Skip to main content

I recently viewed this set of videos, and it's quite interesting.  Not the final word, but it seems the Egyptians were hip to certain core values of Judeo-Christian religious ideas, such as a list of sins, judgment in the afterlife, and dieties who either want to help you or not.  Very interesting.  What say you?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5zCUPG-mfk

 

DF

Make time for great justice.  Expect us.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I watched the first ten minutes, NSNS, and just so you know, this thread being written by you is the only reason I came into the insanity which is TVT Religion section.  Could you narrow that down, please sir?  I didn't hear anything in the first segment.  Which segment contains the info to which you refer OR if not too much trouble, just tell us what J-C ideas you mean?

 

Egypt was part of Biblical culture...Joseph and such.

I loved those movies!  We were watching the first one & at the climax of the movie, the stormy weather took out the cable (or whatever we had at the time - satellite maybe).  We got in the car, rented the movie and came home to watch the end.

 

I wish I had time to see the whole set posted by NSNS.  The first was very interesting, but too many work hours right now to find the time.  Speaking of which, I better get to gettin'.

The Book of the Dead indeed contemplates an afterlife. I have a very interesting book, entitled OSIRIS: The Egyptian of Resurrection, by E.A. Wallis Budgewhich goes into immaculate detail about ancient Egyptian beliefs about the state of the dead. It is available on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Osiris-E...Wallis/dp/B0007HA7HC)

 

The book, in Chapter 10, includes what is called the "Negative Confession," which is a 42-part litany that must be recited by the deceased before the god Osiris in the Great Hall of Judgment.  Each item in the Negative Confession includes the name of a the particular Egyptian god to whom the particular item of confession is made. As an example, the first item to be "confessed" is:

 

"Hail, Usekh-memnet, coming forth from Amu, I have not done iniquity"

 

Presumably, failure to be able to "confess" truly to all 42 items would compromise the  prospects of the deceased for security and comfort in the afterlife.  It is improbable that any Egyptian could meet such high standards as to be able to claim innocence of all the 42 sins named in the confession.  But--no problemmo!  Prior to appealing directly to Osiris in the Great Hall of Judgment, the deceased is cut some slack by means of an appeal to the "Four Apes," who can absolve him of any of the sins that blemish his record.  Thus cleansed, the deceased then proceeds to claim his purity before Osiris himself.

 

The Negative Confession provides some interesting insight into moral precepts of the ancient Egyptians.  Examples (omitting the formal addresses to the particular gods and not including   obvious sins such as murder and robbery::

 

I have not made light the grain measure.

 

I have not acted the part of the eavesdropper.

 

I have not fouled water. 

 

I have not been deaf to the words of truth.

 

I have not slain the cattle of the god.

 

I have neither acted impurely, nor lain with men.

 

OSIRIS includes much, much more about the judgment of the dead, far too much to quote or summarize here.  The book is a fascinating compilation of information, including some pretty gruesome stuff on human sacrifice and cannibalism (may be disturbing to some readers).

Originally Posted by b50m:

I'm guessing he is trying to say the Book of the Dead and the Bible are the same.

 

Not even close.

 

The rites in the BOTD are interesting though.  It was referenced in the Mummy movies.

Of course I'm not saying that, b.  Please.

But the Bible was certainly influenced by Egyptian and Babylonian mythology.  Of this there is no doubt, and you don't have to take my word for it.  It's a product of cultural evolution, hardly the dictation of God.

 

DF

Upside, the Negative Confession is indeed interesting.  When the Israelites wrote the Bible, while in Babylonian captivity, the Negative Confessions were part of the knowledge they had.  Egypt was just butted up against Israel, after all.  From the Babylonians, they got the Creation myth and the Flood myth, to name a few things they borrowed.

 

And what better way of being able to defend one's self in the afterlife than to say one had been warned beforehand, and had avoided those particular sins?

 

Fascinating stuff.

 

I encourage my friends who cherish their Bibles to investigate the works of Bart Ehrman and Karen Armstrong, both former believers.  Their devotions to the Bible led them to investigate is thoroughly, and in both cases led them to conclude that the Bible is derivative of earlier mythologies.

 

DF

Originally Posted by NashBama:

Haven't read Armstrong. Ehrman is pretty easily debunked and not respected by most historians and academics.

 

"Debunked" in the same way that Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Isaaic Newton and Sam Harris have been "debunked."  Which is to say that fundamentalists who disagree with the challenges brought for by these people care to differ.  No surprise there but the facts remain: The bible is a collection of stories and pseudo-history passed down for generations by many cultures until they were codified into one book by Constantine 300 years after the stories were written.

Check out the Epic of Gilgamesh sometime.  It's one of the earliest works of literature.  It was held to be fictional at the time it was written (hundreds of years before the bible books) and concerns a tale of warring Gods who wanted to flood the earth.  One of the gods disagreed with the others and told one faithful human to build a boat, collect his family and ride out the storm.

Even that fictional book likely borrowed some story lines from other flood myth tales.

Sound familiar?

 

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

Originally Posted by NashBama:

Haven't read Armstrong. Ehrman is pretty easily debunked and not respected by most historians and academics.

 

Makes for interesting reading if one already subscribes to the recycled Christianity theories. However, those theories simply don't hold water when challenged.

Ehrman is highly respected.  I don't know how you can say this.  What is your source?

 

DF

Now, Nash, let's discuss "recycled" Christian theology.

 

Virgin birth.  Commonplace among dieties.

 

Visitation by Wise Men.  Done, well before Jesus.

 

12 disciples.  Old by the time Jesus was here.  Horus had 12 disciples.  And then, there's the astrological insinuation.

 

Miracles.  Hardly unique to Jesus.

 

Died and returned on the third day.  Been done before Jesus.

 

Resurrection.  Once again, not unique to Jesus.

 

Son of God.  Please.  Way old.  Look up Achilles.

 

I will grant you that Hell is a concept fairly defined by Jesus, and what an evil concept it is.  Hateful, too.  Designed to strike fear into the hearts of those otherwise unconvinced by the cartoonish stories about Jesus.

 

And then, there is the concept of Original Sin.  Older than Judaism.  Totally false, as there was no real Adam and Eve.  We know this now.  Still, Christianity is based... BASED... on this false concept.  Without Original Sin, no redemption from Jesus' Hell is required.

 

We are left with no conclusion other than that Christianity was what Emporer Constantine envisioned it.  A way of placating the masses.  It remains that, and a way for the clergy class to bilk the gullible public of their money without having to learn much math or science.

 

DF

 

 

We are left with no conclusion other than that Christianity was what Emporer Constantine envisioned it.  A way of placating the masses.

 

 

 

If that was true, he would not have made the edict that allowed anyone to worship however they wanted to. Your argument falls apart since he did not mandate Christianity.

 

 

 

Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor; his reign was certainly a turning point for the Church. In February 313, Constantine met with Licinius in Milan where they developed the Edict of Milan. The edict stated that Christians should be allowed to follow the faith of their choosing.[200] This removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned confiscated Church property. The edict did not only protect Christians from religious persecution, but all religions, allowing anyone to worship whichever deity they chose.

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Now, Nash, let's discuss "recycled" Christian theology.

 

Virgin birth.  Commonplace among dieties.

 

Visitation by Wise Men.  Done, well before Jesus.

 

12 disciples.  Old by the time Jesus was here.  Horus had 12 disciples.  And then, there's the astrological insinuation.

 

Miracles.  Hardly unique to Jesus.

 

Died and returned on the third day.  Been done before Jesus.

 

Resurrection.  Once again, not unique to Jesus.

 

Son of God.  Please.  Way old.  Look up Achilles.

 

I will grant you that Hell is a concept fairly defined by Jesus, and what an evil concept it is.  Hateful, too.  Designed to strike fear into the hearts of those otherwise unconvinced by the cartoonish stories about Jesus.

 

And then, there is the concept of Original Sin.  Older than Judaism.  Totally false, as there was no real Adam and Eve.  We know this now.  Still, Christianity is based... BASED... on this false concept.  Without Original Sin, no redemption from Jesus' Hell is required.

 

We are left with no conclusion other than that Christianity was what Emporer Constantine envisioned it.  A way of placating the masses.  It remains that, and a way for the clergy class to bilk the gullible public of their money without having to learn much math or science.

 

DF

 __________________________________________________________________________

 

Sure, let's look at your examples.

 

Virgin births are not commonplace. Mithra is often used as an example of a virgin birth by those who believe in the recycled Jesus theory. The problem is that Mithra was born as an adult out of solid rock. I guess one could say the rock was a virgin, but that's a pretty big leap in logic.

 

Visitation by wise men? Not really any other example that is similar.

 

Did Horus have 12 disciples? Nope. He had a few semi-gods and some human followers that fought for him. There is absolutely no reference that Horus had 12 disciples.

 

Miracles? Sure, other gods performed supernatural acts. However, not in the same fashion of Jesus. His miracles did two things, help others and prove His claims to be true. They were almost always in public and recorded by eye witnesses. Very different from other ancient gods.

 

Died on the third day? Where was that recycled from, Horus? The Jesus/Horus comparison has been so thoroughly debunked that no respected scholar or historian gives it any credit.

 

Was Achilles the son of a god? No, he was the son of one of the Argonaughts who traveled with Jason and a lesser sea goddess. To say Achillies is the Son of God is like saying a rock is a virgin.

 

Like I said, if one already subscribes to the two tenants of atheism, (1. There is no God & 2. I hate Him) then the recycled Jesus theory is easily to believed. However, 5 minutes doing some objective research and the theory disintegrates. No historian, academic, or scholar worth their weight in salt puts any stock in that theory.

 

 

 

All cultures for all time trying to name God actually does more to prove God's existence rather than disprove it, NSNS. 

 

There are similarities of course.  How could there not be when the questions are the same? 

 

According to scripture (as well as common sense), we are all given a conscience (Romans 2:14-15) & God placed the basic principles of His Law there.  What you are saying, the similarities, agree with scripture.  However, the conscience is not completely reliable, in that it can be seared (1 Tim 4:2), weak (1 Cor 8:12), corrupted (Titus 1:15), or evil (Heb 10:22).

 

Last edited by _Joy_
Originally Posted by NashBama:
Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Now, Nash, let's discuss "recycled" Christian theology.

 

Virgin birth.  Commonplace among dieties.

 

Visitation by Wise Men.  Done, well before Jesus.

 

12 disciples.  Old by the time Jesus was here.  Horus had 12 disciples.  And then, there's the astrological insinuation.

 

Miracles.  Hardly unique to Jesus.

 

Died and returned on the third day.  Been done before Jesus.

 

Resurrection.  Once again, not unique to Jesus.

 

Son of God.  Please.  Way old.  Look up Achilles.

 

I will grant you that Hell is a concept fairly defined by Jesus, and what an evil concept it is.  Hateful, too.  Designed to strike fear into the hearts of those otherwise unconvinced by the cartoonish stories about Jesus.

 

And then, there is the concept of Original Sin.  Older than Judaism.  Totally false, as there was no real Adam and Eve.  We know this now.  Still, Christianity is based... BASED... on this false concept.  Without Original Sin, no redemption from Jesus' Hell is required.

 

We are left with no conclusion other than that Christianity was what Emporer Constantine envisioned it.  A way of placating the masses.  It remains that, and a way for the clergy class to bilk the gullible public of their money without having to learn much math or science.

 

DF

 __________________________________________________________________________

 

Sure, let's look at your examples.

 

Virgin births are not commonplace. Mithra is often used as an example of a virgin birth by those who believe in the recycled Jesus theory. The problem is that Mithra was born as an adult out of solid rock. I guess one could say the rock was a virgin, but that's a pretty big leap in logic.

 

Visitation by wise men? Not really any other example that is similar.

 

Did Horus have 12 disciples? Nope. He had a few semi-gods and some human followers that fought for him. There is absolutely no reference that Horus had 12 disciples.

 

Miracles? Sure, other gods performed supernatural acts. However, not in the same fashion of Jesus. His miracles did two things, help others and prove His claims to be true. They were almost always in public and recorded by eye witnesses. Very different from other ancient gods.

 

Died on the third day? Where was that recycled from, Horus? The Jesus/Horus comparison has been so thoroughly debunked that no respected scholar or historian gives it any credit.

 

Was Achilles the son of a god? No, he was the son of one of the Argonaughts who traveled with Jason and a lesser sea goddess. To say Achillies is the Son of God is like saying a rock is a virgin.

 

Like I said, if one already subscribes to the two tenants of atheism, (1. There is no God & 2. I hate Him) then the recycled Jesus theory is easily to believed. However, 5 minutes doing some objective research and the theory disintegrates. No historian, academic, or scholar worth their weight in salt puts any stock in that theory.

 

 

 

We can start here. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm

 

If not necessarily "virgin" births, then certainly unnatural births.  This is consistent with Mithra, Julius Caesar, Buddhah, et al.

 

The Wise Men myth is probably astrological in nature.  A special star?  Belt of Orion?  Astrology.

 

OK, so Horus had 16 disciples. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5c.htm

 

Nash, you can't be serious about the truthfulness of Jesus' miracles.  If, for no other reasons, miracles were common attributions to  all sorts of prophets at the time, and the stories of the miracles are not just second hand, but 100th hand before they were even written down.  Hume spoke wisely of miracles, and said that if the universe should suspend it's immutable laws for one's benefit, one might claim a miracle, but another is in no way beholden to believe it.  Much less generations of story-telling in between.  The "eyewitness" accounts are of no gravity whatever.  A million people will attest to the "miracles" of Sai Baba, who lives in India, right now.  Do you believe them?

 

Horus was killed, by Set, daily, and daily resurrected.  He was beyond death, as was Jesus, according to myth.

 

Achilles was born of holy stock.  Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles

 

The only way to make sense of the Jesus story is to assume that an eccentric rabbi did exist, and that his credentials and achievements were badly exaggerated.  He was the L. Ron Hubbard of his time, perhaps without the deliberate deception.

 

But this is all beyond a more essential point.  The central tenet of Christianity is that Jesus died on the cross to redeem Original Sin.  There is no Original Sin unless the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, and it is objectively and demonstrably untrue.  No Original Sin, no need for Redemption. 

 

The Resurrection is a sort of Certificate of Authenticity of the Redemption.  Even the dubious stories of the resurrection are wildly varying.  Read the Bible on this point horizontally, that is to say, read the account of the resurrection in all four gospels together.

 

There is nothing original about the story of Jesus.  It's a hodgepodge of earlier mythology, admitted as such by Justin Martyr, among others, I imagine.

 

The more I learn about religion the more I'm convinced that Christianity is simply a cult that "stuck" because a human sacrifice finally worked.  It wasn't much of a sacrifice, because the victim was more than human and returned two days later, if one is to believe the myth.  Christianity is a derivative of Jewish blood sacrifice, but infused with other mythologies.

 

We humans are inclined to believe in hopeful things.  Look at Mormonism, Heaven's Gate, the Jim Jones cult, Scientology, Southern Baptists, and David Koresh's cult.  They're not true.  They depend on the acceptance of earlier superstition,  hypnosis, and sophisticated brainwashing techniques developed, intuitively, over time.  I was once approached by Mormon missionaries.  They asked me if I could accept another, newer, Holy Book with the same reverence as the Bible.

 

Of course I could.

 

Enjoy your weekend.

 

DF

A virgin birth and an unnatural birth are two separate things. Saying Jesus' birth is recycled from the story of Mithra is a pretty far stretch since Mithra was born out of a mountain.

 

History does not have any stories of Julius Caesar being born of a virgin.

 

Buddha's mother was married to a king, that's why she was a queen. They were married for quite a while before Buddha was born. Although, his story did start to change after Christianity.

 

I could go on and on, but it would make a BG length post. The point is that the recycled Jesus theory is very weak and not grounded in fact. A little objective research and all the claims fall apart.

 

It's an internet theory, like claiming the moon landing was staged in Hollywood. It falls apart too easily when challenged. So why believe it?

 

Originally Posted by NashBama:

A virgin birth and an unnatural birth are two separate things. Saying Jesus' birth is recycled from the story of Mithra is a pretty far stretch since Mithra was born out of a mountain.

 

 

Dude.  Really.  Virgin births or otherwise divine impregnations are very common throughout history.  Do just a little research. It won't hurt.  Promise.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births is a start . . . Knowing full well you will simply dismiss anything from Wikipeda and will only accept "evidence" from people who share your belief in this nonsense.  I mean, really, here we are in the 21st century discussing the "reality" of a god who had non-consensual sex with an underage girl.

 

Really, Nash?

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by NashBama:

A virgin birth and an unnatural birth are two separate things. Saying Jesus' birth is recycled from the story of Mithra is a pretty far stretch since Mithra was born out of a mountain.

 

 

Dude.  Really.  Virgin births or otherwise divine impregnations are very common throughout history.  Do just a little research. It won't hurt.  Promise.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births is a start . . . Knowing full well you will simply dismiss anything from Wikipeda and will only accept "evidence" from people who share your belief in this nonsense.  I mean, really, here we are in the 21st century discussing the "reality" of a god who had non-consensual sex with an underage girl.

 

Really, Nash?

 

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by NashBama:

A virgin birth and an unnatural birth are two separate things. Saying Jesus' birth is recycled from the story of Mithra is a pretty far stretch since Mithra was born out of a mountain.

 

 

Dude.  Really.  Virgin births or otherwise divine impregnations are very common throughout history.  Do just a little research. It won't hurt.  Promise.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births is a start . . . Knowing full well you will simply dismiss anything from Wikipeda and will only accept "evidence" from people who share your belief in this nonsense.  I mean, really, here we are in the 21st century discussing the "reality" of a god who had non-consensual sex with an underage girl.

 

Really, Nash?

That's not what I'm discussing, since that isn't part of the story of Christ.

 

To use Mithra as an example of a virgin birth is to claim rocks are virgins. Not logical. Buddha's mother was married, so was Isis the mother of Horus.

 

The link you posted is lacking a lot of references and sources. In other words, to believe the article you posted is to believe something without evidence.

 

Like I said, the recycled Jesus theory falls apart when challenged. It's so thin it only takes a few minutes of objective research to disprove it. So why choose to believe it?

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by NashBama:

A virgin birth and an unnatural birth are two separate things. Saying Jesus' birth is recycled from the story of Mithra is a pretty far stretch since Mithra was born out of a mountain.

 

 

Dude.  Really.  Virgin births or otherwise divine impregnations are very common throughout history.  Do just a little research. It won't hurt.  Promise.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births is a start . . . Knowing full well you will simply dismiss anything from Wikipeda and will only accept "evidence" from people who share your belief in this nonsense.  I mean, really, here we are in the 21st century discussing the "reality" of a god who had non-consensual sex with an underage girl.

 

Really, Nash?

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

unobo>>>>>>>>>

 

The Lady wasn't under age.

There was NO SEX involved.

She said, Let it be done according to thy word.

 

I can't tell you unobo, how much I enjoy your discomfort worrying

about this nonsense.

 

.


 

Unoi it is quite enough for you not to believe in anything about the birth of Jesus but to claim knowledge that it didn’t happen is simply opinion. Believers do have documentation of the claim that Jesus was born a virgin birth. You seem to think the atheistic fellows are skilled at knowledge. Since you have blasphemed and a shewooo in for hell your plans for company there by encouraging others to join you wont gain you any comfort because it will be so hot there you will be jumping around like a frog in the torment.

Social graces will not be a factor there.

http://reference.findtarget.co...Miraculous%20births/

 

In antiquity, it was simply unseemly to suggest that a god or even a prophet was simply born in the usual manner.  No god nor prophet worth his salt could be born as we were.

 

This is common knowledge among historians.  To suggest that Jesus' miraculous birth was somehow special is to deny history. 

 

There are too may citations to mention here.  A casual investigation will suffice to demonstrate my point.

 

DF

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

http://reference.findtarget.co...Miraculous%20births/

 

In antiquity, it was simply unseemly to suggest that a god or even a prophet was simply born in the usual manner.  No god nor prophet worth his salt could be born as we were.

 

This is common knowledge among historians.  To suggest that Jesus' miraculous birth was somehow special is to deny history. 

 

There are too may citations to mention here.  A casual investigation will suffice to demonstrate my point.

 

DF

??????????????????????????????{{{{{{{{{{{oo

Unseemly deep, so let it bode. We have documentation that the birth of Jesus did occur in that fashion.

To deny it is to deny recorded history.


 

I will grant you, Nash, that an eccentric rabbi named Jesus existed.  I cannot grant you the magical powers and attributes his followers bestow upon him, because every mystic of the time had similar ones.

 

You realize the books of the bible were not written until decades after Jesus' death.  In the meantime, it would only be entirely human to attribute Jesus with the qualities of many of the other prophets and messiahs.  Why, it would be unseemly if he hadn't risen from the dead like Dionysus and so many others.  It would certainly put him at a disadvantage in the primitive and superstitious Levant.

 

I spent about 15 seconds Yahooing "similarities Dionysus and Jesus" and found this.  I'm not saying it's the final word, but it's consistent with everything else I've read from many sources over the years: http://www.holyblasphemy.net/j...rities/pagan-christs

 

There is nothing original about Christianity.  Every concept about it was used before.  The Greeks who wrote the NT, starting with the Book of Mark which was later embellished, were well familiar with the theology of Egypt, Persia, and Judaism.

 

To dismiss "recycled Jesus" altogether implies that you believe the stories and attributes of Jesus are original, unique, and true.  I cannot believe that you accept that.

 

DF

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

I will grant you, Nash, that an eccentric rabbi named Jesus existed.  I cannot grant you the magical powers and attributes his followers bestow upon him, because every mystic of the time had similar ones.

 

You realize the books of the bible were not written until decades after Jesus' death.  In the meantime, it would only be entirely human to attribute Jesus with the qualities of many of the other prophets and messiahs.  Why, it would be unseemly if he hadn't risen from the dead like Dionysus and so many others.  It would certainly put him at a disadvantage in the primitive and superstitious Levant.

 

I spent about 15 seconds Yahooing "similarities Dionysus and Jesus" and found this.  I'm not saying it's the final word, but it's consistent with everything else I've read from many sources over the years: http://www.holyblasphemy.net/j...rities/pagan-christs

 

There is nothing original about Christianity.  Every concept about it was used before.  The Greeks who wrote the NT, starting with the Book of Mark which was later embellished, were well familiar with the theology of Egypt, Persia, and Judaism.

 

To dismiss "recycled Jesus" altogether implies that you believe the stories and attributes of Jesus are original, unique, and true.  I cannot believe that you accept that.

 

DF

======================
deep what I highlighted in red above is definately one your most ignorant statements.

Do you have doubts that Abraham Lincoln existed?

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×