[quote=alwaysabeliever]I am new to the site. I have been reading about how silly it is to believe in God and how people that do believe are irrational people.[/quote]

Some of us say that, some don't. But do you think that I would sound silly saying "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster"?

[quote]So, I was just wandering what people think about Jesus. Since, it has been proven through historical documents that he did exist[/quote]

Check this out.

Some have suggested that the idea dates to New Testament times, citing 2 John 1:7's "many deceivers [who] are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." Some scholars studying this period believe that these early quotes refer to docetism, the belief that Jesus appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.

The first modern, published proponent of this theory was probably nineteenth century historian and theologian Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker who argued that the true founder of Christianity was the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. His arguments made little impact at the time. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism with Gnostic mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under writers such as A.D. Loman and G.J.P.J. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the Sermon on the Mount, were in reality fictions to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity developed from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about godhood.

Jesus-Myth theories often draw on nineteenth century scholarship on the formation of myth, in the work of writers such as Max Müller and James Frazer. Müller argued that religions originated in mythic stories of the birth, death and rebirth of the sun. Frazer further attempted to explain the origins of humanity's beliefs in the idea of a "sacrificial king", associated with the sun, vegetation, or a "year-daemon" as a dying and reviving god. According to his major book on the subject, The Golden Bough, the king's death and rebirth was connected to the regeneration of the earth in springtime and was often required for the continuity of a ritual-based community.

By the early twentieth century a number of writers had published arguments in favor of the Jesus-Myth theory. These treatments were sufficiently influential to merit several book-length responses by traditional historians and New Testament scholars. The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was Arthur Drews's The Christ-Myth (1909) which argued that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities. This combination of arguments, often referred to as the "history of religions" school, became the standard approach of the mythic Christ theory in the era prior to the Second World War.

After World War II methodology in Ancient Near Eastern archaeology and scholarship vastly improved, destroying many of the claims of the pre-war history of religions school. Furthermore, partly as a response to Nazi ideas of the Aryan Christ, and partly in response to comparative views of religion that helped support early mythicism, New Testament scholars began emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus. Mythicism went into a period of abeyance and academia largely ignored it.

The revival of the Jesus Myth in the postwar era was due largely to the efforts of two scholars, John Marco Allegro (The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross and The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth) and George Albert Wells (The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth). Also prominent have been William B. Smith, , and as well as by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (co-authors of The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess), and Earl Doherty (author of The Jesus Puzzle), and Larry Wright, author of Christianity, Astrology & Myth.

[quote]..that he did die on a cross, and that he physically rose from the dead (since you know he was seen by hundreds of people over a period of forty days).[/quote]

That was written about 40 years after his "death". Which is weird that they didn't record things when it happened. For example, "Did you just see Jesus walk on water?" Yeah man, but let's write about it in 40 years since we don't record things now."

And Jesus is not the only one to have resurrected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris-Dionysus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attis

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/orpheus_crux.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/cross.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/madonnas.gif[/IMG]

Here are even more similarities Jesus Christ had with others.

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar1.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa0.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa2.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa4.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

But I doubt you will click any of the links, so I will paste the good stuff here.

[b]Mother's pregnancy[/b]: It was a common belief among early Christians that Mary was pregnant for only seven months. This legend is preserved in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Although this gospel was widely used by early Christians, it was never accepted into the official canon. Semele, mother of Dionysus, was also believed to have had a 7 month pregnancy.

[b]Virgin birth[/b]: Author William Harwood has written that Jesus' "equation in Greek eyes with the resurrected savior-god Dionysos led an interpolator to insert a virgin-birth myth into the gospel now known as Matthew."

[b]Birth Witnesses[/b]: The gospel of Matthew records that Jesus was visited by an unknown number of wise men, called Magi. Authors Freke & Gandy identify them as followers of the god man Mithras from Persia.

Most other sources believe that they were Zoroastrian priests from Persia who were experts in astrology. There is a Zoroastrian belief "that a son of Zoroaster will be born many years after his death by a virgin...This son will apparantly [sic] raise the dead and crush the forces of evil. Later Christians got rather excited about this apparant [sic] pagan prophecy of the coming of the Messiah..."

The gospel of Luke records that Jesus was visited by three shepherds. Mithra the god man from Persia was also visited shortly after birth by three shepherds.

The magi brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. A Pagan belief from the 6th century BCE states that these are the precise materials to use when worshiping God.

[b] Healing[/b]: Jesus is recorded throughout the gospels as healing the sick and restoring the dead to life. So was Asclepius, a Greek god man. Pagans and early Christians debated who was the more effective healer.

[b] Ministry[/b]: Jesus appeared as a wandering holy man who is later transfigured in the presence of some of his disciples. Dionysus was portrayed in the same manner in Euripides' play The Bacchae, written in 410 BCE.

[b]Miracles[/b]: Both Jesus and Empedocles were recorded as teaching spiritual truths, curing illness, foretelling the future, controlling the wind and rain, and raising people from the dead. Both Mithra and Jesus performed many healings of the sick and mentally ill; both raised the dead.

Mark, chapter 5 describes Jesus driving demons from a man into a herd of about 2,000 pigs who rushed over a cliff and drowned. In Eleusis, about 2,000 initiates would bathe in the sea. Each had a young pig to which the believers' sins would be transferred. The pigs were then chased over a chasm and killed.

[b]Fishing[/b]: John 21:11 records that Jesus performed a miracle which enabled Simon Peter to catch exactly 153 fish. The Pagan Pythagoras considered 153 a sacred number. The ratio of 153 to 265 was referred to by the Pagan Archimedes as "the measure of the fish." That ratio is used to generate a fish-like shape using two circles. The sign of the fish was used by the early Christians as their main symbol.

[b]Arrest[/b]: Both Dionysus and Jesus celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples before his death.

Dionysus is described in Euripides' play The Bacchae as bringing a new religion to the people, being plotted against by the leaders, being arrested and appearing before the political ruler. Dionysus said to his captors "You know not what you are doing..," almost replicating Jesus' words at the cross. He was unjustly accused and executed. All of these themes are seen in the Gospels.

[b] Crucifixion & resurrection[/b]: Jesus' body was wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh and aloe. Osiris was also said to have been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh.

[b]And here are the similarties between Jesus and Horus. [/b]

http://framingbusiness.net/php/2004/jesushorus.php

The following was adapted and expanded based on an article available from religioustolerance.org. Upon revision, each point will be fleshed out and this will be more of an essay than a list. As it stands, this list is hardly original... but revised, will hopefully be more authoritative and objective than many of the Christ-bashing pages out there.

1. Both were conceived of a virgin.

2. Both were the "only begotten son" of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)

3. Horus's mother was Meri, Jesus's mother was Mary.

4. Horus's foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus's foster father was Joseph.

5. Both foster fathers were of royal descent.

6. Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable).

7. Both had their coming announced to their mother by an angel.

8. Horus; birth was heralded by the star Sirius (the morning star). Jesus had his birth heralded by a star in the East (the sun rises in the East).

9. Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.

10. Both births were announced by angels (this si nto the same as number 7).

11. Both had shepherds witnessing the birth.

12. Horus was visited at birth by "three solar deities" and Jesus was visited by "three wise men".

13. After the birth of Horus, Herut tried to have Horus murdered. After the birth of Jesus, Herod tried to have Jesus murdered.

14. To hide from Herut, the god That tells Isis, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." To hide from Herod, an angel tells Joseph to "arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt."

15. When Horus came of age, he had a special ritual where hsi eye was restored. When Jesus (and other Jews) come of age, they have a special ritual called a Bar Mitzvah.

16. Both Horus and Jesus were 12 at this coming-of-age ritual.

17. Neither have any official recorded life histories between the ages of 12 and 30.

18. Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan.

19. Both were baptized at age 30.

20. Horus was baptized by Anup the Baptizer. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

21. Both Anup and John were later beheaded.

22. Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Set. Jesus was taken from the desert in Palestine up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Satan.

23. Both Horus and Jesus successfully resist this temptation.

24. Both have 12 disciples.

25. Both walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind.

26. Horus "stilled the sea by his power." Jesus commanded the sea to be still by saying, "Peace, be still."

27. Horus raised his dead father (Osiris) from the grave. Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave. (Note the similarity in names when you say them out loud. Further, Osiris was also known as Asar, which is El-Asar in Hebrew, which is El-Asarus in Latin.)

28. Osiris was raised in the town of Anu. Lazarus was raised in Bethanu (literally, "house of Anu").

29. Both gods delivered a Sermon on the Mount.

30. Both were crucified.

31. Both were crucified next to two thieves.

32. Both were buried in a tomb.

33. Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back "three days" later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is hardly three days).

34. Both had their resurrection announced by women.

35. Both are supposed to return for a 1000-year reign.

36. Horus is known as KRST, the anointed one. Jesus was known as the Christ (which means "anointed one").

37. Both Jesus and Horus have been called the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, and the winnower.

38. Both are associated with the zodiac sign of Pisces (the fish).

39. Both are associated with the symbols of the fish, the beetle, the vine, and the shepherd's crook.

40. Horus was born in Anu ("the place of bread") and Jesus was born in Bethlehem ("the house of bread").

41. "The infant Horus was carried out of Egypt to escape the wrath of Typhon. The infant Jesus was carried into Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Concerning the infant Jesus, the New Testament states the following prophecy: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son.'" (See Point 13)

42. Both were transfigured on the mount.

43. The catacombs of Rome have pictures of the infant Horus being held by his mother, not unlike the modern-day images of "Madonna and Child."

44. Noted English author C. W. King says that both Isis and Mary are called "Immaculate".

45. Horus says: "Osiris, I am your son, come to glorify your soul, and to give you even more power." And Jesus says: "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once."

46. Horus was identified with the Tau (cross).

[quote] Also, if you are a evoluntionist, what do you do with all the gaps in the fossil record. I mean if evolution is the way to go, why are there zero fossils that are in the stage of changing from one species to another. Just curious. [/quote]

Go to my Creation versus Evolution forum and we can talk about it there.

PWNED.

I concur regarding Pwnage.

as do I! Amercian Atheist that was some really good reasearch!

Thanks, Mike!

I just wish alwaysabeliever would do some research of his own. :)

[quote=alwaysabeliever]Also, if you are a evoluntionist, what do you do with all the gaps in the fossil record. I mean if evolution is the way to go, why are there zero fossils that are in the stage of changing from one species to another. Just curious. [/quote]

I see that you still haven't gone to the "Creation versus Evolution" thread yet, so I will just post a few links for you to do your own research on evolution and the fossils.

What is Science?

Still not sure what science is? This talks more about physics.

And again, what exactly is science?

What is the scientific method? Be sure to read the big green statement.

More about the scientific method

Check these transitional fossils out

A new one!

Orbulina

Look at this too.

Reptiles to mammals

Dino-birds

This looks great.

Evolution of the human brain.

Introduction to human emotions.

Composition of the brain.

Personality psychology on Wikipedia.

Personality theories.

Charles Darwin!

The good book.

Evolution for beginners.

God says this is what God says.

Let’s look at the foolish people!

Evolution is a fact.

Facts about Evolution.

Get acquainted with Richard Dawkins.

Talk origins never gets old.

Michael Shermer’s website

What it would be like to be Yahweh

God and Evolution

What we have to learn from Japan. Does atheism and acceptance of evolution cause bad things?

Evolution, science, religion, and facts about atheism.

An evil atheist conspiracy?

A blog about atheism

Sexual Dimorphism

Division of Labor

Early Human Phylogeny

The Evolution of Man

List of specimens

Hominid species

Prominent hominid fossils

Fossil hominids

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12836649/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

[i]The following is from Yellow Number Five's "Questions for Creationists." thread at rationalresponders.com[/i]

A bit of turning the tables in the direction they should be. Feel free to add your own well thought out queries to the irrational. Evolution should NOT ever be on the defensive, when a creationist asks a ridiculously trite strawman of a question, retort with one of my personal favorites:

Here are a few questions I like to ask, and they are only the tip of the iceberg (I can formulate hundreds more, but we must start somewhere):

[b]What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution by common descent?[/b]

Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance. There are numerous know examples across other species as well.

[b]What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?[/b]

The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.

Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

[b]What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized ?missing links? now?[/b]

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/hominids2big9eq.jpg[/IMG]

We [i]should [/i]expect related species to look similar.

[b]What do you have to say about these observed speciation events?[/b]

Salamanders and Songbirds

More details on the salamanders, with additional links

London mosquitos

Another article on Himalayan song birds

Speciation by reinforcement

Lots of examples here

More examples

Speciation models

Links on examples and models

More on the London mosquitos

Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links

In Drosophila (fruit flies)

[b]How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?[/b]

An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?

You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here:

PubMed links

And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone as shown in this x-ray:

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/tail6yz.jpg[/IMG]

What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent?

And from another friend of mine, warriorking:

So I'm in medical school learning about the human body and all the time, I'm wondering how creationism (or ID supporters, whoever's willing to answer me) covers some of the similarities between humans and other animals that aren't like us and how they explain how poorly our bodies are designed. I wanted a thread where I could ask my questions, and anyone else who has intellectual questions for creationists, I want to hear other oddities that don't seem to be explained without common ancestry.

Let's suppose that the appendix is an intentional lymphoid tissue (it's not, and it doesn't really serve as such, but let's give Ken Hovind that). How do you explain the hair-on-end reflex to cold or fright? Our hair doesn't insulate us and it doesn't seem to scare away predators or other men in an ensuing battle. Why are our hairs innervated to do that if we have no common ancestor with other mammals? Think about it, dog showing fangs and hair-on-end...you're not going to try to pet it. My hair stands on end, I'm still cold and you'd still probably try to kick my ass. Why do our hair follicles need muscle innervation if we're created intelligently and uniquely from all other mammals?

[i]-Yellow Number Five[/i]

[b]And here are even more links about evolution.
Noor posted them on the "Creation versus Evolution" thread. [/b] :)

The links debunks creationism and "intelligent design".

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

http://www.fieldmuseum.org/evolvingplanet/index.html

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/evoldiag.jpg[/IMG]

[i]And it wouldn't hurt to learn about astronomy, too![/i]

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/woolsey_teller/atheism_of_astronomy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_object

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

[b]Astronomy[/b] is the science of celestial objects (such as stars, planets, comets, and galaxies) and phenomena that originate outside the Earth's atmosphere (such as auroras and cosmic background radiation). It is concerned with the evolution, physics, chemistry, meteorology, and motion of celestial objects, as well as the formation and development of the universe. The word astronomy literally means "law of the stars" and is derived from the Greek αστρονομία, astronomia, from the words άστρον (astron, "stars") and νόμος (nomos, "law").

[Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. Astronomers of early civilizations performed methodical observations of the night sky, and astronomical artifacts have been found from much earlier periods. However, the invention of the telescope was required before astronomy was able to develop into a modern science.

Since the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy has split into observational astronomy and theoretical astrophysics. Observational astronomy is concerned with acquiring data, which involves building and maintaining instruments, as well as processing the results. Theoretical astrophysics is focused upon ascertaining the observational implications of computer or analytic models. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astrophysics seeking to explain the observational results. Astronomical observations can be used to test fundamental theories in physics, such as general relativity.

Historically, amateur astronomers have contributed to many important astronomical discoveries, and astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role, especially in the discovery and observation of transient phenomena.

Modern astronomy is not to be confused with astrology, the belief system that claims that human affairs are correlated with the positions of celestial objects. Although the two fields share a common origin, most thinkers in both fields believe they are now distinct.

Whoa, nice job there!

If a theist would do some research, I highly doubt the person would be a theist. :D

Lol, thanks Noor!

And that's not even half the stuff I found! :D

I still posted a lot of stuff, but it was worth it. I just hope alwaysabeliever reads it, though. ;)

Wow, that must have been a lot of research. I doubt he/she'll respond though; you probably scared him/her off. :D

Ha! Well, what can I say? :)

[quote]so I will just post a few links for you to do your own research on evolution and the fossils.[/quote]

a few usually means 3-5 lol i think you gave about 20. nice!

Wow, so much stupidity and so little time to answer it... but Let me start with this and I'll move on to the next item tommorrow:

[quote]1. Both were conceived of a virgin.[/quote]

Wrong, Horis was not convieved of a virgin, proof? Here is what an expert in this area says:

"But after she [i.e., Isis] had brought it [i.e. Osiris' body] back to Egypt, Seth managed to get hold of Osiris's body again and cut it up into fourteen parts, which she scattered all over Egypt. Then Isis went out to search for Osiris a second time and buried each part where she found it (hence the many tombs of Osiris tht exist in Egypt). The only part that she did not find was the god's penis, for Seth had thrown it into the river, where it had been eaten by a fish; Isis therefore fashioned a substitute penis to put in its place. She had also had sexual intercourse with Osisis after his death, which resulted in the conception and birth of his posthumous son, Harpocrates, Horus-the-child. Osiris became king of the netherworld, and Horus proceeded to fight with Seth..." CANE:2:1702

And just so you know... that first picture you posted... it's a hoex... oh well... enjoy not researching anything that disagrees with your belief system.

Terror

[quote=lilangelofterror]Wow, so much stupidity and so little time to answer it... but Let me start with this and I'll move on to the next item tommorrow:

[quote]1. Both were conceived of a virgin.[/quote]

Wrong, Horis was not convieved of a virgin, proof? Here is what an expert in this area says:

"But after she [i.e., Isis] had brought it [i.e. Osiris' body] back to Egypt, Seth managed to get hold of Osiris's body again and cut it up into fourteen parts, which she scattered all over Egypt. Then Isis went out to search for Osiris a second time and buried each part where she found it (hence the many tombs of Osiris tht exist in Egypt). The only part that she did not find was the god's penis, for Seth had thrown it into the river, where it had been eaten by a fish; Isis therefore fashioned a substitute penis to put in its place. She had also had sexual intercourse with Osisis after his death, which resulted in the conception and birth of his posthumous son, Harpocrates, Horus-the-child. Osiris became king of the netherworld, and Horus proceeded to fight with Seth..." CANE:2:1702

And just so you know... that first picture you posted... it's a hoex... oh well... enjoy not researching anything that disagrees with your belief system.

Terror[/quote]

Don't tell me you're going to support myth.

[quote]Wow, so much stupidity and so little time to answer it... but Let me start with this and I'll move on to the next item tommorrow:[/quote]

Are you going to debunk evolution tommorow? :)

[quote]Wrong, Horis was not convieved of a virgin, proof? Here is what an expert in this area says:[/quote]

I was doing some research on that, but I don't agree with some stuff on the list. I posted that stuff to show alwaysabeliever the similarities Christ had with others.

And what expert? :?

[quote]"But after she [i.e., Isis] had brought it [i.e. Osiris' body] back to Egypt, Seth managed to get hold of Osiris's body again and cut it up into fourteen parts, which she scattered all over Egypt. Then Isis went out to search for Osiris a second time and buried each part where she found it (hence the many tombs of Osiris tht exist in Egypt). The only part that she did not find was the god's penis, for Seth had thrown it into the river, where it had been eaten by a fish; Isis therefore fashioned a substitute penis to put in its place. She had also had sexual intercourse with Osisis after his death, which resulted in the conception and birth of his posthumous son, Harpocrates, Horus-the-child. Osiris became king of the netherworld, and Horus proceeded to fight with Seth..." CANE:2:1702 [/quote]

Check it out.

Since Horus, as the son of Osiris, was only in existence after Osiris's death, and because Horus, in his earlier guise, was the husband of Isis, the difference between Horus and Osiris blurred, and so, after a few centuries, it came to be said that Horus was the resurrected form of Osiris. Likewise, as the form of Horus before his death and resurrection, Osiris, who had already become considered a form of creator when belief about Osiris assimilated that about Ptah-Seker, also became considered to be the only creator, since Horus had gained these aspects of Ra.

Eventually, in the Hellenic period, Horus was, in some locations, identified completely as Osiris, and became his own Father, since this concept was not so disturbing to Greek philosophy as it had been to that of ancient Egypt. In this form, Horus was sometimes known as Heru-sema-tawy (ḥr.w smȝ tȝ.wy 'Horus, Uniter of Two Lands'), since Horus ruled over the land of the dead, and that of the living. Since the tale became one of Horus' own death and rebirth, which happened partly due to his own actions, he became a life-death-rebirth deity.

In the time of Christ the term "son of god" had come to mean the bearer of this title was the father god himself as well as his own son incarnated on earth. Horus was Osiris the father who incarnated as Horus the son.

By assimilating Hathor, who had herself assimilated Bata, who was associated with music, and in particular the sistrum, Isis was likewise thought of in some areas in the same manner. This particularly happened amongst the groups who thought of Horus as his own father, and so Horus, in the form of the son, amongst these groups often became known as Ihy (alternately: Ihi, Ehi, Ahi, Ihu), meaning "sistrum player", which allowed the confusion between the father and son to be side-stepped.

The combination of this, now rather esoteric mythology, with the philosophy of Plato, which was becoming popular on the Mediterranean shores, lead to the tale becoming the bases of a mystery religion. Many Greeks, and those of other nations, who encountered the faith, thought it so profound that they sought to create their own, modelled upon it, but using their own gods. This led to the creation of what was effectively one religion, which was, in many places, adjusted to superficially reflect the local mythology although it substantially adjusted them. The religion is known to modern scholars as that of Osiris-Dionysus.

Connections between Jesus and Horus-Osiris have been raised by critics of the historicity of Jesus (see Jesus as myth). For example, the death and resurrection of Horus-Osiris, and Horus' nature as both the son of Osiris and Osiris himself,[citation needed] have been seen as foundations for the later Christian doctrines of the resurrection of Jesus and the Trinity. Similar assertions have been made by other scholars, who draw parallels between the legends surrounding Mithras.

A few scholars and critics theorize further that certain elements of the story of Jesus were embellishments, copied from legends surrounding Horus through an abrupt form of syncretism. Indeed, some even claim that the historical figure of Jesus was copied from Horus wholesale, and retroactively made into a Jewish teacher; these assert that Horus was the basis for the elements assigned to the M Gospel (the bits in Matthew which are not in the Q Gospel or Mark) and the L Gospel (comprising the bits in Luke which are not in the Q gospel or Mark), especially the infancy narratives.

Neith's nativity
The nativity sequence itself stands out for comparison with the nativity of Ra, whose mother became thought of as Neith, who had become the personification of the primal waters of the Ogdoad. As the primal waters, from which Ra arose due to the interaction of the ogdoad, Neith was considered to have given birth whilst remaining a virgin. As the various religious groups gained and lost power in Egypt, the legend altered and, when the cult of Thoth sought to involve themselves in the story, it was said that Thoth's wisdom (which he personified) meant that he foretold the birth of Ra to Neith. Since the later legends had other gods in existence at Ra's birth, it was said that they acknowledged Ra's authority by praising him at his birth.

Later, the tale evolved so that the god Kneph was present, who represented the breath of life, which brought new life to things. This was partly to do with the assertion, of the small cult of Kneph, that Kneph was the creator, although it was more accurate to say that Kneph was the personification of the concept of creation of life itself. As a creator, Kneph became identified as the more dominant creator deity Amun, and when Amun became Amun-Ra, so Kneph gained Hathor as a wife.

Many of the features look similar to the nativity of Jesus at first glance, such as the continued virginity, lack of father, annunciation by a celestial figure, birth of god, and so forth, but others do not. Although many deities, and indeed people, were referred to as beloved, it was a title which was most frequently applied to Neith, indeed it became something of an alternative name. The word used, in this context, for beloved, is Mery in Egyptian.

Meanwhile, Kneph was said by Plutarch to have been understood by the Egyptians in the same way as the Greeks understood pneuma, meaning spirit, and so it was that Neith became pregnant by the actions of the holy spirit, like Mary does in the Christian story. Thoth himself was identified by the Greeks, due to his association with healing, as Hermes, and consequently, in the Hellenic era, Thoth was considered the messenger of the gods. This role was taken by the Archangel Michael in Jewish thought, and so if the Christians copied the tale, it would have been Michael, not Gabriel, who made the annunciation to Mary.

Much criticism of this similarity is leveled at the fact that Neith is a goddess, and not a human mother. However, Pharaohs often attributed tales of divinity to themselves, and their families, and so divine birth stories for themselves were common. Nethertheless, the tale was essentially about Neith rather than the queens of pharaohs, until that is, Amenhotep III applied it to his wife and the birth of his son, whom was consequently identified as Horus, as after the amalgamation of the gods Ra and Horus, the tale became one of Horus too. The significance of Amenhotep making the identification is both that it became a tale of the birth of Akhenaten, who left such an impression that, as the gods evolved further, the tale became remembered as being one of the birth from a human mother of a human son, who was nevertheless divine.

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/LuxorAmenhetep.gif[/IMG]

[i]Image from the temple at Luxor, showing Amenhotep III's vanity in depicting his wife as Neith, who was the mother of Ra, king of heaven, but remained permanently a pure virgin. The four panels depict, in order:[/i]

1: Thoth announcing to Neith that she would become pregnant.
2: Kneph and Hathor causing Neith to become pregnant via an ankh.
3: The birth, over a birth brick, of Ra (representing Akhenaten).
4: The adoration of Ra by the gods and the courtiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_temple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#Mystery_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#Neith.27s_nativity

[quote]And just so you know... that first picture you posted... it's a hoex... oh well... enjoy not researching anything that disagrees with your belief system.

Terror[/quote]

Oh no! She said the picture is a hoax! I am so wrong! :jawdrop:

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/bfd2.gif[/IMG]

Not even the real experts are sure about its authenticity, and there's no way you're going to prove anything with a few posts.

But I wouldn't be surprised if you heard it was a fake from a christian website. :O

Then again, maybe every single painting of Jesus is not really him. o.o;

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/ChineseJesus.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/Blackjesus05.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/EthiopianJesus.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/Christ_pantocrator_daphne.jpg[/IMG]

[quote]Are you going to debunk evolution tommorow? [/quote]

Not a scientist my dim witted friend, but historical and philospical arguments I can rip you a new one.

[quote]I was doing some research on that, but I don't agree with some stuff on the list. I posted that stuff to show alwaysabeliever the similarities Christ had with others.

And what expert?[/quote]

Let's see, my expert is an Egyptologist... yours is an article written by a teenager... who should I believe... decisions decisions... and thanks for the soundbites, wikpedia artricles, and pictures that prove nothing... Now are you going to give a real answer now or just more soundbites and wikpedia articles?

Terror

BTW I saw your thread on the irrational responders board... I'm a women and I already gave you some sources to use to look up verses for yourself. Do you even know what exegesis means or do you believe whatever your told by the 'irrational responders'? :lol:

[quote]Not a scientist my dim witted friend, but historical and philospical arguments I can rip you a new one.[/quote]

Go for it.

[quote] Let's see, my expert is an Egyptologist[/quote]

Proof please.

[quote]... yours is an article written by a teenager...who should I believe... decisions decisions... and thanks for the soundbites, wikpedia artricles, and pictures that prove nothing... Now are you going to give a real answer now or just more soundbites and wikpedia articles?[/quote]

I already said that I didn't agree with some of the stuff on that list. *shrugs*

[quote]Terror[/quote]

Farts.

[quote]BTW I saw your thread on the irrational responders board...[/quote]

At least you know some of us do our homework.

[quote]I'm a women and I already gave you some sources to use to look up verses for yourself.[/quote]

Ok. Do you want a link so you can look up verses up in the Qur'an?

*shrugs*

[quote]Do you even know what exegesis means[/quote]

Yeah, and?

[quote] or do you believe whatever your told by the 'irrational responders'? :lol:[/quote]

Rational Responders*

Fixed.

[quote=American Atheist]
Go for it.[/quote]

Already done it for a while. :wink:

[quote]Proof please.[/quote]

Take my refrence and paste it into google or amazon. Is it that hard for you to do?

[quote]I already said that I didn't agree with some of the stuff on that list. *shrugs*[/quote]

That's good, now why are you using it?

[quote]Farts.[/quote]

That's the best you can do?

[quote]At least you know some of us do our homework.[/quote]

It seems just like your friend... you have a problem with this thing called a 'hyperbole'. When I say do your homework, it means to study before you open your mouth. *duh* Understand now?

[quote]Ok. Do you want a link so you can look up verses up in the Qur'an?[/quote]

I know they are in the Koran, I'd like a point, got one?

[quote]Yeah, and?[/quote]

That's good, use it sometime. I would of thought showing you wrong in other verses would of given you the idea that you are wrong in the verses from 1 Corth. I see logical conclusions are a bit hard for you to make. Now, come back when you know what you are talking about.

[quote]Rational Responders*[/quote]

Rational Responders... hehehehehehe! I'm sorry soundbites and a bunch of throw together videos is not rational... thus the Irrational Responders. Ask your hero's over there why they will not come to theologyweb.com to debate JP Holding and the rest of us.

Terror

Frank Walton, is that you pretending to be a man, again?

[quote=American Atheist]Frank Walton, is that you pretending to be a man, again?[/quote]

I know Frank Walton... but I'm not him... keep trying though... I know you can't answer anything else :wink:

Terror

Rip each other a new one, please. But Can we keep this organized and civilized? Neither of you can stick to arguments. Wether some group is rational entirely depends on the thought process they use to make those points. So, why not debate that? Both of you should realize, Ad Hominem debating is a logical fallicy. Please, take as much time as you want or need, and say something meaningful.

[quote=JoshHickman]Rip each other a new one, please. But Can we keep this organized and civilized? Neither of you can stick to arguments. Wether some group is rational entirely depends on the thought process they use to make those points. So, why not debate that? Both of you should realize, Ad Hominem debating is a logical fallicy. Please, take as much time as you want or need, and say something meaningful.[/quote]

Thing is... you got to have a good argument first... sorry... but posting a bunch of pictures, links, and articles that even you don't totally agree with is not a debate...

Terror

.

It is if he does have some assertion.

[quote]Since, it has been proven through historical documents that he did exist, that he did die on a cross, and that he physically rose from the dead (since you know he was seen by hundreds of people over a period of forty days).[/quote]

Can you prove that? I can say Magic is real because "Penn and Teller do it" does that mean its real?

[quote]Also, if you are a evoluntionist, what do you do with all the gaps in the fossil record. I mean if evolution is the way to go, why are there zero fossils that are in the stage of changing from one species to another. Just curious.[/quote]

Biology. Embroylogy. Have you ever seen what a human embroy looks like? Put it next to a chipaneze's and a fish... Then tell me you see no similarities.

One more thing, can you give me a verse for the Holy Bible saying the world is round? Just curious.

[quote=American Atheist][quote=alwaysabeliever]Also, if you are a evoluntionist, what do you do with all the gaps in the fossil record. I mean if evolution is the way to go, why are there zero fossils that are in the stage of changing from one species to another. Just curious. [/quote] I see that you still haven't gone to the "Creation versus Evolution" thread yet, so I will just post a few links for you to do your own research on evolution and the fossils. What is Science? Still not sure what science is? This talks more about physics. And again, what exactly is science? What is the scientific method? Be sure to read the big green statement. More about the scientific method Check these transitional fossils out A new one! Orbulina Look at this too. Reptiles to mammals Dino-birds This looks great. Evolution of the human brain. Introduction to human emotions. Composition of the brain. Personality psychology on Wikipedia. Personality theories. Charles Darwin! The good book. Evolution for beginners. God says this is what God says. Let’s look at the foolish people! Evolution is a fact. Facts about Evolution. Get acquainted with Richard Dawkins. Talk origins never gets old. Michael Shermer’s website What it would be like to be Yahweh God and Evolution What we have to learn from Japan. Does atheism and acceptance of evolution cause bad things? Evolution, science, religion, and facts about atheism. An evil atheist conspiracy? A blog about atheism Sexual Dimorphism Division of Labor Early Human Phylogeny The Evolution of Man List of specimens Hominid species Prominent hominid fossils Fossil hominids http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12836649/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.htm... [i]The following is from Yellow Number Five's "Questions for Creationists." thread at rationalresponders.com[/i] A bit of turning the tables in the direction they should be. Feel free to add your own well thought out queries to the irrational. Evolution should NOT ever be on the defensive, when a creationist asks a ridiculously trite strawman of a question, retort with one of my personal favorites: Here are a few questions I like to ask, and they are only the tip of the iceberg (I can formulate hundreds more, but we must start somewhere): [b]What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution by common descent?[/b] Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry. There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance. There are numerous know examples across other species as well. [b]What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?[/b] The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it. In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one. There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes. All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical. Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides. Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well. The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have. [b]What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized ?missing links? now?[/b] [IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/hominids2big9eq.jpg[/IMG] We [i]should [/i]expect related species to look similar. [b]What do you have to say about these observed speciation events?[/b] Salamanders and Songbirds More details on the salamanders, with additional links London mosquitos Another article on Himalayan song birds Speciation by reinforcement Lots of examples here More examples Speciation models Links on examples and models More on the London mosquitos Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links In Drosophila (fruit flies) [b]How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?[/b] An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus? You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here: PubMed links And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone as shown in this x-ray: [IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/tail6yz.jpg[/IMG] What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent? And from another friend of mine, warriorking: So I'm in medical school learning about the human body and all the time, I'm wondering how creationism (or ID supporters, whoever's willing to answer me) covers some of the similarities between humans and other animals that aren't like us and how they explain how poorly our bodies are designed. I wanted a thread where I could ask my questions, and anyone else who has intellectual questions for creationists, I want to hear other oddities that don't seem to be explained without common ancestry. Let's suppose that the appendix is an intentional lymphoid tissue (it's not, and it doesn't really serve as such, but let's give Ken Hovind that). How do you explain the hair-on-end reflex to cold or fright? Our hair doesn't insulate us and it doesn't seem to scare away predators or other men in an ensuing battle. Why are our hairs innervated to do that if we have no common ancestor with other mammals? Think about it, dog showing fangs and hair-on-end...you're not going to try to pet it. My hair stands on end, I'm still cold and you'd still probably try to kick my ass. Why do our hair follicles need muscle innervation if we're created intelligently and uniquely from all other mammals? [i]-Yellow Number Five[/i] [b]And here are even more links about evolution. Noor posted them on the "Creation versus Evolution" thread. [/b] :) The links debunks creationism and "intelligent design". http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html http://www.fieldmuseum.org/evolvingplanet/index.html http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/ [IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/evoldiag.jpg[/IMG] [i]And it wouldn't hurt to learn about astronomy, too![/i] http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/woolsey_teller/atheism_of_ast... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_object http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy [b]Astronomy[/b] is the science of celestial objects (such as stars, planets, comets, and galaxies) and phenomena that originate outside the Earth's atmosphere (such as auroras and cosmic background radiation). It is concerned with the evolution, physics, chemistry, meteorology, and motion of celestial objects, as well as the formation and development of the universe. The word astronomy literally means "law of the stars" and is derived from the Greek αστρονομία, astronomia, from the words άστρον (astron, "stars") and νόμος (nomos, "law"). [Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. Astronomers of early civilizations performed methodical observations of the night sky, and astronomical artifacts have been found from much earlier periods. However, the invention of the telescope was required before astronomy was able to develop into a modern science. Since the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy has split into observational astronomy and theoretical astrophysics. Observational astronomy is concerned with acquiring data, which involves building and maintaining instruments, as well as processing the results. Theoretical astrophysics is focused upon ascertaining the observational implications of computer or analytic models. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astrophysics seeking to explain the observational results. Astronomical observations can be used to test fundamental theories in physics, such as general relativity. Historically, amateur astronomers have contributed to many important astronomical discoveries, and astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role, especially in the discovery and observation of transient phenomena. Modern astronomy is not to be confused with astrology, the belief system that claims that human affairs are correlated with the positions of celestial objects. Although the two fields share a common origin, most thinkers in both fields believe they are now distinct. [/quote]