Are Zeus and the Christian God one and the same? I mean they both have sons to mortal women. Zeus, I think had more than one.I'm not sure about that though but anyway is it possible they are one in the same? It's possible the Christian God also had more than one son but it was never recorded. What are your thoughts??

zeus was a real cocksucker. rapist, murderer etc etc.

Really..That would explain why I don't like him. LOL

quote:Originally posted by Nihilism:

zeus was a real cocksucker. rapist, murderer etc etc.

What about the Christian God

I mean, you have to be a bastard to flood the earth, killing even the little children and babies, then years later send plauges down on a nation because the leader is a bastard (including killing all first born... that includes little fucking 5 year olds).

Oh, and then there were all those times he ordered the EXTERMINATION of whole groups of people.

Oh... and if you don't follow the path he has set out, he will torture you for ever and ever.

Nice guy ain't he?

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

What about the Christian God

I mean, you have to be a bastard to flood the earth, killing even the little children and babies, then years later send plauges down on a nation because the leader is a bastard (including killing all first born... that includes little fucking 5 year olds).

Oh, and then there were all those times he ordered the EXTERMINATION of whole groups of people.

Oh... and if you don't follow the path he has set out, he will torture you for ever and ever.

Nice guy ain't he?

I'd strongly recommend that you look into the way God related to his people (a physical nation) in the OT and how he relates now, post-Jesus, to his people (a spiritual nation). How does this afffect God acts in the world?

Thats not to say that its not friggin' harsh.

I was thinking abotu Achillies the other day and noticed the parallels to Jesus, but they are very different people.

really? What parallels did you notice?

Zeus was a randy mofo, he had more than one bastard child.

He particularly liked to seduce women in the form of an animal like a bull or a swan. Whatever gets you off, I guess...

I don't think there are enough parallels to relate him to YHWH, though. Plenty of mythologies have gods sexing up the human population.

quote:Originally posted by Odysseus:

really? What parallels did you notice?

Both Jesus and Achilles had only one weakness; Achilles had his heel and Jesus' weakness was being nailed to a big stick.

So as you can see, hur flur de burrrrhurrr durrrr

quote:Both Jesus and Achilles had only one weakness; Achilles had his heel and Jesus' weakness was being nailed to a big stick.

Actually, no, Jesus had all the weaknesses of any other human - it's just that no-one properly tried to kill him until then (the most they'd tried, was to push him off a cliff, and then he just sort of walked thru the crowd that was rioting and wandered off).

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

Actually, no, Jesus had all the weaknesses of any other human - it's just that no-one properly tried to kill him until then (the most they'd tried, was to push him off a cliff, and then he just sort of walked thru the crowd that was rioting and wandered off).



sailing, sailing o'er the top of yer head

Zarathustra owns you all. good/evil, burning bush and all, christianity stole everything.....a Roman aristocrat invented it to control the masses.

They are both mythical.

so they don't exist?

Both, in all probability existed in one form or another...most likely human. Jesus made extraordinary claims and was made legend through exaggerated stories, and Achillies was made legend through exaggerated stories.

They have proof of Jesus' crucifixion now though. In the 3rd century, Emperor Constantine sent his mother to the holy land (I don't know why he didn't send someone else), to get back a relic of the cross, and she brought back a headboard. We still have it today, and in fact (despite originally being rejected by scientists), it seems to be genuine, by linguistic analysis.

VampireSlaya:

Even if is genuine, does that mean that Jesus Christ was the one crucified on it ?

[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 05-22-2004).]

quote:it seems to be genuine, by linguistic analysis.

1) A cite would be nice.

2) How does linguistic analysis prove anything?

And isn't this just proof that someone was crucified? Which does not, in fact, need proving. Even proving that the person known as Jesus Christ was crucified would be unspectacular.

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

she brought back a headboard. We still have it today, and in fact (despite originally being rejected by scientists), it seems to be genuine, by linguistic analysis.

What, the INRI thing?

How do you linguistics on an acronym?

What if you died, and the next thing you see is you're walking up to this huge golden throne, and there sitting in judgement on you is...

...Zeus?!?!

"How many Hekatombs did you sacrifice to your Lord?"

Can't be too careful people!

quote:Even if is genuine, does that mean that Jesus Christ was the one crucified on it ?

Not necessarily, no, but seeing as a whole load of people (who'd seen him before, and many of whom wanted him dead) were there at his crucifixion, it'd have to have been a damn good look-a-like.

quote:1) A cite would be nice.

Documentary, can't remember the name - otherwise I would have cited it.

quote:2) How does linguistic analysis prove anything?

Well, there was an abbreviation used on it that was only used at the time of Jesus' life, that would not have been used if it were faked in the 2nd or 3rd century.

quote:Even proving that the person known as Jesus Christ was crucified would be unspectacular.

True, but it'd shut up a few atheists, who believe him to be a fiction.

quote:What, the INRI thing?

INRI thing?

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 05-23-2004).]

quote: Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

-- John 19:18-19

Hmmm. I guess it wasn't just the abbreviation INRI ('Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm", Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews).

The use of it on crucifixes and in pictures had me confused.

It was a greek abbreviation actually... can't remember specifically what it was...

Well, Zeus and the Christian God are not the same at all.

Zeus was the head of a pantheon of gods, who were subordinate, but still powerful in their own right. Also, Zeus had many human qualities and emotions such as jealousy, lust, pleasure, malevolence, drunkenness, etc. And yeah, Zeus supposedly had sex with mortal women a lot, but keep in mind that he (according to the myths) actually fucked them.

The Christian God on the other hand is omnipotent, and doesn't delegate power. The Christian God is also immune to all human emotions. And the Christian God never actually fucked Mary to conceive Jesus. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

In other words, they complete opposites. One is polytheist, the other monotheist.

Except the Bible blatantly contradicts what you just said about God. Immune to human emotions?!? Then how is he loving, benevolent, jealous, wrathfull, and vengeant?

"...for I am a jealous God"

"Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord"

Yeah...he doesn't have any human emotions such as jealousy or vengeance...

I did Jesus's mom

A good parallel between Zues and God: neither has left evidence of existing in a godly form, so I assume they don't exist.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

A good parallel between Zues and God: neither has left evidence of existing in a godly form, so I assume they don't exist.

Except that many people still attest to a very real God at work in their lives and in history- and not just in psychological and philospical terms. Then theres that whole thing about that dude that said he was God, and reckoned that he would prove it by coming back to life. Funny thing is, there was a guarded tomb that held a dead man and three days later was empty.

And Houdini could escape from straight jackets; what's your point?

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

And Houdini could escape from straight jackets; what's your point?

There are good explanations for why Houdini could escape from straightjackets. I am yet to see one for the empty tomb.

Well, we can't really study it any more: there is no evidence to work with.

^^^ exactly, no evidence whatsoever. The character of Jesus was stolen from the Egyptian stories of Horus.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Well, we can't really study it any more: there is no evidence to work with.

???

It means exactly what it says: there is no fucking evidence to study on Jesus' death.

Christianity has been transmuted a fair deal through the years. They did it so when they were force feeding others their beliefs it would be so shocking. Like the reasons angels have halos is so that it would be easier for people that did more sun worship, it looked like the sun-disk. One of the reasons that we often see him with a beard and in long flowing robes is so that he looks like zeus, one of the most feared gods in history. So there is definatly some sort of connection there.

[This message has been edited by chaoszero (edited 05-29-2004).]

No evidence to work with???

Let's hear what the lawyers have to say:

"The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatestdiscouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them.

Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, impriosonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faiththey zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increasing vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford sarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency.

It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could infllict, but to endure the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was nno possible motive for its fabrication."

- S. Greenleaf in An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice .

Greenleaf was a Royall Professor of Law at Harvard, "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States" -H.WH. Knott, Greenleaf's A Treatise on the Law of Evidence "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure" -W. Smith

http://www.livingconnections.com/Evidence.htm

http://www.pastornet.net.au/fwn/1998/apr/art01.htm

-Sir Lionel Luckhoo

What do historians have to say?

"The evidence for our Lord's life and death amd resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I myself have done it many times over, not to persuade others but satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign that God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

- T. Arnold, author of History of Rome , chair of modern history at Oxford, headmaster at Rugby for 14yrs.

"The objection that the writings are partisan involves a significant but false implication that witnesses cannot be reliable if they were close to the one about whom they gave testimony. This is clearly false. Survivors of the Jewish holocaust were close to the events they described to the world. That very fact puts them in the best position to know what happened. They were there, and it happened to them. The same applies to the survivors of the Normandy invasion during WW2 or the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The New Testament witnesses should not be disqualified because they were close to the events they relate.....

...Suppose there were four eyewitnesses to a murder. There was also one witness who arrived on the scene after the actual killing and saw only the victim's body. Another person heard a secondhand report of the killing. In the trial the defense attorney argues: 'Other than the four eyewitnesses, this is a weak case, and the charges should be dismissed for lack of evidence.' Others might think that the attorney was throwing out a red herring. The judge and the jury were being distracted from the strongest evidence to the weakest evidence, and the reasoning was clearly faulty. Since the New Testament witnesses were the only eyewitness and contemporary testimonies to Jesus, it is a fallacy to misdirect attention to the non-Christian secular sources. Nonetheless, it is instructive to show what confirming evidence for Jesus can be gleaned outside the New Testament."

- N.Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical seminary, former chairman of the Philosophy and religion dept. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, dean of Liberty Research Center at Liberty University, prof. of systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Gee, why would somebody have made up the Bible? It's not they could have become more powerful...

quote: The character of Jesus was stolen from the Egyptian stories of Horus.

Doesn't work. I assume you mean Osiris - yes he came back, but he was killed because his brother's wife slept with him, and he was dismembered, not crucified, and he only came back to life because his own wife got all his bits back (minus his penis) and mummified him. Then they (Osiris and his wife Isis) using some random magic had a kid anyway.

No, I said Horus because I meant Horus, but now that you mention it, much was taken from Osiris as well. Mainly the ressurrection in a cave part. Isis collected and mummified the pieces of Osiris, but she kept the penis. She then used it to impregnate herself (which is where the virgin part came from, no male present). Isis then gave birth to Horus, on December 25th. That whole story was just a metaphor for life, death, and life coming out of death.

Here's a list of some parallels

EGYPTIAN MESSIAH—HORUS BIBLICAL MESSIAH—JESUS

1 Horus is the Father seen in the son.. Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life.

2 Horus claims to be the light of the world represented by the symbolic eye, the sign of salvation. Jesus stated that he is the light of the world.

3 Horus said that he was the way, the truth, the life. Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life.

4 Horus was the plant, the shoot. Jesus says "I am the true vine."

5 Horus says “It is I who traverse the heavens, I go round the Elysian Fields. Eternity has been assigned to me without end, Lo! I am heir to endless time and my attribute is eternity. Jesus says “I am come down from heaven, for this is the will of the Father, that everyone who beholdeth the Son and believeth in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

6 Horus—I open the Tuat that I may drive away the darkness. Jesus says I am come a light unto the world.

7 Horus says “I am equipped with thy words O Ra [Father in Heaven] and repeat them to those who are deprived of breath.” These were the words of the Father in heaven. Jesus says “The Father which sent me, he hath given me a command-ment, what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak therefore even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me."

8 Horus baptized with water by Anup. Jesus baptized with water by John the Baptist.

9 Horus—Aan, the name of the divine scribe. Jesus—John the divine scribe.

10 Horus born in Annu, the place of bread. Jesus Born in Bethlehem, the house of bread.

11 Horus The good shepherd with the crook on his shoulders. Jesus The good shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders.

12 Horus Seven on board the boat with him. Jesus Seven fishermen on board the boat with Jesus.

13 Horus Depicted as the Lamb Jesus depicted as the lamb.

14 Horus as the Lion. Jesus as the lion.

15 Horus identified with the Tat or cross. Jesus identified with the cross.

16 Horus of 12 years. Jesus of 12 years.

17 Horus A man of 30 years. Jesus a man of 30 years at his baptism.

18 Horus the KRST. Jesus the Christ.

19 Horus the manifesting son of God. Jesus the manifesting son of God.

20 Horus The trinity—Atum the Father, Horus the son, Ra the Holy Spirit. Jesus—God the Father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit.

21 Horus The first Horus as a child of the virgin, the second as son of Ra. Jesus as a child of the virgin, Christ as the son of the Father in heaven.

22 Horus—Horus the sender and Set the destroyer in the harvest field. Jesus—Jesus the sender or the good seed, Satan the sender of tares.

23 Horus carried off by Set to the summit of Mount Hetep. Jesus carried by Satan to an exceedingly high mountain.

24 Horus and Set contending on the Mount. Jesus and Satan contending on the Mount.

25 Horus—The star was the announcer of the child Horus. Jesus—The Star in the East indicated the birth-place of Jesus.

26 Horus—the avenger. Jesus who brings the sword.

27 Horus—as Iu-em-hetep comes with peace. Jesus—the bringer of peace.

28 Horus—the afflicted one. Jesus—the afflicted one.

29 Horus—as the type of life eternal. 30 Jesus—as the type of life eternal.

30 Horus as Iu-em-hetep the child teacher in the temple. Jesus as the child teacher in the temple.

31 Horus The mummy bandage was woven without seam. Jesus The vesture of the Christ was without seam.

32 Horus As Har-Khutti has twelve followers. 32 Jesus has twelve disciples.

33 Horus The revelation written down by divine scribe Aan (Tehuti). Jesus the Revelation written down by John the Divine.

34 Horus—Aani bears witness to the word of Ra. Jesus—John bears witness to the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ.

35 Horus The secret mysteries revealed by That-Aan. Jesus The secret mysteries made known by John.

36 Horus The morning star. Jesus The morning star.

37 Horus Who gives the morning star to his followers. Jesus who gives the morning star to his followers.

38 Horus The name of Ra on the head of the deceased. Jesus The name of the father written on the forehead.

39 Horus The paradise of the Pole star—Am-Khemen. Jesus The Holy City lighted by one luminary that is neither the sun nor the moon.

40 Horus Har-Seshu or servants of Horus. Jesus The servants of Jesus Christ.



Sorry for the length but its quite an astounding similarity, wouldn't you say?

[This message has been edited by Barefoot J (edited 05-30-2004).]

Um, saying Osiris is like Jesus, is like saying that any story where anyone comes back to life is like Jesus.

And the way I heard it, she couldn't find the penis, but she used magic to make him whole for one night anyway.

Horus was the falcon headed god, right... I can't remember what part in the pantheon he played... what was it? He wasn't Amun/Amon as well was he?

Hang on... half of those are just weird things the church said long after Jesus... and what the hell does

quote: Horus of 12 years. Jesus of 12 years.

mean?

And Jesus is never referred to as 'The morning star', as far as I can recall...

'Jesus The name of the father written on the forehead.' Most of this is crap - random meaningless phrases, some of which are completely made up.

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 05-30-2004).]

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 05-30-2004).]

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 05-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

[B]Um, saying Osiris is like Jesus, is like saying that any story where anyone comes back to life is like Jesus.

And the way I heard it, she couldn't find the penis, but she used magic to make him whole for one night anyway.

Horus was the falcon headed god, right... I can't remember what part in the pantheon he played... what was it? He wasn't Amun/Amon as well was he?

Hang on... half of those are just weird things the church said long after Jesus... and what the hell does

[QUOTE] Horus of 12 years. Jesus of 12 years.

mean?

And Jesus is never referred to as 'The morning star', as far as I can recall...

'Jesus The name of the father written on the forehead.' Most of this is crap - random meaningless phrases, some of which are completely made up.

quote:Originally posted by Barefoot J:

Gee, why would somebody have made up the Bible? It's not they could have become more powerful...

Certainly not the people who would have "made it up"

Horus http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=84744 http://tektonics.org/osy.html

Hitler & Horus http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm

[This message has been edited by inquisitor_11 (edited 05-30-2004).]

The thing is though, the similarities aren't just vague correlations: almost any aspect of Horus can be found in Jesus' legends, along with some major pieces of other gods (Mithra, for example), then, from this point, the similarities between the Christian God and other major gods begin to show; along with Christianity's love of assimilitating tradition of other religions in an attempt to lull them into its massive web of bullshit and stolen legends.

quote:Um, saying Osiris is like Jesus, is like saying that any story where anyone comes back to life is like Jesus.

Now you're catching on, every religion/culture has at least one story of a ressurrection. That's why the xtians thought they should throw that in there, too.

quote:And the way I heard it, she couldn't find the penis, but she used magic to make him whole for one night anyway.

I've never heard or read about her not finding the phallus. She prayed to Thoth (god of healing) to give him life again. But that was after the impregnation.

Horus the Elder was falcon headed. Horus the child was depicted as horned and winged.

And yes, there should have been more information for that one. Horus of 12 years. Jesus of 12 years. As far as I know that was when Horus/Jesus learned who his father was, and began teaching in a temple.

I think the above links are just more xtians trying to deny the truth. Mainly the second one.

quote:Certainly not the people who would have "made it up"

Yes, as we all know the xtian church has no power whatsoever, especially in America.

[This message has been edited by Barefoot J (edited 05-31-2004).]

they're both sons of bitches, and yes provably the same, but far from the king of gods

quote:Now you're catching on, every religion/culture has at least one story of a ressurrection. That's why the xtians thought they should throw that in there, too.

It's Xians, not Xtians (X being a reference to Christ, which happens to have a t at the end).

Anywho, that's like saying that Lazarus has parallels - you're not getting the context. If there were similar reasons for a similar death, and a similar style of resurrection, then maybe it could be credibly derived, but as it is, all the resurrection stories only have one thing in common - the main character comes back to life, and always with completely different circumstances.

So in the end, it's like saying that everyone's exactly the same, 'cause we're all born.

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 06-01-2004).]

Oh excuse me. Xians.

Okay look, think whatever you want to, I don't really give a shit anymore. Either way you look at it, Jesus was a fictitous character. At least thats the conclusion I have come to, and you are free to believe whatever you like.

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

And Jesus is never referred to as 'The morning star', as far as I can recall...

I think it was Lucifer.

quote:How you have fallen from heaven,

O morning star, son of the dawn!

You have been cast down to the earth,

you who once laid low the nations!

You said in your heart,

"I will ascend to heaven;

I will raise my throne

above the stars of God;

I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,

on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.

-- Isaiah 14:12-13 (NIV)

quote:"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

-- Revelations 22:16 (NIV)

quote:Originally posted by Barefoot J:

Oh excuse me. Xians.

Okay look, think whatever you want to, I don't really give a shit anymore. Either way you look at it, Jesus was a fictitous character. At least thats the conclusion I have come to, and you are free to believe whatever you like.

There is a similar link between JFK and Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.

John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.

John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both their wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both were shot in the head.

Both were shot in the presence of their wives.

The Secretary of each President warned them not to go to the theater and to Dallas, respectively.

Lincoln's Secretary was named Kennedy

Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners.

Both successors were named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.

Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.

Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names comprise fifteen letters.

Booth ran from the theater and was captured in a warehouse.

Oswald ran from the warehouse and was captured in a theater.

To cap it all off, Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.



I've come to the conclusion that JFK was a mythical character. You can believe what ever you like. The most important thing about JFK was not wether he actually existed, but rather what these stories can teach us today.....

Perhaps I should make myself more clear. I came to the conclusion that Jesus was made up years before ever reading about any similarities between him and anybody else. If he indeed was a real person, not only was he a huge hypocrite that committed every one of the 7 deadly sins, but he also said things like he brings to Earth not peace, but a sword. He never said he was literally the son of God. He said that God is his father and that everyone should call him father because he is the creator of all.

Since you seem to know so much, perhaps you could answer a few questions for me. Why would God send his only son to be killed to save us from him? Why did his son have to be tortured and brutally murdered for him to forgive us? Why would we be punished for using the free will that he gave us? Why does God demand human sacrifices? Why do people pray for things when God has already decided the fate of everyone? Why do you have to hate your family to be a desciple?

Just a few things that are a little unclear in the hole-y Bible.

quote:Either way you look at it, Jesus was a fictitous character

Except that they have evidence for his crucifixion (namely the headboard from the cross - dates right, the way the language was used was accurate to the time, etc).

The 'Seven Deadly Sins' were made up by the catholic church a long time after Christ.

Even if it was made up later, he still went against his own teachings.

All a headboard proves is that people actually were cucified back then. Big surprise there. Did it say Jesus of Nazareth on it? What about his real name, Essi? Plus it's not like its hard to make that shit up to encourage blind faith of the masses.

[This message has been edited by Barefoot J (edited 06-02-2004).]

Disclaimer: I hate giving trite, "pre-packaged" answers. I think that for alot of these issues there are explanations, but perhaps not answers. So for anything I say, there will probably be another alternate/ divergent explanations. Nor do I think that any of my responses will be "complete" or truely satisfy the question. But this I how understand it. If you disagree, or think I'm full of shit, please say so. I'm quite happy to be wrong.



Why would God send his only son to be killed to save us from him?

God of Justice vs. God of Love. The christian God, by his very nature has to punish sin, he can postpone doing so, but at some stage he must. God, also by his nature, created us as objects of his love. As such he doesn't want to be eternally seperated from us. However at the same time he must punish sin.

Needs to able to punish sin without people having to be eternally separated.

Solution: give sin to a scapegoat, punish the scapegoat (Jesus). Sin is punished, without humans having to burn.

Why did it have to be Jesus?

Jesus met God's requirements i.e. he was without sin. As such he was able to take our place, and fulfill our need for a scapegoat as no other person or animal could.

"...[Jesus] meets our need...Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day....He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." - Heb 7:26,27

Why did his son have to be tortured and brutally murdered for him to forgive us?

1) support for the resurrection claim- to make sure that Jesus well known to be dead, so that there was none of this "he got better" business.

2) support for prophecy claims- One of the prophecies made concerning the messiah was the he would be "hung on a tree" (either Psalms or Daniel I think, so maybe 700-1200 years before Yeshua was purported to have lived). Crucifixtion either hadn't been invented yet or was an unknown practice to Jews (I can't remember which though) at that stage. Why then would you write something so absurd? Unless of course there was something more to it.

There's also a number of other things such as being flogged, no bones being broken etc.

3) So that he could share more fully in our suffering.

"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by men,

a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering...

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,

yet we consider him stricken by God...

But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed....

and YWHW has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

-Isaiah 53

Why would we be punished for using the free will that he gave us?

Why would your parents kick you up the arse if you use the petrol they gave you to mow the lawn to set the house on fire?

Why does God demand human sacrifices?

I'm not sure what you're expressly refering to. I can't think of any situation where anyone was sacrificed to YWHW at his command. Theres references to it- pagans and jews sacrificing to Molech(?), the lamb being substituted at the last minute for Issac, NT refs to christians being "living sacrifices"

Why do people pray for things when God has already decided the fate of everyone?

simple answer: 'cause Jesus said too...

more complex answer:

I personally think that at one extreme everything is free will, whilst at the same time everything is predestined. In terms of God's perspective, I think he stands outside of time and sees human history unfolding at the same time as he sees it starting and finishing. As such pray would be one of the many things that God would factor into his "plan".

Another explanation I've heard is that pray doesn't change God, it changes us. Which to some degree I think is true, and would tie in with the NT's/ Yeshua's emphasis on persistence in prayer.

The Screwtape Letters also has a really cool take on prayer.

Why do you have to hate your family to be disciple?

Why stop there? You also have to hate possessions, friends, work and your very life. Anything that stands between Christ and yourself.

Discipleship is all about being joined exclusively to Christ, no other priority, thing or responsibility can come before following him. Does that mean all you do is sit around and wait till you die? No. What it does mean is that every aspect of your life gets "filtered" through your relationship with Jesus.

"This breach with all our immeadiate relationships is inescapable. It may take the form of an external breach with family or nation... Or it may be a hidden and a secret breach. But even then we must always be ready to come out into the open. In the last resort it makes no difference whether the breach be secret or open. Abraham is an example of both. He had to leave his friends and his father's house because Christ came between him and his own. On this occasion the breach was evident. Abraham became a stranger and a sojourner in order to gain the promised land. This was his first call. Later on he was called by God to offer his own son Isaac as a sacrifice. Christ had come between the father of faith and the child of promise. This time the direct relationship not only of flesh and blood, but also of the spirit must be broken. Abraham must learn that the promise does not depend on Isaac, but on God alone. No one else hears this call of God, not even the servants who accompanied Abraham to Mount Moriah. Once again, as when he left his father's house, Abraham becomes an individual, a lonely and solitary figure. He accepts the call as it comes; he will not shirk it or 'spiritualize' it. He takes God at his word and is ready to obey. Against every direct claim upon him, wether natural, ethical or religious, he will be obediant to the Word of God. By his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, he shows that he is prepared to come out into the open with the breach which he had already made secretly, and to do so for the sake of the Mediator. And at that moment all that he had surrendered was given back to him. He receives back his son. God shows him a better sacrifice which will take the place of Isaac. The tables are completely turned, Abraham receives Isaac back, but henceforth he will have his son in quite a new way- through the Mediator and for the Mediator's sake. Since he had shown himself ready to obey God literally, he is now allowed to possess Issac as though he had him not- to possess him through Jesus Christ. No one else knows what has happened. Abraham comes down from the mountain with Isaac just as he went up, but the whole situation has changed. Christ has stepped between father and son. Abraham had left all and followed Christ, and as he follows him he is allowed to go back and live in the world as he has done before. Outwardly, the picture is unchanged, but the old is passed away, and behold all things are new. Everything has had to pass through Christ."

-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship

quote:Even if it was made up later, he still went against his own teachings.

Nice argument, except it's no longer backed up with facts. References?

quote:All a headboard proves is that people actually were cucified back then. Big surprise there. Did it say Jesus of Nazareth on it? What about his real name, Essi? Plus it's not like its hard to make that shit up to encourage blind faith of the masses.

It wasn't made up, it's been in Emperor Constantine's mother's palace since the 3rd century. Likewise, it says:

Here is Jesus, The King of the Jews

Or something similar. There was a documentary on it recently. Until now, it's been rejected as a fake, because the Greek and Latin, as well as the Hebrew were written right to left. Of course, given a hebrew scribe, it's quite easy for that to be a mistake on it. The fact that it uses a Greek abbreviation only used in Jesus' time period, along with carbon dating, shows that it wasn't faked.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Why would we be punished for using the free will that he gave us?

Why would your parents kick you up the arse if you use the petrol they gave you to mow the lawn to set the house on fire?

Because you made a mess ; but this doesn't explain why you should be punished for using your free will.

quote:Jesus met God's requirements i.e. he was without sin.

Jesus was most definately not without sin. http://www.freewebs.com/see_the_truth/sinning%5Fnazarene.html

Human Sacrifices http://www.freewebs.com/see_the_truth/Human%20Sacrifice%20and%20the%20Bible.html

Sorry people, I just don't buy it.

quote:Originally posted by Barefoot J:

Jesus was most definately not without sin. http://www.freewebs.com/see_the_truth/sinning%5Fnazarene.html

Human Sacrifices http://www.freewebs.com/see_the_truth/Human%20Sacrifice%20and%20the%20Bible.html

Sorry people, I just don't buy it.

I seriously don't buy either of the links you posted because:

a) The relied on the rendering of passages in english

b) They relied on the rendering of passages in a form of english that isn't even spoken anymore

c) They quite willingly took passages out of their inmmeadiate and complete context, told incomplete stories and quite willing distorted texts to harmonize them with their purpose (which is also a charge you can level at some christian apologists)

The only thing those links demonstrated was a limited (willing or otherwise) understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

In all fairness though if Yeshua was not the Messiah, there might be a case for the "seven deadly sins"- the whole concept of 7 deadly sins was based off a passage, but it's importance was constructed by the RCC (i think).

One interesting thing it did bring up was "wrath" which is an aspect of Yeshua that is often overlooked. Who was it that he reserved his criticsm for? The religious elite. Who was it that he praised? Those on the margins- social outcasts, untouchables, foreigners.

I think the church needs to rediscover this.

quote:They quite willingly took passages out of their inmmeadiate and complete context

Out of context, How'd I know I'd hear that before this thread was laid to rest...

Did you look up all the passages and read the books/chapters they were in? I sure did and it all seemed pretty in context to me.

But I guess if you're looking at it from a negative point of view, you will find negative content.

[This message has been edited by Barefoot J (edited 06-04-2004).]

"a text out of context is a pretext for failure"

The reason i brought up context was because it was the key issue with the links you posted- context is more than just the words surrounding a passage.

"When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments"

- 2 Timothy 4:13

The 'context' contains alot of other instructions that are similar, and it fits the flow of the passage.Why then, are christian's not bound to do this?

I'm not trying to simply deflect your criticism, I'm trying to illustrate the importance of understanding the text in the light of its context, whether that be social, political, literary, geographical, sexual or whatever.

quote:But I guess if you're looking at it from a negative point of view, you will find negative content.

What about looking at it critically?

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

Because you made a mess ; but this doesn't explain why you should be punished for using your free will.



The punishment is not for the use of the free will, but rather what you use that free will to do! I don't particularly remember God saying "Think for yourself, and I'll spank you ".

While I appreciate the lesson, I do know the importance of context.

quote:What about looking at it critically?

Looking at it critically the first few times is what led me to view it negatively every other time after that.

Are you talking about the bible or the links?

The Bible, my bad. But the links too on your end.

I think this thread just died on us...

There are heaps of gods with a capital G from all different religions and cultures who had sons, and a good amount all had very similar teachings. Krishna and Jesus, for example, virtually had the same lives. And a good deal of them were executed, raised again, are the saviours of humanity and are due to come back on a day of judgement. Virtually all New testament texts can be traced back to being stolen from other cultures, as well as old testament books. Basically the bible and ITS accounts of different people cannot exist as genuine, it bears to many irrefutable similarities to books of other religions and cultures so yeah...its all a load of shit.

and that headboard buissiness REEKS of shit.

Firstly, I haven't seen any official references to such a discovery, and it would be HUGE. Everyone would know about it. Secondly, its easily faked. Very easily faked and like someone already said....if it didn't say "jesus of nazareth" on it all it proves is that people were executed like that woopti-fucken-doo we already know that. And thirdly if it DOES say "jesus" on it then there is your proof that it is faked. It has already been proved his name was DEFINATLEY not jesus they are 100% sure of that.

I love it when people use inspecific references to show that something is "load of shit".

His name wasn't Jesus "HOLY SHIT" someone call the vatican!!!

quote:Jesus was most definately not without sin. http://www.freewebs.com/see_the_truth/sinning%5Fnazarene.html

Except as I said before, the '7 deadly sins' weren't come up with until the middle ages, and are not biblical sins (and therefore, the website is based on ignorance, not knowledge).

More ignorance-

It was claimed that Jesus Christ was mythical. Therefore the gospels (cannonical and otherwise) were fabrications. If they were presenting a mythical figure to fit the mold of the Judaic Messiah, why would you create one that could be construed as NOT sinless?

You need to know that it was indeed Jesus who made me smoke crack.

There is no proof to say that the seven deadly sins were medi-evil creations, thats just what the liberal christians say to run away from wha t they don't like about their religion.

^ How sure are you?

Not very but it seems like an idea more then a fact

[This message has been edited by shuu (edited 06-10-2004).]

inquisitor_11: Does God have free will?

Because if he is obligated to punish sin, it sure sounds like he doesn't.

quote:There is no proof to say that the seven deadly sins were medi-evil creations, thats just what the liberal christians say to run away from wha t they don't like about their religion.

Easy - if it's not in the bible, it's a middle age fabrication.

That's a big question. I dunno, i'd say yes, I mean who/what would determine God's limits? Then there's the question of how free will plays in with omniscience etc.

I think that God's "limits" on his involvement in our existence would be self-imposed. If our existence is part of some giant contest between God and satan, perhaps these are "rules" which God chooses to play by- much like the first 3 chapters of Job. Although that would mean that at the same time as having free will God would choose to limit himself (does that affect omnipotentence?).

An idea that I heard not too long ago, and I've sort of been kicking it around, is that when God created the material universe, God had to "step back" i.e. from being all of existence, to becoming a part. I don't know how theologicaly correct it is, or if accurately reproduced it, but it's interesting.

There was a discusssion about this on infidels that you might find interesting. I think they come to the conclusion that the christian God doesn't.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=87379&page=1&pp=25

I used to go to church and believe when I was younger...because I was told too but now I don't. I haven't for years.. mainly because as I look at the world I find it hard to believe a "God" could let his creation become so fucked up and with some shit I've went through I find it hard to believe...Simple as that.. Also, I'm not saying he does or doesn't exist..

[This message has been edited by Odysseus (edited 06-11-2004).]