Here's a similar example for you...

34“Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” -Luke 14:34-35


This is example of strong poetic language and similes that reflect reality, but don't occur in real life. Salt can't lose flavor. It can only lose flavor if it's not salt anymore. Would you blame Bible here for being scientifically incorrect?

Very good points fccool. I tend to agree with them. They make a lot of sense.

pk

No, the Church father Origin and others picked these. I didn't. I don't really care what the actual meaning is to make my point.

Plus if you are picking only parts and you are claiming to know the real meaning then you are practicing intellectual dishonesty.



If you noted, I allowed for this interpretation. My point was that Jerome, Origin, and others influenced how these passages were read by how they were translated. We also know that certain books were chosen to favor a particular view. The point is, ALL the books floating around in the 1st century were philosophical myths.

When you study the competing books and the extra Biblical history you clearly see an open revisionist culture at work by their own admission. They are not interested in historical accuracy, but in the promotion of what THEY believed to be true. If there wasn't a book to support the view they wanted, then one was written and given a prominent apostle as the author. The first scriptures were written by the gnostics. The only reason we have orthodox scriptures is because they were written as a reaction.



Again, I'm not making these interpretations. They are commonly held among Christian believers. Obviously they aren't the only ones, but prominent Church fathers interpreted these passages as I have outlined. That is my point.



Again, its not me who is confusing these, it is Christians. Witches were burned at the stake because the inquisitor began to be aroused during "questioning" and interpreted this as the witch casting a spell on him. This caused many beautiful women to be called witches.

This whole literal interpretational method is not a rational system, otherwise one could prove that a particular text meant such and such. You are taking texts and stories that have been rung through centuries of revision and re-interpretation and treating them as fact. This whole system produces madness. And there is plenty of evidence for religious madness.

A couple facts about epistemic knowledge.

1) You have to have absolute faith in veracity of your sources for you to come to this conclusion. Your assertions rests on faith in Authors which you read, be it Paul, or Richard Dawkins.

2) You use materials that support your view, and you conveniently ignore the ones that do not. To demonstrate that... I present you with:

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

These Papyri are one of the earliest preserved manuscripts that we have today... some of which dated to 2nd century AD. What you are saying that Biblical texts of today were meddled with and re-written, but It's false :).

The earliest manuscripts are there to verify that what we have to day is almost word for word what people had in 2nd century. Yet you still insist on the idea that the texts has been re-written and meddled with. Why?

Well, I haven't quoted Richard Dawkins. And faith has nothing to do with most of my presentation. Reason and observation are the basis of my ideas. I have observed how myths present themselves and develop. I see the same types of things happening in the first century, many times by the Church father's own admission.

Here is a link to Eusebius the Historian's work on the early history of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

When you read through this, it becomes quite obvious that they are making things up. Eusebius essentially admits that he does not include anything that would speak poorly of Christianity. He even quotes a forged passage from Josephus to try and prove that Jesus existed in history.

Christianity came out of Egypt. This is apparent from many sources. Mark, the earliest gospel came out of Egypt. Alexandria had a large contingent of Jewish/Egyptian belief systems expressed in the writings of Philo, who is cited as a source for Christian history and belief.



The second century is way too far away from any source story. The myths were already put together by then. This only supports that Christianity came out of Egypt. And if you read my blog book review at

http://whatisspiritual.blogspot.com/2009/05/horus-in-egypt-by-dm-murdock.html

you will see why. You might even take the time to read the book.

:). But you have to

1) Have absolute KNOWLEDGE that your sources are not faulty.
2) Rely on reasoning of the authors of the material and research that you did not come by firsthand.
3) Rely on your reasoning to be true :)

All of the above are in the realm of the "educated guess"... i.e. faith.

For example, you give the example of the Horus/Isis. It's a well known patter than existed way before Horus/Isis, and existed with Sumerians as Ishtar/Tamuk and etc.

But, you claim to be all "logical" and "reasonable" and yet you commit some of the basic fallacies of the logic and reason.

One of these... is false dilemma, or whatever name you want to call it, but you make it out to be such that:

Since A is observed in Egypt or Sumeria (which is earlier) >>>>> then it MUST BE the copy that we see in Judeo-Christian theology?

Could it be that Sumerians borrowed the concept through the earlier prophecies about Christ that were there much earlier to begin with? But of course, in your mind that's impossible.
So you have to go "with logic" and pick and choose the books that fit your worldview as a "support", which info in these books that come to the same conclusion and ignore the basic fallacies of logic that they are making...

And who has this? I'll save you some time by admitting that my sources are not free of fault. Nobody has this.



I have a lot of research that I have come by first hand. And the reasoning is my own. Sure I look at other author's reasoning, but I look to see if it works in many different contexts.



And you don't have this limitation? I'll save you some time here as well. My reasoning is not infallible. That is why I am agnostic. That means that I don't know.

By implication you seem to be saying that by default your position is true.

That can't be true if you are subject to the above same limitations.



You have a talent for stating the obvious. Of course its an educated guess. Another term for that is theory. Only Christianity doesn't deal in theories, it deals in what it calls certainty.

The decision point for me is looking at what is the most likely. I don't find it very likely, based on what I have read and what I observe today, that what the Bible records as true happened. There are thousands of mythical writings that claim all kinds of miracles that we don't believe to be true and yet we don't hold the Bible up to the same standard of skepticism.

When I read the history it becomes painfully obvious that these men are making this stuff up based on what they considered true within a primitive world view. Religion was the science of the ancient world.

Fortunately we have learned that many of those world views are not true. It doesn't tell us what is true, but it allows us to abandon clearly flawed views of the world.



No, if you read carefully it is a process of syncretic evolution. We see that happening today with over 40,000 different versions of Christianity. We can even see that happening within Adventism. If its true today, then it is very likely that it happened in the first century, only physical violence was a primary thought control method.

And yes it possible that Sumerians borrowed an earlier concept, but we don't have that evidence. I would guess that they probably borrowed something, since that is part of the evolution of religious belief.



Just because I don't write you a book, doesn't mean that my reading hasn't been thorough. You don't even read the counter views. I am very familiar with your arguments.

A couple things you are confused about...

1) I would not claim to know the existence of God, or veracity of the Bible with absolute scientific certainty. I can tell you that there are ALWAYS other possibilities, as have been proven many times before... even during progression of Christianity, and conception of Adventism.

But the point is that based on the contrary evidence I've seen, the claims that Horus' story parallel's Christ to the point described are bogus at best. But as Trent Reznor would sing, Ironically:

"So naive, I keep holding on to what I want to believe..."

I've heard the stuff you proposing before I was even a Christian... yet much of it is by people who want to sell books...

For example, there's a fellow named David Icke, he's a firm believer that Christianity is an agglomeration of stories from the past that is used for control. But then he also thinks that this world is run by shape shifting reptilians from other dimensions. I guess the pouring dirt on Christian history alone does not sell enough books :).

But, if you really take your time and do thorough research, and look at reputable resources, like Encyclopedias and etc... you wont find much evidence that "Zeitgeist" films are pushing. I too at one point found it the info fairly interesting, but if you dig and check the facts... THEY DON'T ADD UP!

For example:

Claims about Horus:














... And many more...

Can you find me any reputable source that would support these claims, because I sure can't?

The only even remote resemblance that I could find is the images of the Mother/Child, and the concept of deity called "Shed" and the concept of "Shed the Savior", yet he WAS NOT the official deity in Egypt. He was a god that would save them from illness or danger.

And the more I dug, the more I realized the these claims are made by seude-egyptologists that are looking to push fiction to "hold on to what they want to believe"... especially the claim that Horus had 12 disciples and died on the cross. Can you PLEASE find me some reputable source, from a reputable Egyptologist that can confirm these claims, because I sure can't, and I've been searching for a while.



Egytian "Anch" for you. While I agree that the similar cross has been used by the pagan religions for centuries, again... to support your view you dismiss the possibility that it was the pagans who used it based on prophesies about Christ. You say you are agnostic, yet you absolutely dismiss this possibility? Why? Should I sing the song again?

On top of everything, I don't necesserily believe that Jesus was "crusified". The word "stauros" that's translated as "cross" today, really means "Steak" or "Pole". And further writers refer to the object as "the tree". So, there's no absolute certainty that the object was indeed the cross... but my point is that the object really makes no difference or is essential to the Christian belief as it was made by pagan culture.

That's why I particularly don't like the images of the cross because they give a warped view of Christian belief and it all becomes about death and suffering, instead of joy and life.

Either way, I do respect your ideas, and I do understand where you are coming from. I don't know what's your story and experience is, but why are you "proving" things to people who you know that song was written about?

Here's a good study on the origin of the "Biblical cross". The "cross" in Sumerian and later Chaldean religions was denoting T-amuz... basically a deification of human phallus, just like many pagans religions of the past that eventually "interbred" with Christian thought and found its way on the altars of the churches today.

http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/cross.html

I am well aware of many of these things, but these don't invalidate the premise. You claim that the church historic documents were re-written over a couple of centuries, yet you would trust the interpretation of ancient cultures by bunch of people that already made up their mind about God? Can cut both ways :)

If you read D.M. Murdock's book on Horus she has over 600 references and she describes in detail the syncretic progression of belief. You aren't going to find a point by point parallel. It doesn't work that way. It is an evolution of belief.

I don't hold the pagan beliefs to be true, but they set a pattern by which religions are made. Christianity simply cannot claim that it is unique. It is the result of many cultural systems of belief. It is essentially an extension of pagan sun worship in its various forms blended with the messianic philosophy of the Jews. And I know much of this by the church father's own admissions.

My point is that I am reasonably sure that the Christian god does not exist, much like you would not believe in Zeus. If there is a spiritual connection to be had within the Christian myth, it comes from Jesus teachings on love and practical human interaction. And they stand on their own, without all the stories and so called miracles.