the actual act? Or was Mary not the first, also? Hmmm... A God having intercourse (how ever that happens) with a mortal is a stretch too but again Jesus seems to be the exception. "The Romans adopted Crucifixion from the Etruscans, if you prefer to distinguish between the two. The Etruscans mixed with the Sabines, and pretty much became the Romans. Source: Professor of Roman History, Virginia Commonwealth University. They did not invent crucifixion, but they did institutionalize it as a standard method of execution." "Mithraism and Christianity Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin's accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians.[17] This led to a picture of rivalry between the two religions, which Ernest Renan summarized in his 1882 The Origins of Christianity by saying "if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic."[18] This characterization of Mithraism and Christianity as "deadly rivals" became mainstream in the early 20th century with Cumont's endorsement, but was later criticized as too sweeping.[citation needed] Martin (1989) characterizes the rivalry between 3rd century Mithraism and Christianity in Rome as primarily one for real estate in the public areas of urban Rome. Iconographical similarities with Christianity Franz Cumont was the first scholar to suggest that Christianity had borrowed iconographic themes from Mithraism, pointing out that Mithraic images of the Heavens, the Earth, the Ocean, the Sun, the Moon, the Planets, signs of the Zodiac, the Winds, the Seasons, and the Elements are found on Christian sarcophagi, mosaics, and miniatures from the third to the fifth centuries. According to Cumont the Church was opposed to the pagan practice of worshipping the cosmic cycle, but these images were nevertheless incorporated into Christian artworks, in which "a few alterations in costume and attitude transformed a pagan scene into a Christian picture". Early Christian depictions of Moses striking Mount Horeb (Sinai) with his staff to release drinking water were, according to Cumont, inspired by an earlier Mithraic reference to Mithras shooting arrows at rocks causing fountains to spring up. M.J. Vermaseren claimed that the scene of Mithras ascending into the heavens was similarly incorporated into Christian art: after Mithras had accomplished a series of miraculous deeds, he ascended into the heavens in a chariot, which in various depictions is drawn by horses being controlled by by Helios-Sol, the pagan sun god. In other depictions a chariot of fire belonging to Helios is led into the water, surrounded by the god Oceanus and sea nymphs. Vermaseren argues that Christian portrayals on sarcophagi of the soul’s ascension into heaven, though ostensibly referencing the biblical scene of Elijah being led into heaven by fiery chariots and horses, were in fact inspired by representations of Mithras' ascent into the heavens in Helios’ chariot. The sun god, Vermaseren claims, provided inspiration for the flames on Elijah’s chariot and the Jordan River is personified by a figure resembling the god Oceanus. A. Deman suggests that rather than attempting to find individual references from Mithraic art in Christian iconography, as Cumont does with the sun and moon, for instance, it is better to look for larger patterns of comparison: "with this method, pure coincidences can no longer be used and so the recognition of Mithras as the privileged pagan inspirer of medieval Christian iconography is forced upon us." For example Deman compares what he calls the "creative sacrifice" of Mithras with the creative sacrifice of Christ. In both iconographic scenes the vernal sacrifice is central to the image, with sun and the moon symmetrically arranged above. Beneath the sacrifice two other figures are symmetrically arranged. In mithraic scenes these are Cautes and Cautopates, and in the Christian scenes, which date from the 4th century onwards, the figures are typically Mary and John. In other Christian instances however, these two attendants are other figures, and carry a raised and lowered object reminiscent of the raised and lowered torches of Cautes and Cautopates. Such figures may be two Roman soldiers armed with lances, or Longinus holding a spear and Stephaton offering Jesus vinegar from a sponge. In some instances the clothes of these figures resemble those of Cautes and Cautopates in the earlier Mithraic depictions. Derman also compares the twelve apostles shown in Christian crucifixion scenes with the twelve signs of the zodiac common in Mithraic scenes, as well as identifying a cross-legged posture commonly found in figures in both sets of iconography." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras#Mithraism_and_Christianity Now as for the resurrection, I'll look into that and post later. Also, I think most would agree that the virgin birth of Jesus around 2,000 years ago is odd. We're not talking about today. We're talking about 2,000 years ago and by a "holy spirit" -- also odd.
Jesus was born in the spring but during the middle ages, the catholic church promted celebrating jesus's birthday on the same day as a pagen holiday (which was popular at the time) in hopeing that the pagens would begin to also celebrate christmas, and slowly convert it's just funny to me that all these people are apparently born in "dec 25" obviously used to decieve people that these mortals were just like jesus, with his 12 disciples when they dont actually notice the real facts that jesus wasn't even born that day HA HA HA,
The case in point I was trying to get at is that, if Christianity is as sacred and "the one" religion as it claims to be, why would it be necessary to "slowly convert" pagans by lying to them about Christmas? While obviously it is working, doesn't that constitute as "lying" and thus perpetrates the ten commandments? And neither "doing it (lying) for the good for the people" or "we are doing it to spread the love of God" are good reasons -- would God want his followers to lie, steal, kill (all of which are forbidden by the ten commandments) in his name? If so, he's having this huge double standard there and offering even less credibility than ever (if that's even possible).
you've stumble upon the sinfulness of man, his doubts, his fears, and his inability to understand the sovereignty of God. it is unfaithfulness and man's impatience in the will of God that has caused him to sin so dreadfully and so blindly. when the church's views on "mass-conversion" and doubting faith are twisted together; we tend to blind ourselves with excuses and tales of godless definition of righteousness. but is it not true (for most) that when one commits a sin; they do not see the sinful nature of their actions until they look back and ponder upon what they have done. but do not be mistaken, i am not making excuses for the sins of the church. i, for one, do not support nor will i defend the church's reason(s) for centuries of "lying" to the public (unless, of course, it is factually proven that Christ Jesus was born on Dec. 25). however, i will defend solely and strongly the accurate-nature of the Bible. and the Bible describes most beautifully the birth and life of Christ Jesus predicted by the prophets in the Old Testament. source: http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn24/believe_prophecy.htm
I'd be suprised if a puppet master couldn't predict what the puppet was going to do next. So did Jesus really exist or was he just an iconic figure made up to pursued the people into believing? http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
ok not remembering every thought i had while reading through, ill say what i can remember. although a lot of what i say will just be things ive heard or read at some point or other. ive never looked into any of it. december 25th, that is a date form we use now and in terms or religion and well a lot of things is relativly new way of defining a year. things like easter move about from year to year as its based on a different calender. (i think it was something like first moon after some event. i forget now) the point about virgin births, christianity claims mary simply became pregnant, where some of the other gods were born of a already exsisting god having intercourse with their mother. the different beliefs see gods as different things, some see them as actual beings, where others see them as spirits. so intercouse for some of these gods may have been possible as far as the people believed. its possible that there was an actual person jesus, but history is what people make of it. if the ruler at the time didnt wish for certain things to be recorded they could make it so. just like conspiricy theories of today, saying the media is completely controled, which it might well be, but that isnt the current topic. the church at some point had a lot of power, and so may have made jesus out to be more than he really was. i should point out i was brought up with church and christianity and fairly religious parents, but i personally dont believe. a lot of this is stuff ive picked up over the years of going to chruch once a week and media. and i appologise i might have said anything to offend, that wasnt the intention.
