5 Near-Identical Jesus Christ Myths That Predate Jesus



This topic was originally covered by a former Liberal America writer. It’s been completely rewritten as fresh content, with better sources and videos, for easier reading. Enjoy!

This video tells the whole story.

1. Horus (3100 B.C.)

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

Horus was one of the many Egyptian Gods.

  • He had 12 disciples.
  • One was born of a virgin in a cave.
  • Like Jesus, his birth was announced via a star.
  • And three wise men showed up!
  • He was baptized when he was 30 by Anup the Baptizer.
  • He rose a guy from the dead and walked on water.
  • Lastly, he was crucified, buried like Jesus in a tomb, and resurrected.

2. Buddha (563 B.C.)

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

  • Healed the sick
  • Walked on water.
  • Fed 500 men from one basket of cakes.
  • Taught a lot of the same things Jesus taught, including equality for all.
  • He spent three days in jail.
  • Was resurrected when he died.

3. Mithra (2000 B.C.)

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia




An ancient Zoroastrian deity with similarities to Jesus.

  • Virginal birth on December 25th.
  • Swaddled and laid in a manger.
  • Tended by shepherds in the manger.
  • He had 12 companions (or disciples).
  • Performed miracles.
  • Gave his own life to save the world.
  • Dead for three days, then resurrected.
  • Called “the Way, the Truth and the Light.”
  • Has his own version of a Eucharistic-style “Lord’s supper.”

4. Krishna (around 3000 B.C.)

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

  • A Hindu God.
  • Born after his mom was impregnated by a God.
  • Angels, wise men, and shepherds were at his birth.
  • Guess what gifts they gave him? Gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
  • A jealous bad guy ordered the slaughter of all newborns, just as happened with Jesus.
  • Baptized in a river.
  • Performed miracles, including raising the dead and healing the deaf and blind.
  • Rose from the dead to ascend to heaven.
  • Is expected to return to earth someday to fight the “Prince of Evil.”



5. Osiris (around 2500 B.C.)

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

Son of an Egyptian God.

  • Killed and the resurrected after three days in hell. WTF? A common theme here!
  • Performed miracles
  • Had 12 disciples.
  • Taught rebirth through water baptism.

 

 


Comments

  1. Christian Progressive AZ says:

    Sources?

    1. Randy Hyle says:

      Google the names. I have read this many times in books on ancient mythologies. Just like the great flood story was not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Many other ancient cultures also have a flood myth.

      1. Curt Gleason says:

        It’s certainly true that there are flood traditions all over the world. One conclusion is that those stories were all stolen… Another is that there really was a flood that inspired all these accounts. How you interpret that fact has a lo to do with your preconceptions…

        1. Randy Hyle says:

          All one has to do is look at what their idea of the “world” was back then. People very seldom traveled more than a days walk from home. Their world consisted of a very small area compared to what we know now. Some scientists have shown that the Black sea may have indeed flodded and wiped out large areas of the Middle east. But any large flood that wiped out a relatively small area would have been considered the end of the world to them. Th whole idea of relying on Bronze age myths and stories as a basis for a modern religion is absurd in the first place. Especially considering many of these myths were handed down orally , and probably changed or enhanced, for generations, before finally being written down. How many other concepts or ideas do we still believe in from that time?

    2. Pixilicious says:

      Too lazy to do the googling yourself? Or is it that you just don’t want to know because it would raise uncomfortable issues for you?

      Ignorance is when you buy into myth unwittingly. Stupidity is when you refuse to accept evidence of the myth. There is a cure for ignorance bu here is no cure for stupidity. So which are you, ignorant or stupid?

      1. Mike Conway says:

        No, seriously, the author of the article needs to source everything in this article. The paragraph on Krishna is complete garbage. None of that stuff happened. If she’s saying it is, then she needs to provide canto, chapter, and verse from Srimad Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana, Mahabharata, or any other Hindu work Krishna appears in. Since I follow the Vaishnava religion, I can definitely say that the information is bogus here. And if that one non-sourced article is wrong, how about the others?

        1. patriot_act says:

          No seriously I knew most of this when I was 15 and that was about forty years ago, Do some reading, don’t just go to wikiwhatever!

          1. Ashley says:

            If you were an educated individual, you would know that it is a literary standard to cite the source of your work.

      2. Daniel says:

        I think you use the word evidence a little too lightly. A blog article with no sourcing hardly constitutes evidence. Or, maybe ignorance is when you buy into everything you google.

      3. stuffings says:

        You sure are nasty. Sound like a Republican to me. Yuk!

    3. Ashley Rogers says:

      I have heard many stories of this from many different places, books, articles, my philosophy classes ect. Its easy to google it and find some articles and such. As all stories throughout history has been altered in some way whether it is by word of mouth or written in a book, all you got to do is keep an open mind about sensitive subjects..

  2. Julie says:

    This is garage! Let explore Jesus and you decide . Is the Jesus myth true? Is Jesus just the fabrication of a bunch of religious zealots? Some people would like us to believe that the existence of Jesus is nothing more than a myth. To examine this question, let’s start by looking at how some people have defined the word “myth.”
    a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the worldview of a people

    a story, usually of teleological content, that relates not historical fact but historical “experience” of its writer or culture. It is not a chronicle of “what was or is” but a profound expression of “how things are.”

    an anonymous tale emerging from the traditional beliefs of a culture or social unit. Myths use supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. They may also explain cosmic issues like creation and death.
    If Jesus did not really exist, He would fit these definitions because He would not be part of history or historical fact. Conversely, even if He really did exist, the last definition implies that who He claimed to be could still be a myth if the supernatural miracles He performed had natural explanations or He was not the Creator He claimed to be or He really didn’t have power over death He claimed to have. It appears that the person who wrote the last definition tailored it to fit Jesus. He apparently believed that Jesus was not what He claimed to be and consequently was a myth.

    Raising the potential mythology of Jesus is a fair question and believing in the Jesus myth is an acceptable position as long as such a conclusion is based upon a careful, unbiased examination of the evidence and not based upon what we want to believe. Many of us may want to jump to that conclusion just to avoid our responsibility toward God and to our neighbors that we would be forced to consider if Jesus is real and is who He says He is.

    Any careful and objective study of the facts that surround Jesus birth, life, death, and resurrection will convince anyone that Jesus is real and that He is who He said He was. Many people have done research specifically to discredit the reality of Jesus and who He claimed to be or examined their atheistic beliefs and ended up proclaiming the truth of Jesus and the Bible. Some of these that have written their story in a book include Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Sir William M. Ramsey, and Randall Niles.

    Without even getting into many detailed historical, archeological, scientific, and documentary facts, consider the following to see if Jesus’ existence and His claim to be God are consistent with the facts:
    Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus both counting backwards (BC) before His birth and forwards (AD) after His birth. Why would we base our calendar on a myth?

    Why have Christians been persecuted throughout history if Jesus is a myth?

    If Jesus is a myth, why do people take His name in vein?

    Why does the mere name of Jesus instill such hatred and controversy and why is just mentioning the name of Jesus taboo if He is a myth?

    If Jesus and His resurrection was a myth, why did all the apostles die for what they knew to be a lie?

    How have so many lives been transformed from unsatisfying, self-destructive behaviors that are like a curse on themselves, their families, and society to a purposeful, satisfying life that is a blessing to society?

    How do you explain the wisdom that Jesus had when answering peoples questions when they tried to trick and trap Him?

    How do you explain how Jesus fulfilled all the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament that could not have been fulfilled by random chance?

    Why was Jesus crucified and why were the apostles murdered if it’s all a myth?

    Many religious concepts are consistent with human thinking. Some promise to make us gods. Some promise many virgins. Some promise utopia. These concepts are consistent with human thinking. How do you explain God’s plan that includes Jesus giving up His God status to become a lowly man; to live a perfect life and to die for us by our own hand and to save us from our sins. This is clearly not a concept that men would create.
    Jesus said In Mark 13:6 International Version
    Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many

    1. patriot_act says:

      garage?

      1. Jimmy Chancellor says:

        I kind of stopped reading there myself. 🙂

    2. michael says:

      Julie, your response to this article is the same apologetics that are rolled out every time the truth of Jesus is brought into question. These comparisons are not “gar(b)age”… it is simply comparing and contrasting myths throughout history. Challenging the definition of a “myth”, as you do in your post, is only an elaborate tactic to distract from the point at hand… which is that the story of Jesus lines up closely to a lot of other myths, legends, and allegories throughout the history of humanity. First, I’d like to challenge you to consider this question…

      If Jesus is NOT a myth and is a unique and special story (or phenomena) then why does it compare so closely to similar mythical stories?

      Christians want to believe that the story of Christ is very unique to anything else ever heard throughout history… but it’s not. It’s just the story that YOU happen to believe to be true. With that being said… I’d like to take you question for question…

      1: Why have Christians been persecuted throughout history if Jesus is a myth?
      Christians are the ONLY religious group to ever be persecuted? Nobody else is persecuted for their faith? This aspect of human society is not unique to Christians. Persecution of different religions and sects have happened ever since humans started believing stuff. It has to do with how that culture of people challenge and defy authority. Christians were met with persecution because they did just that, defied the opposing authority. It doesn’t point to it’s truth as a belief… it just shows that they were seen as a threat. Again, not unique to Christians.

      2: If Jesus is a myth, why do people take His name in vein?
      This one is the most confusing of all your questions. I hear people take various names of religious figures “in vein” all the time. It’s only “in vein” to you because you believe it to be sacred. A muslim could ask, “if Mohammed is a myth, then why do people draw his likeness in vein?” How exactly is this question proof of the truth of Christianity?

      3: Why does the mere name of Jesus instill such hatred and controversy and why is just mentioning the name of Jesus taboo if He is a myth?
      See the previous answer. Again… replace Jesus with “Mohammed” and see how that compares.
      Because the name of Jesus causes controversy, it must be true?

      4: If Jesus and His resurrection was a myth, why did all the apostles die for what they knew to be a lie?
      So, by this logic, the Heaven’s Gate cult is true because the people died for its beliefs? How many other religions/cults are now made true because people died for its belief?

      5: How have so many lives been transformed from unsatisfying, self-destructive behaviors that are like a curse on themselves, their families, and society to a purposeful, satisfying life that is a blessing to society?
      It’s great for someone to find hope in their life. It could come from belief in a religion, changing bad habits and finding a greater purpose to live for, ridding themselves of addiction. Redemption in life can be found in so many different ways. Christianity has offered certain elements to a person’s life that they may have been missing… community, structure and rules, routine… but this can be found in Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism… etc.,. You can even find peace and purpose in NOT believing in religious myths and faiths.

      6: How do you explain the wisdom that Jesus had when answering peoples questions when they tried to trick and trap Him?
      The writers of the Jesus story are good writers. They told the story to adapt it to the human condition and express societal questions, norms, and injustices. It came from a written and oral tradition that made life interesting for everyone.
      Poetic justice can be found in many different holy books. I think it’s an important exercise for Christians (and all other people of faith) to explore and read the holy books of other religions. You’ll come to the realization that you likely have a lot in common. As well, you’ll start to see the trail of religious history takes you back to certain points where you were all of the same origin.

      7: How do you explain how Jesus fulfilled all the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament that could not have been fulfilled by random chance?
      I could write a story today about someone who lived a hundred years ago that somehow fulfills the prophecies of the tradition that I am following (see further explanation below).

      8: Why was Jesus crucified and why were the apostles murdered if it’s all a myth?

      I think that is outlined clearly in the Bible, no? Blasphemy.
      Was Jesus the only person during that time period of Jewish rule that was executed for blasphemy?

      The thing is… there is very little (if any) evidence for the Jesus of the Bible actually existing. Dig on this one and see what you can find. The Gospel is not evidence for itself. In fact, it was a collection of writings from unknown authors that didn’t come out until at least 40-50 years after Jesus was allegedly crucified.

      Thanks for this series of questions. It’s a good exercise for me, as I grew up in the church and my family is still very devout. I have to be able to answer these types of inquiries head on with honesty.

      cheers

      1. Andy says:

        Why do we use a Christian Calendar if Jesus isn’t a myth.
        from Wikipedia

        Eastern Orthodox countries only began to adopt AD instead of the Byzantine calendar in 1700 when Russia did so, with others adopting it in the 19th and 20th centuries. Even though Anno Domini was in widespread use by the 9th century, Before Christ (or its equivalent) did not become common until much later.

        Christianity was already a widespread and dominant religion in most parts of the world when the Christian Calendar was adopted. It isn’t like as soon as Jesus was born people started using that date as the basis for their Calendar.

        Also, there are still many places in the world that do not use the Gregorian (christian) calendar. The Hebrew, Persian, and various eastern calendars are still dominant in parts of the world where Christianity has not been the primary religion for centuries.

    3. Erin Krumenacker says:

      Julie your questions do not prove Jesus existed. Many of your questions have rather simple answers. The obvious one is that NONE of it actually happened and you are just believing stories that you read in an ancient book of fiction. Second, religion itself is very dangerous and people have been using it to start wars for millenia. All religions have been persecuted at one time or another. Doesn’t mean it is real, it just means that people are assholes and really gullible. (FYI, pagans were persecuted by Christians far more than vice versa.)

    4. Kristi J says:

      my biggest problem with your argument is of all the historians of Jesus’ time, not one wrote about him. There is one, Josephus, that supposedly did but it is widely known and accepted as a forgery. So if this guy was walking around on water and feeding the multitudes with one basket and resurrecting people and casting out demons and dying and coming back to life, don’t you think at least one guy from the multitude of guys, whose life’s work was to record history as it happened for future generations, would write about such things? But not one. Not one intellectual or court scribe or philosopher in that time period ever wrote about Jesus.

      Maybe you should consider for a moment that back in the day, power was everything. The church wanted the power concentrated so they came up with Jesus, son of the one God, so they didn’t have to share tithes with the temple of Zeus and all the other temples. They made him similiar to popular well-known gods, like Odin, Horace and Mithra, they made it a sin to worship other gods and blasphemy to question the church and their interpretation of the new bible that they edited, removing any books that didn’t fit with their new message. All of that is well documented, very well documented. The deceivers in this case are the church leaders and organized religion and their deception has lasted more than two millennia.

      1. Not-an-expert says:

        Josephus a forgery? From which era? His writings can be dated as the Gospels can and someone during that same era even if it was not Josephus wrote what he or she believed to be true that Jesus really lived, died by crucifixion and as His disciples witnessed, rose again from the dead. There is more documentary evidence for the life and times of Jesus than any other historical figure ever.

  3. patriot_act says:

    Oh dear not Jeee-zuussss!

  4. stuffings says:

    We sometimes have our preconceived ideas of things. Then, when we “research”, we look for things that fit that preconception. Seems to me that this is the case here.

    An article is written here about five circumstances that are similar to the Jesus figure of the Christian faith. If the writer is going to be honest and serious then the writer would include some source material instead of just pictures of “old things”. If the writer does not and, according to posters here, relies on this “well, everybody knows this” idea, then the article is suspect and so is the motivation of the writer.

    Maybe the writer has preconceived ideas of things and is looking for ideas to fit that preconception.

    Signed,

    A flaming liberal

    1. Lottie Richard says:

      Hi stuffings,
      Each of the hyperlinks goes to a source, as is AP style.

      1. GordoTico says:

        Yes but your hyperlink for Horus just goes to a list of claims, which references itself to a goofy new age site (Entheogens). Much of the Jesus myth is probably borrowed, but your article just make claims wildly and your hyperlinks are unreliable.

      2. Curt Gleason says:

        How did you get the concept of the Immaculate Conception so wrong? I’m not Catholic, and don’t agree with the doctrine, but anyone who mentions it in a serious discussion ought to know that it refers to Mary (who had an human father…)

        1. exa says:

          That solves nothing. It only adds mary to jesus as a mother and son conceived immaculately.

          1. Curt Gleason says:

            No one says Jesus was conceived ‘immaculately.’ The Bible, and Catholic doctrine, say that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. But I wasn’t trying to ‘solve’ anything. My question is: Since Lottie obviously got this concept so very wrong, why should we trust her take on anything else? All I had to do was to google the term to find a definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia… It looks like she’s edited out this error…

      3. Nils says:

        You’re citing false data. The Horus-Jesus “connection” was coined by a crank Egyptologist named Gerald Massey in the 1800s. He had no formal education and made up most of the Horus “stories”, including the ” 12 Disciples” and “Anup the Baptizer,” as well as Horus’ “crucifixion.”. Please stop spreading misinformation.

        1. Frank says:

          So you are saying that one guy isn’t reliable because he had no formal education and made everything up? Sounds like the entire bible to me……

          1. Curt Gleason says:

            No – but there’s no reason to believe Massey when he says ‘These are stories the ancient Egyptians told about Horus and Osiris.’

        2. Lottie Richard says:

          Per your request, Nils, I added some more scholarly citations. For the record, just because people disagree about something, does not make it wrong.

          1. Nils says:

            …just because people disagree about something does not make it wrong.

            Really? So when the scholarly community holds that Massey/Murdock’s assertions about Egyptian religion are pseudohistory, it doesn’t matter because they “disagree”? I hate to say it, but I’m skeptical.

            1. exa says:

              It’s your right to be skeptical. One would also be skeptical about why Egyptian religions study should be pseudo history and not jewish or christiian religions studies.

            2. Nils says:

              Nobody said there’s no merit to studying comparative religion or Egyptian systems of belief. It becomes pseudohistory when the claims being made about Egyptian religion are false and poorly researched. It does a disservice to scholarship, ancient Egyptians, and modern learners.

        3. exa says:

          What was the formal education of those who wrote the bible?

          1. Nils says:

            Non sequitur?

    2. SgtCedar says:

      I spent 4 years in seminary back in the ’80s. I learned all this in seminary. Well I must admit I do not remember us talking about the similarity between Jesus and Buddha though I have read that since those days. This topic of the similarity of all myths is common in comparative religion.

    3. Edwin C Young says:

      Yes. Just like the writers of the Jesus myth(s), which was the point of the article. See how easy it is?

  5. SgtCedar says:

    Israel was located at the crossroads between many of the cultures mentioned. In fact the Israelis are said to have spent long periods in both Egypt and the Babylonian empire. Of course their myths are similar to both.

  6. Barry Kort says:

    “Whereof one cannot express a theory, one must narrate a story instead.” ~Umberto Eco

    I’m an abstract thinker. I construct scientific theories and models. Most of them have at least some mathematical underpinnings.

    If you try to communicate an abstract idea to the general population, you will lose 95% of your audience. If the abstract idea is grounded in mathematics, you will lose 98% of your audience.

    So what’s the solution? You translate the mathematically grounded scientific theory into a narrative story, using metaphors, poetry, parables, allegories, fables, legends and myths featuring heroic legendary characters who manifest and enact the abstract ideas.

    There is no other known method for successfully communicating abstract scientific, theoretical, mathematical, or philosophical ideas to a general audience. This ingenious methodology is called “Theology.”

    A century ago, Carl Jung rediscovered this idea and rebranded it as “Jungian Therapy” featuring Jungian Archetypal Hero Stories.

    Half a century ago, Joseph Campbell also reinvented and rebranded this ingenious idea, calling it “The Power of Myth” featuring “The Hero with a Thousand Faces.”

    And then George Lukas created an Empire based on the same idea.

    There was also some dude named Shakespeare who did pretty much the same thing.

    1. SheriDomni says:

      “…some dude named Shakespeare…” Thanks for the chuckle. 🙂

    2. DestryDanger says:

      “Alright Timmy, you’re too dumb for this, so think of your immune system like Batman or Captain America and the flu is a giant robot destroying the city, vaccines are like when Batman has to call in The Justice League or Captain America calling in The Avengers, otherwise you get killed by a giant robot.”

    3. Scott says:

      Can’t tell if you are some type of theist or not from that collection of statements.
      If you think Star Wars represents any kind of representation of reality – then I would say it is as valid as the Bible. Which we have no reason to think either have any elements of truth other than what can be specifically established by independent manners. Which means they don’t actually tell us anything other than what stories were like and how they change ofer time when people refine and edit works periodically.

    4. آناهیتا میم.ب says:

      As an Iranian and someone completely familiar with my country’s mythology and history and culture, what ever u wrote abt mithra is a big lie or mistake. Mithra was the mother of human. She was the god…. and her other name was anahita.
      Later they seperated these 2 though… but mithra was always bigger than anahita

      1. Barry Kort says:

        Perhaps you meant to direct your comments to Lottie Richard, the author of the main article?

        I haven’t written anything about Mithra here.

        1. آناهیتا میم.ب says:

          Mithra was an ancient Zoroastrian deity, and along with Horus has some of the most striking similarities to Jesus. Yet another example of virginal birth, Mithra was born to the virgin Anahita on December 25th. He was swaddled and placed in a manger, where he was tended to by shepherds. Like Jesus and Horus, he had 12 companions (which can be interpreted as disciples). He also performed miracles, identified with both the lion and the lamb, sacrificed his life to save the world, was dead for three days before being resurrected, and was known as the messiah, the savior, and “the Way, the Truth and the Light.” His religion also had a Eucharistic-style “Lord’s supper.”

          1. obadiahorthodox says:

            ‘Shab-e Yalda’, celebrated on 21 December, has great significance in the Iranian calendar. It is the eve of the birth of Mithra, the Sun God, who symbolized light, goodness and strength on earth. Shab-e Yalda is a time of joy.
            Yalda is a Syriac word meaning birth. Mithra-worshippers used the term ‘yalda’ specifically with reference to the birth of Mithra. As the longest night of the year, the Eve of Yalda (Shab-e Yalda) is also a turning point, after which the days grow longer. In
            ancient times it symbolised the triumph of the Sun God over the powers of darkness.
            The Cult of the Sun was first introduced to Iran thousands of years ago by migrant Aryans. Mithra, the Sun God remained a potent symbol of worship throughout the following centuries. Centuries later, during the Achaemenid era, Mithra became a principal deity, equal in rank to Ahura Mazda (the god of all goodness) and Anahita
            (goddess of water and fertility).
            In Sasanian times, Zoroastrianism became Iran’s official religion, but Mithra’s importance remained undiminished. This is evident from the bas-reliefs as Naqsh-e Rustam and Tagh-e Bustan. At Naqsh-e Rustam, Anahita bestows the royal diadem upon Nasri, the Sasanian King. At the investiture of Ardeshir I, Ahura Mazda bestows this diadem to the new King. At Tagh-e Bustan too, Ahura Mazda is again conferring the royal diadem upon Ardeshir II. Mithra is always present as a witness to these ceremonies.
            Over the centuries Mithraism spread to Greece and Ancient Rome via Asia Minor, gaining popularity within the ranks of the Roman army. In the 4th century AD as a result of errors made in calculating leap years and dates, the birthday of Mithra was transferred to 25 December. Until then Christ’s birthday had been celebrated on 6 January by all branches of the Christian Church. But with the cult of Mithra still popular in Roman Europe, the Christian Church adopted many of the Mithraic rituals and proclaimed 25 December as the official birthday of Christ. Today the Armenian and Eastern Orthodox Churches continue to celebrate 6 January as Christ’s birthday.
            It was said that Mithra was born out of the light that came from within the Alborz mountains. Ancient Iranians would gather in caves along the mountain range throughout the night to witness this miracle together at dawn. They were known as ‘Yar-e Ghar’ (Cave Mates). In Iran today, despite of the advent of Islam and Muslim rituals,
            Shab-e Yalda is still celebrated widely. It is a time when friends and family gather together to eat, drink and read poetry (especially Hafiz) until well after midnight. Fruits and nuts are eaten and pomegranates and watermelons are particularly significant. The red color in these fruits symbolizes the crimson hues of dawn and glow of life, invoking the splendor of Mithra.
            Because Shab-e Yalda is the longest and darkest night, it has come to symbolise many things in Persian poetry; separation from a loved one, loneliness and waiting. After Shab-e Yalda a transformation takes place – the waiting is over, light shines and
            goodness prevails.

            ‘ The sight of you each morning is a New Year
            Any night of your departure is the eve of Yalda’ (Sa’adi)

            ‘With all my pains, there is still the hope of recovery Like the eve of Yalda, there will finally be an end’ (Sa’adi)

            1. fergus macerc says:

              What about Ahriman?

          2. Stephen Hukari says:

            Interesting. How do you get the December 25th date before the Christian calendar exists?

            1. rocky_rhodes says:

              what a stupid question they had calendars before Jesus

            2. jferengi says:

              The word, “December” would not have even existed in Persia. Obviously the day would exist but by a different name, so technically, there was no such thing as December 25.
              Try to be more understanding “Rocky”
              .

            3. Scooby Doo says:

              I think Rocky had a fair point, because whatever you call it, there are 12 months, based on 12 moons in a year. The 25th day of the last new moon of the year is 25th December, no matter what you want to call it and whatever the baseline for year 1 was.

              That said, didn’t a Roman Emperor (Constantine?) determine the birth of Jesus as December 25th, because it was a way to hijack the Pagan holiday, Sol Invictus and thereby convert Pagans easier.

            4. jferengi says:

              You announcing that there are 12 months does not make it so. At that time the calendar said that there were 10 months. “December” means 10th month. March was the first month.

            5. joycecoolidge says:

              The birthday of Jesus is unknown. It was most likely in the Spring when shepherds would have been trending them. Dec 25th was a date chosen to celebrate.

            6. jimtoday says:

              It is also unknown because fictional characters don’t have real birthdays. According to even Christian theology and scripture as you point out, it is difficult to infer how the Jesus character was born before the Spring.

            7. MMaximuSS1975 says:

              Actually they picked January 6th as the original date for the birth myth. The church changed it to December 25th. The day of the Roman celebration of Sol Invictus. The Winter Solstice. The rising of the invincible sun.

              That’s where the sun, three days prior gets to it’s lowest point in the sky, stays there from the 22nd to the 25th, then starts to get higher, and the days get longer marking the end of the shortest time of daylight that year.

              Sound familiar? The sun “rests” for 3 days, then starts to rise into the sky?

            8. Kathy Stuart says:

              There are 13 moons in a year.

            9. TEB says:

              There are 13 moon cycles in a year. The date reference is simply solstice plus 3 days. translated into whatever calendar is in use.

            10. Stebhon Harnett says:

              13 moons

            11. William Green says:

              They didn’t have the calendar we currently use with December as a month.

            12. Clay Rains says:

              That’s just another example of this author’s lack of intelligence. The Bible never says what month Jesus was even born, much less the day. That’s just like the claim that Horus’ birth was attended by three wise men. For one, no actual Horus myth mentions wise men at his birth, and for another… the Bible says “magi” attended Christ’s birth and it never says how many there were. Geesh! I’d be embarrassed to plagiarize the research of others, but it’s even more embarrassing when you’re too dense to think to check out the claims of the people you’re plagarizing.

            13. Joe Malburg III says:

              You’re silly.

            14. jimtoday says:

              And factual!

            15. Gernot Trolf says:

              As far as I know all dates and strange happenings in the Bible have been authorized by one or another Pope in the early days of Christianity to make it easier for none believers to convert from their religion to Christianity. So you see anything the Bible tells you is a myth of an earlier religion. The infallible popes made this the Christian doctrine and anybody who did not heel was killed with rare exceptions of course…… if you could run and hide fast enough.

            16. Fred Pickles says:

              Wait, are you saying the Pope’s wrote the books of the Bible? What about documents that predate the Catholic church and are identical in writing of the KJV bible we have today? What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Please elaborate. Thank you

            17. Jerry Adams says:

              Did you really say that? Did you really ask that question? The Popes and Constantine collaborated. It was Constantine who settled the arguments that others Catholic Bishops were having as to rather Jesus should be referred to as the Son of God or God? Constantine settled the argument by saying, “Let Him be both. ” I cannot be my father’s son and my father.

            18. jimtoday says:

              The bible has many inconsistencies and omissions, as you point out. Over the millennia they have been filled in, and even these parts are considered the word of God!

            19. Fred Pickles says:

              Can you please give an example of an inconsistency or omission. Thank you.

            20. Jerry Adams says:

              You cannot be your father’s son and your own father. For further inconsistencies just Google “inconsistencies in the bible and you will get a whole list of them. You ever thought about this in the story of Noah’s Art, how did the animals from the North and South Pole get to and survived the dessert?

            21. Fred Pickles says:

              Who says there were animals on the north and south pole before the flood? Yes, I know. Carbon dating. The Spirit of Truth from God is only given to a select group of people that want to know Him and seek Him. You and others like you are not chosen. You have a sense of self importance and egotism that will hold you back. If I were you I would forget all this since you think it’s all nonsense anyways. Could never understand why anti-christs spend so much time studying something they don’t believe in. take care of yourself.

            22. Jerry Adams says:

              Fred, as long as I know that 1+1=2 then I know that I am in
              my right mind. But when someone comes
              along and tell me that 1+1=3 then I have a problem and I’m have to do my best
              to prove them wrong. Right now you
              believe that 1+1=3 because that’s what you’ve told all of your life and you’re
              not using the brains that the REAL GOD gave you, and not that Christian Man
              Made God they want you to believe in. If what we are saying wasn’t true, then
              why to you Christian’s get so upset when you are faced with the facts. We do this to you Christians because we can’t
              believe how brainwashed and delusional you guys are. And then you try to circumvent facts to suite
              your Christian and Jesus narrative. You
              know and it’s easy to see that the telling of Jesus is the telling of other
              Gods stories, such as Horus. How do we
              know that there were animals in the North and South Poles because they left
              proof, bones and in some cases whole intact animals. And ask yourself this question genius. Why would god wait 2000 years ago to send
              Jesus to Earth, when the world was really messed up before and after Noah? Why just 2000 years ago instead of 5,000 or
              10,000? Why just 2,000 years ago. If they are still finding carbine dated
              footprints from millions of years ago. Why
              can’t they find carbon footprints of people, such as Jesus and his crew from
              2000 years ago? Maybe it’s because Fred
              they did not exist.

            23. WTF!! Carbon dating proves animals were on the north and south poles? You’ve definitely lost the plot.

              If knowing the truth of god id deluded self-indulgence, dogmatic bigotry, judgmental stupidity, magical thinking, denial of facts, belief that only 144,000 will go to heaven, and jesus is the light of the world. I’d rather live in the dark world where we practice the witchcraft of science and reason.

            24. Fred Pickles says:

              I am saying the remains of animals found on the poles can be traced back to more than 400 years ago through carbon dating. You understand now? Thank you for your ad hominem attacks and proving that atheists are the biggest bigots and hateful people in the world. And no I don’t believe only 144,000 are saved. But since you know so much I don’t have to tell you which religious sect believes that, do I?

            25. NW4LIFE says:

              I…love…you
              haha

            26. NW4LIFE says:

              Kind of hypocritical when you say the truth of God is only given to a select few and others are simply not chosen, and then immediately followup by saying “You have a sense of self importance and egotism that will hold you back.” Sounds like your the one being held back, from reality. I used to be a devout Christian, raised and brainwashed on it for many years. We can never understand how people like you are so smug and sure of themselves on a story no more real than the one you would read to a child at night. Why is it we are all raised to believe in fairytales like Santa Claus and Easter Bunny, but somehow the story of Jesus survives through adulthood? Why is your religion, out of the thousands before and after it, the right one, and everyone else is just wrong? Its because you refuse to look at facts and scientific evidence, you are blinded by faith.
              Get off your high chair man. Change your username while ur at it!

            27. NW4LIFE says:

              Engineers have proven that the ark could never have been built to begin with. Creating it aside, you cannot build a vessel that large out of wood and have structural integrity, it would capsize.

            28. Tom Yeoman says:

              “Engineers have proven that the ark could never have been built to begin with.” Oh, really?

              British shipwright and
              engineer Isambard Brunel launched a
              steamship in 1843, the Great Britain, that was approximately the same proportions as the Ark. It was hailed as a feat of
              Victorian and maritime engineering. In 2012, a Dutchman named Johan Huibers opened his own Noah’s Ark to the public. It’s built of wood to the dimensions specified in Genesis.

              It’s safe to say both efforts, like those invested into constructing ships much larger, paid scrupulous attention to structure and weight loads. The claim “it would capsize” depends on specific, detailed knowledge of the ship’s plans… or an examination of the Ark itself. Both options are long-lost. But I think we can take it as read that the Ark outlasted the storms, as did its vitally important manifest.

            29. NW4LIFE says:

              I find it really sad people still have to argue the feasibility of the Ark being an actual ship, the evidence is so blatantly obvious it shouldn’t require discussion. There are numerous reasons it can be disproven, but to keep it short and simple here are some highlights of your comparison to the Great Britain.
              Isambard Brunel was able to use metal, wrought-iron to be precise, and not wood like the supposed ark, which would have required massive amounts of high quality wood just to assemble. Vessels are now made out of metals for a reason, a vessel that large out of wood would be too leaky and flexible to withstand stresses from a flood. Quoting RationalWiki (completely destroys any argument on an actual ark in great detail), “The largest wooden ship which was definitely built was the schooner Wyoming at 330ft on deck with a total length of 450ft, and she required both diagonal iron braces for support and constant use of mechanical pumps to stop her hull flooding.”
              The Great Britain weighed 1930 tons and could carry 252 passengers and crew of 130. On one voyage in 1859, the ship carried 133 live sheep, 38 pigs, 2 bullocks, 1 cow, 420 fowl, 300 ducks, 400 geese and 30 turkeys. A far cry from two of every animal on the planet, which on its own has plenty of other obvious skeptical points that could easily be argued.
              What’s next? You want to argue the merits of surviving in a whale’s stomach for three days and three nights? Water to wine?
              Let me guess, you can’t explain it but God can?

            30. Tom Yeoman says:

              “The evidence is so blatantly obvious”? Must’ve missed the memo…

              Brunel and the Wyoming’s builders were on presumably tight schedules, taking no more than three years to produce finished vessels; Noah, given 120 years to build, had more time to develop a sturdy vessel of that size. The bitumen seal he was commanded to pitch the ship with could’ve been augmented with developments like a tongue & groove fitting for construction. The stresses the hull was subsequently subjected to we can only make educated guesses about. The animal volume could be reduced by the presence of only young individuals, with present speciation occurring after the Flood.

              A passage in Jonah suggests he actually died in the fish’s stomach; if so, the book gives us an early intimation of resurrection. Water to wine? Apparently, it became very good wine.

              At some point, they say, you’ve got to “let go and let God.”

            31. NW4LIFE says:

              I could argue each and every point you just made, but there is no point arguing with religion. At least now-a-days I won’t be hung or crucified for my personal beliefs, oppressed because of what fake deity I fail to believe in.
              At some point, I say, you’ve got to let go of God and lead your own life. If you prefer it to be filled with impossible myths and highly fabricated stories, well I guess that is your choice. Maybe your own personal life will be better for it, but if there is anything I am confident in, it is that religion has been the most destructive external force to mankind throughout it’s history.

            32. There is no point in arguing, ‘cept maybe to hone your debating skills.

              The origin of religion lies in myth. For me realizing that the biblical jesus was a fabrication sealed the deal. I’m even beyond holding onto the possibility that there is something more. There can be, I don’t believe one way or the other. When evidence presents itself, then I will adjust my outlook.

              I like fiction and I enjoy reading fantasy and scifi, but I don’t let it rule my life. There is an amazing universe out there to study and I only have one life. I’d rather spend it learning all I can than spend my life waiting for the end.

              People can believe what they want, it’s not even so much a right, as more of just the way things are. You can’t change people, but you can present them with information and let them choose.

            33. NW4LIFE says:

              Exactly, I’m glad I was able to rationalize it myself after years of having it shoved down my throat.
              “An educated person will read many books and realize they know nothing. A religious person will read one book and think they know everything.”

            34. Tom Yeoman says:

              It’s unfortunate you feel that way about religious faith, but I hope we can agree on this: that a pluralistic forum for ideas is historically rare and necessary for expression, and shouldn’t be taken for granted. Rumor has it DHS drafted up a whole new list of thoughtcrimes, as if the whiteness & microaggressions additions of the universities to political correctness wasn’t already trying to drag us further down the conformist rabbit hole. Defend freedom by exercising it! Let’s part in peace.

            35. Jan Dittmar says:

              Thank You!

            36. tomfoster says:

              The Christian calendar?

            37. Meliora Cogito says:

              “December 25th” is merely a modern reference point to the winter solstice which is the common connection to all the myths.
              Note however that the Winter Solstice (in the northern hemisphere) typically occurs between December 21st and December 22nd. “December 25th” is the day in which the ancients were able to discern a noticeable change in the position (movement northward) of the Sun-rise (birth / rebirth) on the eastern horizon.

            38. TEB says:

              It’s also connected to many pagan coming of the light rituals where the ceremony starts on the solstice and goes for three days then is ended with a big celebration / feast on what we now call the 25th.

            39. Jerry Adams says:

              What a stupid question, they had calendar before the Christians Calendar existed. I am thinking the Egyptian snd Ronan Calendars.

          3. Fred Pickles says:

            I see you are repeating what the author said. Please give source materials for your claims. Thank you.

          4. Fred Pickles says:

            By the way, December 25th is Christmas and not the birth date of Jesus so it doesn’t matter much, but since you brought it up…Christmas is a copy of Saturnalia which was a pagan holiday that included decorated trees, etc. It has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It was a Catholic Pope that tried to tie it all together.

          5. Jerry Adams says:

            Correction, The Jesus narrative has the most striking similarlit is to Horus and Zorcastrian because their stories came first. They existed thousands of years before Jesus. So don’t give this imposter top billing.

      2. Jessica Svaton says:

        I think they meant the roman god Mithras

        1. Meliora Cogito says:

          In the context of the article, it clearly states it is referring to the Mithra of Zoroastrianism which originated in Persia (Iran).

      3. Clay Rains says:

        You’re exactly correct! According to myth, Mithras was born when he grew out of a big rock. This author claims that is a virgin birth?! Actually, none of these similarities between Jesus Christ and any of the gods she lists really exists because the author is too crappy of a researcher to check out any of the claims of the people that she plagiarized this article from.

        1. Alan B. Nagy says:

          I think you’re a little too harsh on the writer, most of what she says makes sense. It’s not so much the comparison to Jesus but the fact that Jesus’ followers had to somehow research these stories and meld them into the Jesus narrative to add credence to his divinity. This is the same principle behind evangelical proof texts, pretending that the events described in the old scriptures somewhat anticipated the coming of Jesus. The new testament writers were gifted story tellers, but mainly plagiarists and they managed to create a whole new narrative out of existing material to sell their concept of Christianity to hapless roman pagans.

          1. Fred Pickles says:

            And you have sources to back up what you just claimed or is just a feeling you have?
            Also, please tell us why these Christians who were being thrown in jail, tortured and killed for what they were saying would make it up knowing they would be persecuted. Please show the logic of that.

            1. neelamega_rajan says:

              Krishna was never prosecuted or killed by His enemies. He was not born of a virgin. His mother Devaki and his father Vasudev both got ritually married and Devaki’s brother Kamsa feared that he might get killed by his nephew yet to be born. So he put both of them in the jail and Krishna was born in Jail. There is no such thing as Baptizing in India and the author spin the reel too fast. If you take lives of any two individuals in random , definitely there will be few coincidences of events almost exactly similar in nature. Christians cunningly make such comparisons to lure the people from Hindu religion in India, but that trick doesn’t usually work very effectively, As the Pope in his visit to India lamented on the fact while all other continent people got changed by Christianity, within the last two millennium, why the Indian majority still remain intact in their original beliefs. And more since His birth no one could ever hurt Krishna even a little.

            2. NW4LIFE says:

              I think the point here negatively impacts ALL the associated religions, not just helping one while hurting others. It just shows that these stories come from other ones, invalidating that they are all actual events, and instead just made up stories.
              The Hindu religion remains intact, (just like the other major religions) because of culture and physical location, not because of attacks by competing ideologies.
              There’s a reason Thailand is 98% Buddha, culture and tradition.

            3. MMaximuSS1975 says:

              Non stop Christian persecution in the Roman Empire is another myth. Rome was actually very tolerant to all faiths and philosophies. The problem was that Christians were secretive, and seditious jerks that thumbed their noses at every other one, but theirs. They refused to acknowledge the validity of any other belief.

              Christians were more like prosecuted, not persecuted for being the biggest assholes in the Empire. The simple fact is the Christian Persecution narrative is complete nonsense.

            4. Fred Pickles says:

              wow, you sure like to just throw out claims like they are dropping from the sky. Do you have any reliable sources for these ones or did you just make them up in your head? Of course Christians were intolerant of other beliefs. You can’t have more that 1 truth. Difference is that Christians were not crucifying and throwing those they disagreed with to the lions. That stuff is the domain of tolerant liberals like yourself.

            5. Stebhon Harnett says:

              Not then, but they learnt their lessons well

            6. freespeechalways says:

              They haven’t changed much, have they?

            7. peaches says:

              Explain Nero lighting them up light candles and crucifying them upside down.

            8. NW4LIFE says:

              Does being sacrificed on a cross for “sins” God could “wipe clean” if he wanted to (all powerful right?) make anymore logical sense?

            9. Fred Pickles says:

              No He couldn’t just ‘wipe clean’ everyone’s sin. He is perfect Justice and it would be against His very nature to just sweep everything under the carpet.

            10. NW4LIFE says:

              How does sacrificing your own innocent son for the sins of man make any justifiable sense? How is that not sweeping it under the rug, putting the blame on someone else and allowing sinners to go about their business unobstructed, no lesson learned. Did God not create the idea of the cross and sacrificing his only son as a means to forgive sin? Why would he sacrifice his son, because another god of sin requires it? No, if you believe in God, then you must ask why someone who is supposed to be perfect and righteous in the eyes of the lord must be painfully sacrificed for the rest of us. God made these rules, and if he didn’t then tell me who did? Who made sacrificing a form of cleansing (the answer is mankind, but I’ll play your game for the sake of argument).

            11. Fred Pickles says:

              Well it had to be a sinless sacrifice for the sinful. I don’t think a human judge would accept the death of one serial killer to pay for the crime of another. He did it because he loves his creation that much. And Jesus is part of the Godhead and says he did it willingly and it was His plan to take the sins of the world upon himself from the beginning. Remember that he is not paying for the sins of everyone in the world though. He offered to take on the ones of those who would follow Him and accept His gift. For those that don’t they’ll have to pay for their sins themselves.

            12. NW4LIFE says:

              God created the world, God created man (always a sexist your God), God also created sin, and tempted Eve with the apple, right? God created it all, so why is he being restrained by the requirement of innocent sacrifice to have his “will” done? He loves creation so much, that he what, takes pleasure from seeing death and suffering of his subjects? God made us in his image, greedy, selfish and sinful. You say He is not paying for the sins of everyone in world, only those who will follow Him and accept his “gift”. So he creates all man, gives some of them the opportunity to learn about him and convert, and those that aren’t given the same opportunity get to burn in the fires of hell, tortured souls.
              Some loving and caring God you got there. He is a fairy tale based on fear. The Easter Bunny and Santa Claus have more proof and explanation of their existence than God, and they aren’t playing games with us, causing unnecessary suffering for all mankind.

            13. Fred Pickles says:

              Ok. Take care

            14. Fred Pickles says:

              Sorry 1 thing. Don’t know if you have kids but if you do or are going to have some, tell them they can blame you anytime they do something bad or commit a crime because you created them. And you created them to be bad.

            15. NW4LIFE says:

              Haha, well I grew up in a very Christian household and went to a private one school for years. I learned how sheltered I was when I transferred to a public school, what a culture shock. I realized I had not been prepared for the real world whatsoever, and had wasted hours a week of my life in bible classes, chapel, church and volunteer work, looking back I felt brainwashed. I was overly opinionated but not educated.
              I don’t have kids, but if I ever do I would tell them to listen to other points of view, to study and analyze from multiple angles in the most unbias methods possible. I would tell them to take personal responsibility for their actions, and to be a good person because they know it is right, not because God “tells” them to or try and scare them straight with fairytales of satan and hell. Most of all I’d tell them to make up their own minds, something that took me far too long to do myself thanks to my parents strongly held religious beliefs and peer pressure.

            16. Fred Pickles says:

              I am sorry to hear that you had a bad experience in some Christian school when you were young. There’s a lot of nutty ones out there. I went to public school all my life so I had the opposite experience. I was just trying to show you that blaming God for our behaviour makes as much sense as blaming your parents for your behaviour. But if as you say, there is no God, then you have nothing to worry about. Take care of yourself.

            17. Tom Yeoman says:

              God actually holds to the concept inherent in the Hebrew word “Shalom,” which means harmonious and peaceful order. His creation was meant to have it all, but humanity was also to have the freedom of will to choose God’s way willingly. I’m sure you know how the story went instead.

              God did not create sin; He created only the potential for it. And there’s a limit to how far actualized it becomes before He intervenes to make it stop. This is His creation, and one day he’ll restore the full order He originally imbued it with.

              “Some loving and caring God you got there,” you say? How about man as god instead? The collectivist movements of the 20 Century decided to to remake the human being as “the New Man,” or “the Aryan ideal.” Look what they got instead: tyrants that demanded their own deification. Their idea of imposing order was mass carnage, against defenseless civilian populations, in peacetime. No Shalom there! And no change in the nature we’d need to become partakers in a restored Eden.

              A change in our natures is what Jesus Christ offers.

            18. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

              You obviously haven’t read the OT where they wipe out cities for not believing in the hebrew god. Not to mention raping virgins, killing defenseless women who have known a man, and boys. Once you’ve wiped out everyone who thinks, acts, or believes differently, peace will be had. So, the ends justify the means.

              Your examples prove two things. 1) man’s ability to harm his fellow man. 2) Religion takes no responsibility for it’s own actions, instead justifying murder, rape, theft, and plundering as the will of god.

              “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple” Luke 14:26, Yeah. Jesus is offering a change in nature. Although, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Hebrews 13:8. And since Jesus is part of the trinity of God, there’s no change.

            19. NW4LIFE says:

              Thanks dude, arguing blatant fallacies with so many people can be exhausting lol

            20. Tom Yeoman says:

              Actually, I have read the OT, and I well comprehend the context under which these acts were conducted: most of what you cite is warfare, removing threats to the Hebrew nation, and bringing God’s judgment onto a number of corrupt nations to drive them from the land. These events were singular, and not to be repeated once finished.

              Jesus is using hyperbole, a strong sentence and an example of what following Him could cost in those times. A number of people did in fact forfeit homes and families in their decision to accept Him as Messiah; in Islamic countries they’re doing so today, and frequently they risk death for their decision. To follow Him can, in these circumstances, mean being sundered from everything they knew before. But they follow Him because He offers a spiritual direction, a summons and a fulfillment, and they — we — accept His call.

            21. You definitely didn’t understand what you read. Take off the rose-colored glasses that blind you to facts. They we’re protecting themselves; they were wiping out other people and taking the land that was “promised” to them. If you consider raping and killing prisoners, and killing children “peaceful” and “protection” then you are an immoral deluded fool.

              “These events were singular, and not to be repeated once finished.”

              Uh, dummy. Events is plural. They did it multiple times. So it was repeated.

              They raped, stole, and murdered in cold blood. They used religion to justify their acts of immorality. They were no better than Nazis!

            22. Tom Yeoman says:

              Then let me rephrase it: “These events occurred to a singular time period, not to be repeated…” Regarding the Canaanites, the Hebrews were instructed to “kill them or drive them out” from that specific region of the Earth for their evil practices, a motive and restraint which certainly didn’t characterize the Nazis. So your equation is false. Once the Hebrews were finished conquering and settling that land, they never again marched in conquest to add to it. They held it on the condition that they would not become as evil as the people they’d displaced.

              As for rape, the Mosaic Law forbade them sexual contact outside of marriage, and those who disobeyed were executed; and it’s unlikely the Canaanites, with STDs both inevitable and incurable from their fertility rites, would have tempted them for very long. They weren’t “using religion to justify their acts of immorality;” they were acting as God’s hand of judgment to wipe the land clean of a people who’d exhausted His patience. The example stands today, for those with eyes to see.

            23. Killing defenseless women and children was “acting as god’s hand of judgement.” In other words, using religion to justify acts of immorality.

              Exhausted his patience? How exactly did he give them a chance. “Convert or die!” Wow, how exhaustive. They wiped out people who believed differently because they wanted the land and wealth. How is that different from Nazis wiping out Jews to take their wealth? “It was justified by god.” In other words, they used religion to justify immorality.

            24. Tom Yeoman says:

              “How exactly did he give them a chance.”

              When Moses was commanded to lead the children of Israel into the desert for a further 40 years (Numbers 14:26-35), the Canaanites had that time as a grace period to end their evil practices. They simply chose to continue them and eventually, the time was up. Rahab the prostitute acknowledged the Hebrew God was against Canaan (Joshua 2:8-13) but sought, and subsequently received, mercy for herself and her family.

              As for them “want[ing] the land and wealth,” remember this: they were afraid to take the land and didn’t want to go. At that point they were led back into the desert.

              “Convert or die!” however, was never offered by Joshua’s armies. They prosecuted God’s call to cleanse the land and drive out the evil-doers or kill them. Again, it was specific to that time and place. The Jews have not been called to do so anytime since.

              How else is that different from the Nazis? Well, first, the occultism, blood doctrine and world expansionism of the Nazis were very different designs and aims. Second, it was to extirpate the Judeo-Christian influence in Europe: first the Jews and then, increasingly, the Christians.

            25. They used religion to justify killing innocent people who worshiped differently than they did. Plain and simple. And since the winner writes history, all we have is the word of killers and thieves to go off of.

            26. Tom Yeoman says:

              The same Word subsequently spoke against the Jewish nation for adopting the very fertility-rite practices and human sacrifices they’d justly conquered the Canaanites for. Ancient Canaan was depraved and dissolute. When ancient Israel fell to that level of corruption God, who gave them the land, sent Babylon to take it from them.

              One can see a similar dynamic facing Europe today, and America tomorrow: spurning its spiritual and moral vision and vitality, it weakens in the face of Islamist militancy instead. No civilization falls from without until it has rotted from within.

            27. First there is no evidence of a god. But we’ll ignore that for now; Second god didn’t send Babylon, god does not interfere with free will. If he did send them, then he does interfere with free will despite religious claims. Babylon did what every nation in ancient history did, make war upon their neighbor when they felt they could defeat them. There are thousands of examples where god wasn’t involved just because they were Jewish. And if god is so righteous, why didn’t he continue to use the Jews to wipe out everyone? Because they weren’t big enough. They had enough people to take from others through the use of war and to fend people off until someone bigger came along. Just look at the history of the “new world.” Savages ruled the land, following false gods and sacrificing people at every whim.

              Until christian Europe comes along and civilizes them by raping the women (they savages, so that doesn’t count), killing them (they savages and in need of god), stealing from them (they savages and don’t know the value of gold and gems). So, a bunch of godly men “civilized” them. So, it must have been god that sent the Europeans to bring the good news of his word.

              But people like you think only the worst, the world and civilization is declining. We’re less godly and the end times are nigh. The end times have been nigh for 2,000 years. Revelations was written to address the issues of the day. And some people who think they know better, evidence be damned, they act. Robert Dear. They justify murder, theft, property damage as the will of god. It’s not the will of god, it’s them wanting to thrust their myopic views upon the world. They use religion to justify it and feel proud of the damage they’ve done.

              The same tired argument about how bad things are getting, despite the evidence. In ancient Greece they bemoaned how bad and rebellious the next generation was, just as today older generations gripe about how bad the latest generation is. Some things never change.

              Millenia of spirituality has actually made things worse, put us through the dark ages, and robbed us of progress. It may not be responsible for the bulk of deaths, a singular way to measure harm, but it is responsible for a massive amount of damage on the small scale as christians harshly judged people, both christian and non. It can’t be tracked, but it is real and evident in the judgmental way christians view and speak about every non-christian.

              Stripped of the immorality, judgmental-ism, supernatural, misogyny, rituals, and turned into a philosophy, christianity can be a good thing. The problem with it is all the baggage. And upstanding people can see the problems with it because it is all explained away or unquestionable, and accepted as reasonable and beyond understanding.

              When enforcement of morality is used to justify immorality, it is no longer morality.

            28. Tom Yeoman says:

              Benjamin Disraeli argued that the ongoing presence of the Jews in itself was evidence of God, after all the efforts historically to wipe them out — he said that 80 years before the Holocaust. The Nazis are gone, but the Jews persist today. Likewise, there are multiple attempts to dilute Jesus Christ down to a syncretistic figure or ideal (wrongly: see the arguments here against the parallels made to Horus, Mithra, Krishna & the rest), or claim outright that He never was (1 John 2:18-25 acknowledges and answers it). Yet the spiritual dynamic of faith in Jesus continues to grow — notably among peoples the Western Church used to classify as “unreached,” Muslims among them. However intangible, there’s an underlying reality to this. God persists.

              You’re correct that Revelation addressed its time: “What must soon take place” referred to the coming outbreak of Nero’s widespread persecution against Christians. But such phenomena as the Mark of the Beast weren’t possible in his time; for that answer, we look ahead, and certain trends look bad. I’ve been unable to source that “youth are disrespectful” quote of the Greeks. Not knowing who said it, I don’t know what followed the speaker’s immediate time. But ancient Greece weathered a lot of political turmoil, treasury runs and collapses in democracy that produced tyrants, so the speaker may have been prescient rather than complaintative. America’s Founding Fathers chose to not emulate Greek democracy for such reasons.

              It wasn’t spirituality that begat the Dark Ages, but the decline of the Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions, the subsequent fall of literacy in Western Europe, and the initial inability of historians to accurately reconstruct the events of the aftermath; the epoch became a “place of darkness,” to echo Conrad. It’s since been upgraded to the “dim grey ages” as reconstructive methods improved. Progress really got underway in Catholic Europe: Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason” explores that front.

              As for Robert Dear, he believed himself to be in a war against the FBI and thought he was being shadowed on the day of his shootout. He seems an essentially powerless man of the sort who lashes out as much to declaim his own significance as to correct a situation. Associates say he was an incoherent rambler steeped in conspiracy theories. Religion really seems to be beside the point in Dear’s case. As for harsh judges within the Church, I recognize they’re there, and I could name one person I know who’s recently been hurt by such people. The problem is, they may be cruel to some but not others — for example, they didn’t come after me. I’ve encountered as bad and worse out in the workforce: one individual cost me a job and successfully concealed his role in the push. Judgmental people aren’t restricted to church circles; you’ll find them everywhere, and I can’t help but notice when non-believers make blanket statements condemning Christians. The best I can do is to not emulate harsh judges or spread their negativity. I gather you’ve encountered some?

              As for turning Christianity into a philosophy, didn’t Thomas Jefferson try that with the Book of Matthew?

            29. thinker says:

              Why should this “god” even be in a “quarrel” over “land”. Why couldn’t all this be settled with dividing the land and be done with it and the bloody wars.

            30. Tom Yeoman says:

              By nature, we’re tribal, territorial and warlike. These less-than-becoming traits were pretty much definitive for human beings in those times. God’s ways are not our ways, but He condescended to the people He chose for His own, commanding them to proceed at a level of conduct they could understand quite clearly. The land would have one occupancy or the other, but no joint sharing could have worked. We’re seeing it play out today within Israel, and in Europe’s ghettos. They’re hardly the only examples of old patterns in new flame.

            31. There’s more to man’s nature than what you claim and what the bible would have us believe. But it was man’s warlike, territorial nature that did drive the Hebrew nation to take land from someone else. They used their religion to justify evil acts of killing, stealing, raping, and cold-blooded murder of children. Then they celebrated it by documenting it.

            32. Kohhran Upa Rangi says:

              Do you believe burning a call girl in front of her father’s door is moral?
              Stoning to death someone who works on Sunday? Or unruly son? Your god endorses slavery and rape too.
              It doesn’t mmatter what era, slavery is immoral always. Your god doesn’t even know that the punishment should fit the crime.

            33. Tom Yeoman says:

              “Do you believe burning a call girl in front of her father’s door is moral?” Plainly not. The Book of Judges records that a not-dissimilar event occurred — she wasn’t a call girl, nor was she burned — but it doesn’t say what the mob did was right. It shows what people are capable of doing when they become their own arbiters of right and wrong: easy on themselves, very hard on outsiders.

              Since you demand in another post that I “read [my] bible,” perhaps you can show me where God “endorses slavery and rape too.” However, consult the Bible itself, not some web site. Consider too the context of what you’re reading.

            34. Kohhran Upa Rangi says:

              You are as immoral as your god. Trying to find justification for what ancient desert cults did must be very tiring indeed.
              What you believe and worship as a god is the invention of barbarians.
              Do you actually believe a god who can create the universe would really care whether your penis us circumcised or not?
              Do you think he’d care how blood are sprinkled around during animal sacrifice?
              Do you believe such a powerful deity gives a shit which tribe carries what part of his tabernacle? How his food is prepared?
              Man..you gotta read your bible.

            35. Tom Yeoman says:

              What I believe in and worship didn’t originate with “barbarians.” He revealed Himself to them and summoned a people to Himself from them. He denounced their wrongdoing and established laws and customs that put a tribal people on the path of lasting civilization. God is not their invention.

              Since He desires relational connection to us, and because our connection crucially depends on our obedience, then yes — He does care that His precepts for His people are honored. And understood.

              It surprises me that atheists continue to use the conquest of Canaan as a shield (or a fig leaf)to reject their Creator. It ultimately can’t defend them, any more than their good intentions could.

            36. Kohhran Upa Rangi says:

              Worse than the Nazis. God even ordered them to rip open pregnant bellies to kill the unborn.

            37. NW4LIFE says:

              Finally, a fair and balanced argument for creationism. I don’t disagree that mankind on its own wouldn’t do a much better job, but religion has fueled conflict and given “justification” for more pain, suffering and murder than anything else in our history. It provides hope and purpose in so many lives, while being the cause of destroying countless others. “God wills it” and the like have given people purpose and meaning in a positive light, but more often than not organized religion has proven to be a source of power and control over the masses through history, blinded by God to follow their leaders selfish desire for more.
              Organized religion is the leading cause of unnecessary death through history wouldn’t you say?

            38. Tom Yeoman says:

              I would say humanity’s short-sightedness and self-exaltation stands as leading causes of unnecessary death; our tendency to sin produces terrible consequences in ourselves and in the world around us. Religion, if exercised rightly, attenuates that tendency. If we learn to comprehend ourselves as God must see us, from Him respectfully consider others, we can choose to remove ourselves from the center of all consideration.

              Unhappily, the tendency to dominate others, or force them into a specific mold for our approval, does crop up in churches too. Get human beings into a group setting and such traits emerge. If the alpha personality holds to obedience — specifically to Jesus — they can use this trait as a leadership service to their fellows, instead of dominating them. I’ve seen this; it does work well. The alternative is that things can get ugly, certainly no less in situations outside a faith setting, where a domineering personality does not feel called to constraint.

              The leading historical cause of unnecessary death, in my judgment, is the reactionary collectivism of the 20th Century: each of these movements set up networks of extermination camps, where they killed more defenseless people in a shorter time span Europe’s wars of religion did in centuries. The runner-up is the abortion industry, surely the definition of unnecessary death, illustrating how death can become commodified and convenient.

            39. Religions and gods are created entirely by humans to explain things misunderstood, defeat death, and control the masses. People are people, they have flaws, they also have virtues. No gods or devils required. Religion fools people into thinking the flaws are sin and only virtue can be had from a non-existent god.

              Religion doesn’t make people better. It fills some needs, but at the cost of the self. Once free will is yielded to the god-construct the self is given up. You become a prisoner to the lies and myths of ancient cultures passed down as fact.

              How is it the jesus speaks in hyperbole and metaphor, but genesis is fact? Because lies in the guise of reason are used to explain away the ugly truths of religion. Stalin was an evil man, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t speak truth, religion is the opiate of the masses.

              “Unhappily, the tendency to dominate others, or force them into a specific mold for our approval, does crop up in churches too.” That’s because religion fails to make people moral. People are people. If they use religion to become moral, then they have chosen to be moral. Religion is no more than a stepping stone. It is divisive, hateful, misogynistic and worthless.

              The only reason more people have been killed in a shorter time span is because there are more people and technology. But the 20th century is still way behind the death rate caused by millenia of religion. Had religion had the technology we have today centuries ago, there would have been more death and a lot fewer people today. Religion’s nature is destructive, it was created by men driven more by their baser instincts than by reason, enlightenment, or peace.

              “…death can become commodified and convenient.” A very apt description of the OT.

            40. Tom Yeoman says:

              If God were non-existent, then why do human beings have a need for spiritual connection with a Being greater than themselves? And how is it that this Being actually reaches out to individuals and initiates connection?

              If I were drunk, stoned and screwing to this day, that would certainly be at the cost of myself. By now it’d be a bleak, selfish existence of diminishing returns. My faith in Jesus Christ has freed me to become more of a person without those chains of appetite, the “tyranny of the self” as one commentator phrased it. Instead, my spiritual awakening was followed by an intellectual explosion, a substantially greater interest in the events of this world, and a desire to become more involved in the life around me.

              I credit this directly to what you call “the lies and myths of ancient cultures passed down as fact,” “lies in the guise of reason,” “the opiate of the masses,” “divisive, hateful, misogynistic and worthless,” and “destructive.” My direct experience establishes to me that placing faith in God is none of these things. You throw up this screen of visceral invective because the knowledge of God as a specifically moral agent threatens you somehow. You protest too much to come off as dispassionate. As a humanitarian, you’re unconvincing.

              Per capita, despite your speculating and even with Islam trying to catch up, religion as a cause of bloodshed remains dwarfed by the body count of the 20th Century’s reactionary collectives. Seeking to enthrone Man instead of God, they sacrificed men by the scores of millions in under 70 years — not only because they had the technology, but because they had to prove to themselves they could be as God, wielding the power of life and death in a way the religions did not: against their own civilian populations, in peacetime, as a policy orthodox to their view of the world that might makes right, and that the strong alone prevail. It’s no surprise most of them were atheist (though Stalin did remark, at one point, that “Satan is my ally”).

            41. Humans have needs, that doesn’t make them spiritual. There is no “god sized hole” in everyone. Religion uses false logic to make people believe they are wicked and evil, and incapable of good, and only with god can they do anything good. What you described is a sense of community. Churches provide that belief that they provide for community and have involvement, when in fact it may be a tiny fraction of what they do. Some do and that’s great, many don’t, they lie back and let the people with problems come to them. And yes, there is something bigger then the self, it’s called society. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to get involved and improve things for some, it helps many. Sadly, some people will only get involved if god is “involved.”

              My direct experience is that religion is created by man, and with the god count being around some 5,000, that’s a lot of “dead” gods. The bible myths are taking in parts from various other myths, and then worked over to fit the culture. The differences are insignificant. Take the flood myth, usually prevalent in coastal societies, lacking in societies far from the ocean.

              I am not threatened by god. Setting aside the fact that no gods exist, I don’t need religion or gods to define morality. There is no morality to be had there, especially when killing defenseless women and children is justifiable. Do you know why they killed the little boys? Because a son would grow up to avenge his father. It was a preventative measure, not “justice.”

              Not misogynistic? Then why should women have to be quiet in church?

              We keep better records than they ever did in the past, and we have more information at our finger tips, plus the events of the 20th century are recent memory, so all of these things are fooling you into thinking that the 20th century is worse then before. Maybe if you take a single period then yes. If, using statistics as you are doing with your “per capita” bullshit, then applied as percentages, the 20th century is NOT the worst. In 6,000 years of recorded history, only 240 years of peace have occurred. That means there is always a war somewhere. There is an estimated 107 billion people who have ever lived on earth. Now if only 1% of them died because of religion, given that about 6-7% of all wars were religiously motivated (estimated by Encyclopedia of Wars and The Encyclopedia of War), that would result in 1.07 billion people. Now I will admit that religion isn’t the main reason people die in war, but more warring over resources. Now your just going south with the whole “seeking to enthrone man” bit. We are the dominant species and the greatest threat to the earth, as we know it – barring an asteroid strike like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. But we are also aware of the threat that we present and are working in ways to correct it, something no other species has ever been capable of. To you, humanity is worthless and the only people worth living are the followers of your god. You diminish mankind with your claims of seeking godhood. Some people want power, 99.9999% of everyone else just want to get through life, yet you (yes, YOU) will judge all of mankind based on you narrow views.
              As for your Stalin quote, google reveals you as the only source of that statement. Unless you can prove that Stalin said it or wrote it, that makes you a liar. Not bearing false witness is commandment #9.

            42. Tom Yeoman says:

              Leaving aside the tit-for-tat exchanges that would be inevitable with much of this…

              The mechanization of slaughter was unknown to history before World War 1 — much of its lingering trauma was a result of a mass killing ability hitherto undeveloped. That was a game-changer for the human race, and it was a 20th Century development. If warring over resources is the chief cause of war (over political gain, or an “us good them bad” tribalism?), then wouldn’t your efforts be better directed to promoting localized resource development instead? Why does one specific war from almost three thousand years ago inflame you so badly? You focus on that to the exclusion of everything else in the Bible — yes, the Bible, not the Qur’an or the Mahabharata. They don’t have the same flare effect on you. Why?

              “To you, humanity is worthless and the only people worth living are the followers of your god.” In response to this, I’ll point to the obvious Biblical message: that God offers salvation to every human being, and this tells me He values every human life. There are persons who match your description: militant Muslims.

              “–yet you (yes, YOU) will judge all of mankind based on you narrow views.” I offer general observations about the human condition. It’s not for me to judge individual persons, because I can’t know everything about everyone. And even if I chose to proceed with it, it’s futile: what ultimate weight could my judgment carry? Only an omnipotent, transcendent Being is capable of handling that magnitude of work.

              Unfortunately, man without God will seek to self-deify, however meanly, and there are many ways to put yourself first at the expense of other people. Meanwhile, men like Josef Stalin rise to the top and go long. My Google search turned up the relevant information, plus the exact wording of the quote. Stalin was meeting with Churchill and Roosevelt at Yalta in March 1945; Churchill remarked that God was on the side of the Allies, and Stalin answered, “The Devil’s on my side. The Devil’s a communist and God’s a good Conservative!” His quip’s been paraphrased since.

            43. Kohhran Upa Rangi says:

              Because people were ignorant back then. We don’t like not knowing something so god was invented to answer what they didn’t understand. So simple.
              No god ever influenced anything. Just claims.
              It is you that made the change in you. God cannot help you since he doesn’t play favorites. He’d be going against his own laws.

            44. Kohhran Upa Rangi says:

              God himself said he created sins.
              Read Isaiah 45:7

            45. Tom Yeoman says:

              God created beings with free will. In this free will, there is the potential for being to choose sin. As a moral free agent, you are held to account for every sin you commit.

              Isaiah 45:7 doesn’t absolve you from your own culpability before God. For the sake of ultimate justice, your sin must be punished.

              It’s by the mystery of His grace that we’re offered redemption from that punishment — but its resolution required that a man must pay the cost. That’s what the animal sacrifices illustrated, what they pointed toward.

            46. Kohhran Upa Rangi says:

              I agree that one should pay for one’s transgression.
              But I don’t know what sin deserves eternal hell.
              Vicarious redemption is the most twisted sadistic idea too. Totally immoral.
              If he loves his creation so much why not just forgive? This story is so screwy that only ancient ignorant barbarians are the only ones who could come up with such twisted stories.

            47. Fred Pickles says:

              Well there are 2 schools of thought on that. There are passages that support the belief that those that reject Christ will be thrown into a lake of fire and cease to exist. There are also those that support eternal hell for those that accept the mark of the devil and the reason they are there forever is because they continue to curse God and sin even after being thrown in hell, therefore sinning for eternity. I don’t know because I haven’t seen it yet. Either way, it’s nothing to worry about if you realize we are all sinners and need redemption and it’s as easy as believing that the Lord Jesus Christ paid the price for us and we repent.

            48. Kohhran Upa Rangi says:

              But he did wiped out the whole world with the flood. So?

            49. Fred Pickles says:

              This is something I consider kind of hypocritical for non-believers to bring up all the time. On the one hand they say “What kind of God allows all this evil and suffering in the world?” Well when God said he had enough of it and gave everyone a chance to change and they didn’t, He wiped all the evil off the earth. Well which way do you want it? You consider God evil or unfeeling for doing nothing about the evil in the world, but then when he does something, you consider Him evil for that too.

            50. NW4LIFE says:

              So he just lumps the entire human race (save one family) into a sinful pile and believes he is justified in killing them all, man, woman and child? Quite the assumption there, everyone deserving the same fate. He created us in his image, he loves us, he is all knowing and all powerful, but you are implying that he didn’t know what would happen, that he didn’t like what he created and decided to remove it with a flood? Then he decides to allow man to thrive again, to sin again and conquer the world in a violent oppressive manner?
              How this makes rational sense to anyone is beyond me to be honest.

            51. Fred Pickles says:

              Your argument is with God and not me. Ask Him for the answers. If you really want to know the answers you will look. If not, then you will just continue to ask anonymous people like me on blogs. “As for me and my household, we shall server the Lord God all our days”. Sorry, but I think if He can create a universe, I will trust his judgement over yours.
              I tell you what NW4LIFE, we’ll leave all judgement to you. We’ll let you decide who is good and who is not, and let you pass judgement on what should be done about it. Get going.

            52. NW4LIFE says:

              Ignorance must be bliss, moving along then.

            53. Adam says:

              No less then a group of men spontaneously claiming to see a dead man and refusing to relent even when tortured and killed for it… and yet that’s the alternative… so… yea.

            54. InDaTruth says:

              And where are Christians going through the kind of persecution you list in any higher numbers than any other people because of their religious beliefs, or race. Lets not forget the USofA, which has one of the largest population of imprisoned citizens – yet claims to be a “christain” country. Living on stolen land, built by stolen people. White western christians have NO clue about oppression. You are clueless, so unable to cope that the first thing you do at the slightest hint of things not going your way is to shoot up movie theatres and schools or murder your wives and children.

      4. I think the point of the article isn’t so much a deep look into mythology, but pointing out the fact that many aspects of the Jesus narrative are literally taken from pre-existing mythology.

        1. Jeffrey Michaels says:

          It seems more to me that this article shows that the various myths are made to comport to the story of Jesus, to show the story of Jesus is not unique. The problem is, that this is only a cursory examination. If one were to go deeper on many of these myths, there is not the similarity that it the article espouses.

          1. There will certainly be differences, as there are differences between the various creation stories of the numerous mythologies, but there are also a lot of similarities. When a story becomes a rehash of elements of previous stories, the differences don’t make that much of a difference. The Jesus narrative is just a derivative of previously existing myths. Plus the dates are wrong, such as the census that occurred 10 years after the death of Herod, so he couldn’t have had every boy under 2 years of age slaughtered. Add to that the Romans were smart enough to take the census process to the people instead of having everyone in the empire go back to their birth home to be counted.

          2. NW4LIFE says:

            A good plagiarizer isn’t going to quote exactly, he’s going to find some synonyms 🙂

        2. Fred Pickles says:

          I can tell you exactly what the point of the article is. The books of the bible and the bible itself are the most widely analyzed, scrutinized and verified historical documents to ever exist. The author probably knows this if she really did any research.

          She does not want to believe in God and will copy an article she read somewhere, that has zero sources to back up the claims and have even been falsified with real sources. She will do whatever she can to justify her rejection of God and take as many people with her as she can, thereby justifying her illogical choice in her own mind.

          1. neelamega_rajan says:

            Yes I agree with you. The histrical events in the Bible might have been proven as authentic but the divine nature of it is subjective to any one., for that matter any historical event that has been mythologized. ( I think I might have coined a new English wor )

          2. Jerry Adams says:

            Fred the Bible has not been the most verified document in history for irs truth. . If anything its been verified to being a lie, a hoax and the telling of bits and pieces of other stories put together by the writers of the Bible. It is you and others like you whoes been dealt the truth and now you don’t know how to handle it since you’ve been brainwashed and lied to all your life. Before you resolve to yourself that the author is confused about what she wants. Why don’t you take your own time and do your own research and then make a sound conclusion? And in doing your research as yourself this question, if all if these people in the bible really exist where are their graves? Not where their graves are thought to be, but their actual physical grave. Mary, Jesus mother where is her grave? She is said to have children where are their graves? Best yet where are their children? Why haven’t any characters in the Bible left any carbon footprints? It’s like they’ve all just vanished off the face of the earth. Even prehistoric birds and other animals that predates Jesus left carbon footprints. Even, Cleopatra , Mark Anthony and Julius Caesar who lived during that time left carbon footprints. But like Hercules, Zus , Samson , and the Unicorn they all just faded away into history without leaving carbon footprints

            1. Fred Pickles says:

              That is just plain silly. Please show me the graves and carbon footprints of your relatives that lived in the first century. Don’t be ridiculous.

            2. Jerry Adams says:

              No, don’t you be ridiculous. The first century wasn’t 2000 years ago. I am certain if know work my relatives were 2000 years ago I could go back a dig them up. But you you want to argue a pointless point because you know they’ll never find any carbon footprints for many of the people in the bible. But let’s name just a few people who did live during that time or before Jesus that they can find carbon footprints for, and then let’s see what your argument will be.
              1. Cleopatra
              2. King Tuck
              3. King Harold
              4. The Boy King of Egypt
              5. Julius Caesar
              6. Agusta
              7. Alexandria The Great
              8. The Queen of Shiba
              9. The sons of Cleopatra

              These are just a few people who lived near or around the time that Jesus supposed to have lived. And they can be traced back and accountEd for. And isn’t it funny how they make no mention of this world renowned miracle worker? A man that could walk on water and raise the dead? I’ll leave you to your thoughts now while you try to come up with a logical answer.

            3. Fred Pickles says:

              Lol. Who are King Harold and Alexandria the Great? Look buddy, Jesus had no children for one thing and the Jews followed many messiah’s in his day. The Jewish leaders wanted all traces of Jesus and his followers erased from the world. If you knew the history, you would know that. The Holy Spirit and understanding of this is not meant for you. You are not selected to follow Christ and will never believe or understand, so you might as well move on to something else to take up your time on earth, that will benefit you in the here and now.

            4. Jerry Adams says:

              I see now that you have no intellectual sense or knowledge of real history, I will not therefore respond to any more of your responses. If you know not who Alexander The Great, and Cleopatra was then you really don’t know your History. Everyone knows that your imaginary Jesus was having an affair with this Marry Magallene, not sure about the spelling. And no the Jews didn’t follow many messiahs. If that was the case they would have accepted Jesus as their messiah. But they didn’t. They know a fake when they see one. Even if Jesus was married and didn’t have any children there’s still no excuse for the rest of his family and crew not to leave no carbon footprints. And far as this Holy spirit is concerned that’s just something to keep your mind occupied and enslaved. And trust me , my time and mind keeps busy. I don’t have to worry about chasing and defending fake gods and delusional people.

            5. Fred Pickles says:

              I know who Alexander the Great and King Herod were. I don’t know who King Harold and Alexandria the Great are that you mentioned. If you are going to relate your superior knowledge of historical truths, at least get the spellings correct.

            6. Dartsblaster2011 says:

              Well, Mr. Pickles, perhaps had you READ with better comprehension you would realize that Mr. Adams stated A L E X A N D E R the Great, NOT Alexandria the Great. At least in the last posting. As for Harold, I believe he was a later King of a Scandinavian country

            7. Fred Pickles says:

              I was pointing out his spelling mistakes from the original post. Don’t get your panties in a bunch.

            8. Tom Yeoman says:

              While the Jews didn’t follow many messiahs, that’s not to say there weren’t any. Bar Kochba led the rebellion that brought down Judea and caused Emperor Hadrian to rename it Palestinia. Acts 5 records the scholar Gamaliel remembering Theudas and Judas the Galilean, each of whom also led a bloody uprising that was violently put down. The false messiahs begin with grandiose promises of emancipation and end with great loss of life.

              Gamaliel’s next words are worth remembering: “For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

              Jesus was different from those others, and the leadership knew it: even one of their own number told him, “We know you are a teacher who has come from God.” It’s not that they saw Him as a fake; they didn’t. It’s that knowing who He was, they chose to reject Him. Jesus said, echoing Psalm 69:4, “They hated me without cause.” Millennia later, that hasn’t changed.

              But the cause of Jesus Christ, who did not take up swords against the powers of His time, has spread and endured far beyond what Bar Kochba and his type ever achieved. Despite what some atheists claim, Christianity has wrought great good in this world — and that reflects on its Originator.

            9. Just sayin' says:

              You can’t find Jesus because He rose from the dead. No body or “carbon footprint” to find. The fact you can’t find one give more validity to the claim that He rose from the dead. Because even non Christian historians wrote about how he most certainly lived.

            10. Jerry Adams says:

              Really? No you can’t find anything if they’ve never existed. The same way you can’t find Hercules, Samson and Delilah, Zuse, and all of those other mythical characters. Because like Jesus these mythical people never existed except in Never Never Land. Good try tho.

            11. MerryJune says:

              OMG, #2 and #4 on your list are the same person. There never was a King ” Tuck”! – its Tut, there never was an “Alexandria” – its Alexander!,

            12. Tom Yeoman says:

              A couple of questions here:

              First, what constitutes a “carbon footprint” on an individual level? Then,

              How do you trace this “carbon footprint” back to a specific individual who lived two-three thousand years ago.

              For example, you don’t even identify “4. The Boy King of Egypt.” So which “carbon footprint” is his? Which “they” found or reconstructed it?

            13. bob says:

              once every few decades they reveal the tomb of Jesus, supposedly Mary is there along with Jesus and a couple of Jesus’s brothers. it hits the news and is VERY quickly buried by the church.
              The Church has a lot of power, never under estimate the Political pressure they can produce in a moments notice.
              It’s BIG money and control. Religion controls the Masses with the promise of a “better afterlife”. People are gullible and want to believe in a better life after death.

            14. Tom Yeoman says:

              ” it hits the news and is VERY quickly buried by the church.”

              Actually, it’s quickly disproved. Yeshua and Miriam were common names in First-Century Judea. Invariably there’s never enough evidence to satisfy the assumption that it’s the Biblical Jesus or Mary. Even before the find’s catalogued and filed, the headlines move on to other topics.

              As for people wanting to believe in a better life after death? That’s a human need. We need it met, and Jesus offers Himself, for us, to meet it.

        3. Jan Dittmar says:

          Amen!

        4. bob says:

          I think you hit it right on the head. Word of mouth and passed on mythology it behind all religions. More people throughout History have been put to death by countless means in the name or religion, “mine is right and yours is wrong”! Everyone has the right to believe in what they wish to believe in. there does not have (and usually is not) to be a logical or educated reason for their belief’s. There are no Religious vs. scientific arguments that will ever have a winner. It’s like Magic vs. Logic. You see it happening but it makes no logical sense. Until the trick is exposed. I personally have a problem with Mary getting Pregnant @ 11 and Joseph being 42. i also have a big problem with Moses coming down from the Mountain with the 10 commandments (#6 though shalt not kill) and immediately ordering the slaughter of 20,000 of his own people for worshiping the idle of a cow. And Christians thinking it was justified! If you research Moses he was a psychopath mass murderer, yet he is considered a Saint?
          I am not opposed to God, but Jesus was and is the biggest Hoax in History.

          1. I definitely agree. We have several branching choices.
            Either he existed and was
            * the son of god
            * yet another fake messiah
            * a teacher whose story was blown out of proportion
            Or is didn’t exist ans was
            * another claimant slapped with his name
            * entirely fabricated
            Personally my money’s on the last one, but I know the middle three are possibilities. The top item is definitely not true.

            The Jews and the Christians are steeped in a bloody history. I find it funny that the Jews go around saying woe is us, the world is picking on us when the Torah is full of them killing, raping, pillaging and enslaving anyone who wasn’t their race/followed their religion.

            As for religion vs. science. It’s just belief without proof against evidence. There’s no way science will win outright in an argument because belief is about irrationality and feeling, science is about facts. But it will influence those who are open-minded or haven’t been indoctrinated and brain-washed.

            1. Tom Yeoman says:

              For my own part, I choose the first option. Jesus Christ has proven Himself, and I accept both the evidence and the intuition that led me to Him years ago.

              There is no one else who offers what He does: the removal of the guilt and shame that comes of our choices to harm other people. And a path that leads us away from a world system that offers only more conflict and bloodshed. He is a real presence. And accountability to God has a way of attenuating bloodshed, rather than increasing it: contrast the Methodist Revival to the French Revolution, and see.

              Religion vs. science is, on the face of it, a false conflict. Stephen Jay Gould’s model of “non-overlapping magesteria” should apply, as these are two different ways of knowing. The problem is, humans all too frequently live for conflict, and the magesteria do overlap — in different forms, right where each one of us stands. The open mind is soon constrained by the visceral opinion.

            2. What evidence do you base your belief on? Intuition? Really? That means it feels right to you. Intuition is not critical thinking. Of the two scientists that revealed cold fusion to the world, one still feels he is right. His intuition tells him so. Never mind the fact that no one else in the entire world can reproduce his results, even him. Intuition has a place in thinking, but should not be the basis of “evidence.” Just look at the history of medicine and that will tell you intuition’s value.

              Removal of guilt? It starts with heaping guilt on you then offering only one solution since you can never get rid of it, and that solution will only come to fruition when you die. You were born a sinner, you will always sin, you will die from sin. “And accountability to God has a way of attenuating bloodshed…” Really? What about the inquisition? What about the bible? Read the history of the OT, they raped virgins, killed children, killed defenseless women had known a man. You call that “attenuating bloodshed?” The attenuation came about because of the Enlightenment. Free thinkers not constrained by religious dogma. You are aware that methodists are christians, aren’t you? And the French Revolution was not about religion, it was about ending the damn monarchy’s abuse of the people. After which, they then went and elected an emperor.

              NOMA is absolute crap and Stephen Jay Gould was in idiot for introducing it. Knowing and believing aren’t the same thing. Human conflict arose from the necessity for survival and is not a driving force behind all actions. If it was then we’d be unable to form communities.

              “The open mind is soon constrained by the visceral opinion.”

              Do you realize you just said that the open mind is restricted by deep feelings, this means it is no longer open.

            3. Tom Yeoman says:

              Intuition sparked Nikola Tesla’s groundwork for alternating current; it also gave Friedrich Kekulé his breakthrough insight on the structure of the benzene ring. You’re right that intuition springs from prior knowledge and requires it first.

              It’s significant that the Freethinkers were first Deists, not secular materialists. They expressed a need for God as the ultimate authority. Their emphases tended to be strongly political, specifically anti-monarchist, and their grievances with the Church stemmed first from its abuse of authority rather than Scriptural teachings. When I speak of accountability to God as a way of attenuating bloodshed, I refer to its effect on a Christian believer in our own era. The OT specimens you cite are obviously pre-Christian and, again, restricted to a particular setting during a specific time. You know as well as I do that it’s not meant to be operative now. Christians are generally pretty peaceable.

              And what external source “heaping guilt on you” can compete with a person’s internal knowledge of shame as a consequence of their own actions? A finger-pointing crowd can be shrugged off or shunned, their accusations assessed and rejected. Not so easily escaped is knowing one’s own culpability and being ashamed by it. The author Anne Rice put it this way: “Sin for me resides in those acts of cruelty both spectacular and small, both deliberate and careless, and always involving the hurt — the real hurt — of another human being.” It’s the disruption of the Shalom we’re each held accountable to uphold.

              And yes, I’m aware that open minds don’t stay open all that long. That was indeed my point.

            4. Intuition has it’s place, but again, is NOT the basis of evidence. And citing some examples doesn’t prove that it’s always right, nor that you are right. Tesla didn’t just do things because of intuition alone, his intuition led him to experiment. I never said it required prior knowledge, nor springs from it. Intuition, used properly, leads to investigation, which leads to seeking knowledge through research. When intuition leaps to knowledge, then that knowledge is unfounded. Not wanting to be wrong, as is part of human nature, leads to justifying that leap and the filter of choice is bias confirmation.

              Deism isn’t the only thing that came out of the Enlightenment.

              Since christianity is founded in judaism, and still uses the OT, it shows that its foundation is rotten. It wanted to break away, yet wanted the “authority” provided by the age of the OT.

              “A finger-pointing crowd can be shrugged off or shunned, their accusations assessed and rejected.” Only for a while, christianity repeating ad nauseam how shameful we are will result in “knowing one’s own culpability and being ashamed by it.” The media proves this every day by continually repeating lies. Just watch fox news.

              Let me rephrase that since you didn’t understand what I meant, a open mind restricted by deep feelings IS NOT an open mind. Never was, never will be.

            5. Tom Yeoman says:

              “Since christianity is founded in judaism, and still uses the OT, it shows that its foundation is rotten.” Actually, what rots is any culture which rejects obedience to the Bible’s moral authority — as we’re seeing now across the West. The culture’s breaking down into loose tribal subcultures, patriotism succumbs, and civilization itself collapses into anarchy and probable invasion.

              Ironic, that with all of today’s carnage you’re still looking back in anger at the fall of Canaan (I’m guessing you’re BDS on the question of Israel).

              “christianity repeating ad nauseam how shameful we are.” Christianity’s central message is, actually, that our guilt and shame can be lifted from us, and it’s Jesus Christ who’s willing to set us free. I stumble, but I’m not bound to hatred of myself. I accept that Jesus forgives me, and that I don’t need to live in self-loathing or fear.

              As for the media, I prefer online sources to homogenized corporate behemoths.

              “a open mind restricted by deep feelings IS NOT an open mind. Never was, never will be.” Again: I never claimed it was. My point is that a mind can be opened but can’t stay so indefinitely: it either accords with its new input & amends its biases, or stays with the biases and rejects any change. Until it reaches one or the other it’s in flux. Open, but not for long.

      5. UrabanoMucho says:

        Much of what she says is true but I think in her eagerness to make a point of similarities she didn’t mention the differences or maybe even glossed over them. Also a characteristic of these myths is that they had permutations and changed over time. If you are insisting on completely evaluating this then the author as well as those leaving replies should give specific references. But this runs into the problem mentioned above by Barry.

        1. Fred Pickles says:

          May I ask why you think much of what she wrote is true. I don’t see her giving any sources on these claims. Is it easy for you to believe what someone you don’t know claims in an Web article without using any sources but you will not believe the most widely studied and documented books that have ever existed? Can you give me your logical reasoning for that please

          1. Jerry Adams says:

            Fred Pickles much of what the author says is true . She really don’t have to give any references. How do you reference hyrogliphic off an Egyptian wall. No the fools who wrote the book of lies and fairy tales , the Bible, are the ones you should demand to give references. Outside sources other than the Bible.

            1. NW4LIFE says:

              One reason I have more respect for the Quran, they reference throughout it in great detail.

      6. Ambaa says:

        They’re wrong about Krishna too. I’m not sure anything in this article is at all true.

    5. Robert Templeton says:

      This. If the association of the Jesus fable and other fables as Sun god mythologies has any merit, it is a very clear story about how the Sun goes to its shortest day on Dec. 21, daytime starts getting longer on the third day (Jesus’ birth in Virgo and Sun’s resurrection), it rains a lot when the Sun in is Aquarius, the Sun is king on the Summer Solstice (Jesus enters Jerusalem riding an Ass and Colt and treated like a messianic king), the days grow shorter (Jesus’ problems begin as darkness starts winning). Etc. and so on. A retelling of a story about when to know to sow your seeds, reap your harvest, prepare for Winter, have a feast from your gains and wait for the cycle to go again from a time when it was important to know these astronomical signs when only a few could read them.

      1. Jordan says:

        You think people 5,000 years ago could tell the day was 3 seconds longer 3 days after Dec. 21?

        1. Kenneth Anderson says:

          Yes they could, our calendar is based on this.

          1. Jordan says:

            …… No. Our calendar is based off the Gregorian calendar. Christopher Clavius lived from 1538 to 1612. Hardly 5,000 years ago. People 5k years ago had no idea that we needed a leap year or that December 24th was 3 seconds longer than December 21st.

            1. bpollen says:

              Bulgarian calendar from 4000 BCE had 364 counted days, one uncounted (or Zero day) and one extra day every 4 years. That’s a 6,000 year old calendar that accounted for that time you said they had no idea about. Which makes it at least as accurate as the Gregorian calendar that came more than 5,000 years later.

            2. Jordan says:

              No, you’re reading, but you’re not understanding. I know most calendars counted for leap days. The julias calendar counted them too. I’m saying 3 seconds. That december 24th was 3 seconds longer than the 21st. Nobody had a way to measure that. Nobody knew about 2 seconds difference.

            3. bpollen says:

              YOU are reading but not comprehending. I SAID they could do math. If I can come up with the concept of adding one day every four years to keep my calendar accurate, then it is only a matter of doing the math to come up with the daily discrepancy. The calendar is much more accurate than that – they realized that 1 day every four years isn’t precisely the correct amount, so they had corrections based on a 60 year cycle, 1680 year cycle, 10,800 year cycle, 40,320 year cycle, and a 10,080,000 cycle. It was a calendar that was based on both solar position and Jupiter’s position.

              You are, with a straight face, telling me that some culture who could determine that there have to be adjustments to correct accuracy up to and including the additional discrepancy that would creep up over 10 MILLION years can’t do the math to determine the portion of a day difference between one day and the next? That’s like saying that we know he can do calculus and trigonometry and algebra, but we are certain he’s unable to balance his checkbook.

              A second is an arbitrary unit of time.. that is the equivalent to 1/86400th of a day. If I can do the math to correct over MILLIONS of years, I can do the math the other direction too.

    6. Jerry Adams says:

      So you saying you can argue your concept, ideas and theoties until the cows come home a majority of the people will not get your point?. But in most cases if you reduce what you are trying to sale to the masses to the written word you maybe able to get your point across? Or did I miss your point?

    7. izzymuse says:

      Barry Kort, Brilliant point! Worded perfectly. Thanks

  7. Gagan says:

    Krisna was born in atleats 3100 BC not in 400 BC

    1. New age says:

      3228 BCE

  8. Angela says:

    Joseph Campbell and the power of myth

  9. alan carter says:

    Nothing new under the sun.

  10. Drew says:

    Mithras was also born on Dec 25th. He was worshipped by Romans long before Christ was born. Mithras spoke of a single deity. He was worshipped underground in Roman society, and especially by the Praetorian society. After Julian returned the empire back to pantheism, he wrote epistles that exposed the fraudulent Christ myth by saying that the Christians stole the Mithras story to make it familiar to the Romans, who were already familiar with Mithras.

    1. Curt Gleason says:

      That brand of Mithraism was a mystery religion, and the earliest written records we have of its beliefs comes from centuries after Jesus’ time… Oops.

      1. Nils says:

        Shh! Don’t tell them facts!

  11. Jared Holloway says:

    Just on Horus alone, this is incorrect… his mother was Isis, the wife of Osiris, who impregnates herself, so no virgin birth. There is no archeological record of Anup the Baptiser, though this could be Anubis, whish would make him “baptized” by a god, there is no record of 12 followers, he had “four sons” and other demi-gods that followed him, but no 12. His death and resurrection was nothing like the story of Jesus, for Horus was a child. Being liberal is not a problem, not believing in religion is not a problem, but writing misinformation that uses, at best, wrong information, and using it as a proof that Christ is a myth is irresponsible, especially for someone using their degree in their about description. This article feels like it was copied and pasted with some pictures thrown in from several sources that are worse then wikipedia.

    1. Nikki Ericks says:

      Horus had 4 demi-God followers each with 3 servants….. 12 disciples.

      1. jackson says:

        your an idoit.. 3 times 4 is 12 plus another 4 is 16.. learn simple math

        1. Mel says:

          *You’re* an idiot. Idiot.

          1. IsleShire says:

            It is not nice to call someone an idiot. Even though I have probably done it. BUT, Jackson is correct (not in his spelling of “you’re”) but in his math. Four demi-god followers each with three servants makes 4 groups of demi-god and servants of four individuals each (one demi-god, three servants) and 4X4 is 16 not 12.

            1. Frank says:

              Yes but you could say the demi gods were friends more than followers and the servant were the followers.

        2. Dane says:

          I think you might be the idiot, actually.

        3. Nikki Ericks says:

          4 Demi-Gods all of whose servants obeyed Horus on Earth. That’s 12 disciples ON EARTH. Now you look like an idiot.

        4. Nikki Ericks says:

          You understand the Demi-Gods didnt walk with him on Earth right? They were only in the afterlife, so to the common person it would’ve appeared as though Earthly Horus being followed by the servants of his Godly brethern had…. you guessed it, 12 disciples.

      2. Nils says:

        They were his sons (Hapi, Duamutef, Quebehsenuef, and Imsety).

  12. Josh says:

    Give me a break…this incontrovertibly disproves the reality of Jesus Christ being anything more than a myth placed on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

    1. Harry says:

      Because you can clearly see that all these claims are backed up by sources, carefully noted and researchable. Besides if it’s on the internt, it has to be true.
      Too bad it was written by someone who admits they have a agenda instead of someone interested in the truth.
      Please do some research and look for credible scholarship to back these claims up rather that absorbing them like a sponge.

      1. Curt Gleason says:

        Dead on, Harry. This article is full of holes…

        1. Lottie Richard says:

          Curt,
          As I noted directly at the top of this story, I am fully aware of the controversial and debated claims. Hence the note. To fulfill the incredible number of requests for scholarly sources, I’ve went in and added numerous links to the original. I guess I never knew this would get so much attention.

      2. Lottie Richard says:

        Hi Harry.
        I actually have no agenda. I was not trying to disprove Jesus in any way. And also, because of the massive appear for more sources, I went ahead and added multiple links to multiple scholarly sources that back up these versions of the various myths.
        For the record, I noted specifically at the top of this article that the specifics and validity of every single claim made here are debatable.
        It’s sort of interesting as the author of this piece to see the amazing reaction it has gotten from so many different angles. I wrote this because I thought it was fun and interesting. When I was in college I did a lot of stuffy, Chicago Style, footnoted scholarly work on topics such as these, but I opted to take this in a different direction just because I thought it was interesting.

      3. exa says:

        Was the bible written by people who didn’t have agendas?

    2. Ron says:

      surley you josh…josh…saying that Jesus is a myth is about as equal to the pope saying that the story of adam and eve were in fact a myth…for either of you to accept those lies are giving yourself no way of having an open mind to know rather than guess…

  13. David A. Carlson says:

    Nope, sorry, all of these are false.

    1. Nick Wride says:

      And the Jesus Myth is true?

      1. Curt Gleason says:

        Even if it isn’t this doesn’t begin to demonstrate it…

        1. Frank says:

          SO give us evidence that the jesus myth is true….

          1. Curt Gleason says:

            I’d be happy to have that discussion, Frank. I just joined this forum, and don’t know how to begin a discussion. Would you care to start it up?

      2. David A. Carlson says:

        That question, by itself, is self-contradictory.

    2. Shenanigans I say! says:

      lol of course they are. Shenanigans on your historical documents!! Only my story is real!

    3. Eddie107 says:

      You are absolutely right! None of them happened including the virgin birth of Jesus.

    4. Curt Gleason says:

      You’re wrong, David. It’s very much true that Osiris and Jesus are portrayed as bearded men. Gotta give her that one!

  14. Damien Vukovic says:

    If you are ever feeling really stupid, just remember that there are people who really believe that 2 koala bears swam & walked all the way from Australia to the mid east just to board the ark, with the polar bears – then back again a year later!!

    1. Rob says:

      Except that Australia would not have been an island at that point in time. Have you not heard of Pangea?

      1. Josh Thompson says:

        The Ark story in the bible only goes back 4,000 to 6,000 years. Little real difference in the world maps of today and that time; Pangea was 100’s of millions of years ago.

      2. Emily says:

        Seeing as how the dawn of humans wasn’t until 3.3 millions years ago and homo sapiens sapiens didn’t come about until 100,000 years ago, it’s unlikely that Noah’s story, oh, I mean Deucalion’s story, oh, I mean Utnapishtim’s story, or maybe Ziusudra or Atrahasis’s story happened when Pangaea was around, 300 million years ago.

      3. John Elwood says:

        err no the supposed ‘great flood’ was 4000 years ago.

      4. Damien Vukovic says:

        Have you not heard that religionists think the earth is only 6,000 years old & that pangea occurred about 100 million years ago and that they don’t accept that scientific phenomenon? Seriously, you can’t be as stupid as your post makes you sound.

      5. Scott says:

        I think your timeline is off a bit. How far do you think the land masses move in 5000 years?

  15. CarolStrick says:

    “Immaculate conception” refers to the conception of Mary, mother of Jesus, and not to the conception of Jesus. This is a very nicely presented introductory article! You might want to add Moses and Joshua to your list of similar characters, though their similarities come in different areas.

    1. Joseph Boros says:

      no it doesnt it refers to mary conceiving jesus

      1. alexandra says:

        The immaculate conception is Mary being born without original sin. The mother of god could not have original sin on her soul.It has come to mean the virgin birth to many people who don’t know better, but believe me, I was raised Catholic.

        1. Joseph Boros says:

          no its not… you are wrong… I was also raised catholic ran vatholic youth groups and nearly joined the seminary, and my aunt is a nun who has worked at the vatican and south africa with mother theresa I trust her more then you

          1. alexandra says:

            No, you are wrong-please have the grace to admit it:
            In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

    2. Lottie Richard says:

      Hi Carol,
      Due to the ridiculous amount of people who think that “immaculate conception” can only refer to the Christian use (which, btw, it doesn’t. Christianity does not “own” that term, and it has been used throughout history to describe the impregnation of a human by a god, regardless of how Catholics use it), I have removed it from the story.

      I suggest that you and any other people who are uneducated on the matter go ahead and look into ancient mythology, and possibly take some college level coursework on the subject, so you can see some examples of its use outside of the Jesus myth.

      1. Nils says:

        The term means “without stain” or “without blemish,” referring to one lacking original sin–doesn’t really refer to deific impregnation, especially considering that sin is a very Semitic idea that has few parallels elsewhere.

      2. Curt Gleason says:

        Or – radical notion – Lottie could provide a reference to a case where Immaculate Conception is used outside of Christian/Catholic circles. I would imagine that would be easy enough, if that usage is as common as she says.

  16. #Pr.is0n3r says:

    thats amazingly true

  17. Littleton Paul says:

    Osiris and Horus are part of the same myth. But neither was crucified. Osiris was chopped into pieces by an enemy. His wife Isis reassembled the pieces, except for one she could not find. She replaced the missing penis with a magic, golden penis. She lay with her rebuilt husband and got pregnant with Horus. (Not a virgin birth)

    Mithras was born from a rock.

    1. Curt Gleason says:

      How dare you bring the actual myths into this discussion! 🙂 There are lots of stories about Mithras, depending on whether you’re talking about the ancient Indian Mitra, the Persian Mithras, or the Roman mystery religion.

      1. Patrick Greene says:

        What about Mothra? I prefer to worship Mothra.

    2. burne shonsie says:

      Who fucked the rock?

      1. Scott says:

        Hey, there was a hole and it gets lonely out there all alone — don’t judge.

        1. New age says:

          Nice lol

      2. exa says:

        The same holly ghost that fucked mary.

  18. RexTIII says:

    BCE …. vs BC. It’s just so invalidating to read through an otherwise interesting article and have ‘before christ’ tossed out as a serious time line vs Before Common Era which does not include the inference rather a shared point in time, between many cultures and many ‘years’ of history.

    1. Constance Sunshine says:

      “so invalidating” … I’m pretty sure that doesn’t invalidate anything in the article, which is presented as historical fact. I think you just like to post huffy comments and show off your sooooo much more valid knowledge.

      1. RexTIII says:

        Get Real.

    2. Jimmy Ó Néill says:

      Considering the article is comparing stories to those of a man historically referred to as Christ, using b.c. is quite valid as it directly points out how much before the man in question these similar stories originate (regardless of the fact that the term is itself inaccurate, as he himself was born before the common era)(not that there’s a whole hell of a lot common about it)(whatever).

      1. RexTIII says:

        In your opinion. As far as I’m concerned, using ‘BC’ or ‘AD’ – is never valid unless it’s within a chosen religious organization and used as it relates to their particular ‘belief.’ It’s simply ONE more constant thrust of religiosity into an ‘accepted’ common era time line. Is it a good time line? Who knows, it isn’t when it’s specificity ties to a believed religious event or events.

        1. Richard Javornik says:

          You are totally missing ingenious point Jimmy made… Its like, do you even read, or all you care for, is to express your own ideas?

          1. RexTIII says:

            No I’m not.

        2. Yeahnah says:

          I mean they literally refer to the same times, I mean 2015 AD is the same as 2015 CE. That combined with the fact that BCE and CE have been in widespread use for less than a decade, you can give people a break.

    3. Curt Gleason says:

      There’s so much wrong with this article that I never noticed the irony…

  19. Debbie Cote Clark says:

    My usual answer when asked if I believe in god or Jesus us “I believe there is a dog”. In other words, I refuse to argue beliefs. I have mine, you have yours. Neither can be proved/disproved, right or wrong. I do believe that myth can have a basis in fact. That said, much like some people in the modem world, I believe that Jesus was a human man and I believe he was an intelligent and charismatic man, a naturally born leader in a time when any person with those traits could be seen as a threat to the ruler at the time. Following his death, as is often done today with celebrities and polititions, “facts” may have been added by his followers, other human men and women, to help bolster his image and message in the eyes of others. They may have added bits and pieces taken from known myths and legends of the time. This could be said of other deities and their myths. The present borrows from the past so followers of the future have something to believe in. Religion, any religion, gives humans morals and rules to live by. Law isn’t always enough to keep us in line. It is zealots that take things to an extreme and turn it into a bad thing. That’s just my thoughts. I was raised as a Catholic, but I no longer consider myself to be of any faith. I believe “God” is everywhere and can be anything to anyone. No single person is any different or better than I, nor can they tell me who, what, when and where to worship. I enjoy the myths and legends. It shows a collective belief in something more than what is and a consciousness of those who came before us. That’s just one woman’s opinion. I could be wrong, you could be right….if there is no afterlife, we will never know who is correct. We all will simply cease to exist.

  20. antitheist says:

    hope it is big enough to read, couldn’t find a better one

    1. GordoTico says:

      Thanks. I consider myself a free thinker also. Atheists who make crap up to attack religion and fail to check facts really bother me. If they demand evidence from theists (which the should) , then why can’t they examine evidence carefully themselves. Confirmation bias much

      1. breed7 says:

        There has never been any evidence of a god of any sort, so what could atheists possibly examine? The Egyptian myths are just as valid as the Christian myths anyway. At least they’re entertaining.

        1. Shreknangst says:

          God becomes the logical starting point for all things. It is the explanation for how existence came about.
          We can say “Universe always existed” but, in terms of definitions, that which has always existed is God, and therefore the statement simply substitutes “Universe” for one defined trait associated with the term “God”.
          The evidence of God is our existence. Now if you assert an interventionist deity, one who must create mistakes, or is taken by surprise, then you contradict another definition of “God” and are not discussing the defined origin of all things.

          1. DestryDanger says:

            That was stupid.

          2. grayrain says:

            All you’re doing is making up words/concepts/definitions in order to have an argument with yourself. It’s the same thing as people creating a story and then arguing over the details of it.

          3. redreyvn says:

            “in terms of definitions, that which has always existed is God,”

            Why? I can just as easily say “that which has always existed is the universe”. There is no need for another term that has other, obfuscating implications.

            1. Bill Schreck says:

              Exactly — both comply with the same definition.
              God, or “GODS” came into existence because man could not explain events — why were there storms? Easy answer: the storm gods caused them.
              As we learn more we push back the point where a deity is involved — the ultimate limit is getting something from absolute nothing.
              No mater where science goes to to explain existence, there will always be the “and where did that come from” query — which yields the point where “god” again enters the discussion. Ultimately you get to the transition from absolute nothing to something.

            2. redreyvn says:

              “and where did that come from” query — which yields the point where “god” again enters the discussion.

              not really. Because that yields where did “god” come from. Which inevitably leads to you saying “well ‘god’ has just always existed”. Which inevitably leads to wait; you’re saying that SOMETHING has always existed, then why not just the universe?

            3. Shreknangst says:

              God is a term, like universe or sky or earth, it is a term used to denote the boundary between what we understand and what has yet to be understood. Universe cannot serve that purpose.
              You can say the universe has always existed … in which case any investigation into a “big bang” is logically illogical … it always existed, there was no beginning, so it is,a waste of time to discuss theories of a begging event.
              But to say the universe always existed also says there never was absolute nothing … which is fine … but again, it undermines whole areas of science.
              If you define God as a something, an entity, you are invoking religion. If you recognize the term in the context it has historically been used … exclusive of ongoing interventionist, generally stupid and incompetent, entities …it has always been the term for the point where there is no explanation.
              Thus, in the modern work, God is how you get something from absolutely nothing…. like boiling is how you get steam from water … not an entry but a process.

            4. redreyvn says:

              “God is a term, like universe or sky or earth, it is a term used to denote the boundary between what we understand and what has yet to be understood. ”

              I disagree. Terms like “Sky” and “Earth” and “universe”, are observable phenomenon. We don’t necessarily understand everything about them, but they are observable, testable. The term “God”, on the other hand, (or at least the so-called “modern” and “sophisticated” take on it,) has been attributed to what is NOT observable nor testable. We do not yet understand everything there is to know about black holes, but this does not necessitate attributing to “God” its mysterious forces. This makes “God” NOT “to be understood” but rather “CANNOT be understood”, “CANNOT be known”, and “CANNOT be observed”, which makes “god” at the very least irrelevant, and at the most, non-existent.

            5. Shreknangst says:

              For accuracy, try terms like: undefined, not quantified, deduced, inferred, implied, unresolved, unobserved, observable, quarantining state, ..

              We have many terms for things which we know are there, or which seductively exist. The term God is the origin point where one can go no further, regardless of how much further one goes. It is the traditional term for the other side of the impassable boundary.

              You need not use it, you can deny it in the way Republicans see the polar ice caps melting but deny climate is getting warmer. That does not change the reality that the thing denoted by the term God is there, and must be, or we would not be here. All things,have a begging, and for all things, that beginning is traditionally called God. If you can invent a new more widely accepted term, do so. Or accept the accepted.

            6. redreyvn says:

              “which seductively exist. ”

              please don’t ask me to fine tune my “accuracy” if you’re gonna say things like this.

              “It is the traditional term for the other side of the impassable boundary.”

              You do know that this is not the “traditional” use nor the “traditional” meaning for “god” right? “God” as an “impassable boundary” is a relatively modern apologist concept, used by a small minority of apologists, in reaction to the expanding boundaries of human knowledge. “Traditionally” speaking, “god(s)” is the interventionist deity(s) you seem to take pains to scoff at. In fact, there are many, many traditions wherein one can become “One with god” or “BE god”, etc etc.

              “the thing denoted by the term God is there, and must be, or we would not be here.”

              Why “must” it be there? If you’re alluding to the “Prime mover” hypothesis, please just say so, then maybe we can have a discussion about it. The “Prime mover” hypothesis is not a “reality”, as much as it is a philosophical concept that gives rise to its own contradiction. Please be careful with your terms.

              “The term God is the origin point where one can go no further, regardless of how much further one goes.”

              This is false. The origin point sits on top of a turtle.

            7. redreyvn says:

              “You can say the universe has always existed … in which case any investigation into a “big bang” is logically illogical”

              This is actually not true. There are plenty of hypotheses that seek to explain what there was “before” the big bang. “God”, is by no means the only or necessary hypothesis. As much as I hate to bring in “The new Atheists” into this, there is work currently being done by Lawrence Krauss and his cohorts on this matter.

            8. Bill Schreck says:

              Well DUH — naturally there was an energy source for the Big Bang and so something existed before it.
              The point being, there is a point where the boundary becomes absolute something or absolute nothing — and you cannot get something from nothing … so you are at a point where whatever exists has always existed… is eternal … and until you come up with something factually solid, you are stuck with GOD as the name for that eternal.
              The universe is NOT eternal … it is changing and, as Big Bang style theories indicate, emerged from something else.

            9. redreyvn says:

              “Well DUH — naturally there was an energy source for the Big Bang and so something existed before it.”

              Actually that’s still up for debate. I don’t know how you’re so sure about these things, because that’s Nobel-Prize winning stuff. You should write a paper on it if you have some secret knowledge that makes you so sure.

              “The point being, there is a point where the boundary becomes absolute something or absolute nothing — ”

              See: “A Universe from Nothing”, Krauss, 2013

              “and until you come up with something factually solid, you are stuck with GOD as the name for that eternal.”

              Actually I call it BOB. Not sure who made you word police, but nobody is “stuck” with calling that concept “god”. In fact, calling it “god” simply obfuscates the matter, because apparently you’re NOT referring to a sentient being which the term “god” TRADITIONALLY refers to (when was the last time somebody thanked the “unknowable frontier beyond human knowledge” for their Oscar?).

              “The universe is NOT eternal … it is changing and, as Big Bang style theories indicate, emerged from something else.”

              There are a myriad of hypotheses that deal with what could be the “something else”. They include other universes morphing into this one, perhaps a multiverse just churning out new universes, perhaps it’s the same universe just eternally collapsing and expanding in a cycle, perhaps it’s some other perfectly natural process we haven’t imagined yet. Notice how NONE of these concepts NEED to be referred to as “god (either as a sentient being or some vague allusion to what is unknowable)”.

            10. Shreknangst says:

              You need to study basic science. There needs to be energy before any conversion or force that can cause an expansion which becomes matter. E=MC^2 is the basic … matter and energy related by speed (of light)

              This stuff is not new, so not Nobel Prize — the source of the energy would be the qualification for consideration for the prize.

              The Krauss book was interesting but its premise was that there was something … not nothing… the title was misleading.

              You still have the problem of getting something from nothing — small matter or energy is not nothing. The transition remains GOD … or BOB (if you can get that term accepted)…

            11. redreyvn says:

              “You need to study basic science. There needs to be energy before any conversion or force that can cause an expansion which becomes matter. E=MC^2 is the basic … matter and energy related by speed (of light)”

              I hope you know that that “something existed before the big bang” is not YET established science. Again, there are many hypotheses regarding this, but if you somehow have knowledge to bring these hypotheses to actual scientific theory, (since, you know, it’s “DUH” to you) and THAT is the Nobel-prize stuff. And I hope you that you know that E=Mc2 means that matter is energy and vice versa. That’s all it says. There is nothing in there that suggests there must be an EXTERNAL “energy source” that preceded the big bang, or that we even need one.

              “The Krauss book was interesting but its premise was that there was something … not nothing…”
              “You still have the problem of getting something from nothing — ”

              Statement two, please refer to statement one.

              “The transition remains GOD”

              In which country or culture does the term “god” NOT pertain to a sentient being? Do a google search for “god” what does it yield? Pick up a dictionary and look up “god” what does it say? Ask a random person what “god” is, what do you think they would say? Would they talk about “the tiny bit of energy that started the big bang{which is a terrible way of explaining this btw}”, or would they talk about a bloody METAPHYSICAL, SENTIENT, BEING? The answers to those three questions would tell you which is the “accepted” definition of the term “god”. But then you already knew that, don’t you?

            12. Scott says:

              The concept of the Universe having a zero sum total – negative energy + positive energy = zero. Same now as then.

            13. Scott says:

              You seemed to miss the substance of Kraus’ book. It explained how absolute nothing may not be a condition that can exist. In that case you don’t have to go from nothing to something.

            14. Shreknangst says:

              Thus something does NOT emerge from nothing.
              But what is that something which was never nothing?
              Thousands of years ago they named it GOD. if you have anything a time honored name provide it.

            15. Scott says:

              I don’t know and as of yet neither does anyone else.
              Only some cultures used God as a creator. Mother Spider of some Native American tribes was in no way related to God. You asserted some family geaneogy of these deities which is based on ???
              You are no more wrong than the followers on these origins – but that is just because they are all fictional characters.

            16. Shreknangst says:

              Technically, the mother spider would be a deity. Many cultures had them as the creator element. In some they are individuals, children or servants of a deity who directs them to great the world.
              There is a relatively new spiritual system, called A COURSE IN MIRICLES, which uses the Christian and other structures to have a son of the deity great everything … that creation is specified to be a dream in which we are all dream characters. Thus we create our own existence based on thoughts which are sub thoughts of the dreamer, who is the son of the deity.
              A COURSE IN MIRACLES serves a purpose for those who need the spirituality, but reject standard theological structure and authority.
              The ancient Egyptian, and their SELF BEGGOTTEN BEGINNING, were in tune with physics … at some point there is no next to discover, there just is. That Pont is what has traditionally been God. Thereafter, every DEITY is a creation of the God, and we traditionally refer to them as its children. The Hebrew text and flood story made all humanity the genetic children of God. The third century Christians fell back on their pantheon and made Jesus the son of God. Some justified in by the spirit that impregnated Mary; they conveniently ignored the same spirit, or literary tool and image, creating John the Baptist and Sampson.
              Images like the mother spider, of the oldest and most universal deities associated with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, serve a symbolic purpose … they provide a explanation. Random chance has its deities, as did the sea and weather. Many people still acknowledge them, as they do the deities of immorality and criminality. … or those of fun and presents … the loss of a child’s tooth invokes the tooth fairy and monetary payment.
              People need deities, Be they ancient children of a go’s, or their replacment angels, … Enoch walks with God, today one becomes a saint.
              You cannot fight, and expect to win, the battle against emotional need. Only a fool would try … the wise have always retasked the image and made room for real knowledge. This article shows how one mythology has been retasked to meet the needs of the associated culture.

            17. Scott says:

              Made up word salad.

              Did you use Depak Chopra quote generator?

            18. Scott says:

              1 can you give a reason that your ‘something’ vs. ‘absolute nothing’ as being the only options? You are making the false dichotomy fallacy. Given we have no example of this ‘absolute nothing’.

              2 why even if granting your dichotomy – why is God what is left? What about Gnomes, FSM, or any other fictional being?

            19. Shreknangst says:

              1. because there is either something or nothing. There is existence and non-existence. There is no third option. Once you have existence, there are stages and forms.
              2. God is a terminology — pick another word that has universal acceptance as being the origin of the point of creation… then that can be used.
              Fictional beings have there own context. If you want to say a Gnome created all things, and can get that term accepted, fine.
              The problem you seem to have is that you are mandating that the term god apply to a being.
              but it is just a point beyond which science and understanding can go no further.

            20. Scott says:

              Your use of terms is one of the issues here an issue. You can claim your version of the uses of terms something and nothing as you describe them is the some of all options. The thing is your use of terms dose not match what cosmologists use – and that is a critical difference. Quantum aspects do not always (or even often) fit into the context we experience.
              But, regardless of the issue of something vs. nothing … Does not refute the Big Bang nor does it support anything g supernatural.

              As for your use of the term ‘God’ — it sure sounds like the phrase ‘We don’t know’ works just as well and without any extra baggage.

              What a load of crap about ‘God’ being some sort of universal explaination — it is far from universal and it does not explain anything on top of that.

              You also seem to claim that these are topics that we can nor will ever be able to be explained — On what is that assertion based upon?

            21. Shreknangst says:

              When the math is in the “something realm”, there is no reason to use or refer to the “nothing realm”.
              Quantum ranges are well within the something area.
              Yep,
              the phrase ‘We don’t know’, or more accurately ‘We can’t know’, fits
              the realm of god as used by myself and even within the ancient pantheons
              — which always refer to god the creator, and then turn everything else
              over to various sons and daughters of that creator.
              It it actually
              universal — what is not universal, but does have commonalities — is
              the nature of the children and the eventual human tribes they create.
              We
              will never explain the spontaneous emergence of something from nothing
              … so many will state that the something always existed and thus
              deflect the necessity to deal with the reality that they cannot explain
              how it can change and evolve — expand and grow — yet always be.
              All observable realities evolve and can be back tracked to a beginning point — yet the always was asserts no beginning.

            22. Scott says:

              You are still assuming there was a ‘nothing’ or a ‘something’ as the only possibilities. That is the false dichotomy fallacy.

              You use an argument from antiquity fallacy in your claim that because (several) old my rhos’ had a creator that there must have some truth in it.

              The ‘We don’t know’ is a much better term for the concept you want to call god. That term has so much extra baggage and means so many specific things to different people.

              Also – if you are so sure there had to be absolutely nothing’ at some point … And god caused/created the universe … Well god was then nothing, and acted upon nothing to make something — how is that helpful in any manner? There is also the – what created your creator?
              It just leads to worthless naming of a fiction to give credit or blame but not explaining anything.

              But I am willing to state that we don’t have any evidence of deities creating people or universes but lots of examples of people creating deities.

              And you can have no matter and a zero sum energy – quantum effects creating both positive and negative energies which maintain the zero sum total — which actually fits the something from nothing without any deities involved.

            23. Shreknangst says:

              Why is it false?
              Basically you are asserting there is always something. Define the minimal state of something???? Pure energy, devoid of matter would fit the formula E=MC^2. Positive and negative in perfect balance would cancel each other out and yield nothing. In equal parts but out of sync would be something…. but would not be a zero sum, since they are out of sync.
              You seem to be locked into the mythology of multiple deities. Even the ancient scholars didn’t fall into that trap. They had a single self-begotten beginning from which the specialized deities emerged as “children of that beginning”.
              The creator, as you call it, is the self begotten beginning for which there is no explanation. Scientific method requires you disprove that by providing an explanation.
              We know the process by which people came about, so you’re insistence that an entity created us is irrational. The same can be said for every stage from the BIG BANG event or era, so again, you are being irrational in asserting some need for dirty intervention.
              The only point at which the term God comes into play is the self begotten beginning, or that stage when you declare something always was… because, regardless of your illogical refusal to utilize the term God, when you get to that eternal, or self begotten point, you are referring to the classical use of a God that is the prime creator from which all else emerged.

            24. Scott says:

              I am not making a claim of either something or nothing. I am claiming that you are using simplified definitions compared to the people actually doing work in this field.

              I am not assuming any deities — I am an atheist. I find any claim of deities as well as your ‘overall’ creator as being without merit. You asserting that others have accepted such and such does nothing to draw me otherwise.

              As for saying that a zero sum of either no energy or an equal amount of positive and negative energy are different because of this ‘out of sync’ property – what ever that means. — I didn’t really see that you made any point or related it to anything.

              You make many claims. You say I have to refute your claim of some deity — That which is asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence. So, I reject your claim. Which does not mean I am stating that no deities exist – just the claim is not supported.

            25. Shreknangst says:

              Complex definitions are a waste of time and effort — there either is something which is eternal or there isn’t, and it had a starting point or it didn’t. If it is eternal and had NO starting point … or was self-begotten, which has the same effect … then there is what was and remains the primary definition of the creator god … The Self-begotten Beginning dates back to the ancient Egyptian pyramid texts and pantheon.
              It has never been disproved (which scientific method demands of any theory — DISPROVED not proved, because the theory is based upon logic and available reality, in this case, all things have a beginning).
              As an atheist, you can readily accept the stupidity of any interventionist deity. But you are stuck with the scientific reality that all things have a beginning and evolved from that beginning. Therefore you should readily accept the primal definition of GOD as the self-begotten beginning that gets something from nothing.
              If you do not understand zero sum and out of sync can exist without zero balance. E=MC^2 … if any portion of that equation is zero, all elements are zero … NOTHING in the Absolute sense.
              Zero sum — a seesaw with ten equal weight on either side of the fulcrum point … zero sum weight … in theory they balance … but if place all the weights on one wised together and pace the weights on the other … they are out of sync and the seesaw will not balance …
              the universe is based upon being perfectly out of sync … that keeps everything in motion.
              The task remains for you to demonstrate spontaneous creation or establish a solid theory on how it is achieved.
              But whether you fail or succeed, you still have the GOD that is the self-begotten beginning — success means you have demonstrated how it was done. And thereby defined GOD.

              ,

            26. Scott says:

              Why is a self begotten non-eternal beginning rejected?
              What about if there is a beginning of time as well — how does your claim of needing a cause or creator of any sorts even mean anything?

              Also, I agree at some level that there was something or nothing — it is though rather important to be aware that there may be ‘something’ of which we have no clue about it’s properties and might even be included in what we now would call ‘nothing’. It is more of what we understand about these two options – and maybe even that there could be an additional category besides the two. This is why your claims that there are only these two options and by showing one being unlikely – does not conclude your remaining one is factual.

              You seem to have thing drasticly wrong. Nothing has been presented which holds up that supports any deities, the need for any or any criteria to select between any claimed suppernatural explainations. Since there has not been any upheld claim of these things – there is nothing to debunk or disprove. All there is are claims and assertions. I don’t care if it is the current Pope, Iman, Egyptians, … Who makes the claim does not matter – the claim must stand on it’s own. What are the actual claims and what evidence supports them? Specifics – not just assertions.

              On the energy bit.
              So E= Mc^2. (Which is not the whole equation by the way)
              You could have energy and zero mass or the other way.
              But so what – having a zero sum in energy could exist and there could be zero mass. Now having some of the energy getting converting to mass and … Ta Da
              Could you please explain what your ‘out of sync’ is actually as you are using it. I tried to ask this before.

            27. Shreknangst says:

              No reason to reject a non-eternal self begotten beginning cause. And that would begin time too.
              You can’t have zero every or mass in a formula where they are related by motion. Toss in a constant or whatever and that constant remains … but it too must be a related variable, or energy would then equal the steady state constant.
              The deity aspect is definitional … and not as you use it …as something needing worship, or which interacts with the universe to affect changes. The ancients had the self begotten creator fall into the shadows and no longer participate. After that, deities serviced to control the realms which science defines in terms of specific formulas.
              The there are the deities for those who cannot grasp science … those deities are generally idiots incapable of logical thought. But they do allow the masses, the great unwashed, to be controlled by those who understand the people identify with the idiot deities.
              Problem here seems to be your insistence that the self begotten God term ally to the idiot deities. It doesn’t. It is the starting point … the something from absolute nothing whose effect may, or may not, itself be eternal … after all, if all energy degenerated into mass/matter that had no remaining energy, the universe would collapse into itself.
              But then that might cause a new big bang and it would all begin again.
              However, we have now drifted far from the article topic … the recycling of identical mythology across related culture.

              .

            28. redreyvn says:

              ” there either is something which is eternal or there isn’t, and it had a starting point or it didn’t.”

              Great I choose “eternal” and “didn’t have a starting point”. It’s called the multiverse.
              {Side note: please please PLEASE stop talking about E=mc2 if you’re incapable of going beyond the rudimentary definitions that practically every schoolchild in the world knows. You’ve done it several times and it doesn’t really relate to anything you’re trying to say}

              “those deities are generally idiots incapable of logical thought.”

              How many have you met?

              “But they do allow the masses, the great unwashed, to be controlled by those who understand the people identify with the idiot deities.”

              Self-aggrandizement much? I suppose you see yourself as one of the “washed?”

              “Problem here seems to be your insistence that the self begotten God term a(p)lly to the idiot deities. It doesn’t.”

              That’s EXACTLY what the term “god” applies to.
              Let me ask you this: If an atheist says “I don’t believe a god exists”, what is that atheist talking about?
              1) a deity
              2) the theoretical beginning point of all there is
              as a conditional corollary: if that atheist meant (1), does that make the atheist a member of the “unwashed masses?”

              “after all, if all energy degenerated into mass/matter that had no remaining energy, the universe would collapse into itself.”

              Uh, no. You’re actually talking about a theoretical concept called “The big freeze”. No collapsing, just stopping. Everything. Again, please try to understand the things you are citing. For the benefit, of course, of the “unwashed masses” who you might have the grace to talk to.

            29. Shreknangst says:

              Again, we have gotten far afield from the article … read GRANDPA WAS A DEITY.
              BUT, “Great I choose “eternal” and “didn’t have a starting point”. It’s called the multiverse.” Clearly you are arguing personal choice and conjecture and avoiding reality.
              We’ll use your standard, deem your assertion a theory … one that means things do not need a starting point. Thus your next post should be proof of that theory and until you have proved it, obviously you have nothing relevant to say … certainly nothing relevant to this article.
              read GRANDPA WAS A DEITY, and get educated.

            30. redreyvn says:

              “BUT, “Great I choose “eternal” and “didn’t have a starting point”. It’s called the multiverse.” Clearly you are arguing personal choice and conjecture and avoiding reality.”

              You DO understand that it was YOU who asked US to choose, correct?

              “We’ll use your standard, deem your assertion a theory … one that means things do not need a starting point. Thus your next post should be proof of that theory and until you have proved it, ”

              Using MY standard (which also happens to be the scientific standard), my assertion that “not everything needs a finite starting point” is a hypothesis, NOT a theory. I don’t know how you could “use my standards” then deem that assertion a theory.

              “until you have proved it, obviously you have nothing relevant to say … ”

              I have something: It’s turtles all the way down.
              BTW, you said that “something existed before the big bang” is “DUH” (a colloquialism that denotes established, and well-known fact). Any news on that front?

            31. redreyvn says:

              “then there is what was and remains the primary definition of the creator god … ”

              The “primary” definition of the “creator god” being a sentient being, then no. Again, refer to dictionary + google + most people in the world.

              “which scientific method demands of any theory — DISPROVED not proved”

              Uhm, the scientific method demands that a theory be PROVED. If it is DISPROVED then it is no longer a theory. If it’s just something that hasn’t been PROVED {like, say, “the self-begotten beginning”}, then it is a hypothesis, NOT a theory. Please.

              The Self-begotten Beginning dates back to the ancient Egyptian pyramid texts and pantheon.”

              Yes. They also had names. And did things. Like beings. At the very least, please understand the things you are trying to cite.

              “the self-begotten beginning that gets something from nothing.”

              Let’s break this down: There was a beginning, then it acted on nothing, then it made something.
              Why is the “beginning” before the “nothing?”

            32. Shreknangst says:

              The pantheon all begin with a creation source, only a few have a sentient individual, and that is generally one of the deities who is the created “offspring” of the creator of the deities — the 3rd century Christ-like figure who become GOD which we are familiar with and which replaced the biblical person.
              Science does work only on disproving; what you are referring to is the theory derived from mathematical formula which describes an event for which direct observation is not possible. Even those formulas begin, as with all theories, with observed realities whose mechanism is then described by the theory. The “proof” is an affirmation of the extended application and indicates the formula correct — until a further quest fails to be affirmed and the formula is shown to be flawed and have limited application. Thus the goal is to disprove, because the theory begins with instances that are being observed and thus prove it.
              However, we are now far afield from the article. I suggest you read “GRANDPA WAS A DEITY” and see how the mythologies described in this article came about and spread to those cultures which also had astronomy.
              You might get a much needed education on the history of religion as a tool for cultural conquest and control. You might also be surprised by the oldest, and only universal, deity.

            33. redreyvn says:

              You do know that I have raised no objections to this article, correct? Only to your insistence that the terms “god” and “universe” are interchangeable in a widely “accepted” context?

              Anyway;

              “You might get a much needed education on the history of religion as a tool for cultural conquest and control.”

              This is kid’s stuff, to be honest. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp. The Spanish conquests are taught to six-year olds where I’m from. I’m not sure what you’re trying to do, since there’s really no argument to be had there.

              “However, we are now far afield from the article. I suggest you read “GRANDPA WAS A DEITY” and see how the mythologies described in this article came about and spread to those cultures which also had astronomy.”

              Sure. Now what does this have to do with your insistence that “god” and “universe” are interchangeable terms that are “widely accepted” again?

            34. Scott says:

              God and Universe are very far from being interchangeable terms or concepts.

            35. redreyvn says:

              I know. This is what I have been trying to explain to “shreknangst” this entire time.

            36. redreyvn says:

              “Science does work only on disproving;”

              You’re kidding, right? Has the theory of gravity:
              a) been proven
              b) been disproven
              then tell me if science “only works” by disproving things.

              “Even those formulas begin, as with all theories, with observed realities whose mechanism is then described by the theory.”

              False. For example, the Theory of relativity did NOT begin with an “observed reality”. In fact, the hypothesis that started it sort of flies in the face of “observed reality”, so much so that Einstein was soundly ridiculed when he first proposed it. The “Germ theory of disease” also did not begin with “observed reality”, because obviously, nobody has observed microogranisms by the time the hypothesis was presented.

              “because the theory begins with instances that are being observed and thus prove it.”

              Again, false. Refer to above.

              So let’s break the scientific process down.
              1) Hypothesis (observed or purely conceptualized {such as time dilation or microogranisms})
              2) proving
              a) has no proof —–> dismissed or tabled
              b) has proof (observed and/or conceptual)
              b1) an experiment is devised to falsify
              b1a) is not falsified —-> Scientific theory…for now.
              b1b) falsified —–> not scientific theory

              Therefore: your statement “Science does work only on disproving;” is false. It works by a constant process of proving AND disproving.

              “The pantheon all begin with a creation source, only a few have a sentient individual,”

              Let me ask you something: did the Egyptians refer to “Nu” as “god?” Did the ancient Greeks refer to “chaos” as “god?” Did the Norse refer to the bloody “Icy fjord” as “god?” Is the “golden egg” ever referred to as “God”?
              Can you give me what exactly is the culture that has its “pantheon” descend from an “unknowable” that they refer to as “god?” So sure, “(most) Pantheons “begin with a creation source”, but they are seldom, if ever, referred to as “god (which is a term reserved for sentient beings)”.

            37. Scott says:

              So you are saying that there were beings representing the Egyptian deities who did what was attributed to them?

            38. redreyvn says:

              no. I am saying that the term “God” applies to a conceptual being (I am not making any claims that “god” actually exists). “Shreknangst” keeps insisting that a somehow, the traditional use for the term “god” does not have to refer to a “being” and can be applied to “whatever we don’t know”. Also please understand that I quote “Shreknangst” when I reply to him.

            39. redreyvn says:

              “Yep, the phrase ‘We don’t know’, or more accurately ‘We can’t know…’,

              “We can’t know” is NOT the more accurate way of saying “we don’t know”. Those mean two absolutely DIFFERENT things. I don’t know why you’re getting basic grammar all wrong. “We don’t ski” is NOT the more accurate way of saying “We can’t ski”, just like “god” is NOT the more accurate way of saying “I don’t know”.

              “– which always refer to god the creator”

              YES! Which means that the term “god” had always been used for a sentient being with agency. Not the vague, abstract, cop-out notion of “impassable boundaries” you keep using it for.

              “.. so many will state that the something always existed and thus deflect the necessity to deal with the reality that they cannot explain how it can change and evolve”

              As stated by Scott: “just because something is eternal doesn’t mean it doesn’t change”. No need for deflection. Also, we have a pretty good idea of how the universe does and can “change”, eternal or not. So this point is moot.

              “We will never explain the spontaneous emergence of something from nothing ”
              “All observable realities evolve and can be back tracked to a beginning point -”

              Proofs? Or are these some of those “I-just-know” type deals?

            40. redreyvn says:

              “The problem you seem to have is that you are mandating that the term god apply to a being.”

              Uh, that’s not a problem. That’s actually what the term “god” means. Did you check your dictionary lately?

            41. Curt Gleason says:

              Big Bang theories have nothing to say about what happened before the BB – if ‘before the BB’ makes sense. (Time is much a part of the universe as up, down, etc. Saying ‘What was before the BB might be similar to saying ‘What was to the left of the BB?’) And saying that the universe is changing doesn’t mean it’s not eternal.

            42. Shreknangst says:

              EXACTLY: GOD is the point where you are spinning your wheels and running in circles. Thus you have finally understood the use of the term — the point where you can go no further.
              To come away from that point (try to explore wrap your head around the origin point of the ancient pantheons) minor or lessor deities were created — but all ultimately go back to a point where there is a non-interventionist “GOD/CREATOR” who steps into the background and the children become the unexplained science … the tree gods, storm gods etc … who are capricious and interventionist.
              As people develop intelligence, they find the reasons behind the events — they learn how plants grow, how animals reproduce, how storms happen, and random probability, etc.
              You are free to substitute “UNIVERSE” for “GOD” — I do it all the time. Ultimately you come down to Einstein’s line on studying math and science: “I want to figure out how god did it.”

            43. redreyvn says:

              “EXACTLY: GOD is the point where you are spinning your wheels and running in circles…– the point where you can go no further.”
              “God is a term, like universe or sky or earth, it is a term used to denote the boundary between what we understand and what has yet to be understood.”

              You do understand that these two statements you made contradict each other right? On the first statement you’re saying “god is a term for wherever understanding MUST stop”
              on the second, you’re saying “god is a term for wherever understanding HAS STOPPED SO FAR (hence, your comparison to “earth” and “sky”)”.
              This is the problem with using “god” in such a vague, wishy-washy manner.

              “try to explore wrap your head around the origin point of the ancient pantheons”

              At the risk of sounding glib, the origin point of “ancient pantheons” is human ignorance.

              “but all ultimately go back to a point where there is a non-interventionist “GOD/CREATOR” who steps into the background and the children become the unexplained science”

              This is NOT true. There are plenty of religious cosmologies that do not posit a “non-interventionist” god/creator. In fact, I would say that practically ALL prime creator-gods can and have intervened in their respective cosmologies.

              “You are free to substitute “UNIVERSE” for “GOD” — I do it all the time.”

              Maybe you should stop. It makes you contradict yourself.

          4. Scott says:

            Then the concept of your God is meaningless both as a concept and as an explanation the term Universe works just as well without any of the bullshit baggage that goes with your God or any deities I. General.

            1. Bill Schreck says:

              Universe doesn’t work as an explanation or accreditation for that which has yet to be understood in terms of causation.
              But you are correct — the terms god and deity carry all kinds of baggage that has nothing to do with practical applications of the term…
              Yet we still talk of “Lady Luck” and all those modern variation on old superstitions.

            2. redreyvn says:

              “the terms god and deity carry all kinds of baggage that has nothing to do with practical applications of the term…”

              What, exactly, are the “practical applications” of the term that does not “carry baggage?”

            3. Scott says:

              God does not offer any explanatory power either.
              It is just offering a mystery to solve a mystery. Any made up explanation works as long as it can lead to the creation of our universe.

              What is so wrong is that the whole concept of what was before the Big Bang very well may be A nonsensical question. What were you before your grandparents were born? Just one possible very unlikely entity. Does the question just not make sense or do we have no way of making sense of what may or may not have caused the Big Bang. The Big Bang actually does not address origin of the universe — just what occurred from a particular moment in time. A point in time that our mathematical models can’t go farther back.

            4. Shreknangst says:

              God offers an end, a terminal point,to the quest to explain the universe and existence — it has nothing to do with a specific method of causation.

              What was before the Big Bang — which recent papers seem to indicate didn’t actually happen — goes to the quest for that single universal unifying formula from which all others are derived.

              In terms of reproductive sequences — that is well established — the random nature, or coin toss, of combined derived chromosomes determines each of us within a defined probability range … thus, before germination I, like you, was simply a set of possibilities based upon genetics that could be identified if such tests had existed back then.

              True, “The Big Bang actually does not address origin of the universe.” It address a point in the sequence … as with your birth analogy: genetics, fertilization gestation, birth, development … Science is about identifying each of those stages until you get to the point where there are no more stages — the point where something emerges from absolute nothing.

            5. Scott says:

              The Big Bang refers to the results after the ‘Bang’. How we get where the Universe as it is now from that point.
              I fully get that the language used is not as clear as it should be.
              In some ways the evolution and abiogenesis confusion a lot of people have.

            6. Scott says:

              But 100 years ago – you would have attributed God to the processes we didn’t know about reproduction and genetic inheritance. How is that a useful concept?
              Unless God just means ‘the natural mechanisms and explanations we don’t know yet.
              I would suspect most all theists would reject highly to their deity being labeled as such.

            7. Shreknangst says:

              Now you’ve grasped what God has always been:” ‘the natural mechanisms and explanations we don’t know yet”
              And the ancient saw is the you will never really know God.
              Eventually all knowledge gets to the point where the explanation is a logical circle, a self begotten begging.
              Why is that so hard for you to grasp? It was understood 5000 or so years ago in Egypt, and doubtless long before that.

            8. Scott says:

              I don’t disagree that the actual things being done attributed to God were actual natural process not understood — that is not what theists were meaning though.

            9. Scott says:

              What makes you say that knowledge must come to a circle?
              Can you name a couple examples where this has happened?

            10. Shreknangst says:

              It’s inherent in the SELF BEGGOTTEN BEGINNING — you can check for the equivalent quantum physics phrases — the point of spontaneous emergence without a source.
              Existence is the only example, everything else that came after, all the components of the universe, had a precursor.

            11. Scott says:

              How is that an example of knowledge forming a circle?

            12. Scott says:

              What practical applications does the term have – other than a hook for all the baggage to get hooked upon?

            13. Shreknangst says:

              Yep that’s the practical use, always has Benn … it’s a hook to hang everything else on. A starting point for Knowledge.
              A self begotten begging without which there is only ignorance … and the ignorant avoid its reality by giving it human characteristics.

            14. Scott says:

              But the term has all the baggage that goes with the entities which have been called God — and you are the first person I have come acres trying to claim the term just means what we don’t know. The label ‘we don’t know’ works really well without ANY extra baggage. That and for those who do believe in a personal caring deity — will raise the biggest Stink about trying to define God that way.

            15. Shreknangst says:

              The phrase I DON’T KNOW just doesn’t work … because it is normally responded to with the phrase THEN FIND OUT.
              people need an answer, and often the best answer is a terminal point … “bad luck”, “you’re lucky” … beats the mechanics of why. But both are just variations on a personal capricious deity. In the BOOK OF JOB, Job has bad luck after decades of good luck … but it is no personal … instead the deity is teaching his idiot son the meaning of true faith and obedience without reward/bribary. After the lesson, which the idiot never learns, all is restored to Job, with a bonus … because that is the proper thing to do.
              “We don’t know” carries tons of baggage … for the intelligent, for idiots, it is enough.

            16. Scott says:

              Why is it bad to respond to ‘I don’t know’ with ‘Let’s try to figure it out’?

            17. Shreknangst says:

              NOT BAD,The phrase I DON’T KNOW just doesn’t work … because it is normally responded to with the phrase THEN FIND OUT. therefore does not replace God as the explanation for getting, omething from nothing of any other meaningful question …

            18. Scott says:

              But God offers nothing – maybe less with how you have defined ‘God’.

            19. Shreknangst says:

              The loci of a circle or eclipse offer nothing,
              Nothing but the point of origin for the produced symmetrical shape.
              Loci, God, terms for a place to start.
              You’ve consistently argued there is no purpose to a word that denotes a starting point for getting something from where it did exist before.
              Your argument offers nothing.
              You seem fixated on the idea that myths, mythology, also offers nothing, but psychologists and cultural anthropologists might disagree.
              The mythologies mentioned in this article date back to the inventors of the wheel. The Jesus mythology also ( as mentioned in SAINT PAUL’S JOKE) goes to a prediction of the fall of troy, which is in a similar context. When troy fell, some of survivors established Rome and specifically kept Hercules as deity along with local ones. The Hercules myth is the Jesus one – change the name, but keep it the same is a common human practice.
              The two dates for the founding of Rome both tie back, using the calendar method, to dates for figures in Genesis (see book GENESIS OF GENESIS for explanation of patriarch dates/ages).
              God is the name for the starting point … the emergence of all things from the void; the something from nothing loci; it is the SELF-BEGOTTEN BEGINNING of physics for which there is yet to be coined a term.
              But you seem incapable of comprehending basics.

            20. Scott says:

              Myths may have entertainment and can even teach some lessons – as ways of leading us to actual knowledge — I will stand that they offer nothing.

              You keep making these claims that all these deities are intertwined and related, yet offer nothing to support the assertion.

              You keep asserting that ‘the beginning’ is a needed/useful concept that is a thing and needs a label. On top of that you choose a label that also carries tons of baggage which conflicts with your self created use of the term.

            21. Shreknangst says:

              “as ways of leading us to actual knowledge — I will stand that they offer nothing.”
              yet they remain the only historically viable means of understanding the past and the degree to which oral history has transmitted knowledge.
              The starting point is always “a needed/useful concept” — try running a race without a starting line, or playing football without the “kick-off” … you don’t like beginnings !!!
              I have not chosen a label — I just recognize one that emerged millennia ago … but has gathered dirt and crap … yet still has enormous use because, without it, there is no goal to the exploration of the science and knowledge you insist on turning you back on.

            22. Scott says:

              You say that this term/concept existed and has been muddied – based on?

              Yes, stories of past or current cultures can give info of how they lived and thought. It gives glimpses of the past does not give insight to discoveries of any of the great or small questions about our universe.

            23. Shreknangst says:

              based on 40 years of research and study on the subject. It’s THE PATH OF THE SERPENT — religious beliefs and the use of deities in association with wisdom/knowledge/understanding date back to the cro-magnon caves where we find the oldest and most enduring deities.
              .

            24. Scott says:

              So, because you claim to have figured it out and have a ‘name’ for it in all caps and with an ominous sounding name. That clears it all up.
              You are claiming to have evidence of specific deities from cro-magnon time.

            25. Shreknangst says:

              Reality, if you took the trouble research, you’d know the things identified as deities in the caves. The cave art was neat, specific images appeared in specific reaction of the caves … almost like libraries with topics in specific shelf locations.
              But you’re close minded, and bigoted, so education will elude you.
              Oh that PATH OF THE SERPENT, it’s a book from the late 70s … much of it is out dated because of new discoveries; in general, it was affirmed by DNA over past decade, and new archaeological finds.

            26. Scott says:

              Cont’
              Yet you complains that ‘I don’t know’ had the common and useful response of ‘let’s find out’.

              You have offered no reason that your use of the term God offers any advantage compared to the cumbersome baggage it has.
              You stated that I should come up with a new term and get it accepted. Yet yours would need to get all that baggage dropped – by groups and people who are strongly attached.

        2. Derp says:

          Atheists can examine religous texts to prove religion irrelevant more accurately haha

        3. SlimTim0707 says:

          Einstein knew that there is plenty of evidence of a God existing. He believed the notion of no God to be illogical

          1. Scott says:

            No – he spoke of God not as any kind of being or entity, not a personal thing or concept. You are greatly cherry picking and taking things out of context.

          2. Davidmcw says:

            “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” – AE

            1. SlimTim0707 says:

              “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” – Albert Einstein

              “No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates through every word. No myth is filled with such life.” – Albert Einstein

            2. Yeahnah says:

              While the second quote is correct, you can’t really use it as Einstein believing in god, especially not the Christian God, for much of his life he was a non-observant Jew and by the end of his life he followed the “God” put forth by Baruch Spinoza which I pretty sure the interpretation is basically the universe (the part about the interpretation could be wrong, I’ll confess to not having looked into Spinoza very much).

            3. exa says:

              Can’t be surprised by someone admiring myths from a book that consider his people as a chosen people. Einstein regardless of how some people worship him is not even responsible of 0.0000000000001% of human knowledge.

            4. Marcus Aurelius says:

              So why didn’t Einstein become a Christian?

            5. SlimTim0707 says:

              My point isn’t that Einstein was a Christian. He wasn’t to my knowledge. My point is that the more that Einstein discovered about the universe, the more he realized that it was intelligent design and couldn’t of happened by accident.

          3. exa says:

            Einstein “BELIEVED”. Being believed by Einstein doesn’t make it a fact.
            He was a human like you that din’t know everything. A few exotic formulas he impressed the world with are being questioned.

    2. Frank says:

      Ah the Horus virgin birth story is a case of what constitutes virgin, while yes Osiris was brought back he didn’t have a penis, that was a mystical object created by Isis. So yeh on the whole it could be considered a virgin birth, since no actual human parts went in side of her. You also have to remember that a lot of what we know about these religions was destroyed by the christians to make their jesus seem like more than he was. So a lot of different interpretations have occurred. Remember also Jesus(if he really did exist) wasn’t even born on Dec 25th he wasn’t born until the spring soo we also know a lot of what the christians say in their book is pure BS as well.

      1. Liz says:

        Also, the religion was shaped by one man’s ideas of Jesus. That would be Paul, the “thirteenth apostle” as he called himself. Much of the New Testament is based off of Paul’s letters and is very Pauline in details. What was known of the Christianity BEFORE Paul was burned and seized by the Romans, who viewed early Christians as a threat.

        1. Paul never called himself “the thirteenth apostle” — just an a apostle. The Pauline letters are Pauline — the Gospels have no relationship to Paul and arose separately. Paul also was not burned — he was a Roman citizen and was beheaded. So other than getting pretty much everything wrong, thanks for playing!

          1. NotPC says:

            Liz is not saying Paul was burned – she is stating that what was known of christianity before Paul is lost to us, the Romans and the church they established gathered up and burned all that they could lay their hands on that disagreed with the format they wanted the church to go in.

            1. TruthTeller says:

              That is pretty much fact. The Romans did, indeed, tailor the church to meet their political agenda. The Empire had failed, and those that were left saw religion as a marvelous tool for subjugation. And they did, in fact, get rid of anything that contradicted their contrived narrative, to the best of their abilities. Try to dig up anything substantive about Pelagius, for example. You can find rumor, and third-hand references. Sayings attributed to him, but most are probably not exactly what he said. They destroyed him politically, and then erased his actual works from the history books. It happened many times, in many ways, but his is an easy example to follow.

            2. Reinaldokool says:

              Constantine did manipulate the church for political purposes..

            3. GregoryR says:

              Pelagius was largely a Western Christian issue and of no importance to the Eastern Christians.

            4. Reinaldokool says:

              “. . .BEFORE Paul was burned . . .” The second part of your statement is factually incorrect. The churches did pick and choose what they would consider sacred texts–though they did not complete a common set of documents (The Canon) until the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth. Many of those not chosen have been found and some of the translated, e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, etc.

          2. Pinky Boldfatguy says:

            Amen.

          3. Arizona Willie says:

            And what makes YOU think YOU have it right and he’s wrong?

            Because your preacher told you so?

          4. Elijah Allen says:

            he didn’t say Paul was burned. I know literacy it difficult but the subject of that sentence was “what was known of Christianity” and thus the verb “burned” was applied to that…not Paul. Thanks for playing. Also, “much of” is a vague quantity and the New Test. is far more than just the 5 (sorry 4…the gospel of James is banned because James was listed and the younger brother of Jesus and we wanted Mary to be a virgin for life) so you are again WRONG. Thirteenth is the only valid point you made

          5. Nightowl223 says:

            Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it? Try reading Liz’ comment again, slowly. Draw a word diagram if it will help. 😉

          6. Sumayya Betty Williamson says:

            Who wrote the Gospels?

            1. bpollen says:

              Fanny Crosby wrote over 8,000 hymns and Gospel songs. Does that help?

          7. rocky_rhodes says:

            he never said Paul was burned learn how to read

        2. Gina says:

          what??? please do more research,LOL

        3. Macacamulatta says:

          Paul was beheaded, not burned, as he was a Roman citizen. That is in fact why he was taken to Rome and it is where his Epistle to the Romans was written.

          1. Nightowl223 says:

            Try reading that comment from Liz again. Because you obviously misunderstood it the first time.

        4. Macacamulatta says:

          Paul was beheaded, not burned, as he was a Roman citizen. That is in fact why he was taken to Rome and it is where his Epistle to the Romans was written.

        5. Macacamulatta says:

          Paul was beheaded, not burned, as he was a Roman citizen. That is in fact why he was taken to Rome and it is where his Epistle to the Romans was written.

        6. Joe P says:

          There is some doubt that many of the letters were even written by Paul, and that Peter never wrote letters attributed to him.

        7. Reinaldokool says:

          Paul was a completely separate strain of the story. The Gospels were written later than most of Paul, but not based upon Paul. They had their own lineage through oral tradition and the “Q” document. (Except for John) The NT is not based on Paul nor is most of it Pauline. Even much that bears the name of Paul was not written by Paul, but by others who borrowed the mantle of Paul–a common occurrence in that day.

          The bible is not a historical document, but a metaphoric one. The early church understood that better than most of today’s Christians. An understanding of metaphor leads to a spiritual religion. Attempts to prove or disprove historicity are based on a dogmatic or doctrinal religion. This is the key failure of both Theism and Atheism. It would be better to read Alfred Korzybski than to waste electrons on this debate.

          1. GregoryR says:

            And the Q document exists where other than in theory?

        8. GregoryR says:

          Christianity had nothing to burn other than its adherents prior to Paul and they were still burning and torturing them after he became Christian because Paul was the first to write anything that was preserved by the Christian Church.

      2. Jess says:

        Christians don’t believe Jesus was born on Dec 25 and the Bible does not state his either. Also, how can you doubt Jesus’ existence? There are many historical documents that show that he did, and they are not Biblical or related to Christianity. It’s called history.

        1. Kate Karwowska says:

          Sources, please.

          1. BlockMore says:

            Therr are Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus…

            1. Scott says:

              Those are from many decades after and just tell of what stories were circulTi g. So what are these legit sources and specifics.

            2. KingCheese says:

              I know of Josephus but he wrote what he heard of. Not what he actually witnessed. Now I’m waiting to hear these Roman sources. Patiently waiting…

            3. Arizona Willie says:

              You will be waiting a long long time because there is NOT ONE SINGLE HISTORICAL MENTION of Jesus.

              NOT ONE.

              The first written record mentioning Jesus was over 100 years later.

            4. Joe says:

              You spend so much time arguing about prove this or prove that, get up and help someone but yourself. I am a proud Christian and if you proved to me tomorrow that Jesus never existed (which is pure BS) I would not for one second choose to live my life any differently than he taught in scripture. It is golden, it is a life you can die and be proud of… remember death is a real thing, it can be proven that it happens, I think. Could you check on that?

            5. Arizona Willie says:

              A closed mind gathers no wisdom.

            6. Eddie says:

              All religion is mythology which arose from very primitive minds to try and explain our existence, the injustice in the world and to give us a ‘teddy bear’ to hold to feel secure about the end of our lives.
              The part that amazes me about most religious adherents is that they have read so very little of the very book they say they base their beliefs on. It is almost amusing to see the look of confusion on most Christians’ faces when you ask them if they realize that the books of the so-called ‘gospel’ Matthew, Mark, Luke, John – were NOT written by those individuals but instead named posthumously MANY years later, long after these supposed individuals would have existed.
              Interesting too, that only ONE book of the gospel even mentions an account of all the dead good people rising from their grave and heading into town (during the death/resurrection story account in each of these books). You’d think, something so remarkable as a bunch of dead people rising from the grave and later heading into town SHOULD appear in all the Jesus death/resurrection accounts; but it doesn’t,,, it ONLY appears in the book of Matthew (27:52 is where I think the story begins). Lots and LOTS of dead people rising after an Earthquake (none of which is mentioned by ANY of the historical texts at the time) and only ONE book of four,, *thinks* of even mentioning it?
              Keep in mind that I’m only honing in on Christianity because YOU mentioned you were a christian – all religion is myth and nothing more.
              Read,,, I mean, REALLY read from the beginning to the end (it will take you a good while), not just bits and pieces. There is some despicable evil done by the hand of a supposed beneficent god throughout the old testament. Its’ stories of the mass drowning of humanity (which doesn’t have a single geological indication) and plagues and demands that men sacrifice their sons to the god to show that they ‘believe’. How absurd! Why would a beneficent being that was supposedly superior in every way, need constant reassurance that it was superior,,, uh,,, wouldn’t the ghost in the sky know it? If not? Why was that being so emotionally insecure?

              A thinking man knows that religion is an absurdity all across the board. The sooner mankind surrenders this remnant of the bronze age and before,,, the sooner humanity will move forward and progress.

            7. sugarpuddin says:

              Thank you, thank you. All this theological rhetoric is just that and no more. I have been free of all that for a long time now. he world will find another
              myth to cling to when this one is gone.

            8. Mark says:

              Alright. I get your message. Here’s the deal though. Concerning your “thinking man” comment – last paragraph – .

              You can roll it all up. Every bit of all the BULLSHIT concerning anything & everything relevant, and what do you have? Though I agree with your opening paragragh completely, that “teddy bear” just so happens to make 100% factual, scientific PROOF written in granite that we had a beginning. Now, since we’ve had one, how’d it happen? A simple question requiring a simple answer. I Love those who jump to a “BANG”. Tickles the hell out of me to watch & listen to their ‘educated’ stupidity, and yet the question remains:

              What?

              “WHAT” made that which banged?

              Again, “in granite”, this is where atheism fails MISERABLY. “In the beginning. . . “, remember? Well, in the physical world of which we’re discussing, in order for something to exist it had to have a beginning. Now, unless you want to claim the impossible (nonexistence = existence) making yourself look and sound like a Jack-Ass, I’d say an atheist is in a pretty-pickle. It’s physically impossible to have something from nothing so the question remains:

              What?

              “WHAT” made that which banged?

              Now, you were saying something about religion. . .

            9. Thomas says:

              Oh, I mean…according to the theory, all of this appeared from a random collision of atoms in space time…and that we only actually like things because our nervous system tells us to…and that the concept of our existence, as well as the fact that we’re conscious of this existence, is an even bigger mystery!

            10. Soulvein says:

              Be proud that you gave all of your time and energy to a two prong parasitic system of Religious “Patriotism” designed to steal your wealth and funnel it into the Private Federal Bank, The Private Vatican Bank, which are both controlled by The Private Zionist Bank.

            11. Thomas says:

              Sources, please.

            12. Gina says:

              it doesn’t matter what you say, some people are just not going to believe. to their own detriment.

            13. FB says:

              Belief can be a detriment as well, Gina. That’s the point of looking for solid evidence.

            14. Patricia Charles says:

              Exactly. Belief is a detriment to society. Different beliefs create clashes that lead to war, hatred, misunderstanding and bigotry. ‘My religion is right. Your’s is wrong.” these clashes have been happening since the beginning. the very idea that “God” is on my side is ridiculous.

            15. Mark says:

              Nawww!!! What you’re talking about is vain pride. Man, knowing that something actually created them, and then trying to explain the process. That ‘explaining’ is the problem. Simple as that.

            16. Marcus Aurelius says:

              Josephus short paragraph on Jesus is a later Christian interpolation. The Tacitus passage on Nero burning Christians is also considered a late, perhaps Renaissance forgery. No contemporary Greek or Roman sources make a single message of Jesus.

              Speaking of Josephus, he goes into great detail to point out every bad thing Herod ever did. Does he mention the “Slaughter of the Innocents”? Nope. You know why? IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.

            17. Guest says:

              And somehow you believe that EVEYTHING written by Josephus surveyed the ages? Who is being simple-minded now?

            18. Jim T says:

              And somehow you believe that EVERYTHING written by Josephus survived the ages? Who is being simple-minded now?

            19. Arizona Willie says:

              If it didn’t survive the ages, it can’t be used as proof of Jesus’s existence.

              You would be citing a non-existant item as proof.

              Oh, wait … that’s common practice for the religious isn’t it?

            20. Macacamulatta says:

              I think the other crazy myth is the one in Mathew about all the citizens of the Roman Empire having to return to their home town to be taxed! It’s just laughable. Just one tiny example, Rome at the time Jesus was born was a city of about 1 million, most of them not Romans or even citizens. An edict like that would have emptied – and destroyed – the City of Rome, quite apart from being logistically impossible. The reasons that this is an insanely untrue assertion by Mathew is that our conception of independently verifiable fact was just not something people understood in those days, or even up to the Enlightenment (which is why it has that name). Mathew was making a greater point that Jesus was the culmination of prophecy and locked him into the Covenant between the Jewish people and God. So he had to have Jesus born in David’s city. This story really emphasizes how the obsession with history is ruining religion and it’s being led by the most fervent believers.

            21. TruthTeller says:

              Ummm… you clearly don’t understand the difference between Roman citizens and Roman subjects. The Romans were never known for caring how much they inconvenienced subjects. Roman citizens were another matter entirely, and they had rights. Rome didn’t have to go through that with it’s citizens – they knew who the citizens were, and how much tax they paid. Your assertions are baffling.

            22. Reinaldokool says:

              What you say is basically true, But I know of no one for whom those are salient facts. If anyone here is really interested in this subject, rather than just argument, there are two good sources, one primary and the second secondary. The work of the Jesus Seminar led to a consensus of historical information about Jesus life and statement:
              The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?
              The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do?

              The second is a good handbook on the bible and it’s composition and history:
              Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World

            23. Macacamulatta says:

              I think the other crazy myth is the one in Mathew about all the citizens of the Roman Empire having to return to their home town to be taxed! It’s just laughable. Just one tiny example, Rome at the time Jesus was born was a city of about 1 million, most of them not Romans or even citizens. An edict like that would have emptied – and destroyed – the City of Rome, quite apart from being logistically impossible. The reasons that this is an insanely untrue assertion by Mathew is that our conception of independently verifiable fact was just not something people understood in those days, or even up to the Enlightenment (which is why it has that name). Mathew was making a greater point that Jesus was the culmination of prophecy and locked him into the Covenant between the Jewish people and God. So he had to have Jesus born in David’s city. This story really emphasizes how the obsession with history is ruining religion and it’s being led by the most fervent believers.

            24. Macacamulatta says:

              I think the other crazy myth is the one in Mathew about all the citizens of the Roman Empire having to return to their home town to be taxed! It’s just laughable. Just one tiny example, Rome at the time Jesus was born was a city of about 1 million, most of them not Romans or even citizens. An edict like that would have emptied – and destroyed – the City of Rome, quite apart from being logistically impossible. The reasons that this is an insanely untrue assertion by Mathew is that our conception of independently verifiable fact was just not something people understood in those days, or even up to the Enlightenment (which is why it has that name). Mathew was making a greater point that Jesus was the culmination of prophecy and locked him into the Covenant between the Jewish people and God. So he had to have Jesus born in David’s city. This story really emphasizes how the obsession with history is ruining religion and it’s being led by the most fervent believers.

            25. GregoryR says:

              Actually only the phrase “if it’s right to call him a man” is considered an interpolation. The rest is considered to be original.

            26. Macacamulatta says:

              No one is arguing that there were not Jesus-worshippers at the time of Tacitus or Josephus, but there is simply no credible independent historian who can say “I saw Jesus.”

            27. Mark says:

              At the same time, it’s already been correctly mentioned that early christians were deemed a threat and much of their writings and artifactual evidence were destroyed. Or is it that these facts are just too inconvenient for some of you to deal with? WOW!!!

            28. Macacamulatta says:

              No one is arguing that there were not Jesus-worshippers at the time of Tacitus or Josephus, but there is simply no credible independent historian who can say “I saw Jesus.”

            29. Deep Thoughts says:

              do you know where in Tacitus? I have The Annals and The Histories and would like to read what he wrote, but I haven’t read the whole thing…

        2. Scott says:

          Like what? Contemporary sources that is.

          1. Grossman says:

            Contemporary sources are incredibly rare in antiquity. No contemporary sources mention Hannibal of Carthage, because things didn’t work the same way back then. The earliest mentions of Jesus occur within 20 years of his life, and those assume the existence of geographically dispersed communities based on his teaching. There’s really no plausible alternative to the existence of a historical Jesus.

            1. Scott says:

              Any natural alternative is more plausible than a the supernatural of which we have zero examples confirmed of a supernatural anything ever.

            2. Curt Gleason says:

              Would you ever be willing to accept a supernatural explanation? If not, please recognize that the statement ‘there is no such thing as the supernatural’ is a statement of faith…

            3. Scott says:

              If evidence or at least a valid and sound argument for a supper natural explanation can be provided.

              It is funny that you think it takes ‘faith’ to not believe in an explanation without any rational reason to do so. I would call that being a rational thinker.

              I don’t believe in Magic as an explanation either … Nor do I believe that I am just a brain in a vat. I have no reason to give any of those beliefs any serious consideration. I might work through one as an exercise – but would still withold belief until evidence supports it.

              Are you implying that ‘faith’ is a poor justification or method to come to the truth? If so, we would agree on that.

            4. Curt Gleason says:

              ” If evidence or at least a valid and sound argument for a supper natural explanation can be provided.” Good! That’s certainly honest and valid. But it seems to be contradicted by your other statement: I have no reason to give any of those beliefs any serious consideration.’ Maybe you’re just repeating that you haven’t see evidence that convinces you. Please note, I said ‘if.’ I’m trying to understand your stance. I know people who say ‘Miracles are, by definition impossible.’ They also tend to say things like ‘There are no absolutes!’ (Really? Are you *sure* of that?

              I don’t agree in the slightest that faith is poor method to come to the truth. I’d define faith as a steadfast belief in something based on evidence that isn’t overwhelming. We do that all the time in relationships. When I decide to trust someone, it isn’t a random, blind thing – it’s based on a history of interactions. And nothing is more common than for people to disagree about whether or not someone is trustworthy, even if they have the same facts.

              I think Christian faith fits that definition. When John the Baptist was facing execution and had doubts, he sent friends to ask Jesus if He was really the Messiah. Jesus’ response is tremendous – He refers to evidence in the form of fulfilled predictive prophecy, and of miracles.

              Obviously, lots of people aren’t convinced by that evidence, and that’s normal for faith.

            5. Scott says:

              You seem to be switching between the meanings of ‘faith’ as they suit you.
              Trust –
              Confidence –
              Belief –
              Are similar but not identical.
              I also don’t agree that having belief in something of which we have several examples on which to base our determination on is different at a core level than believing in something with zero examples or references to go by.

              Faith as used by the religious is speaking about the latter — they want to bring in the former so it sounds less silly though.

            6. Arizona Willie says:

              And if you asked David Copperfield if he was a magician he would refer to his making the Statute of Liberty disappear.

            7. Curt Gleason says:

              And that would be evidence. It might or might not convince you, which is okay. Like I said: ‘Obviously, lots of people aren’t convinced by that evidence, and that’s normal for faith.’

              I’m not trying to *prove* Christianity here – although I’d be happy to explain why I believe. I’m showing that Biblical, Christian faith is rational and based on evidence. Not irrational and entirely subjective.

            8. Arizona Willie says:

              You may have THOUGHT you were proving something but YOU FAILED.

              The Christian faith is NOT based on evidence. There is not one single shred of evidence that Jesus ever existed.

            9. Scott says:

              Also – who said ‘There is no supernatural’? I stated that we have no evidence confirmed of anything supernatural. Those are very different statements.

            10. Curt Gleason says:

              I agree, and I hope I made it more clear. I said ‘IF you’re saying ‘there is no supernatural…’

            11. Ryan McLaughlin says:

              Wow, you have no idea what faith is then. The burden of proof lies with the person who makes the positive claim. The statement above can’t be born “out of faith” because it is simply the default truth about this subject. He cannot prove a negative, it’s a logical fallacy. In other words, taking the default position of “something doesn’t exist” does not require faith. It requires lack of evidence to the contrary.

            12. Ryan McLaughlin says:

              In fact, the idea of “faith” is to believe in something despite, or inspite of supporting/contrary evidence. So faith is simply another way of saying, “taking a guess.”

            13. Curt Gleason says:

              Ryan, you’re welcome to define faith that way, but we already have term for that. It’s called ‘a wild-ass guess.’ Twain is supposed to have said he knew a man who had so much faith, he could believe in things he *knew* weren’t true. Where I come from, we call that mental illness, not faith. I’m sticking with my definition of biblical faith. Trust and faith – yep, pretty much interchangeable as I’m using them. Please note that in the biblical example I gave, faith was based on evidence. Not without evidence, and certainly not despite the evidence.

              Maybe it helps if I say that in classical epistemology, there are three ways of knowing things: Faith, logic, and science. Each has its own methods, strengths, and limitations. Statements about the existence or non-existence of God belong in the realm of faith, not logic or science. And please note that I’m drawing a distinction between two positions. Someone might say ‘I haven’t seen any evidence that convinces me to believe that there is a God or gods (But I’m open to the possibility.)’ That’s essentially a statement of doubt. Another might say ‘I believe there are no gods, and that the natural world is all there is. Nothing supernatural exists.’ That’s a positive statement of faith or belief.

            14. Scott says:

              That is a statement of not doubt , but non-belief = atheist.
              I would say your definitions are off. Faith is the evidence give. When they don’t have any actual evidence. Logic is uses in forming an argument, insuring that the argument is both valid – Science is used to support the premiss making the argument sound.

            15. Curt Gleason says:

              You’re welcome to join the chorus who say that faith is belief without evidence, but that’s obviously not the Biblical model. As I showed in the example I gave, Jesus appealed to evidence to support His claims. In his trial, Paul appealed to public knowledge in his defense: Acts 26: 25Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26 The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.”

              Now, I agree completely that there are faiths based on subjective feelings and not on evidence. The Mormons tell you to read their book, and ask to know in your heart that it’s true. But Jesus and the NT authors appeal to evidence over and over. Paul refers to witnesses of the risen Jesus: 1 Cor 15 …5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

            16. Scott says:

              So, because it says so.n the Bible – you feel that it should be accepted as evidence?
              That would mean that giants, dragons, and magic are real because they are in the Harry Potter series.

              You have edited copies of copies edited and interpeted of someone claiming there were all these witnesses at best. You are trusting that the version of the story that got to you is an accurate account of the Originial story which you assume hast to be factual. There seems to be a whole lot of assumptions and presumptions in there for it to be called evidence of any substance.

            17. Scott says:

              In testing a new drug for example.
              It is compared to placebo in double blind so that all the other factors other than drug is the same. Either they are able to detect a difference in an objective variable related to outcome or not. If a difference is detected of statistical significance showing positive for that measure between the treatment group and placebo group – then the null hypothesis (that there would be no difference) is rejected giving a positive result. If not the study failed to reject the Null hypothesis – could be from to few subjects to make any measured difference fall within an expected range which happens between samples of groups with no actual difference — hence statistical significance.

            18. Arizona Willie says:

              1000 years from now they will worship David Copperfield as God.
              There be testimony in the New Bible by thousands of
              people who personally saw him make the Statue of Liberty disappear and brought it back a little later.
              They saw it with their own eyes.
              I have faith that David Copperfield is God because the New Bible says so.

            19. Arizona Willie says:

              I believe you quoted the Bible to prove the Bible.

            20. Curt Gleason says:

              On the contrary – I quoted the Bible to show that Biblical faith is based on evidence, rather than something merely subjective. I didn’t say ‘The Bible says Jesus did miracles, so He must be the Son of God.’

              Jesus and Paul and the boys pointed to external, objective evidence as the grounds for faith. Whether you accept that evidence or not, it’s a far cry from ‘Ask for a subjective feeling that this is true.’

            21. Scott says:

              the Gosple credited to Paul says there was 500 witnesses – there is no evidence of 5, 50, 500, or even 5000 witnesses.

              You claim Jesus appealed to evidence. That is like saying that there was evidence presented against Harry Potter by the Minestry of Magic. There is a story which claims there was evidence presented in the cases in the stories. That is not evidence – it is a story in which evidence is included in the story.

              That is why using the Bible to support the claims in the Bible. You would not allow the Harry Potter series to support the factual basis of the series.

            22. Curt Gleason says:

              All I can do is to repeat this, because you’re missing the point.

              I’m not trying to prove the inspiration of the Bible. I’m not even trying to prove the reliability of the Bible. To do either by using the Bible to authenticate the Bible would be a real problem.

              I’m only using the Bible to illustrate what the Bible defines as faith. Silly me – I think the Bible is the right book to look at to find out how it defines faith.

              The accusation was made that faith is belief without evidence – or even in the face of contradictory evidence. I know faiths like that – at least that demand belief with nothing like external, objective evidence.

              Jesus said faith should be based on evidence. Paul said Christian faith is based on evidence.

              You don’t have to believe that evidence, or to find it compelling. But it’s not honest to say there is none.

            23. Scott says:

              Yet – there is a lack of any evidence or even a valid and sound argument to believe in any deities. Also, there is no independent criteria by which the 1000’s of different deities could be evaluated such that it could even be narrowed down to a handful of candidates even if one could show deities exist.

              You are using two different forms of the term ‘faith’ in the same sentence. There is having confidence in something based on information one possesses and this fuzzy meaningless and unjustified belief that the Bible is the word of God at least in some part – which begs the question that God exists.

            24. Curt Gleason says:

              That’s really humorous – I get this all the time. I present evidence to an atheist, and they say ‘That’s not proof!’ I agree, and say that there are other interpretations of the evidence. They say – See! You have no evidence!’

              Most of the thousands of ‘deities’ make no truth claims, and present no evidence at all. I’m seeing little evidence that you’re being serious, but I’ll walk through this one more time for onlookers.

              Biblical faith is not a meaningless, fuzzy, unjustified belief. It’s based on evidence that people who’ve made their minds up already are free to reject. For example, Genesis predicts that Israel won’t lose self-governance until the Messiah comes. Other prophecies speak of the Messiah coming to the Temple.

              They lost the right to determine capital cases under Roman occupation, and writings of the time lamented that ‘the scepter has passed from Judah, and the Messiah has not come!’ Jesus was alive when that happened. Jesus went to the temple. And the temple was destroyed in 70 AD – a few decades after Jesus died. Another prophecy (Daniel) said that Messiah would come on a certain date (which works out to be the day Jesus made His triumphant entry during Holy Week, and that the Messiah would later be killed and the temple destroyed.

              You can argue that this evidence isn’t impressive, because people could have made the Jesus story up so that it worked out that way. (You have no evidence for that belief, other than your wish to reject the possibility…) But how did these ancient prophets predict the order of events? How could they have known when Israel would lose the scepter, and that this would happen within a man’s lifespan of the target date from Daniel, and that the Temple would still be standing at that time?

              Maybe it’s a coincidence. You don’t have to be convinced. But it’s dishonest to pretend there is NO evidence.

            25. Scott says:

              Well, that is only evidence that interpretations of the Bible can be made to fit events. Some are even just evidence that events which happened are also referenced in the Bible – some of which occurred before the earliest versions of those parts – it does not tell you either way of which came first.
              The problem is also that which prophecies were the events predicted in advance and not the text linked to the events after the events. There is also the issue of people working to have these ‘prophecies’ come true – similar to the prophecy of ordering a well done steak and having it fulfilled.
              What about the prophecy of Tyre in Ezekiel 26 3: 1-4? Still there with a long and complete existence. Yes, it had rough times — never destroyed and razed to bare rock.

              Even if I accepted that all of the claimed prophecies were as claimed – it is in no way evidence of God. Any number of other explainations also fit those claims — time travel, clairvoyance, or even leprechauns working to fulfill prophecies for whatever reason might motivate leprechauns.
              As to your claim that I don’t have evidence of these things … I am not suggesting the ‘evidence’ supports the explainations I gave, but the point was they don’t support the claim of God any more either. The lack of specificity is part of what makes these things not really evidence. If it fits all ideas it really supports none.

            26. Curt Gleason says:

              When you say ‘Look at this prophecy – it didn’t come true!’, you are discussing evidence. We couldn’t have this discussion about the Qu’ran. A believer would say ‘It’s so beautiful – must have come from God!’ and that would be it.

            27. Scott says:

              But these predictions don’t point to a deity or your specific deity if they are true. At best, they would be evidence of at least someone or something being able to predict future events. At best.

              I would suspect that someone familiar with the other Holy Texts would disagree with your assessment that no prophesies are made.

            28. Curt Gleason says:

              I’ve read and studies a lot of holy books. There’s no prophecy in the Qu’ran, for example. Muslims often say that ‘The Qu’ran is the only miracle of Islam.’

              When some random stranger online tells me something about their views on God, I might be mildly interested. When someone shows the ability to accurately predict the future, and says it comes as a gift of God, I’m much more likely to care about what they say about God.

            29. Curt Gleason says:

              I’m trying to find where I said ‘no prophecies are made.’ I can’t find it – maybe I missed it. I DID say “Most of the thousands of ‘deities’ make no truth claims”

              I don’t see much point in continuing this. If you’d like to discuss my reasons for taking the Bible seriously, or would like to point out serious discrepancies, let me know.

            30. Scott says:

              IF someone could show they could Accurately predict the future – I would be interested in their ability to predict.
              Why or how they claim they have the ability is a completely unrelated topic – and the evidence they have the ability does not offer evidence for the cause of the ability.

            31. Curt Gleason says:

              It’s pretty clear you’re not interested in admitting there IS evidence for faith in God, much less examining it.

            32. Scott says:

              There is lots of evidence for faith (belief without evidence) in God. That is not in question at all.
              You claim that there is this other kind of ‘Faith’ and seem to think there is evidence for that – that is what is in question. Just because it is stated in a text that Jesus said to base belief on evidence and in that same text that Paul said his belief was based on evidence — that does not qualify the other claims made in that text are valid or based on evidence.
              As I compared – in the Harry Potter series the students took tests which they passed – because it is stated so in the text, should that be accepted as evidence they could perform magic?

              I am not attempting to insult your religion or your belief – I am simply comparing the argument you are making by substituting in the text and the claim of magic being real. I assume we both would not take the HP series as evidence for magic. I am welcome to hear why the analogy fails to fit.

              I honestly explained why I doubt the prophecies as claimed in the Bible and even why if I took them at face value – it still would fail in supporting the existence of any deities or God specifically.

              What make you think I am not interested in evidence that deities or specifically God exists? Because I won’t accept poor arguments which fail in being either valid or sound? Because I don’t accept hearsay and antedotes as evidence without other independent evidence to support the claims?

              I will not appologies for being rational or critical about supernatural claims since we have yet ever confirmed any supernatural claim, cause, or thing – ever.

            33. Scott says:

              Have you or anyone shown that we have records of the text making these claims before the events?
              It is easy to ‘predict’ things after the events.
              It is also easy to edit existing text after the event to fit as a ‘prediction’.
              The Burden of Proof is on the one making the claim – not on the one pointing out the weak aspects in their arguments.

            34. Curt Gleason says:

              I notice you’ve switched arguments. No longer saying that there’s no evidence – but actually calling into question the worth of that evidence.

              Yep, we have copies of OT manuscripts from before the event. And we have the writings of the Jewish authors lamenting the fact that the prophecy HADN’T come true – when in fact it had. So it’s not an interpretation laid on after the fact – as with all of Nostradamus ‘postdictions.’

              But like I said, I’m not here to defend the validity of Scripture. Only to show that this caricature of Biblical faith is wrong.

            35. Scott says:

              So, how is it that no other creation myth is not also making the same truth claims?
              What about Scientology? It makes truth claims and presents it’s own evidence. You just have to be a member of a particular level to get peices of the ‘evidence’. How is that different than having to have this ‘faith’ to ‘see/read’ the Bible in it’s true form as a for. Of evidence?

              Jesus might have said believe in me by the evidence. Paul might have said come to belief through evidence, or that he believed because of evidence. The problem is that neither present the evidence or arguments. I would not expect you to take the fact that the characters in Harry Potter went to classes and had exams in the series as evidence that magic is real. Yet you seem to think that because it is stated in the Bible that it is said faith is reached through evidence it counts.

            36. Curt Gleason says:

              Again, I’m using the three terms as they are used in epistemology. Pure logic is based on assumptions you don’t try to prove, and you reason according to agreed-upon rules. The results are eternal and universal – everyone should get the same answers on a math test, and the answers to the same problem don’t change from year to year. Scientific ‘truths’ are tentative and subject to change – about all we can say is ‘this works so far,’ or ‘no one has shown this to be wrong.’ It sounds funny, but scientific proof is really the lack of disproof. An experiment is designed to disprove a hypothesis, and if it doesn’t, all we can say is ‘It still seems to work.’

              If we ran relationships like this, we’d hold the statement ‘I can trust my friend’ as a tentative hypothesis, and try to disprove it. We have a word for people like that. They’re called ‘lonely.’ Trusting a friend works just the same as biblical faith. It’s not based on a complete lack of evidence. (I wouldn’t ask a stranger to hold my wallet…) It’s sure not based on belief in spite of the evidence – I wouldn’t ask a known thief to hold my wallet. But there are lots of people I would trust with my life, and not just my money. I do so because of our experiences together. That’s evidence that I choose to accept.

              Faith based on no evidence is wishful thinking. Faith in spite of all evidence is mental illness. (I’m a little teapot, short and stout… No, really. I’m a teapot…)

            37. Scott says:

              How is ‘faith’ different than blindly trusting – without any evidence?
              What evidence is there that any deity needs to exist in our universe?
              What evidence is there that any deity does exist in our universe?
              What independent criteria is there to distinguish false vs. real deities claimed to have existed?
              Same three questions can be posed asking for valid and sound arguments also.

              A logical argument can be valid as long as the conclusions follow the premises. It is only sound if it can be shown that the premises can be supported as true also.

              A science experiment is actually designed to test the null hypothesis, not the actual hypothesis the prediction was based on – it is a stats thing, this gives the options of rejecting the null hypothesis (a positive result) or failing to reject the null hypothesis ( a lack of positive result). The lack of positive result is often called a negative result – it can be there was no effect or the design/methods were not sufficient to detect any difference.

            38. Curt Gleason says:

              ‘How is ‘faith’ different than blindly trusting – without any evidence?’

              I don’t know any other way to say it, so I’ll repeat myself. The kind of faith I’m talking about – when you decide to trust a friend, or when I believe in the Bible – is based on evidence. You might think it’s clever to compare the Bible to Harry Potter, but the differences are obvious. The Bible contains many examples of fulfilled predictive prophecy, for example.

              Jesus quoted Psalm 22 while He was dying on the cross. It begins: ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ and goes on to describe a death by crucifixion in so much detail that skeptics 100 years ago believed it must have been written after Jesus’ death and inserted into the OT. However, a handwritten copy of it – dating from long before the time of Jesus – was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In order to avoid admitting they were wrong, some people changed the translation from ‘They pierce my hands and my feet.’ to ‘Like a lion, my hands and my feet.’ (Which is gibberish.)

              That’s evidence. You don’t have to be convinced by it. But it’s not honest to contend that there’s no evidence to support Christian faith.

              14 I am poured out like water,
              and all my bones are out of joint.
              My heart has turned to wax;
              it has melted within me.
              15 My mouth is dried up like a potsherd,
              and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
              you lay me in the dust of death.

              16 Dogs surround me,
              a pack of villains encircles me;
              they pierce my hands and my feet.
              17 All my bones are on display;
              people stare and gloat over me.
              18 They divide my clothes among them
              and cast lots for my garment.

            39. Scott says:

              Wow, though there are three different versions of ‘last words’.
              What makes you believe any one of the accounts is accurate?
              So – the phrase existed before and someone attributed it to Jesus.
              So, you find the Bible to be accurate. Even given the large number of serious contradictions within itself. The miss mash of the Resurrection is a clear example.
              What about Trye – refuting the prophecies in Ezekiel 26:3 1-4

            40. Curt Gleason says:

              Please see my reply to Arizona Willie below, where I’ve welcomed the start of a new discussion on the reliability of the Bible. I’d be happy to discuss it with you, and anyone who cares to join in. I’ve been told for decades that there are serious contradictions,’ but the worst thing I’ve found is a discrepancy in the sequence of events during Holy Week,

              Quickly though, you bring up a common misconception when people claim there are contradictions in the Bible. It’s true, the gospels give differing accounts of Jesus’ last words. If each said ‘This is what Jesus said, and it’s the only thing He said,’ we’d have a serious contradiction. But the same problem could be said of the gospels in general – why does this author mention this particular event or parable, and another doesn’t?

              It’s simple. The gospels don’t claim to be all-inclusive stories of everything Jesus said and did, in chronological order. As a matter of fact, John says ‘Jesus also did many other things.’ Most of the ‘discrepancies’ people bring up are of this nature, but I’d be happy to discuss others. Please invite me to a discussion on that!

            41. Arizona Willie says:

              You’re quoting the Bible to ” prove ” the Bible.
              An accurate description of crucifixion isn’t difficult to understand. Crucifixion was a fairly standard method of putting people to death and it was a public spectacle staged and attended by most of the people in the town / city by order of the authorities in order to show people what happen to them if they screwed up. The normal person had seen several / many crucifixions during their lifetime, so they knew exactly what happened.
              But, even then they got it wrong. They did not crucify with nails / spikes through the palms — your weight would tear them right through your hand. They crucified with spikes through the wrist.
              Strange that there are historical accounts of the proper way to crucify but the Bible got it wrong and said they nailed him through the palms.
              Almost like it was written after crucifixion was no longer practiced and they had never seen one.
              Because the people who wrote it lived long after the time of Christ.
              People today tend to think of people back then living much like we do today and they don’t realize how primitive things were 2000 years ago.
              There was no central heating, no air conditioning, no electricity, no cars or bicycles. They didn’t even have glass for their windows. The people lived in mud huts or houses built of stone if they were rich. The average person could neither read nor write nor do arithmetic beyond counting on his fingers and toes. There were no logic courses.

            42. Curt Gleason says:

              I originally quoted the Bible to demonstrate the Biblical model of faith. I’m not about to dive into a demonstration of the reliability of Scripture here – although I invited another skeptic to start another discussion on that topic. Please feel free to do so. I’ll be happy to join you there. I’m new here and kind of a dinosaur, so you’ll have to tell me how to find that discussion.

              I will take time to point out some obvious problems with your post. You say ‘Almost like it was written after crucifixion was no longer practiced and they had never seen one. Because the people who wrote it lived long after the time of Christ.’

              Do you imagine that crucifixions ended with Jesus’ death? It was widely practiced in the Roman Empire at least until the time of Constantine in the 4th century AD. Since we have manuscripts of the Gospel accounts from long before then, it’s simply silly to say that the authors were ignorant of crucifixion. (About as silly as re-translating Psalm 22 to read ‘Like a lion my hands and my feet.’ when the standard translation becomes inconvenient.)

              You also say ‘An accurate description of crucifixion isn’t difficult to understand. Crucifixion was a fairly standard method of putting people to death…’

              It’s funny – you just got done saying they botched the description of crucifixion in the Gospels… Anyway, the earliest record we have of crucifixion comes centuries after the time of King David, by the way. I invite you to read the whole Psalm, which gives a detailed, first-person account of his horrific death at the hands of his enemies. Then explain why David, who died at home, in bed, wrote that…

              I also recommend that you re-read the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. All they say is ‘They crucified Him,’ with no mention of where they placed the nails. It’s true that Thomas asks to see the risen Jesus’ “cheiras.” But that word is often used where ‘wrist’ (karpos) might be more precise. Peter is described as having shackles on his ‘cheiras,’ although I bet they really went around his wrists. Another passage talks about bracelets for a woman’s ‘cheiras.’

              Did artists portraying the Crucifixion get it wrong? Almost certainly. Does that call into question the reliability of the Bible? Not at all.

            43. Curt Gleason says:

              I don’t think we’re in disagreement about the purpose of a scientific hypothesis. My point is that an experiment can never ‘prove’ a hypothesis. For example, Eddington’s experiment with light bending around the Sun didn’t prove general relativity. It was consistent with the predictions made by Einstein, and inconsistent with the predictions made by Newton, but that’s awkward, and nowhere near as exciting to report.

              I think my point stands. All we can say of a successful theory or hypothesis is ‘It works so far.’ I’m okay with that. I’m a published scientist who’s studied the history and philosophy of science. It’s limited but awfully darned useful!

            44. Scott says:

              I don’t disagree with your take on what can be determined from experimental results.

            45. TruthTeller says:

              For decades there was a positive claim that the universe started with a Big Bang. There was no “proof” offered nor available. Yet anyone who dared to dispute it was laughed at and ostracized. It was as simple a matter of faith as anything proposed by religion. Perhaps you are unaware, but recently the many holes in the Big Bang theory grew too expansive, and scientists have now decided that it didn’t happen that way. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the universe may be “eternal”. (Don’t blame me. These aren’t theists – anything but.) The fact is, MANY things in science are matters of faith. Explain paired electrons to me, and explain why Einstein was forced to refer to the phenomenon as “spooky action at a distance”. Then come back and tell me that one faith is superior to another. Until then, you’re just howling at the moon.

            46. Arizona Willie says:

              All beliefs have a ” faith ” component at some level.
              Even mathematicians take it on ” faith ” that 2+2=4.
              But some ” faith ” is backed by empirical evidence, such as that faith in mathematics.
              There is exactly ZERO empirical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.
              And even less that he was the Son of God.

            47. Curt Gleason says:

              We’ve been discussing empirical evidence. Josephus’ “Antiquities,” in which he mentions Jesus, is a real book. Manuscripts of it exist. Same with Tacitus’ “Annals,” which also mention Jesus.

              Math and geometric proofs are not a matter of ‘faith,’ They’re statements based on logic. As such, there’s no need to consider it tentative or incomplete (as scientific ‘truths’ are). Have you ever studied epistemology? It can be confusing when we use common words in a technical sense. Accuracy and precision mean very different things in science than they do in general usage…

            48. Elene Gusch, DOM says:

              The question here is whether a person, Jesus, existed on this planet during a certain time period. That has nothing to do with the supernatural.

            49. Scott says:

              Well, the clam of someone with the name Jesus existing is an claim that is easy – yes. If any person by the name of Jesus can satisfy the claim of thee being a son of God — but, I suspect that few Christians would accept that.
              Since the Jesus being discussed is a supernatural being, in human flesh or not, I would say the topic is rather relevant.

            50. Scott says:

              So? Are you claiming that we have less references to Hannibal?

            51. Nils says:

              Yeah. All of the accounts of Hannibal’s activities date to decades or centuries after the fact.

            52. Scott says:

              Well here are a couple references which refute your claim – that took me all of a 4 min seach.
              As well as the number of different positions he held in different regimes as well as a rather complete adult history in detail and from several independent sources … I will call BS on your claim.
              The accounts of Jesus are on the other hand sparse, from limited and not all that independent of sources and there are huge gaps.

            53. Nils says:

              Of all the ancient writers discussing Hannibal Barca, only Polybius is really a contemporary, and he’s 20 years old when Hannibal dies, writing much later. Livy lives over 100 years later, Plutarch much later on.

            54. Robert Hudson says:

              Read the pair of books by Richard Carrier’s
              Proving History:Bayes’s theorem and the quest for the historical Jesus.
              On the Historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt.

            55. Grossman says:

              Richard Carrier is the Michael Behe of history. Not worth my time or yours.

            56. Arizona Willie says:

              No, the first written mention of Jesus was over 100 years later.

            57. Curt Gleason says:

              You can say that as often as you like, but Josephus (Antiquities) and Tacitus (Annals XV) mentioned Him, and both died less than 100 years after Jesus’ death.

            58. Arizona Willie says:

              I’m not sure you are correct about no written mentions of Hannibal. But, that was long before the time of Christ and writing was even rarer then. Far fewer people knew how to write.
              And nobody based a religion on the life of Hannibal.

          2. Arizona Willie says:

            The Romans were known for keeping excellent and meticulous records. If they had had a problem with a person named Jesus they would have recorded it. Historians say there are MANY records from Roman times in the area but not one mention of Jesus until at least 100 years later. Written mentions.

            1. GregoryR says:

              They didn’t keep record of every single individual the crucified in what was considered to be the backwater that was was first century Palestine.

            2. Arizona Willie says:

              Jesus had a large following that wanted him to lead a military coup and kick the Romans out.

              Remember the parade into Jerusalem? The streets were lined with followers which DEFINITELY had the attention of the Romans.

              And, Pontius Pilate didn’t want to kill him and did so only after the crowd demanded it.

              Which would be so unusual that that in itself would have been noteworthy and recorded.

              There are NO / ZERO / NADA records of Jesus having lived in the record of any country.

              Not until over 100 years did any of the books which became the Bible get written by human beings with all their greed and need.

              The Bible itself did not exist until ( I believe ) the Council of Nicea where they picked and chose among the various written “accounts ” which ones they wanted to include and which ones they wanted to exclude. Which also shows there was a whole hell of a lot of cherry picking going on, just like the Fundamentalists do today.

            3. GregoryR says:

              Utter nonsense.
              Jesus wasn’t a militant. That theory has only been broached recently and by someone with as much credibility as Dan Brown.
              The fact is Jesus would have been seen as one of any number of troublemakers in the region.
              If he had been seen as anything but some problem for the Jewish authorities at the Temple they MAY have felt it necessary to document him. But it’s clear he wasn’t or they’d have said something. They simply crucified him like they did large numbers of other low level criminals (which is what crucifixion was reserved for) to shut up a few religious leaders in order to shut them up. Had he been a political military threat it’s more likely they’d capture him and March him to Rome to die in front of the Emperor as was the custom (see the Gaul Vercingetorix for example).
              The bible was compiled post Nicaea and only a few copies were transcribed in its entirety. The actual canon stayed fairly fluid until the Renaissance and then only in Western Europe.
              The earliest writing extant are from Paul and date between 45-60 AD.
              The Gospels are written shortly after.
              Prior to that everything was an oral history. There is a strain of thought that once existed in both Judaism and Christianity that didn’t favour writing things of this nature down.
              The Bible exists not as the foundation of Christianity but because it is a product of it.

        3. Gina says:

          the historian Josephus speaks about Jesus, are they gonna say Josephus didn’t exist either?

          1. Scott says:

            He was decades later writing about the stories being told at the time. He is not contemporary.

          2. Scott says:

            Did his 12 lines about Jesus written by him?
            For as important as Jesus was – does the coverage given compare to the other characters covered by Josephus?

            Josephus was getting stories people were telling about Jesus – decades after. It is all these things which don’t end up giving much weight to Josephus as convincing.

        4. Patricia Charles says:

          No doubt a man named Jesus existed, BUT a religion was built around him by other men… not by him. The story of Horus–so similar was deciphered Egyptian Hieroglyphics–imbedded in stone thousands of years BEFORE Jesus.

        5. Macacamulatta says:

          I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest that Jesus was a real person. However, there appear to have been a lot of Jesus-like zealots around at the time. The Jesus we know today, however, was a complete reinvention of the historical Jesus. That explains why Jesus contradicts himself in the Gospels. The gospels were subjected to a lot of editing after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 when the utter devastation wrought by the Romans not only eliminated the Jerusalem Jesus cult who believed in Jesus as ministering only to Jews but also resulted in a massive remarking of Jesus as an entirely peaceful, love and goodwill deity. The subsequent fusion of this pacific cult with Roman paganism gave rise to what we have today.

          1. TruthTeller says:

            A bit of an over-simplification, but that’s understandable, considering the forum. I’m not sure I would buy everything you say, nor the implications. But, by and large, there is a LOT of truth there.

        6. Macacamulatta says:

          I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest that Jesus was a real person. However, there appear to have been a lot of Jesus-like zealots around at the time. The Jesus we know today, however, was a complete reinvention of the historical Jesus. That explains why Jesus contradicts himself in the Gospels. The gospels were subjected to a lot of editing after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 when the utter devastation wrought by the Romans not only eliminated the Jerusalem Jesus cult who believed in Jesus as ministering only to Jews but also resulted in a massive remarking of Jesus as an entirely peaceful, love and goodwill deity. The subsequent fusion of this pacific cult with Roman paganism gave rise to what we have today.

        7. Macacamulatta says:

          I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest that Jesus was a real person. However, there appear to have been a lot of Jesus-like zealots around at the time. The Jesus we know today, however, was a complete reinvention of the historical Jesus. That explains why Jesus contradicts himself in the Gospels. The gospels were subjected to a lot of editing after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 when the utter devastation wrought by the Romans not only eliminated the Jerusalem Jesus cult who believed in Jesus as ministering only to Jews but also resulted in a massive remarking of Jesus as an entirely peaceful, love and goodwill deity. The subsequent fusion of this pacific cult with Roman paganism gave rise to what we have today.

        8. Janice Pushinsky says:

          This is what people who don’t want to believe say when they rebel. As if they deny God’s existence then they can still sin without fear of going to he’ll. How is it that they just know the other stories were written first? Perhaps all those other stories were copied from the Bible? As like there is someone who is alive to say ” oh yeah that happened first and not that”. But in the end every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.
          P.S. when I seen the title I knew it was going to be either an Atheist or Agnostic writer. Funny how people who don’t believe spend their lives trying to prove themselves right. Why does it interest them so much that they have the same amount of energy as a Preacher during revival celebration, and the same need to encourage others to believe in the same. Ok steps off pulpit.

          1. Scott says:

            Because those who do believe think they have the right to be BIGOTS and not face being called out on it, because of their beliefs — that is why non-believers give a shit about this. Forcing your views onto others on the basis of belief without being able to support the validity of your claims — does harm to the society and individuals.
            When religion is used as an justification to restrict or limit the freedom of others — it is just a cop out.

        9. Arizona Willie says:

          Jess, there is NOT ONE single historical document, from the time of Christ, that even mentions him. And the Romans were notorious record keepers. They have found literally thousands of items from the ‘ time of Christ ‘ but not one single record that proves he existed.

          NOT ONE.

          The first written mention of Christ was over 100 years later.

          1. Curt Gleason says:

            Josephus and Tacitus mentioned him in writing sooner than 100 years…

            That’s not hard to look up, either.

            1. Scott says:

              So, if the first accounts of Elvis were from now. Well within the 100 year mark – you would want people to believe all the accounts to be accurate and not have fiction mixed in with truth – in ways we have no way of distinguishing between? That would be a joke of an argument. What about accounts of characters from fiction – Brady Bunch, Giligan’s Island. If it was not for reruns, it would be interesting to hear the wild retelling of stories – and yes, people do insert themselves into stories when they tell them enough – becoming ‘witnesses’ even in there own mind when they were not. All more plausible as explanations of supernatural events than stories and conflicting accounts of events decades before.

            2. Curt Gleason says:

              C’mon, Scott – you’re not even trying.

              I’m refuting the untruth (that’s the kind word) that Arizona Willie keeps bringing up – that the accounts of Jesus’ life are untrustworthy because they were written more than a century after His time. That’s simply not true, and that’s all I said.

              Now, it’s a legitimate question to ask whether those accounts are credible. Not everything everyone now says about Elvis is true. But they’re false or suspect for other reasons than being a century old. If you doubt the accounts of Jesus in Tacitus and Josephus (and Suetonius, and…) – fine. But do so for honest reasons.

              I didn’t try to prove the reliability of the gospels, or the extra-biblical accounts. We can look into that, too – if you’d like.

              I still don’t know how to start a discussion, or how to invite people to join it. Please start one up if you’d like, and I’ll gladly join in.

            3. dbwindhorst says:

              Nope; both are widely considered by critical researchers to be retcons. This was already addressed upthread.

            4. Curt Gleason says:

              Psalm 22 was widely considered to be a Christian retcon by liberal, skeptical critics until the DSS were found. After that, they either changed their minds or changed the translation… I’m underwhelmed, and you’re 3 months behind the discussion…

          2. Mark says:

            Again:

            At the same time, it’s already been correctly mentioned that early christians were deemed a threat and much of their writings and artifactual evidence were destroyed. Or is it that these facts are just too inconvenient for some of you to deal with? WOW!!!

            1. Arizona Willie says:

              If that were true I would ask this question:

              Why would God send his son Jesus to Earth and let Him be crucified and let Christianity get started and have the books of the Bible written while He guided their hands and minds as they wrote those books and then let them be destroyed?

              The Universe is a logical place.
              God gave us logic ( if he exists ).
              Why would such a logical being, who made everything function in such a logicial / scientific manner turn around and do such an illogical thing?

              The ” claim ” that there is no evidence of Christ because it was destroyed is just so much bullcrap.

              The Romans kept excellent records and according to the Bible, Jesus stirred up a shit storm. Remember the parade into Jerusalem with Jesus riding an ass?

              That was NOT normal. It attracted the attention of the authorities.

              But Pilate had judged Christ was no threat. He refused to kill Christ. Finally with the rabbi led mobs screaming for him to be crucified he figured it wasn’t worth the potential problems of aggravating a lot of people so he gave them what they wanted.

              Do you really think they didn’t record all that? They would never have failed to make notes of such a tremendous event as the crowd backing Pilate down and intimidating him into killing Jesus.

              There are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus because HE DID NOT EXIST.

              The Christian religion is composed of elements that were in other contemporary and, previous to the time of Christ, religions.

              There is nothing new in Christianity.

              Just a different bunch of con men.

            2. Arizona Willie says:

              No they were not considered a threat. Pilate kept trying to refuse to have Jesus killed. Finally the rabbi inspired mob shouting for Jesus to be crucified intimidted him. He figured it was too much trouble to resist and the mob might riot so he let them crucify Jesus.

              PILATE DID NOT CONSIDER JESUS A THREAT.

              The Jewish mob on the other hand was considered a threat.

              You know what? Not only are there no contemporary historical records of Jesus of Nazareth, there are no records of the Apostles either. They are only in the Books of the Bible and claimed as the authors of those books. But scholars have determined that several people were involved in the writing of each book because of different literary styles and phrasings.

              The entire religion was faked.

              All religions are fakes.

        10. Arizona Willie says:

          No — there are NOT any historical documents about Jesus.

          NONE

          Period

          Don’t exist

          Never did

          The Romans were notorious record keepers and anyone who caused as much upset as Jesus supposedly did would have been recorded.

          NOTHING about him in Roman records.

        11. Raizurhk says:

          The man himself may very well have existed but no way in the way the church tries to say he did.

        12. Jordan says:

          You are correct. However, the Dec 25th celebration was a Roman tradition in which each community designated 1 person who was tortured and raped and eventually killed. It was the empires way of allowing people to get all their aggression out. It lasted for 7 days and the name escapes me. I think it has something to do with Jupiter but I am likely mistaken.

        13. rocky_rhodes says:

          Bullshit they don’t exist

      3. Gina says:

        but if Jesus were not real then he would have faded into the background like these false messiahs. but he hasn’t, because He is the only real true Messiah, the Son of the living God.

        1. Scott says:

          Why do you claim that – and on what basis?

          And what about the other deities who are popular? Is the truth decided by popularity?

          Yeah, that works. NOT

        2. Marcus Aurelius says:

          Given your argument, Muhammad must be the one true Messenger of Allah and Jesus is just a prophet but not the son of god, since 1.3 billion Muslims believe it to be the truth.
          I mean, otherwise, Muhammad would have just faded into the background like all the other false prophets. 🙂 Oh, and the Hindu gods must be real. Nearly 700 million Hindus are proof of that!

      4. Van A. Henson says:

        Could you show where the Bible says that Jesus was born on December 25th? If not it would appear that you are calling BS on a falsehood which would be BS. Also, where do you get the idea that he was born in the spring? Considering the timeline given for his cousin John’s announcement/conception/birth and the meeting of the two mothers, it’s more likely that Jesus was born late December (probably during Hannukah).

      5. NoThanksNecessary says:

        Ummm… I won’t bother to argue every single weird point you try to make. But NOWHERE in the current Bible does it suggest December 25 for the birth date of Jesus. So trying to use that “point” to invalidate other points is just twisted. It is well known that the Roman Catholic Church appropriated many pagan holidays, so that the people they wanted to subjugate would not notice too much change at one time. But to suggest that the remnants of the Roman Empire are somehow the official representatives of Christianity is… well… silly.

        But let’s look a moment at what you say. Assume that it is even true. You claim that because (you claim) Christians claim that Jesus was born on Dec. 25, we know that a lot of what they say in their book is pure BS as well. So if a person makes one mis-statement, we KNOW that much of everything else they say is also wrong? Do they not teach logic classes in college anymore?

        How about this. Barack Obama said that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan”. We know now that was false. Therefore we know that a lot of the other things he says are also false. Or how about this: Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sex with that woman”. The blue dress proves otherwise. Therefore, based on that alone, we know that most of the things Bill said were lies.

        You can’t have it both ways. It’s your logical fallacy. Live with it, or admit it belongs in the discard pile.

      6. OpenDebate says:

        “Their book” – referring to the Bible? Nowhere in the Bible it is stated that Jesus was born on Dec 25th. Much of what the “Christian religion” is viewed by people today, was construed through the ages by the Roman Catholic church, which was a forgery to keep the spreading of The Good News at bay. Kind of a “if you can’t beat them, join them” scenario, except that the Romans managed to hijack the whole thing.

      7. GregoryR says:

        Actually Ancient Egyptian religions, Persian religions and Indian religions are all quite well documented and studied.
        This article is pablum for conspiracy minded types and not rooted in much of anything that a first year ancient civ student couldn’t debunk with just a little work.

    3. raino says:

      I do think it’s funny that we’re attempting to use fictional stories in order to prove/disprove another fictional story. If you step back and look at it all, religion is basically the old world version of comic-book nerds arguing with each other (except they’ll kill you if you disagree).

      1. MatthewTanner says:

        The point is, this story has been told a few times before. Get it?

        1. James Turner says:

          Well uh, history repeats itself man so you ain’t proving anything. – And I’m sure there are bible verses which can be construed to prove it.

          1. Dennis R. White says:

            History does NOT repeat itself. Each moment is distinct from all others.

    4. Gina says:

      I could read it, lol …very good rebuttal.

    5. Boothby171 says:

      Thank you for this. (And Zeitgeist IS quite the laugh)

    6. Cybermom says:

      All of the sources on that “flyer” are from web pages, really NOT the “end all ” in reliable sources. Suggest you disprove this article by using well-documented research. I’m not saying that all of the proposed similarities are accurate….just that good research always has good, reliable documentation.

    7. Jesús Cuauhtémoc Villa says:

      This! Oh my God, thank you!

      I’m an anthropologist & religious studies scholar – these conflated /invented parallels always drive me up the wall. I love that there’s now a meme I can go to instead of typing the whole thing out 😛

    8. Theresa says:

      Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris (the chick was a badass), except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish or a crab or whatever penis eating water creature was around. Without a penis, I’m gonna say virgin birth.

  21. jj says:

    Can I just say that the immaculate conception was NOT Mary suddenly getting pregnant with Jesus. The immaculate conception was Mary’s mother becoming pregnant with Mary so that she was born without sin so that she could carry the child of God. Immaculate conception has nothing to do with Jesus’ conception and I wish people would stop confusing it.

    1. Curt Gleason says:

      That glaring mistake shows how seriously we should take the rest of these claims…

      1. Hamish says:

        “The immaculate conception was Mary’s mother becoming pregnant with Mary so that she was born without sin so that she could carry the child of God.” A misconception I shared too, if you excuse the pun! However, Mary is impregnated by the holy spirit which is why people get confused. I know I was. Both require an act of faith on the part of the believer which I don’t share. Intersting discussion!

        1. Curt Gleason says:

          Good stuff, Hamish. I certainly wasn’t trying here to persuade anyone to believe in the virgin birth, or the immaculate conception. Just trying to show that our author is badly confused on something that’s easily checked, which makes me reluctant to trust her on more obscure things…

    2. Lottie Richard says:

      Hi jj. Please see comment below made to CarolStrick

  22. Harry says:

    Can you site the evidences to back these up. The sources, ancient texts, scholarly papers, etc.? They would be great to have if they exist.

    1. Curt Gleason says:

      I’m sure she can’t, because these points are not based on actual ancient texts or scholarly papers. But I’d love to see them, if they exist.

      1. Frank says:

        Hard to do scholarly research when a lot of the scholarship was being destroyed by the christians.

        1. Curt Gleason says:

          She didn’t even get the idea of the Immaculate Conception right, and seems to think it’s significant that Jesus and Osiris are both shown as having beards. Can’t blame that on evil Christians destroying stuff…

  23. Curt Gleason says:

    This is wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to start. They’ve got the myth of Osiris, Isis and Horus all wrong. Osiris wasn’t resurrected after 3 days in hell, and Horus didn’t have a virgin birth. Osiris was killed and his body hacked into 14 pieces. isis recovered 13 of them, but couldn’t find his penis. So she made an artificial one for him, and used a spell to animate his reconstructed corpse long enough for it to impregnate her, after which he stayed dead. The author doesn’t know what she’s talking about with the ‘immaculate conception’ thing with Buddha, either. That doesn’t refer to Jesus not having a human father, but to Mary being born without the stain of original sin… The earliest texts we have detailing anything about Buddhism were written centuries after Jesus’ time, which pretty much shreds her premise… Yeesh.

    1. Nils says:

      This is the same crappy string of anti-Jesus claims that gets passed around on the internet and is for some reason eaten up by people. Don’t believe Jesus is God? Fine, that’s your prerogative. But don’t perpetuate lies to make yourself look better.

      1. Lottie Richard says:

        Hi Nils,
        There is nothing anti-Jesus about this story. Apparently a great number of readers have read it and were offended, which I have no control over. However, none of the story is propaganda and none of it is anti-Jesus or anti-Christian.

        1. Nils says:

          It may not be so for you, but it is and has been used as such–these claims were created with specific ideologies in mind (e.g., Massey wanted to hold up Egypt as the originator of all of Western culture). I’m not so much offended as tired of seeing the same pseudohistorical claims coming up time and time again–as others have mentioned here, the claims you have included don’t actually match with the real claims of either Christianity or Hinduism, ancient Egyptian religion, Buddhism, or Mithraism. More research would be helpful here.

          1. Lottie Richard says:

            As I said, I have no control over how people interpret my writing. And for the record, they DO stand up, some of them are just not the mainstream beliefs. But for the record, many, many scholars subscribe to these particular versions of the myths.

            1. Nils says:

              Who are these “many scholars”?

            2. Curt Gleason says:

              What are the sources for these versions of the myths? For example, Plutarch gives one version of the Horus stories.

        2. Nils says:

          Also, considering that you sourced much of your article from D.M. Murdock, who most definitely has an agenda, I would caution you about your claims that none of it is “propaganda.”

    2. Lottie Richard says:

      Hi Curt,
      Go ahead and take some courses on comparative mythology and get back to me.
      Also, please note the note at the beginning of the story acknowledging the controversies of some of the stories.
      That being said, interpretations and translations of various documents are what leads to the differing stories. As I learned when I did my historiography and thesis in Ramesses III, some of the most contested aspects of any ancient study is just that: translation and interpretation.
      For the record, just because one scholar disagrees with another scholar, it does not mean the first scholar’s work is “debunked.” It just means that it is debatable, as is almost anything, especially when looking at antiquity.
      So you have subscribed to one version of the stories. That’s fine. But your belief does not make anothers false; it just means that you disagree and subscribe to another translations and interpretation.
      I get the feeling from your multiple comments on here that you must think you know a thing or two, and probably will still believe that you are right and I am wrong. But that’s okay! We will agree to disagree.

      1. Curt Gleason says:

        Hi Lottie,

        Thanks for the advice. I’ve taken classes on comparative religion, and did very well in them. I do know a thing or two. One is that the fact that Osiris and Jesus are both depicted as being bearded men means exactly nothing… Another one is that anyone who wants to be taken seriously provides references for things that are not obvious. If I quote an odd version of a myth, I’ll gladly provide a source, like ‘In Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the story is told of how…’ Or even ‘Bullfinch quotes Ovid as saying that Apollo…

  24. Ash says:

    I find this a very interesting article but it always fascinates me how people get immaculate conception wrong. Immaculate conception does NOT refer to Jesus’ birth. It refers to Mary’s conception in her mother’s womb. Immaculate conception is not synonymous with virginal birth. It refers to Mary being born without sin.

    1. Frank says:

      Where exactly is that in the bible?

      1. Curt Gleason says:

        It’s not a biblical doctrine.

  25. Amr Raven says:

    You are fabricating the part of Osiris and Jesus, I assure you non of what you wrote was right including the names!
    I’m Egyptian and I know my history well.

  26. AldeneF says:

    Well, this is depressing….

  27. JC Love says:

    I think the concept of “JESUS” has already robbed humanity of enough progress, time, common sense and truth… It is time for us to focus on to the reality of what works for the greater good.

  28. Magnolia Bob says:

    There’s no doubt Chrisitan writers borrowed a lot from the ancient mystery religions in shaping the story of Jesus the Christ. On manylevels, the author of this little article has at best oversimplified the myths on which they drew and at worst got themwrong. But this is all really beside thepoint, for Christianity stands or falls not on what it borrowed from mystery religions to help tell its story, but on the historical Jesus of Nazareth — the rabbi-teacher, religious reformer, mystic, healer, charismatic man of compassion who proclaimed the presence of the Kingdom of God and called on all who could hear and understand his words to collaborate with God in transforming the world’s socio-political structure into one grounded in distributive justice and non-violent power. A MAN his followers understood as God because of what he said and did when he walked the earth and his mysterious ongoing
    presence with them after his death. The historical Jesus is the basis of Christianity more so than parables based on myths on which writers drew as they struggled to explain him.

  29. Dan Buckheit says:

    According to tradition (your piece on Buddha) in Catholicism the immaculate conception was Mary, not Jesus. Jesus was the virgin birth.

  30. Richard Anderson says:

    I don’t see this as an “attack” on Christianity. The author is simply pointing out some similarities and recurring themes. Why are Christians so defensive? It is not a “war” on anyone….Sheeesh.

  31. britannica says:

    Honestly, does this discussion really matter if you don’t believe in a diety? There are several people in the comments claiming to be athiests, who are knocking the article for a lack of sources, when really, the opposite argument (that Jesus was somehow unique) only has one source, and I’m pretty sure everyone knows what that is. So, if you want a source read the Ramayana, or the other religious texts mentioned. The fact is: NONE of them are absolute truth. NONE of these myths are in any way believable or backed up by any kind of evidence. To argue the truth and fallacies of any of these stories is an act of vanity. It’s a waste of time, unless you are a historian and this is your lifeblood.
    And to the Christians, please don’t think this article is a common argument to the belief in Jesus. Athiests don’t believe Jesus is the son of god, because we don’t have faith in it, and there is no evidence to back it up. Not because there are a million other myths out there. We don’t believe in any of those either.

  32. Jesusisking says:

    Crap

  33. j says:

    Where is the story of Krishna found. I’ve read the gita, is it in the mahabarata?

    1. New age says:

      Mahabharata

  34. DestryDanger says:

    You did bad and you should feel bad.

  35. DesertSun59 says:

    The information in this article originated from DM Murdock. Do you see her name anywhere listed as the source? You do not. That’s because this is plagiarized.

  36. sigzero says:

    None of those is even close. lol

  37. Sandy Culver Garcia says:

    Agnosticism is a cop out. You either believe or you don’t. Get a life. And by the way, a virgin birth is an easy thing to accomplish. How dare you presume to call out an entire medical community both then, and now, on this? And what you say only gives more precedence to the life of Jesus Christ. And by the way, I am an atheist. But I am not stupid.

  38. Satan went back 3000 years in time and wrote the story of Horus to confuse the world. Satan also went back 48 millions years ago and burried dinosaur bones in the ground, just to mess with our minds. True story.

  39. Jason Heisler says:

    Oooh you’re going to hell.

  40. GrantRCanada says:

    I am by no means religious – being an agnostic also – but I did get some of the obligatory inculcation into biblical lore, and if not mistaken you are actually referring to the story of the birth of Moses when you make this statement: ” Like Jesus, when Krishna was born, a tyrant had ordered the slaughter of all newborns.”

    1. Nils says:

      No, the slaughter of the innocents is undertaken by Herod in order to protect his rule from the prophesied coming of Jesus. Moses was similarly threatened.

  41. Derp says:

    How is Horus older than Osiris when Horus was the Son of Osiris?

  42. ottisot says:

    If people of this planet were to know our real history and
    how far back it goes, and then maybe we will find out that we have a third
    group that does not want us to get together and focus on fighting them. Through our human history we were started by
    a group that just engineered us from what was found here. We were breed to be
    able to get the minerals, food products and whatever else was needed by our
    makers to be shipped off this planet.

    They had developed us to be able to interact and communicate
    thru the intermixing of their DNA. Later it was discovered that “The Gods”
    could interbreed with us. This upset the head people in charge and at first it
    was determined to wipe us off this world, then the ones that wanted to keep us,
    got more involved, and the warning was heeded by some of us, Then a few were saved to repopulate. In the times of the Roman Empire, They were
    finding a way to “Control” there Conquests, then found and reformatted the
    Christ birth, the major religion, out of Italy was born for Control Purpose.

    This and other religion were formed to keep us fighting each
    other so that all the Beings form here could not get together and fight against
    them.

  43. James says:

    Ummm… Jess I’m afraid that is absolutely Not True, sure there are many documents decades after Jesus supposed death, but during his actual time on earth according to many writers and scholars of that time period 2 b.c. through 33 a.d. there is not even one writing that backs up the Jesus Story when the Bible was crafted by Jewish Rabbi that was literally almost 300 years after supposed death. You would think with all the writings from poets, philosophers and the like that there would be at least 1 documentation on Jesus life death or works from that era but there is none, nada, zip…you have once again been mislead period. … any true Theological Major who is Being honest will tell you the same.

  44. Bill Nada says:

    There are far better reasons to not believe religion than the half-truths of BS artists like D.M. Murdock.

  45. Gina says:

    satan has always been good at counterfeiting, the anti Christ that will come will be his best work yet. he will fool many, including you if you don’t get a clue before then.

  46. GodsAmerica says:

    Well, considering the Hebraic Covenant (AKA Old Testament) spoke about
    all of this long before all the phony religions started popping up all
    over the place. Which would mean that the phony religions copied what
    God spoke about in the Hebraic Covenant)!

  47. antonio says:

    Religion nowadays… It’s exclusively for the poor and their masters.

  48. LaShae84 says:

    In my opinion, I don’t think it’s so much a myth as it’s more like…..
    Most of us believe in the exact same religion with same beliefs but are too dumb to realize it! Ehh, that’s what I think anyway. It’s the same with the flood/Noah myth…everyone’s got one.

  49. Amristar says:

    But they are not Jesus.

  50. Curt Gleason says:

    You keep talking about ‘before the Big Bang,’ and I’m still not sure that means anything, as time is part of the universe. To me, it sounds like ‘What’s north of the north pole?’ Nothing, if you stay on the earth’s surface…

    I’m a biblical literalist as much as I am a day-to-day literalist. When someone says ‘Pass the potatoes,’ I don’t ponder the deep symbolism behind their statement. I pass them the potatoes. When Jesus says ‘I am the door,’ I don’t think He’s made of wood and has hinges.

    It’s far from clear to me what you mean by semi-divine offspring, and God as my grandparent. Adam and Eve were created by God, not sired by him. If you’re referring to Genesis 6, the meaning is pretty obscure. Most people think that ‘sons of God’ refers to the line of men who still followed and loved God.

  51. DestryDanger says:

    Everything. Everything about what you just said was stupid and deflecting the personal responsibility of your lack of thought. The concept of any god is stupid. Stupid and fear mongering. Go back to being stupid and afraid and just shut the fuck up about it.

    1. Shreknangst says:

      With or without a starting point referred to a god, personal responsibility exists — basically one behaves as they wish others would behave toward them … the personal responsibility comes in the response of others to your actions.
      The mythology of deities — which is what you are really referring to — serves a psychological purpose which is apparently unique to humans …
      Now you have demonstrated both stupidity and disrespect for those who believe in various theological systems.
      But you have really shown gross stupidity in terms of the origins of all things … the self-begotten beginning (as the Egyptians phrased it) which is systemic to physics — all things have a beginning, until you get to something you need to denote as Eternal. In physics the universe must be out of balance, or it would grind to a halt and as all forces negate and neutralize each other … it is perfectly imperfect.
      But you are far too stupid to grasp that reality …
      There is not “fear mongering” about basic physical science — except to idiots like you.

      .
      .

    2. FreeVerity says:

      Incorrect.

  52. redreyvn says:

    “Compared to how it was really done, The Spanish Conquest was a “joke, ”

    What is “it?”

    “”Grandpa Was A Deity: How a Tribal Assertion Created Modern Culture””

    From what you’re sharing from it so far, it doesn’t seem worth the five bucks.

    “The myths originated with the yDNA line discussed in the book … and those myths are still going …”

    Great. What does that have to do with anything we’re discussing?

    “God and the Universe are interchangeable terms. Of course you are free to be ignorant of reality.”

    You should maybe stop reading “Grandpa was a Deity” and read a dictionary instead.

    1. Shreknangst says:

      As stateed several times, we have drifted from the articel “5 Near-Identical Jesus Myths That Predate Jesus” The book has to do with the origin of those myths and the tribe that carried them around the “old” world.
      the “GOD” aspect is connected — they gathered scientific knowledge and promoted it in terms the primitives could understand …
      A dictionary tells you the usage of words; “Grandpa was a Deity” tells you the application of concepts, and evolution of knowledge we utilize and are expanding upon.

      1. redreyvn says:

        “As stateed several times, we have drifted from the articel”

        As stated several times, I never had a problem with the article, only your assertion that “god” and “universe” are interchangeable terms.

        “A dictionary tells you the usage of words; ”

        Yes. Fun fact: It even says which terms are interchangeable. Can you open one please? And tell me if you can verify your statement “God and the Universe are interchangeable terms”? (hopefully without another rudimentary, long-winded explanation of E=mc2).

        1. Shreknangst says:

          If you have trouble with God=universe, then you have a massive problem with many cultures, not to mention spiritual systems.
          Sorry, verification of them equality would mean a long winded explanation and a course in comparative cultures and their traditions.
          Again, far off topic.

          1. redreyvn says:

            “If you have trouble with God=universe, then you have a massive problem with many cultures, not to mention spiritual systems.”

            We’ve been through this.
            Again, in which culture are the words “god” and “universe” the same? Enlighten the “unwashed masses” with your knowledge in “comparative cultures” please.
            Just name one. One word. One name. Not a long-winded explanation. Just give us one name.

            1. Shreknangst says:

              Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God,
              Ok you got your word: PANTHEISM.

            2. redreyvn says:

              Funny how “Pantheism” means neither “god” nor “universe” huh.

            3. redreyvn says:

              “God” and “universe” being the “traditionally interchangeable terms” because of pantheism is like saying “Koresh” and “messiah” are “traditionally interchangeable terms” because there are Branch Davidians.

  53. Pass The Deutschy says:

    So?

  54. Macacamulatta says:

    This article contains a number of obviously, and easily checked, inaccuracies. First, crucifixion was pretty much a Roman invention reserved only for criminals. Egyptians did not crucify people. The myth of Horus, if you just bother to read the Wikipedia page, doesn’t resemble the Jesus myth in any major respect. It’s laughable to draw such a parallel. Second, the Mithra cult, derived from the older Zoroastrianism, worshipped a god of plenty and fertility whose symbol was a bull. Cult members practiced highly secret rituals that were neither written nor publicized. Nothing of their specific practices survive and Mithra himself faded from Zoroastrianism. There is some mention of Mithra as a savior, but nothing about 12 disciples or companions. So, unless the author of this piece could cite source documents for these claims, readers would be well advised to be a little skeptical. I am not saying that there are no parallels between creation myths; obviously there are. But this article doesn’t even pass the Wikipedia cross-check.

  55. Chris says:

    Religion will be the downfall of humanity.

  56. Squido says:

    Based on the facts given in the article above this tells me that through all different religions through out time god has made himself known but each culture and country has taken his words different from the next, such as buddhas teachings vs jesus teachings, one mentioned a god and the other didnt

  57. drdem says:

    Mythra Cult came after Christianity . The Twelve Apostles
    of Jesus actually lived and we even know where some of
    them lived . Example there are photos of Peters house .
    Many people who saw Jesus ascend into heaven were
    alive and recorded by Paul . Paul himself was a pharasee
    for many years . even held the coats of the men who stoned
    Stephen the first Martyr . In those days a Jew who left the
    Strict faith of Judaism to accept Jesus as GOD had to have
    a darn good reason to leave the faith . Mayve it was the TRUTH
    that moved them ?

  58. john says:

    lol at religion, what a waste of time, grow up people

  59. Scott Anthony says:

    the Buddha aspect has many incorrect parts but some is incorrect. it would be very different then anything lie jesus. but mithra and horus are very close and a direct source.

  60. Vaibhav says:

    Buddha was never crucified and never resurrected. There is no mention of that in any of the canons.

  61. Lance says:

    Simply confirmation bias. I do not support Christianity, yet this work is poorly supported by credible scholarly sources. The information is incorrect, dates are incorrect and the sources for your research are way out dated. Using some off the wall web page to support your research is an awful example of graduate work. One can quickly find out for themselves this article is rubbish and was poorly crafted to support your liberal thinking philosophy. Of course the whole jesus thing never happened, but you have given a poor argument to as why. Two thumbs down!!

  62. EdwardWJones says:

    It is easier to fool a person, than to show them they have been fooled. The god stories are responsible for all wars on planet earth. Religion is our gateway drug.

  63. Scott says:

    But a figure such as Jesus would have left a record of existing other than some retelling of old stories from decades previous to the first ones.
    Add to that, the accounts seem contrived to fit to earlier works (census as an explanation of different birth origins – with no accounts of that or other similar types of census being conducted). Was Jesus born pre 4BCE or post 10 years later – per who was in rule at the time?

    Curt, there are two other contradictions in the Bible which are not just – these were among his last words. The problem is that SOOOO much is read into what was meant by specific wording – when it is shown that we really have no idea of what the wording was — and that is even if I were to grant that the events described even happened.

  64. Randall Lowe says:

    This only means that God has been telling us living here on earth since the beginning that a savior will eventually come to save the world and he did. Jesus is the one true savior. He was the one and only one to die and rise again for the sins of mankind. Jesus fulfilled the foretold prophecies exactly as written which proves he was the one true savior. Don’t be fooled by false saviors or prophets. Jesus is the one true Savior.

  65. Rob Knetsch says:

    I do not ask that you believe in Jesus and the Gospels, or believe they are true. But, if you are going to make claims, they need to be backed up. In the “old days,” one would have to write an essay showing all the above claims to be true based on cited works. The fact is that the claims here have to citations, and since they are well-packaged and “purty lookin'” many will believe the supposed similarities. The reality is that I have read about each claim and non of them are true; or some of them are true if you take some facts and look at them from a certain perspective. Again, I cannot set out to prove Jesus is the person depicted in the Gospels, but we actually know very little about, for instance, what belief in Horus or Mithra consisted of.

  66. Rangba Stephen says:

    The writer seems so young in research work on history. There are so many people put up stories to gain others attention and mislead just as she does here on Buddha and Krishna.

  67. Opie says:

    Interesting topic and one I also pursued as a history major. A couple more points. Moses came out of Egypt where he was raised among the culture and religions of Egypt. The concept of one god was introduced by Pharaoh Amenhotep and his wife Nefertiti which rocked the Egyptian religious and political establishment on its heels. Amenhotep’s belief even defied the concept of the Pharaoh as a god. There may have been attempts earlier but I believe this is the first documented “one god” belief. There are antecedents of the belief in multiple gods in all religions; look at all the saints in Catholicism. Believing in the Devil and God is believing in a lesser and minor god. Buddha, on the other hand, was a real person. He asked his followers not to make him a god but they did anyway. I think religions serve a number of purposes – trying to create or exist in a better frame of humanity; providing rules to live by; providing something to strive for; providing a form of government that, hopefully, promotes and maintains the peace. The problem is that everyone interprets everything, to include religion, to fit their own agenda and sometimes individuals and groups go down some horrific paths. Genocide in the name of religion is going on right now. ISIS claims they are doing this for the Islamic faith which has its antecedents in Judaism and Christianity. Whether a person is agnostic, a believer or not a believer I think it is important to look at the all of this objectively. It is a wondrous world we live in. In fact it is wondrous that we even exist. There will always be religious beliefs, and people should be free to believe as they wish, as long as they do no harm and don’t try to impose their beliefs on others. It should be a matter of personal choice.

  68. Michael Donovan says:

    Yea! Jesus isn’t real. Now it’s every man for himself.

  69. Tyson says:

    Osiris was one of the first gods, son of Nut and Geb.

  70. ArnieLerma says:

    The Lament (or the apocalypse)

    by Hermes Trismegistus translated from Ficino by F.C. Yates

    (The Yates translation is authentic, the guy that did the prior translations popularized in the west took great liberties)

    This dates from the time of Zoroaster or perhaps before.

    Hermes is also known as Thoth, The High Priest of Egypt. This was Thoth
    speaking to his son. This may be (c) from the beginning of Egypt..

    There will come a time when it will be seen that in vain have the
    Egyptians honoured the divinity with a pious mind and with assiduous
    service. All their holy worship will become inefficacious. The Gods,
    leaving the earth will go back to heaven; they will abandon Egypt; this
    land, once the home of religion, will be widowed of its gods and left
    destitute. Strangers will fill this country, and not only will there no
    longer be care for religious observances, but, yet a more painful thing,
    it will be laid down under so-called laws, under pain of punishments,
    that all must abstain from acts of piety or cult towards the gods. Then
    this holy land, the home of sanctuaries and temples, will be covered
    with tombs and the dead. O Egypt, Egypt, there will remain of the
    religion only fables, and thy children in later times will not believe
    them; nothing will survive save words engraved on stones to tell of thy
    pious deeds. The Sythian or the Indian, or some other such barbarous
    neighbor will establish himself in Egypt. For behold the divinity goes
    back up to heaven; and men, abandoned, all die, and then, without either
    god or man, Egypt will be nothing but a desert.

    Why weep, O Asclepius? Egypt will be
    carried away to worse things than this; she will be polluted with graver
    crimes. She, hitherto most holy, who so much loved the gods, only
    country of earth where the gods made their home in return for her
    devotion, she who taught men holiness and piety, will give example of
    the most atrocious cruelty. In that hour, weary of life, men will no
    longer regard the world as (a) worthy object of their admiration and
    reverence. This All, which is a good thing, the best that be seen in the
    past, the present, and the future, will be in danger of perishing, men
    will esteem it a burden; and thenceforth they will despise and no longer
    cherish this whole of the universe, incomparable work of God, glorious
    construction, good creation, made up of an infinite diversity of life
    forms, instrument of the will of God who, without envy, pours forth his
    favour on all his work, in which is assembled in one whole, in
    harmonious diversity, all that can be seen that is worthy of reverence,
    praise and love. For darkness will be preferred to light; it will be
    thought better to die than to live; none will raise his eyes towards
    heaven; the pious man will be thought mad, the impious, wise; frenzied
    will be thought brave, the worst criminal a good man. The soul and all
    the beliefs attached to it, according to which the soul is immortal by
    nature or forsees that it can obtain immortality as I have taught you —
    this will be laughed at and thought nonsense. And believe me, it will
    be considered a capital crime to give oneself to the religion of the
    mind. A new justice will be created and new laws. Nothing holy, nothing
    pious, nothing worthy of heaven and of the gods who dwell there, will be
    any more spoken of nor will find credence in the soul.

    The gods will separate themselves from men, deplorable divorce. Only the
    evil angels will remain who will mingle with men, and constrain them by
    violence — miserable creatures — to all excesses of criminal
    audacity, engaging them in wars, brigandage, frauds, and in everything
    which contrary to the nature of the soul. Then the earth will lose its
    equilibrium, the sea will be no longer navigable, the heaven will no
    longer be full of stars, the stars will stop their courses, and will be
    silent. The fruits of the earth will moulder, the soil will no longer be
    fertile, the air itself will grow thick with lugubrious torpor.

    such will be the old age of the world, irreligion, disorder, confusion of all goods. When all these things have come to pass, O Asclepius,
    then the Lord and Father, the god first in power and demiurge of the
    One God, having considered these customs and voluntary crimes,
    endeavoring, by his will, which is the divine will, to bar the way to
    vices and universal corruption ans to correct errors, he will annihilate
    all malice, either by effacing it in a deluge or by consuming it by
    fire, or destroying it by pestilential maladies diffused in many places.
    Then he will bring back the world to its first beauty, so that this
    world may again be worthy of reverence and admiration, and that God
    also, creator and restorer of so great a work, may be glorified by the
    men who shall live then in continual hymns of praise and benedictions.
    That is what the rebirth of the world will be; a renewal of all good
    things, a holy and most solemn restoration of Nature herself,…

    ———————-

    demiurge is an old word for the creator of the universe

    if you recognize similar biblical stories, this was the source for the
    revelations and predates the old testament. This was typed in by my
    hand, all typos are my own, .For more information google: Hermes
    Trismegistus

  71. nadia says:

    They are myths about the new mushroom men and human sacrifice performed by ancient priests..as we read in ancient sumerian texts, one god / snake had to be killed and sacrified for the goodness and salvation of others and they made Sacred drinks with his blood and flesh etc…as we can trace the truth between the lines of many legends keeping the common secret…

  72. geofly says:

    All religion is BS. Religion was created to scare people into falling in line with a particular person or persons cult.

  73. NoThanksNecessary says:

    Wouldn’t it be fair to mention that most of the “similarities” involved with Mithra didn’t exist until the “revival” period somewhere in the first and second century AD? The ancient Mithra was totally different, and largely disappeared. Then, MUCH later, talk of Mithra re-emerged, but drastically changed. And it was THEN that some of the Christ-like traits were invented. I don’t care what you believe or don’t believe, but I have an interest in honest history.

  74. Josh Jones says:

    There’s some problems with the assumption that these impacted Christianity. By the time of Jesus the Greeks had already washed over Egypt, changed their gods and their language. They could no longer read the hiroglypics of ancient Egypt and had lost their culture, religion, and even their royal family was Greek.
    The Budda of China could only have been learned of by traders on the Silk Road who would have had to find a Latin speaking Chinese (not very hard), who would educate them of the Budda (believeavle) then take this information back to Rome, and get whichever aristocrat who was pondering the idea of creating a new religion to listen without being put to death for not following the Roman Gods.
    Further, this idea that the religion of Christianty just appeared and spread like wildfire without there being an actual Christ is crazy. There’s no way these first century Christians would have multiplied to such a degree while facing death from the Romans if they didn’t in fact have something to believe in. It wasn’t this idea that there’s a better place – it was something real.
    The problem with modern people’s outlook on it is the fact that it’s been 2000 years. It’s like the argument of Atlantis now, it’s been so same long, how can anyone know? But it doesn’t stop some people from looking. Until it’s found people will always look.

  75. Barbara Warrum says:

    If you want to understand a book about Heaven, you need to study astronomy. If you want to understand an ancient book about Heaven, you need to study ancient astronomy. The study of ancient astronomy is called archaeoastronomy. Dr. Edmund C. Krupp, astronomer of Griffith Observatory, is the best known writer of ancient astronomy. Ancient astronomers (they used to be called priests), in Egypt, said the constellation Orion the Hunter was the god Osiris.

    Ancient astronomer/priests, in India, said the constellation Aries the Ram was the god Rama.

    Ancient astronomers/ priests, in Persia, said the constellation Perseus was the god Mithras.

    Each of these constellation, in turn, was the place of the spring equinox.

    About 74 B.C., the spring equinox began to drift in to constellation Pisces the Fish. Over the next century Christian writers said that the lamb of god had died, and been reborn. The sign of the new religion was a fish.

    Quoting Dr. Krupp on Orion, quoting Mumbai Observatory on Aries, quoting I-forget-which-book-on-ancient-astronomy on Perseus.

  76. Clayton Adams says:

    My favorite is Horus: what a guy!

  77. Patrick T. Hendrick says:

    Many of the readers miss the point. Man’s spiritual beliefs are a continuum from the earliest existence of man. If you look closely the structure of modern religious belief has its roots in the ancient beliefs about the earth, stars, sun, moon and so on. We worshiped nature and all its parts we could not explain. Today this structure is still present in most religions in one form or another. Obvious example; Virgin Mary= Earth Mother, God = Zeus, Christ=Thor, and so on.

  78. Scott Burton says:

    This is nothing more than a “Fox News” version of a pliable story. I see we have sunk to that level. As I read through the examples, I am left asking the question, where did he get this information? In the intro, the author states, “Some of the most fascinating projects that I did in college involved comparing ancient mythology to modern religious beliefs…” This should give him/her a list of sources used to compile this information. Why are none of them cited here? If you’re going to challenge the entire foundation of the Christian belief system, you’ve got to be accurate and tell people where your information comes from. If not, then you are no better than a Fox News correspondent pandering to its audience.

  79. David Kempton says:

    I wouldn’t put Krishna and Buddha in the same field as Osiris and Mithra. The Buddha’s story is quite different (and if you look at the REAL origin tales, rather than what contemporary Buddhism has become, much of this story was tacked on centuries after Gautama.)

    But Constantine CREATED Jesus from the existing pagan religious tales at the First Council of Nicea, AKA Auction-For-Jesus.” Would have been a great video, were such available then. (2000 drachmas for virgin birth. Wait, I’ll offer 3000 if she is impregnated by an angel. 3500 for a star in the East.

    Done. Pay the cashier and have a nice Godling…

  80. Selene Michaels says:

    I am so sick of the false comparison between Horus and Jesus. Horus did not have 12 disciples, he was not baptized, he was never crucified (Egyptians did not practice crucifixion) His mother Isis was not a virgin, though she did magically impregnate herself with Osiris after his death. virgin in a cave. His birth was NOT announced by a star, and was NOT attended by three wise men. Horus did NOT perform miracles, he did NOT rise anyone from the
    dead and did NOT walking on water.
    Horus was sheltered by Isis in the marshes, protected from the wrath of his uncle Set. He grew up to become a warrior, combating his uncle to win the throne of Egypt. The stories about him concern chiefly his battles with Set, and his reign as king.
    NOTHING like Jesus, sorry, please check your facts. Where does this crap come from????

  81. ThreeRing says:

    I am an atheist and even I know these stories are bullshit, fabricated and altered cap that has been reposted ad infinitum without attribution or corroboration. If you have a master’s in History, freaking act like it.

  82. Musu Foo says:

    I am an atheist. People like you give us a bad name.

    I can’t tell if you are genuinely ignorant to all the errors riddled through this, or simply don’t care.

  83. Stephen says:

    Although christians will never admit it, all of the above is documented better than the current christian version that was assembled @ 300-325 AD by Constantine, a pagan. I believe christianity is no better or different than Islam, Buhadism, or any other man made religion. I just believe in God. That’s enough for me because he said so in the book of Hosea.

  84. Julie says:

    Dear Lottie, the Bible is not a ancient myth. Jesus Christ is not an ancient myth. George Washington and Abe Lincoln are not ancient myths. Get the idea? Titus Flavius Josephus was a 1st century Roman-Jewish historian who wrote about Jesus AND John the Baptist. Ever heard of Josephus, Lottie? Josephus was not a myth. If you don’t want to believe something, hey, just say it’s a myth. Nice try Lottie. Nice try but it won’t hold in a court of law or justice.

    1. Arizona Willie says:

      You do realize that when you say he was a 1st century historian that means he lived in the year 100 AD or greater … possibly even up to year 199 AD.

      He was in no way a contemporary of Jesus and his accounts ARE NOT historical accounts.

      No different than a Superman comic of the day.

      1. Julie says:

        Josephus recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first century CE and the First Jewish–Roman War, including the Siege of Masada. His most important works were The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[4] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation (66–70). Antiquities of the Jews
        recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an
        ostensibly Roman audience. These works provide valuable insight into
        first century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity.[4] (See main article Josephus on Jesus). Wikipedia…..one source of MANY.

  85. DS says:

    Thank you – just further proves to me the bible is nothing but fiction. The myth of a virginal birth and “Jesus” like person has been handed down for centuries. They are not inspired writings from God as claimed, but instead stolen from these myths. Not even original writings.

  86. Jesús Cuauhtémoc Villa says:

    Okay, this is pretty misleading. The Horus story, at least, is completely bogus. The parallels were pretty much completely invented by an English poet and Spiritualism enthusiast, Gerald Massey, who had never actually been to Egypt, much less the Levant.

    Massey didn’t invent the Osiris story, but it’s also almost complete bunkum. Osiris didn’t go to “Hell,” since the ancient Egyptians didn’t have a concept of hell akin to the Western, Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian place of eternal torment. Nor did he get resurrected; Isis put the dismembered parts of his body together and sexed him back to “life” – in quotations because he never was able to return to the world of the living and instead became the ruler of Tuat/Duat, the underworld. The business about 12 disciples (for Horus AND for Osiris) is made up.

    But why were these things made up, you might ask? Well, as long as humans have had kingdoms, empires, etc., they’ve also wanted to make a connection between their power and that of the ancient, glorious, storied past. The easiest way to do that, especially without clear written records, is through outright appropriation. This is why the Greeks adopted a bunch of Egyptian deities after Alexander’s conquest; why Napoleon raided Egypt for antiquities; why Hitler adopted the swastika from Hinduism; why the Mormons claim a connection between Mormon Jesus and the Mesoamericans; and why the ancient Hebrews adopted Mesopotamian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian myths into their own religious tradition. (They also loved a good allegory). Massey was doing exactly the same thing: appropriating a glorious past.

    In other words, the existence of these parallels doesn’t disprove that Jesus existed; instead, it proves that people told/tell the same types of stories about Jesus as they have about almost every other culture hero since forever.

    For a much more nuanced, professional analysis of Biblical parallels, check out “The Old Testament Story” by the incomparable Don C. Benjamin and “Old Testament Parallels” by Matthews & Benjamin. Seriously excellent scholarship!

  87. Monica N Kevin Tyler says:

    Where is Innana’s Descent to the Underworld account? Her story was the first and the most usually forgotten. I find interesting that after her it became patriarchal.

  88. woodwoman says:

    Osiris was portrayed as a bearded man because any type of male royalty figure was always portrayed with a ceremonial beard. Just pay attention to the pics of heiroglyphs and you’ll see that “commoners” were clean shaven, pharaohs with beards.

  89. Mkhael Dustin says:

    You know this is all fake right? For example, the part about gold, frankincense, and myrrh being presented to Krishna is from the de Vinci code, not from any story in the Hindu religion. Also it says that Mithra was born on December 25th in 2000 bc. December didn’t become a month until the Roman calender, which was around 750 bc.

  90. Dirk Horsten says:

    In television world, this is called a “format”.
    I think their are only a few formats covering almost all religions. There is for instance the format of the Parthenon of gods (think of the Olympus, the Vedic gods in India and the Norwegian gods).
    I am pretty sure Islam follows a popular format too.

  91. Rather than simply repost this bit of internet spam, you should fact check it. Neither Horus nor Osiris have those things attributed to them.

  92. David Marquez says:

    It would be nice if you provided references to support your claims. I’m finding it very hard to find any verifiable evidence in the internet about these other and how they are similar to Jesus Christ. Especialmente regarding Horus.

  93. obadiahorthodox says:

    I don’t know what texts this fraud studied, but everything he said about them was totally wrong.

  94. obadiahorthodox says:

    nothing that this guy wrote about those other gods is true. take krishna, he
    was not born of a virgin. if you read the srimad bhagavatam the whole
    story of the birth of krishna is in the tenth canto. The birth of Krishna is in itself
    a transcendental phenomenon that generates awe among the Hindus and
    overwhelms one and all with its supra mundane happenings.
    Mother Earth, unable to bear the burden of sins committed by evil kings and
    rulers, appealed to Brahma, the Creator for help. Brahma prayed to the
    Supreme Lord Vishnu, who assured him that he would soon be born on earth
    to annihilate tyrannical forces.
    One such evil force was Kamsa, the ruler of Mathura (in northern India) and
    his people were utterly terrified of him. On the day Kamsa’s sister
    Devaki was married off to Vasudeva, an akashvani or voice from the sky
    was heard prophesying that Devaki’s 8th son would be the destroyer of
    Kamsa. The frightened Kamsa immediately unsheathed his sword to kill his
    sister but Vasudeva intervened and implored Kamsa to spare his bride,
    and promised to hand over every new born child to him. Kamsa relented
    but imprisoned both Devaki and her husband Vasudeva.
    When Devaki gave birth to her first child, Kamsa came to the prison cell
    and slaughtered the newborn.
    In this way, he killed the first six sons of Devaki. Even before her 8th
    child was born, Devaki and Vasudeva started lamenting its fate and
    theirs. Then suddenly Lord Vishnu appeared before them and said he
    himself was coming to rescue them and the people of Mathura. He asked
    Vasudeva to carry him to the house of his friend, the cowherd chief
    Nanda in Gokula right after his birth, where Nanda’s wife Yashoda had
    given birth to a daughter.
    He was to exchange his boy and bring Yashoda’s baby daughter back to the
    prison. Vishnu assured them that “nothing shall bar your path”.
    At midnight on ashtami, the divine baby was born in Kamsa’s prison.
    Remembering the divine instructions, Vasudeva clasped the child to his
    bosom and started for Gokula, but found that his legs were in chains. He
    jerked his legs and was unfettered! The massive iron-barred doors
    unlocked and opened up.
    While crossing river Yamuna, Vasudeva held his baby high over his head. The
    rain fell in torrents and the river was in spate. But the water made way
    for Vasudeva and miraculously a five-mouthed snake followed him from
    behind and provided shelter over the baby.
    When Vasudeva reached Gokula, he found the door of Nanda’s house open. He
    exchanged the babies and hurried back to the prison of Kamsa with the
    baby girl. Early in the morning, all the people at Gokula rejoiced the
    birth of Nanda’s beautiful male child. Vasudeva came back to Mathura and
    as he entered, the doors of the prison closed themselves.
    When Kamsa came to know about the birth, he rushed inside the prison and
    tried to kill the baby. But this time it skipped from his hand and
    reaching the sky. She was transformed into the goddess Yogamaya, who
    told Kamsa: “O foolish! What will you get by killing me? Your nemesis is
    already born somewhere else.”
    In his youth Krishna killed Kamsa along with all his cruel associates,
    liberated his parents from prison, and reinstated Ugrasen as the King of
    Mathura.

  95. Dayl Culpepper says:

    Wow!! Heated discussion here peeps!! interesting topic ey!! The point of the story was seeing the similarities in these five or so other Gods, fact or fiction mind you. thats what I got out of it, though you have to have an open mind to understand it. nothing more, nothing less. love all the bickering though. makes for an exciting read…

  96. Holly Hart says:

    If you are wondering, as I did, how Mithra could have been born on December 25 (which is from the 365 day Gregorian calendar), it turns out that the Zoroastrian calendar also had 365 days.

  97. Thomas says:

    Combating the never-ending list of parallels…
    If you do an Internet search on this subject you will come across at least 50.634 zillion different lists and/or articles of supposed parallels between Jesus and Horus and so on, and so forth. Which are much longer than that of Maher’s filmic litany (or wherever some of you philosophical zombies discovered these so-called “sources” of which have been regurgitated all across the interwebz). However, what they all have in common is that they do not, in fact, cite any of their sources.

    Should you ever encounter those— who try to challenge your “mythological” claims with their mythological claims—ask them to explain where it is they got their information. Many times you will find they’ll originate with this dude, Gerald Massey, or from one of his contemporaries. Sometimes they have been repeated and expanded on by others. Other times they’re total nonsense and utter dishonest ignorance. Yet, all of these so-called claims have little to no connection to the empirical evidence. Almost all of which—that is, if you actually research it on your own—will unfold into extremely falsifiable attempts to discredit the existence of Jesus; for what reason(s) remain unbeknownst to me, yet there’s individuals out there who insist Socrates wasn’t real either. Which would have to mean Aristotle was totally full of it, except he wasn’t.

    You should challenge the person making the claim to produce a primary source or a statement from a scholarly secondary source—which will have a footnote that can be verified. Then, make sure the sources being quoted come from scholars with a Ph.D. in a relevant field—such as a person who teaches Egyptology at the university level.

    Due to the mass of misinformation on the Internet and in print on this subject, it is important to respond to these claims using credible sources. Fortunately, there are many good books on Egypt and Egyptology in print. But there are also bad ones, so make sure to verify the author’s credentials before purchasing them.

    The study of ancient Egypt has come a long way since its beginning in the 1800s, and new discoveries are being made even today which improve and expand our understanding of the subject. It’s safe to say they will do nothing to bolster the alleged Jesus-Horus connection.

    The Horus mythology developed over a period of 5,000 years, and as a result it can be a complex subject to tackle. But you don’t actually have to be an Egyptologist to answer all of these claims. You just need to know where to look for the answers—and to be aware of the claims’ flawed sources.

    P.S. I believe Jesus was indeed real and not just some fable told by primitive people. Oh? So primitive yet were extremely technologically advanced—last time I checked, we’re still uncertain as to how exactly the pyramids were built. Alas, I only have two Ph.D.s and an M.Phil, but not that degrees matter (in all seriousness…). Nevertheless, I’m pretty much just a delusional, mental midget, according to some of the generalizations made by all these experts on all antiquities.

    P.S.S. Barry Kort, please do tell me the meaning of the universe, as you obviously know so much more about the world we live in, in contrast to these knuckle-dragging-theological-crazies (I’m not a theologian, so perhaps you could enlighten me?). ¡Mucho gracias!

  98. Jim Harvey says:

    Who the fuck are you to call any of this a Myth? Arrogant twat,

  99. Clay Rains says:

    It’s bad enough that this author is a plagiarist who has evidently watched Zeitgeist or something and tried to pass this article off as her own research. But it’s really pathetic, since she is a B.A. in history and is getting her masters, that she didn’t even take the time to research any of these ancient myths to see if these supposed parallels actually existed. Just one example is her claim that Horus was born of a virgin. By the way, it’s funny that she lists Osiris as another myth at the end of the article, obviously unaware that Osiris was the father of Horus. What Egyptian mythology REALLY says about Horus is that after Osiris was killed, the goddess Isis brought him back to life. Since Osiris’s penis was cut off and ate by a catfish in the process, Isis made a magic golden penis for Osiris, had sex with him and conceived Horus. I’d recommend the author take a course or two in comparative mythology while getting that master’s, because none of these parallels actually exist. What an idiot!

  100. Clay Rains says:

    “I studied history in college, and spent a lot of my time researching ancient civilizations and comparative religions.”~Lottie Richard Ha, ha! Evidently she must have skipped the parts on Mithra, Horus, Osiris, Buddha Jesus or Krishna.

  101. Randy Graham says:

    The intention here is to sway individuals from the real truth. The devil is ever-so-slick at taking a truth and slightly twisting it to point people away from Christ and make them feel good about themselves while doing it. Lottie Richard seems intelligent enough, yet misguided of course. None of the aforementioned previous “Christ-like” individuals came anywhere near the life, breadth, compassion, death and resurrection that the real Jesus lived. According to the writings of the time, the multiple miracles that were recorded were a mere “tip of the iceberg” compared to what all he performed. One of the disciples wrote that if they attempted to record all the miracles of Jesus, all the books in all the world could not contain them. It’s kind of like taking 10 photos during a football game. There is no way that 10 photos are going to tell the whole story of what went on, though you took one of the final scoreboard. Here is a quote that might help someone who’s mind is not made up [since I propose an opposing view, I wonder if my post will be left up for long. I’m going to check]:

    This willful rejection of the truth is well illustrated by a series of quotations from atheist philosopher Michael Martin concerning the evidence for Christ’s Resurrection.

    “It is not inconceivable that on very rare occasions someone being restored to life has no natural or supernatural cause”; “I admit that some events could occur without any cause”; “[E]ven if the resurrection of Jesus was justified by the evidence, it would not support the belief that the Christian God exists and that Jesus is the Son of God.”9

    In an effort to escape the implications of the Resurrection, Martin is willing to reject one of the fundamental principles of scientific methodology: cause and effect. Instead of bowing the knee to His Creator, Martin would rather believe in a causeless effect by which, out of all the people who have ever lived, the one who just happened to come back to life for no reason at all was Jesus, the Man who had fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies, lived a sinless life, performed countless miracles, and predicted His own Resurrection (Matthew 20:18–19). This is special pleading at its worst.

    Martin’s statement provides a great example of how a person usually interprets the data according to his worldview. As an atheist, Martin is prepared to believe just about anything on this matter except that God raised Jesus from the dead. When a person desires to remain in his skepticism, he will develop excuses to disbelieve the obvious. Although the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was proven by “many infallible proofs” and has been recorded in God’s Word, atheists like Michael Martin will continue to reject the free gift of God’s grace and cling to their irrational humanistic worldview.

    Conclusion

    Christians can have the utmost confidence in the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus since God’s Word accurately tells us about these historical events. These central truths of the Christian faith were also witnessed by hundreds of people. Jesus was publicly executed on a Cross, buried in Joseph’s tomb (Mark 15:42–47), and seen alive again by more than 500 people at the same time. The post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus are infallible proofs that He conquered death and God’s Word the infallible proof of the event in our world today.

  102. Jon Heimer says:

    Seriously how badly are you going to butcher these stories? Like you actually didn’t get a single story right.

    Your discipline of History does not make a expert on this field and you should seriously stop peddling this nonsense.

    Third thing, you cleary plagerized a series of memes that have been floating around the internet for over several years.

    Fourth thing you have zero sources and zero credibility to you.

  103. darrel says:

    Don’t forget Hercules! Born of mortal fatherd by a god. Performed great feats as a child. Dies (went to the underworld) and came back and was taken to heaven by his father.

  104. boylandtheliberator says:

    I am sorry this stuff is nonsense and provably nonsense. There is no person or character called anap the baptiser in Egyptian. This stuff is nonsense and no scholar takes any of it seriously.

  105. robert says:

    Lord Krishna Birth Story

    It was about 5500 years ago when Kansa, the evil ruler of Mathura had terrorized his kingdom with all his wrong doings. He had overthrown his own father King Ugrasen to access the throne of Mathura. Although Kansa
    was an evil person at his heart, he loved his cousin Devaki who got married to King Vasudev of Yadu dynasty. Just as the marriage ceremony of Devaki and Vasudev got over, Kansa got to know from Narad (the
    messenger from heaven) that he would be killed at the hands of the eighth son of Devaki and Vasudeva. On hearing this, kansa got anxious and angry. He then wanted to kill Devaki, her own sister. Afraid of the ill intentions of Kansa, Vasudeva pleaded to him not to kill Devaki and himself. He promised to Kansa that they would handover their children to Kansa if he feared that one of them would kill him.

    Kansa accepted the words of Vasudeva but did not let him and Devaki free. He put them in his palace prison. Whenever a child was born to the couple, Kansa would come to the prison and slaughter the child by
    smashing his head to the prison wall not moved by the painful cries of the parents. This happened with all the seven children of Devaki and Vasudeva.

    When Devaki was expecting her eighth child and on the night of eighth day of Shravan Krishna Paksha when she was about to deliver her baby, she and Vasudeva both got an ‘Akashvani’ (voice from the sky) which told
    them that they must take their child to Gokul and exchange him with the new born daughter of Nanda, the cowherd king of Gokul. They were told by the divine voice that their son who was about to take birth was the
    incarnation of Lord Vishnu and he would eliminate all evil on earth and protect the innocent people. Nothing could stop Vasudeva from taking his son to Gokul and coming back to the prison with Nanda’s daughter.

    As if a miracle, when Devaki gave birth to her eighth son, all the guards magically went to sleep and the doors of the prison opened. Vasudev and Devaki got freed from their shackles. It was raining heavily and Vasudeva had to cross the river Yamuna to reach Gokul. The river was in full spate and he had a just born child whom he should protect from all. Vasudeva, therefore, took a ‘chaaj’ (a basket type reed contraption which is used to remove pebbles etc. from lentil, rice, wheat etc.) and placed his son in it.

    As Vasudeva stepped out and stood at the bank of river Yamuna, he was worried about his child but then was reminded of the divine voice that ensured him that nothing untoward would happen to the child. Thus,
    Vasudeva stepped into the river Yamuna submerging his half body in the cold water. As he looked upwards, he saw a five mouthed snake providing protection to his baby against the torrential rain.

    On reaching Gokul, Vasudeva found the doors of Nanda’s house open and everyone in deep sleep. He took the baby girl of Nanda from beside her mother Yashoda and put his own son there. Then, as he had brought his
    son, he took the girl back to the prison in Mathura through the river with the five mouthed snake protecting the child. When he entered the prison, everything got normal as before- he and Devaki got shackles, prison doors got closed and guards were all awake. As soon as the guards saw a child beside Devaki, they informed Kamsa.

    Kansa, who had waited all these years to kill the eighth child of Devaki and Vasudeva, came hurriedly to get rid of his destined slayer. Like always, he picked up the baby girl and threw her against the wall but this time a miracle happened. The little baby slipped from his hands and flew up into the air and took the form of the goddess, Yogmaya. She said to Kansa, “You want to kill me but the one who will kill you has taken birth and is safe somewhere out of your reach. One day, your slayer will come searching you and kill you. This is your destiny and you cannot change this!” Saying this, she laughed and vanished leaving behind the angry and dumbstruck Kansa.

    In the later years, this eighth son of Devaki and Vasudeva- the young Krishna- killed Kansa and his allies to free the people of Mathura from the cruel rule of the evil king and was called Kamsantak (the slayer of Kamsa), one of the many Shri Krishna Names. He liberated his parents Devaki and Vasudeva and reinstated King Ugrasena as the ruler of Mathura. However, till today, Lord Krishna is known as ‘Mathuradhish’- the Lord of Mathura. The famous temple of Krishna in Mathura is the live witness of this fact where his devotees come and offer prayers as if he was the King of Mathura!

    Death of Lord Krishna, Mahabharata
    Death of Lord Krishna occurred accidentally at the hands of a hunter named Jara. According to Mahabharata, Jara perceived Krishna as a deer and shot an arrow that wounded him.
    The death of Lord Krishna was destined to be in a desolate situation, by an ordinary man who was a hunter named Jara. Lord Krishna is considered to be an incarnation or avatar of Lord Vishnu and is widely believed to be the composer of the holy Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita. According to Srimad Bhagavatam, Lord Krishna was deeply involved with the Pandavas during the War of Kurukshetra.

    He also joined them and aided them in every possible way during the Great War. Lord Krishna was the Sarathi or charioteer of Arjuna, as he did not have to use ant weapons, during the war that lasted 18 days. Before the beginning of the war Lord Krishna narrated the Bhagavad Gita and was also a witness of Bhishma’s and Duryodhana’s death. Lord Krishna received the curse of Duryodhana’s mother, Gandhari for not rescuing her son. She was an ardent worshiper of Lord Vishnu and recognized Krishna as his incarnation. She equally believed and revered Lord Krishna, but on seeing her son die in front of the Primal Male, she could not find any justification as to why Lord Krishna
    allowed such things to befall.

    Story behind Lord Krishna’s death

    Gandhari, the mother of Duryadhona, cursed Lord Krishna that he would perish after 36 years, all alone and in a miserable state. All his followers, devotees, relatives and loved ones would also die simultaneously.
    Eventually a time arrived in Lord Krishna’s life; a madness seized the inhabitants of Dwaraka in such an extent that the people started to kill one another. All sons and grandsons of Krishna were also dead in the massacre.

    Only the women, Krishna and Balarama were alive in Dwaraka. After a while Balarama desolated himself in a dense forest. Lord Krishna sent the women and children along with a messenger to the city of Kuru and they were left with the Pandavas. Lord Krishna then went to his father, took blessings and left for the forest, where Balarama awaited him. He saw that his elder brother was sitting under a mighty tree on the fringes of the forest.

    Balarama was sitting in a posture of a Yogi, eventually a thousand-headed snake, Anant Naga, came out from his mouth and glided its way to the ocean. Soon, the ocean and other holy rivers came together to welcomed Ananta Naga into their realm.

    Lord Krishna saw his brother depart from the real world and he started to wander in the forest. Finally he sat on the ground, started to think about Gandhari’s curse, and realised that the time for his departure has already arrived. He self-possessed his senses and concentrated on his Yoga. A hunter named Jara approached that spot of the forest and from a distant saw the partly visible left foot of Krishna and thought to be a deer. He loosed his shaft, took out the arrow, and mistakenly pierced Lord Krishna’s foot. He came hurriedly near the Lord and witnessed him as a man wrapped in yellow robes practicing yoga. The hunter immediately
    touched the feet of Lord Krishna and asked for apology.

    Lord Krishna opened his eyes and comforted the hunter. He informed the hunter about his previous life of Bali who was killed by Lord Rama. He then ascended towards the heaven, thus filling the whole sky with glory. After passing through Lord Indra’s paradise, he reached his place at even higher strata. Arjuna cremated Krishna and the Lord’s wives, including Rukmini, became Sati and were burnt on pyre. The rest of the women of Dwaraka
    became ascetics and nuns. After each and every living being of Dwaraka moved away to other places, the ocean came about and engulfed the city, thus leaving no trace of the land of Lord Krishna.

    Disappearance of Lord Krishna

    It is believed that Lord Krishna lived on Earth with brother Balram for 126 years and 5 months. According to researchers and the scholars, He disappeared on 18th February 3102 BC. The era after his disappearance
    marks the beginning of Kali Yuga. It is said Lord Krishna had predicted that exactly seven days after the
    disappearance of the Lord, the Golden city of Dwarka and the Dwarkanath Temple in Gujarat will drown in the sea. Indeed Dwarka city is said to have been merged in sea owing to torrential rain.The end of Lord Krishna was destined and yet considered to be another Leela of the Almighty. The deeds of Lord Krishna are the most spoken events as compared to any other incarnation
    of Lord Vishnu. Besides being worshipped as the Lord, Krishna was also loved as a child God, as Mitra or friend and as the divine guide.

  106. Stopthemadness says:

    All lies and semi truths propagated over time. You’re just passing on the worn out torch that has been snuffed out over and over again. Do a little research to discover the truth at sites such as CMI and tectonics. And before you just put down those sites, remember, genitive/ad hominem fallacies are the tools of the ignorant!

  107. homasapiens says:

    AS much as I understand the desire– which I share– to rid the world of Religious exceptionalism– making shit up is a terrible waste of time.
    If you are going to claim that “Some translations and Egyptian myths say…” anything about Horus, for instance, please prove it by adding citations and links to these stories.
    And do the same for all the rest of your claims. You will find, in your research, that some of them actually do have a factual underpinning– won’t that be nice?
    .

  108. William Green says:

    Lottie, read C.S. Lewis’ book “Miracles” to have many of your questions answered, unless you’re afraid to have your dogma challenged…

  109. AndIWasNeverHere says:

    As much as I wish this were true, most of this article is entirely b0ll0cks.

  110. Sheldon says:

    If you think about it, we are still doing the same thing in our stories of today. We are constantly recycling the same archetypes and cultural memes: the reluctant/unlikely hero, the evil stepmother or mother in law, the horrible boss. It shouldn’t be surprising in the least that scripture did the same in its time… virgin birth, the great flood of Gilgamesh and so on.

  111. Martha says:

    Hey, religious or not, this article is straight up incorrect. Egyptology is a hobby of mine and what these articles say about Horus and Osiris are wrong. Horus wasn’t born of a virgin, his mother was Isis, wife of Osiris, whom she brought back from the dead to conceive a child. He wasn’t born in a cave, there was no star, there were no wise men. Osiris (Horus’ dad) was killed, and resurrected, twice. He was killed by his brother Set, and resurrected twice by his wife Isis. Once after drowning, and once after having his body chopped up into little pieces. He did not spend 3 days in hell, because there is no hell in Egyptian mythology. If you are a bad person, Ammit eats your heart and that’s the end of it. Plus the lengths of his deaths are not specified. Neither one of them had twelve disciples in any myth. These stories have been spread around the internet, so be careful of your sources.

  112. Fred Pickles says:

    Uhhhm, Lottie Richard, the author, do you have any sources for all these claims you just made other than saying you learned all this in college? Actually., it’s ironic, since I have read almost the exact same article as yours elsewhere, so are you sure you understand what plagiarism is?

  113. andrew123456789 says:

    Similarities do not in any way “nearly identical” indicate.

    1. The similarities are not coincidental. They exist because various parts of the story have been ripped off from previous myths. The history of christianity is all about ripping off other religions and cultures to convert other people to it’s beliefs.

  114. Ted Wojtasik says:

    Who cares, it is all myth based on archetypes represented in our subconscious. Carl Jung explained it all brilliantly. Meet the new god, same as the old god.

    1. It’s not important until money and/or law is involved. Churches receive some $72 billion in tax breaks, and do little to actually justify it. There is a movement in the US to have christianity declared the state religion. In England, the Protestant church is the state religion and the Queen is the head of the church. Ironically, not many people are very religious, there certainly are the “followers,” people who attend on religious holidays or christenings, but generally don’t practice it, so making christianity the state religion might very well decrease interest in it. Ironically, the Republican party, supported predominately by the religious, wants less gov’t interference in our lives, but want more gov’t interference in our religious beliefs.

      Let’s say the christians win and we all have to attend church and give it 10% of our income, “tithed” straight out of your paycheck. How would that make you feel?

  115. Ambaa says:

    I would love for this to be true, but absolutely none of the stuff in the Krishna section is true. His parents were both humans, his tyrant uncle killed his brothers and sisters. He was born alone in a prison. No people attended his birth. There were no gifts. He was not baptized. He didn’t rise from the dead. I don’t know where this information is coming from.

  116. Josie Gimhaegim says:

    the Zoroastrian with a God born of a virgin mother and visited by the magi. the Zoroastrians also during the Babylonian captivity as they aided the Jews told them about the Holy Trinity of Ahura Mazda, Ahura Berezaita and Mithra, the eternal battle between good and evil, the angels and demons, the Devil who was the fallen angel and lord of the underworld and introduced to them most of the concepts that eventually led to the schism that became the Christian sect…..the rebirth probably was from the Syrian God Timmuz who had the T or Cross for his symbol and was reborn after having been killed. He was worshipped in Syria and Lebanon for another 1,000 years or so after the onset of the Common Era

  117. Olly Ilarraza says:

    This is hilarious… No scholarship what so ever. I tasted rancid opinion from the jump. In College… As an agnostic… Blah blah blah after that. If the author was serious she would not post any of that Massey rubbish as fact when it has been debunked.

  118. Jerry Adams says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that since all religious deities are man made .Then all of their religious beliefs and figures are man made too. Therefore, beliefs and none belief, and faith in God any is in the mind of the beholder. Thus, the belief inGod is up to each individual.

  119. Ant. I. Liberal says:

    These all make Great Stories when you have had a Bottle of Jack Daniels and a lot of Pot ! What a Bunch of BS !

  120. Kathy Ruth says:

    Horus was not burn of a virgin. His mother (Isis) reassembled the pieces of his father (Osiris) and fashioned a penis from either gold or clay, depending on the manuscript. She then had sex with the reanimated Osiris and conceived Horus.
    Also, none of the recognised Egyptian documents describe Horus as being crucified.
    Others have already discussed the errors in some of the other god/myths you cite.
    I think you failed to prove your point.

  121. Scrobbel says:

    This writer has no idea.

    Why bring Gautama Buddha into this anyway? He never claimed to be a God, or the son of one. It also forgets to mention that Gautama is only the most recent Buddha, as there have been a series of people who have reached Buddhahood before him.

    Plus, it was never explicitly said that the elephant caused her to fall pregnant because he did have an actual father, and Maya never raised him because she died. That Buddha also had a wife and a son.

  122. RevJack says:

    Sorry, more Zeitgeist (the movie) propaganda. If you want to look for correlations try Joseph Campbell. But then he (like Jung) thought the religious images and myths that came out of human consciousness had meaning

  123. WillRiker says:

    One (of the many) things I’ve always wondered about regarding the Jesus story is where the “he was dead for three days before being resurrected” idea came from. Accord to the myth, he died late in the day of a Friday. It was so late they didn’t have time to properly prepare the body before sundown, which is why they returned Sunday morning. First problem is that, even though there are three days involved (Friday, Saturday and Sunday), the actual time span (Friday evening to Sunday morning) is closer to a day and a half. So how is this “three” days? Add to this the idea that, when the women went to the tomb Sunday morning, it was already empty. Who knows for how long it had been empty (the bible does not elaborate)? So this means Jesus resurrected some time PRIOR to this day and a half and it COULD have been an entire day or more before.
    So, in reality and according to the myth, it had only been about 30 hours since anyone had SEEN Jesus between the time of his “death” and when they discovered the tomb empty and his actual “resurrection” actually took place well before three days.

    I also have issues with the Christian concept that Jesus gave the “ultimate sacrifice” by dying. A human can make such an “ultimate” sacrifice because when a human dies, they are dead FOREVER. However, if a person “dies” and within 24 hours or so they come back to life, did they REALLY make an “ultimate” sacrifice?

    1. Tom Yeoman says:

      The “three days” idea came from Jesus Himself. In Matthew 12:40 He remarked that as Jonah was three days in the belly of the fish, so He would spend three days in the heart of the Earth. — a period including the day and two nights of His actual death and burial in the tomb, but also including the events from the Passover to His sentence of crucifixion. The “heart of the Earth” reference is metaphoric to the deep emotional and spiritual trauma He knew He would undergo.

      Jesus paid ultimately by also taking on the penalty for every act of human evil, a far greater weight than any of us can bear. His death took on a character ours could not have; and by rising again, He proved He could lay his life down and then take it up again, something more than is humanly possible. In this is the full demonstration that Jesus is both man and God, and that’s why His disciples threw aside tradition and custom to attest to the resurrection of Jesus and His divinity.

      1. WillRiker says:

        So, what you are saying is proof the biblical stories are metaphorical and should not be taken literally as so many do. Would be nice if they taught THAT in Sunday school.

        1. Tom Yeoman says:

          Um, not exactly. Metaphor certainly communicates concepts, and Biblical writings do rely on it. But there are descriptions that cannot be so explained: Jesus sweating blood in Gethsemane is best accounted for, literally, as hematidrosis. His sufferings on the cross are best accounted for as eyewitness testimony to the effects a crucifixion actually had. As was the pericardial sac rupture by the Roman spear: the description of released blood and water has no mythic antecedent, and is best accounted for as the description of a real event. A literal reading of these texts certainly has its place.

          A strictly metaphoric reading would probably align with Lottie Richard’s article of equivalencies as stated above. But those had no power to sway orthodox Jews away from the beliefs of their fathers. Only a literal Messiah, as they describe Him, could make the change agents of them that they in fact became.

  124. peaches says:

    How many of them had over 360 prophecies fulfilled about their birth, death, purpose, etc.?

  125. Fab says:

    So… Tell us, Lottie… Where did you see that Buddha “performed miracles, healed the sick, walked on water, fed 500 men from a single basket of cakes, was transfigured on a mount…” Is Bodh Gaya on a “mount”? By “transfigured” did you mean “reached enlightenment”? Were you as scrupulous with your choice of words and your fact checking for you “BA in History”? Starting with the most basic information: Bodh Gaya stands 423ft above sea level. Whooo, now that’s a “mount”!!!

  126. Fab says:

    There’s one thing I don’t understand… Why the heck people write lies and why the heck people who owns a website let their so-called writers post their lies?
    The subject was interesting enough without adding all the lies and unchecked approximations.
    Do you know that there are people out there that are more than wiling to write intelligent, fast checked articles?

  127. Fab says:

    Interesting… Three comments I posted were erased… Not so liberal “Liberals”, huh?

  128. docbenton says:

    Liberals wouldn’t know a fact if it hit them upside the head. Their messiah oblaspheme earned lie of the year.

  129. Daniel Petersen says:

    The story on Buddhism about his life is FALSE.
    He did NOT walk on water or heal the sick (Of mind maybe of body… NO.)
    Damn hippies merging with Tibetan Buddhists making a mockery of the entire religion.
    His enlightenment was a state of mind… It did not grant him powers to fly over crowds or heal the sick as these new age hippy buddhists claim…

    Go to Ramtha and leave Buddhism out of your bullshit flower children…

  130. Adam says:

    Pretty much everything you said about Horus is patently wrong or has zero archeological evidence behind it. Don’t know much about the other guys, but I’m guessing equal degrees of accuracy.

  131. PITTSBURGH21 says:

    How do I put this delicately … Each of these stories are just that … Stories … There is no god or supreme being … just myth’s to give you something to believe in and worship, that will provide you the proper amount of guilt to keep you from being an asshole during your time on earth!

  132. jqdyxe says:

    jqdyxe

    Good website you’ve there