Biblical Plagiarism

OhMan
atheist
OhMan's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2010-08-02
User is offlineOffline
Biblical Plagiarism

 

I have been attempting to collate a list of similarities between stories of the Bible pre-existing stories from other religions (that is, written before the Bible was known to be written). I was wondering if anyone can comment on the veracity of my collation, and/or add to it. I have collected all these over various websites from various places, so I can't be 100% of their accuracy.

COMMANDMENTS
Egyptian Book of the Dead (circa 1800BCE) vs. Ten Commandments (1491 BCE):
Book of the Dead: "I have done away sin for thee and not acted fraudulently or deceitfully. I have not belittled God. I have not inflicted pain or caused another to weep. I have not murdered or given such an order. I have not used false balances or scales. I have not purloined (held back) the offerings to the gods. I have not stolen. I have not uttered lies or curses."

Exodus 20:7-16: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain....Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery...Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor..."


FLOOD
Genesis Deluge vs Epic of Gilgamesh
The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.
The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).
The ark would be sealed with pitch.
The ark would have with many internal compartments
It would have a single door
It would have at least one window.
The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.
A great rain covered the land with water.
The mountains were initially covered with water.
The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.
The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.
The hero was blessed.
The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.


JESUS VS OTHER RELIGIOUS FIGURES

HORUS
Jesus performed the miracle of turning five loaves of bread in one case and seven in another to feed the many multitudes of people. This ties in with Horus who makes seven loaves of bread for Osiris to live by.
Yashua is in the desert and being tempted by the Devil, who said to him, “If he was the son of God, turn a stone into bread.” The stone of the desert is symbolic of Set.
As the child Horus comes to the Earth, then enters matter or becomes flesh. He is born as the word of his father who becomes Seb, who consort is Nu whose other name is Meri. Which is the same as Jesus coming down to Earth as the word of God in the flesh having and adopted father of Joseph (Seb) and Mary his mother.
Jesus said “I and the father are one. He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me.” Horus is the father seen in the son.
Jesus claims to be the son in whom the father is revealed. Horus was the light of the world. The light that is represented by the symbolic eye. The son of salvation.
Yashua is called the ‘Good Sheperd’ with the lamb or kid on his shoulder. Horus was the good shepherd who carries the crook upon his shoulder.
Jesus is called the Lamb of God, the bread of life, the truth and the light. Horus is called the Lamb of God, the bread of life, the truth and the light.
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Horus was baptized by Anupp the Baptizer.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the ‘House of Bread’. Horus was born in Annu, the ‘Place of Bread.’
Jesus the Christ. Horus the Krist.
The star in the east that indicated the birthplace of Jesus. The star, as announcer of the child Horus.
The blind man given sight by Jesus. The blind mummy made to see by Horus.
Jesus walking on water. Horus walking on water.

MORE HORUS
1. Horus born of a virgin. <> Jesus born of a virgin.
2. The foster father of Horus was Seb or Seph. <> Jesus was fostered by Joseph.
3. Horus was of royal descent. <> Jesus was of royal descent.
4. Horus birth accompanied by three solar deities [star gazers] who followed by the morning star of Sirius bearing gifts. <> Jesus birth accompanied by three wise men [Zoroastrian star gazers] who followed by a star “in the east” bearing gifts.
5. The birth of Horus announced by angels. <> The birth of Jesus announced by angels.
6. Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. <> Herod slaughtered every first born in an attempt to kill Jesus the forthcoming messiah.
7. Horus is baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser at a river. <> Jesus is baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist at a river.
8. Horus resists temptation by the evil Sut [Sut was to be the precursor for the Hebrew Satan] on a high mountain. <> Jesus resists temptation by Satan on a high mountain.
9. Horus had 12 followers. <> Jesus had 12 disciples.
10. Horus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water. <> Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water.

EVEN MORE HORUS (Sorry for overlap)
1. Born of a virgin
2. Born in a cave/manger
3. Birth announced by a star in the East
4. Birth attended by three wise men
5. Was a child teacher in the temple at age 12
6. Baptized by "Anup the Baptizer"
7. Baptizer was decapitated
8. Had 12 disciples
9. Performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised the dead
10. Walked on water
11. His personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming
son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.” He was thus called “Holy Child.”
12. Delivered a “Sermon on the Mount” and his followers
recounted the “Sayings of Iusa.”
13. Was transfigured on the Mount.
14. Was crucified
15. Was buried for three days in a tomb
16. Was resurrected
17. He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light,” “Messiah,”
“God’s Anointed Son,” “the “Son of Man,” the “Good
Shepherd,” the “Lamb of God,” the “Word made flesh,”
the “Word of Truth.”
18. Was “the Fisher”, was associated with the Fish, Lamb
and Lion.
19. Came to fulfill the law
20. Called "The KRST" or "anointed one"
21. Was supposed to reign a thousand years. Krishna
1. Born of a virgin
2. Earthly father was a carpenter
3. Earthly father was off paying taxes when he was born.
4. Birth was signalled by a star in the east
5. Birth attended by angels and shepherds, who brought gifts
6. Was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of
thousands of infants
7. Anointed on head with oil by a woman who he healed.
8. Depicted as having his foot on the head of a serpent
9. Worked miracles, raised the dead, healed
lepers, the deaf and the blind
10. Used parables to teach people about charity and love
11. "Lived poor and loved the poor"
12. Castigated the clergy, charging them with "ambition and
hypocrisy"
13. his "beloved disciple" was Arjuina or Ar-jouan (Jouhn).
14. Was transfigured in front of his disciples
15. Gave his disciples the ability to work miracles
16. his path was "strewn with branches"
17. Died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves
18. Killed around the age of 30
19. Sun darkened at his death
20. Rose from the dead
21. Ascended to heaven "in the sight of all men"
22. Depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his feet
23. Called "Shepherd of God", "Redeemer", "First-born",
"Sin-bearer", "Liberator", "Universal Word", "Son of
God", "Our Lord and Savior"
24. Was second person a three-in-one trinity
25. Disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus" or
"Jeseus", meaning "pure essence"
26. Will return to judge the dead, riding on a white horse,
to do battle with the "prince of evil" who will desolate the earth



BUDDHA
1. Born of a virgin
2. Crushed a serpent's head
3. Had 12 disciples
4. Performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500
men from a "small basket of cakes" and walked on water
5. Abolished idolatry
6. Was a "sower of the word"
7. Preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness"
8. Taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love,
and the equality of all
9. Transfigured on a mount
10. Crucified in a sin-atonement
11. Suffered for three days in hell
12. Was bodily resurrected.
13. Was considered the "Good Shepherd", "Carpenter",
"Infinite and Everlasting", "Savior of the World", and "Light
of the World"
14. Ascended to Nirvana or "heaven".



MITHRA
1. Born of a virgin
2. Born in a cave
3. Birth attended by shepherds bearing gifts
4. Was considered a great traveling teacher and master
5. Had 12 companions or disciples
6. Followers were promised immortality
7. Performed miracles
8. As the "great bull of the Sun", sacrificed himself for world
peace
9. Buried in a tomb
10. After three days, was resurrected
11. Resurrection was celebrated every year
12. Called "the Good Shepherd", "Way, the Truth and the
Light", "Logos", "Redeemer", "Savior" and "Messiah".
13. Identified with both the lamb and the lion
14. Sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day", hundreds of
years before the appearance of Christ.
15. Had his principal festival on what was later to become
Easter.
16. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper" at which
Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink my
blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall
not be saved."
17. His annual sacrifice is the Passover of the Magi, a symbolic
atonement of pledge of moral and physical regeneration.



DIONYSUS
1. Born of a virgin
2. Placed in a manger
3. Was a traveling teacher who performed miracles
4. Rode in a triumphal procession on an ass
5. was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic
ritual for fecundity and purification.
6. Rose from the dead
7. Was God of the vine, and turned water into wine
8. Was called "King of Kings" and "God of Gods"
9. was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” "Savior,”
“Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha
and Omega.”
10. Identified with ram or lamb
11. Was crucified



Zoroaster/Zarathustra
1. Born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of
divine reason."
2. Baptized in a river
3. In his youth, astounded wise men with his wisdom
4. Was tempted in the wilderness by the devil
5. Began his ministry at age 30.
6. Baptized with water, fire and "holy wind"
7. Cast out demons and restored sight to a blind man.
8. Taught about heaven and hell and revealed mysteries,
including resurrection, judgment, salvation and apocolypse.
9. Had a sacred cup or grail
10. Was slain
11. Religion had a eucharist
12. was "word made flesh"
13. Followers expected a "second coming" in a virgin-born
savior, who will begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a
golden age.


ATTIS
1. Attis was born on December 25th of the Virgin Nana.
2. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation
of mankind.
3. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.
4. His priests were "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven."
5. He was both the Divine Son and the Father.
6. On "Black Friday," he was crucified on a tree, from which his
holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.
7. He descended into the underworld.
8. After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25th (as
tradition held of Jesus) as the "Most High God."
9. It is recorded that Attis was represented as a "a man tied to
a tree, at the foot of which was a lamb, and, without doubt also
as a man nailed to a tree..."
10. Itis reported that on March 22nd, a pine tree was felled
and "an effigy of the god was affixed to it, thus being slain and
hung on a tree..." Later the priests are supposed to have found
Attis' grave empty.


SUMMARY
And lastly, Christians contend all of the following pre-Christian sun-gods are mythological: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus, and Horus. Yet, all: (1) allegedly had gods for fathers and virgins for mothers; (2) had their births announced by stars and celestial music; (3) were born on the 25th of December (Solstice); (4) had tyrants trying to kill them when they were infants; (5) met with violent deaths; and (6) rose from the dead.

Thanks in advance for the help,
OhMan.

 


daley
Theist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-09-22
User is offlineOffline
NO PARALLEL TO JESUS

I'd challenge you to prove these similarities by quoting from the ancient texts themselves that were written by the Hindus, Egyptians, etc, and compare the quotes from the Bible, and you will see that there really aren't good parallels at all. Take Khrishna for example:

"The mahat-tattva, the total material energy, is undivided, but because of the material modes of nature, it appears to separate into earth, water, fire, air and ether. Because of the living energy [jīva-bhūta], these separated energies combine to make the cosmic manifestation visible, but in fact, before the creation of the cosmos, the total energy is already present. Therefore, the total material energy never actually enters the creation. Similarly, although You are perceived by our senses because of Your presence, You cannot be perceived by the senses, nor experienced by the mind or words [avāń-mānasa-gocara]. With our senses we can perceive some things, but not everything; for example, we can use our eyes to see, but not to taste. Consequently, You are beyond perception by the senses. Although in touch with the modes of material nature, You are unaffected by them. You are the prime factor in everything, the all-pervading, undivided Supersoul. For You, therefore, there is no external or internal. You never entered the womb of Devakī; rather, You existed there already." Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (SB)10.3.15-17

Notice that the god never entered the womb of Devaki, hence, no virgin birth.
 

SB 10.2.16-18: "Thus the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the Supersoul of all living entities and who vanquishes all the fear of His devotees, entered the mind of Vasudeva in full opulence."
The word viśvātmā refers to one who is situated in everyone's heart (īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāḿ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati [Bg. 18.61]). Another meaning of viśvātmā is "the only lovable object for everyone." Because of forgetfulness of this object, people are suffering in this material world, but if one fortunately revives his old consciousness of loving Kṛṣṇa and connects with Viśvātmā, one becomes perfect. The Lord is described in the Third Canto (3.2.15) as follows: parāvareśo mahad-aḿśa-yukto hy ajo 'pi jāto bhagavān. Although unborn, the Lord, the master of everything, appears like a born child by entering the mind of a devotee. The Lord is already there within the mind, and consequently it is not astonishing for Him to appear as if born from a devotee's body. The word āviveśa signifies that the Lord appeared within the mind of Vasudeva. There was no need for a discharge of semen. That is the opinion of Śrīpāda Śrīdhara Svāmī and Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura. In the Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī, Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī says that consciousness was awakened within the mind of Vasudeva. Śrīla Vīrarāghava Ācārya also says that Vasudeva was one of the demigods and that within his mind the Supreme Personality of Godhead appeared as an awakening of consciousness. 

The Hindu text continues:
While carrying the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead within the core of his heart, Vasudeva bore the Lord's transcendentally illuminating effulgence, and thus he became as bright as the sun. He was therefore very difficult to see or approach through sensory perception. Indeed, he was unapproachable and unperceivable even for such formidable men as Kaḿsa, and not only for Kaḿsa but for all living entities. Thereafter, accompanied by plenary expansions, the fully opulent Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-auspicious for the entire universe, was transferred from the mind of Vasudeva to the mind of Devakī. Devakī, having thus been initiated by Vasudeva, became beautiful by carrying Lord Kṛṣṇa, the original consciousness for everyone, the cause of all causes, within the core of her heart, just as the east becomes beautiful by carrying the rising moon.


Again, notice the god Khrishna is transfered from mind to mine, and Devaki carried him in her heart, not her womb, hence no virgin birth.

As indicated here by the word manastaḥ, the Supreme Personality of Godhead was transferred from the core of Vasudeva's mind or heart to the core of the heart of Devakī. We should note carefully that the Lord was transferred to Devakī not by the ordinary way for a human being, but by dīkṣā, initiation. Unless one is initiated by the right person, who always carries within his heart the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one cannot acquire the power to carry the Supreme Godhead within the core of one's own heart.
Yogīs meditate upon the Supreme person within the mind. For a devotee, however, the Lord is present, and His presence need only be awakened through initiation by a bona fide spiritual master. The Lord did not need to live within the womb of Devakī, for His presence within the core of her heart was sufficient to carry Him. One is here forbidden to think that Kṛṣṇa was begotten by Vasudeva within the womb of Devakī and that she carried the child within her womb. Hence, no virgin birth.
 
Devaki was not even a virgin. Regarding he first son, we read:
SB 10.3.39-40: "Being husband and wife but always sonless, you were attracted by sexual desires, for by the influence of devamaya, transcendental love, you wanted to have Me as your son. Therefore you never desired to be liberated from this material world. After you received that benediction and I disappeared, you engaged yourselves in sex to have a son like Me, and I fulfilled your desire."

A virgin birth is never attributed to Krishna as his parents bore seven previous children. Furthermore, the virgin birth was not a new concept invented by Christians. The book of Isaiah (written about 700 B.C.) spoke of a Messiah who would be born of a virgin. This prophecy was in circulation 700 years before Jesus and at least 100 years before Krishna. (Isaiah 7:14) According to Hindu texts, Khrishna was the eighth son of Princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva:  "You have been born of the divine Devaki and Vasudeva for the protection of Brahma on earth."Mahabharata bk 12, XLVIII.  " Thus the six sons were born to Devaki and Kamsa, too, killed those six sons consecutively as they were born." Bhagavata bk 4, XXII:7 

Although many critics allege Krishna means Christ, Khrishna in Sanskrit actually translates as Black (One) as Krishna was believed to have blackish-blue skin. The word Christ literally translates the Hebrew "Messiach"as Anointed One. When skeptics, in turn, spell Krishna as Chrishna or Christna, this is a blatant attempt to spread more misinformation and reinforce their erroneous theories.
 
Nor was there a parallel in the death or ascention of Christ to Krishna:
"A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter, mistaking [Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. He [the hunter] touched the feet of [Krishna]. The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended upwards, filling the entire welkin with splendour... [Krishna] reached his own inconceivable region." Mahabharata bk 16, 4. 


INFANT MASSACRE
Critics claim a tyrannical ruler issued a decree to kill all infant males prior to Krishna's birth
but the Hindu legend states Devaki's six previous children were murdered by her cousin, King
Kamsa, due to a
prophecy foretelling his death at the hands of one of her children. Unlike Herod who issued a decree to slaughter
all the males under two years old, the Hindu version tells us Kamsa
only targeted Devaki's sons. He never
issued a decree to indiscriminately kill male infants:
"Thus the six sons were born to Devaki and Kamsa, too,
killed those six sons consecutively as they were born."
Bhagavata, Bk 4, XXII:7

PARENTS FLEE Critics claim while Krishna's parents fled to Mathura to avoid Kamsa, Jesus' parents fled to
Muturea to avoid Herod. But the Bible tells us Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt- not to some unknown place called
Muturea
. Furthermore, the Hindu texts tell us Krishna's parents never had a chance to flee- they were
imprisoned by Kamsa so he could kill Krishna once he was born: What faults had [Vasudeva] and his wife
Devaki committed? Why did Kamsa kill the six infant sons of Devaki? And for what reason did
[Vishnu] incarnate
Himself as the son of Vasudeva in the prison house of Kamsa?
Bhagavata, Bk 4, I:4-5 and Source

SHEPHERDS, WISEMEN, A STAR, AND A MANGER No mention of shepherds or wisemen appear at Krishna's
birth. Krishna was born in a
prison (not a stable as critics suggest) where his parents bore him in secret. It is
unlikely such visitors would arrive only to alert Kamsa to Krishna's presence!

CARPENTER FATHERS Like Jesus' earthly father, Krishna's father was also said to be a carpenter. Yet nowhere
in the Hindu texts does it say Vasudeva was a carpenter. In fact, we are told he was a
nobleman in the courts
of
Mathura as he was married to Princess Devaki. When Krishna fled the wrath of Kamsa with his foster
parents, we are told his foster-father
Nanda was a cow-herd: "Thou art the most beloved of Nanda, the Cow-
herd"
Bhagavata, Bk 8, I, pg 743

THE CRUCIFIXION Though critics claim Krishna was crucified, this is mentioned nowhere within the Hindu texts.
Instead, we are told exactly how he dies: Krishna is mediating in the woods when he is accidentally
shot in the
foot by a hunter's
arrow. Skeptics really try to streeetch this one by claiming the arrow that shot Krishna
impaled him to a tree, thus crucifying him. They also point out the similarity between his wound being in the foot
and Jesus' pierced hands and feet. However, if I was carving my initials into a tree and accidentally impaled my
wrist, the idea of saying I was crucified would be absurd. This story relates more to the death of Greek
mythology's Achilles than anything else:
"A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer.
The hunter, mistaking
[Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel
with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey."
Mahabharata, Book 16, 4

THE RESURRECTION Although critics claim Krishna descended into the grave for three days and appeared to
many witnesses, no evidence of this exists whatsoever. Instead, the
actual account says Krishna immediately
returns to life and speaks only to the hunter by forgiving him of his actions:
"He [the hunter] touched the feet of
[Krishna]. The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended upwards, filling the entire welkin with
splendour...
[Krishna] reached his own inconceivable region."
Mahabharata, Book 16, 4 Some obvious
differences between the resurrections of Jesus and Krishna are as follows:

  • Jesus' resurrection defeated the power of sin and death. Krishna's resurrection had no real affect on
    mankind.
  • Jesus appeared to approximately 500 eye witnesses in the New Testament. Krishna appeared only to the
    hunter.
  • Jesus rose from the dead three days later. Krishna immediately returned to life.
  • Jesus did not ascend into Heaven until after the Great Commission. Krishna immediately "ascended" into
    the afterlife.
  • Jesus was aware of what was to take place. Krishna had no foreknowledge concerning his death.
  • Jesus ascended into a physical realm (Heaven). Krishna transcended into a mental state (or inconceivable
    region). The concepts between Heaven (Christianity) and Nirvana (Hinduism) differ greatly.


THE LAST SUPPER Krishna is said to have celebrated a last supper but two reasons offer evidence this event
never occurred:

  1. There is no mention of Krishna having a last supper celebration in any of the Hindu texts.
  2. Because Krishna had no foreknowledge of his death, there is no reason he would have celebrated such an
    event!


DEPICTED AS BRUISING THE SERPENT'S HEAD
Genesis 3:15 is a metaphorical Messianic prophecy which
refers to Jesus'
spiritual battle with Satan. Though critics claim Krishna was also referred to as the seed of the
woman bruising the serpent's head
, this phrase is never used as a reference to Krishna. The only thing that
occurs is a
literal battle Krishna encounters with actual serpents.
Mahabharata, Bk 7, LXXXI and Mahabharata
Book 8, XC


MISCELLANEOUS ERRONEOUS REFERENCES

  • Krishna was born in a cave. Actually, neither Jesus nor Krishna were born in caves. Krishna was born in a
    prison cell
    and the only reference to Jesus being born in a cave is in noncanonical writings.
  • Krishna lived a sinless life. Whereas the Bible makes it clear Jesus committed no sin during His lifetime,
    The Hindu texts admit to Krishna's promiscuity and numerous sexual affairs.
  • Krishna was born on December 25th. Actually, Krishna's birthday celebration, known as the Krishna
    Janmaashtami, is celebrated in the Hindu month of Bhadrapadha which corresponds to the month of
    August. Furthermore, it is unlikely Jesus was born on this date. Christmas is only celebrated on this date
    due to tradition.
  • Krishna moved a small mountain to protect a village from disaster. Jesus states if you had faith as a
    mustard seed you would say to the mountain uproot yourself and be cast into the ocean. Other than the
    concept of moving mountains, anyone can see that these two statements have nothing essential in
    common. One describes a physical feat while the other uses moving a mountain as a metaphor to the
    power of faith.


CONCLUSION The Hindu texts have admittedly been altered and added to over the centuries. Many comparisons
of the newer and older texts regarding the story of Krishna reveal many tales being added in later texts known
as the
Puranas (400-1000 A.D.), Bhagavata (400-1000 A.D.), and the Harivamsa, (100-1000 A.D.). These texts
have been proven by scholars to have been written
after the life of Jesus.

Skeptical Interjection: According to Hindu tradition, the Bhagavata Purana is believed to have been written by
Vyasa in about 3100 BC. It mentions the Vedic Sarasvati River about 30 times which was believed to be dried up
around 2000 B.C.
Answer: This is often cited as an argument for an earlier date of the Bhagavata. However it does not hold up for
many reasons. The fact that the Bhagavata Purana mentions the non-extant Vedic Sarasvati River is no more
proof of an early date of authorship than it would prove an ancient date of authorship if I were to write a novel
centering around the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. The mention of the ancient river proves nothing more than
the knowledge of its historical existence. There is also no record of any of these texts existing prior to the first
century A.D. Even when the older Hindu texts were in circulation, the books regarding many details about
Krishna's life were not included. Finally, the language and grammar of the Bhagavata Purana is not consistent
with the more ancient languages of India.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
What is the main similarity

What is the main similarity between Jesus and all the other deities mentioned?

Human beings thought them up and wrote about them.

Funny how Christians can block that one out.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BUT YOU HAVE NO RECORD OF

BUT YOU HAVE NO RECORD OF DIRECT CONTACT BETWEEN THESE CULTURES!

Which is the fallacious bullshit argument believers will bring up.

Think of all the people you have only met once in your life and will never met again and have no record of meeting.

When you employ occhams razor to this it makes reality blatantly obvious, even if the ladder is missing a rung.

Occham's razor basically says that out of countless propositions to address a question the one with the least baggage is the most likely answer.

So here are your choices. Which one out of these choices seems to be the least needlessly complicated?

1. There is a magical brain with no brain, no body, no cerebellum, no neurons that has magical super powers?

OR

2. Humans have always had a history of making up gods and falsely believe them to be fact?

 

It makes much more sense to me, even with a rung missing from the ladder, that people mixed prior motifs into newer cultures. Overlap will not always be directly connected, but the "MOTIF" IS the ladder that holds the rungs.

There is nothing new about humans and their claims that a super hero will save them. All that happens is that these myths get filtered down through multiple cultures and generations to the point that they are so far removed from the original story and original culture that people confuse details as making something real when the motif has never left humanity.

Hero worship is what all religions are.

Marketing is what makes a religion successful, not an actual god being real. It is no different than Coke and Pepsi competing. Saying that  a god is the one true god is like saying Coke is the only beverage because it's can is red and is the most popular.

The fact is that thoughts require material. Thor was once believed as being as real as modern Muslims and Christians believe in their respective god/s.

But popularity and details of any of these will never change the fact that thoughts require a material process. Since god/s have no material, and since we know humans are capable of believing false things, I put them squarely in with Harry Potter and Star Wars as merely fiction falsely believed to be fact.

The reason people believe in gods is the same as someone believing in lucky socks or horoscopes. They believe it because it sounds nice, not because they have any practical means to objectively test their claims or have outsiders independently kick the tires.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Discounting the myth pissing contest

 

could you please prove your contention that "jesus defeated the power of sin and death" with some falsifiable evidence that's not contained in your biased and relentlessly flawed holy book. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
What Christians forget about

What Christians forget about all those previous gods that have similar characteristics to Jesus is there is the SAME historical evidence for Jesus as them i.e. NOTHING!!

There are no contemporary or eyewitness accounts that Jesus or Moses EVER existed on earth at all! That is in an area (Palestine and Egypt) that has the richest collection of historical records on earth yet no mention that a Jesus or Moses EVEN EVER existed until 40 writers wrote fairy tales (the bible) they CLAIM happened DECADES earlier!!.

Every historical reference only refers to the book and not a living person on earth!!

That's it Christians!! GAME OVER!!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Daley, OhMan doesn't even

Daley, OhMan doesn't even list Krishna in his comparisons of gods that Jesus was copied from.


OhMan
atheist
OhMan's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2010-08-02
User is offlineOffline
Look, I'm sure some of these

Look, I'm sure some of these are true some of these are false, I just grabbed them all off various websites?

 

All I'm looking for is lets say, ten? five? high-quality, authentic similarities between a Biblical claim and another religion, with the other religion predating the Biblical claim. This way I can go, HA see, your Bible stole this from this.

That's all I need, right now I've got quantity over quality, I'm looking for the other way around.


daley
Theist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-09-22
User is offlineOffline
effort

A commendable effort, but not good enough. Providing a long list of claims proves nothing, providing solid evidence for one claim does prove something. I am challenging you, that you CANNOT provide a single quotation from ANY of the ancient writings which discuss these different gods, which parallels the Biblical narrative of Jesus' life, death, or resurrection. It's one thing to claim "ancient pagans believed this too," its another thing to prove it! WHERE ARE THE QUOTES???? I'm not asking for ten, I'm asking for only one! Is that too much to ask? If you haven't read these texts for yourself, then you don't really know fo sure that the parallels are real! What Egyptian text do you get your parallels from? Name the text! If that one is too hard, you gve a long list, maybe you can cite a verse from the anceint texts about one of the other gods you mentioned. So many options, yet no evidence....Please, a claim, is not proof..


daley
Theist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-09-22
User is offlineOffline
similarity

Just because humans need a physical brain made of flesh to think doesn't mean that ALL biengs need one made of flesh. As for this bit about no contact between cultures, I never said that, that's an argument you assumed I might make which I didn't! All I am saying is that if you are making the claim of plagarism of one text onto another, show me a comparison between the the two text, and let me see the similarity for myself! I don't follow hearsay. I don't believe that pagans already had the same storey that's in the Bible just because someone says so...The people who wote these things are dead, and not hear to defend their own interpretation; but, can you show me the texts themselves so I can KNOW and not just BELIEVE there is a similarity?


daley
Theist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-09-22
User is offlineOffline
eyewitness

No contemporary evidence you say?

The Early Eyewitnesses of Jesus
Evidence for the Early Dating of the Gospel Eyewitness Accounts


So How Early Are We Talking About Here?
How do we know what we know about Jesus? How can we be sure that we can trust what we have been told about Jesus? It's important for us to determine whether or not the documents we know as the "gospels" are, in fact, true eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. If they are eyewitness accounts, we would expect them to appear in history very early; very near the actual life of the Messiah and within the lifetime of those who claimed to see and learn from Jesus. As it turns out, contrary to liberal scholarship that would like us to believe that Jesus is simply a myth or exaggeration created many decades (or even centuries) after the first century, there are many good reasons to believe that the gospels appeared very early in history. If this is the case, the gospels would be ancient enough to contain the claims of eyewitnesses rather than the exaggerations of myth makers, and the gospels would have been circulated at a time when other eyewitnesses would have been alive and able to correct any attempted exaggeration.

Let's take a look at the historical and textual evidence related to the gospels and determine just how early they first appeared on the scene. As we "zero in" on the early dating of the gospels, remember that as we inch near the time of Jesus' life with a particular piece of evidence, we build an even stronger case for the preceding piece of evidence offered. The cumulative case for early dating becomes stronger with each additional line of evidence:

Earlier Than 250AD
On November 19, 1931, the "Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri" were revealed to the world. This group of ancient papyri from Aphroditopolis contains eleven manuscripts, and three of them are fragments of the New Testament, including the four canonical gospels. They have been dated from 200-250AD. It's clear from the existence of these papyri that the gospels appeared prior to their collection as part of this library. We can therefore conclude that the gospels appeared prior to 250AD.

Earlier Than 200AD
Another large group of ancient papyri were discovered in Egypt in 1952. The “Bodmer Papyri” were discovered at the headquarters of a Pachomian order of monks in Pabau near Dishna. The set of papyri contains a text of the Gospel of John, dated to the first part of the third century (circa 200-225AD). Given that John is accepted by scholars as the last written gospel, it is reasonable to conclude that the other gospels were in circulation by 200AD.

Earlier Than 180AD
Tatian the Assyrian was a Christian theologian who lived from 120 to 180AD. Perhaps his most important work was a text known as the “Diatessaron”; it is a paraphrase (or “harmony&rdquoEye-wink of the four gospels. This work became the standard text for the Syriac speaking Christian churches for nearly 500 years. It was obviously written prior to Tatian’s death in 180AD and demonstrates that the four gospels were already in circulation and well known by the time Tatian took on the task of harmonizing them.

Earlier Than 150AD
Many of the early Church Fathers were familiar with the gospels and quoted them in their own letters and writings. Justin Martyr, in his “First Apology” (150AD) quotes and alludes to the Gospel of John Chapter 3 (1 Apol. 61, 4-5). This is consistent with the fact that Justin was Tatian’s teacher and surely knew what Tatian knew about the existing gospels. Justin’s use of the Gospel of John pushes the dating back an additional 30 years to 150AD.

Earlier Than 130AD
According to Eusebius, Papias of Hierapolis mentioned writings by Matthew and Mark when he (Papias) wrote his five-volume “Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord” around 130AD. This is consistent with the fact that the famous “Ryland’s Papyri” contains a fragment of John’s gospel dating to the same period of time (130AD). The Ryland’s Papyri was discovered in Egypt and contained thousands of papyrus fragments. It is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel of John was completed long before 130AD given the fact that it was obviously written, copied and transmitted from Greece to Egypt over some period of time before it became part of this collection.

Earlier Than 120AD
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John (or perhaps John the Evangelist) and later became the Bishop of Smyrna in the second century. He is regarded as one of the three foremost Apostolic Fathers and the only surviving work from Polycarp is a letter he wrote to the Philippian Church in 120AD. Polycarp quoted from the gospels and other letters of the New Testament in this document; it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the gospels were in existence and well known prior to 120AD.

Earlier Than 110AD
Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch in the late first / early second century. He wrote several letters around 110AD that quote or allude to the Gospel of Matthew. His letters to Ephesus, Smyrna and Polycarp quote or allude to Matthew 12:33, 19:12 and 10:16. It is clear that Matthew was already in circulation and well accepted by the time of these writings.

Earlier Than 100AD
In addition to this, the "Didache" or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" also quotes from Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer in Didache 8:1. The Didache was first discovered in a monastery in Constantinople and was clearly utilized by the earliest Christians. Athanasius described it as "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of goodness". The Didache is most recently dated at approximately 100AD; it is yet another evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was already in circulation and widely recognizable by this time.

Earlier Than 95AD
Clement is listed as either the second or third bishop at Rome (following Peter) and he wrote a letter to the Corinthian congregation that is known as 1 Clement. This letter is commonly dated to the end of the reign of Domitian in Rome (95 or 96AD). Clement utilized sections from Matthew's gospel in 1 Clement 13:1-2, once again establishing that Matthew's gospel was already in circulation and "quotable" as early as 95AD.

Earlier Than 70AD
Perhaps the most significant event of the first century, particularly in the minds of Jews and early Christian converts, was the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70AD. Rome dispatched an army to Jerusalem in response to the Jewish rebellion of 66AD. The Roman army (under the leadership of Titus) ultimately destroyed the temple in 70AD, just as Jesus had predicted in the Gospels. Yet no gospel account records the destruction of the temple. In fact, no New Testament document mentions or alludes to the temple's destruction, even though there are many occasions when a description of the temple destruction might have assisted in establishing a theological or historical verification. The most reasonable explanation for silence related to the destruction of the temple is simply that all the New Testament documents, including the gospels, were written prior to 70AD.
 

Earlier Than 64AD
It is reasonable to conclude that the Book of Acts was completed prior to 64AD. Luke, the author of the text, says nothing about the Jewish war with the Romans that started in 66AD, and he says nothing about the destruction of the temple nor the persecution of the Church that occurred under the Roman army in the mid-60’s. Many of the expressions used by Luke in the Book of Acts are very early and primitive and fit well into the context of Palestine prior to the fall of the temple. In addition, Luke says nothing about the martyrdom of James (that occurred in 61AD), the martyrdom of Paul (that occurred in 64AD) or the martyrdom of Peter (that occurred in 65AD). In fact, Paul is still alive a the end of the Book of Acts. It is reasonable, therefore, to date the writing of Acts prior to 64AD.


Luke wrote both the Book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke. These two texts contain introductions that tie them together in history. In the introduction to the book of Acts, Luke refers to his ‘former book’ where he ‘wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven’. If it is reasonable to conclude that the Book of Acts was written prior to 64AD, it would also be reasonable to conclude that the Gospel of Luke was written in the years prior to this. Paul certainly knew that Luke’s Gospel was common knowledge in about 64AD when Paul penned his letter to Timothy. Note the following passage from his letter:

 
1 Timothy 5:17-18
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’
 

Paul quotes two passages as scripture here; one in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament. ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ refers to Deuteronomy 25:4 and ‘The worker deserves his wages’ refers to Luke 10:7. It’s clear that Luke’s gospel was already common knowledge and accepted as scripture by the time this letter was written. It’s therefore reasonable to assume that Luke’s gospel was written in the early 60’s.

Earlier Than 60AD
Like the Book of Acts, none of the gospels mention any of the aforementioned events that occurred following 61AD. The earliest of these gospels, Mark, is quoted repeatedly by Luke in the gospel he wrote prior to the Book of Acts. This shouldn’t surprise us; Luke told us that he was not an eyewitness but simply a good historian who was consulting the witnesses at the time:

 

Luke 1:1-4

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. 

 It’s reasonable to believe that Mark’s gospel was already in circulation prior to Luke’s investigation. If Luke is written in the Early 60’s, it’s reasonable to assume that Mark’s gospel was written just prior to that, placing it in the late 50’s.

Earlier Than 55AD
While liberal scholars are inclined to deny that Paul is the author of all the letters attributed to him in the Bible, even the most skeptical scholars agree that Paul is the author of the letters written to the Romans, the Corinthians and the Galatians, and that these letters were written in the period between 48AD and 60AD. The Letter to the Romans is typically dated at 50AD and reveals something important related to the early existence of the gospels. Paul begins the letter by proclaiming that Jesus is the resurrected “Son of God”; Paul already describes a “High Christology” in this letter. Jesus is not simply a humble prophet who was transformed into God through an evolution of mythology over hundreds of years. He is the Jesus of the gospels in Paul’s letters, just 17 years after the Resurrection. In fact, Paul’s outline of Jesus’ life matches that of the gospels. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul summarizes the gospel message and reinforces the idea that this message is the same one that was delivered to him by the apostles. In his Letter to the Galatians (written in the mid-50’s) Paul describes his interaction with these apostles (Peter and James) and says that the meeting occurred at least 14 years prior to the writing of the letter (Galatians 1:18, cf. 2:1). This means that Paul saw the risen Christ and learned about the gospel accounts from the eyewitnesses (Peter and James) within 5 years of the Crucifixion. This is why Paul was able to tell the Corinthians (in his letter written 53-57AD) that there were still many living eyewitnesses who could confirm the Resurrection accounts: 
1 Corinthians 15: 3-7
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep ; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles
 Paul’s description of Jesus never changes in the many years over which he wrote letters to the local churches. Paul remains steadfast in the manner in which he describes Jesus. There is no slow evolution of Jesus from man to God, even though Paul's letters span 12 to 15 years. Paul is rooted in the gospel description of Jesus from his first meeting with the eyewitnesses who knew Jesus personally. Paul also seems to be familiar with the Gospel of Luke as he writes his early letter to the Corinthian church. Notice the similarity between Paul's description of Lord's Supper and Luke's gospel: 
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread ; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood..." Luke 22:19-20
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."
 Paul, writing from 53 - 57AD, appears to be quoting Luke's gospel (as it is the only gospel that has Jesus saying that the disciples are to "do this in remembrance of me&quotEye-wink. Luke was Paul's traveling companion and it was Luke's gospel that Paul quoted in 1 Timothy as well. Remember that Luke gathered his material from the available eyewitnesses, such as Mark, so it is once again reasonable to assume that Mark's account was available very early in history in order to serve as the basis for details such as the information Paul is quoting about the Lord's Supper.

This evidence for tracing the gospels to the 50’s may corroborate the controversial discovery of Jose O’Callaghan (an eminent Spanish Jesuit papyrologist). O’Callaghan examined a papyri fragment discovered at Qumran in Cave 7 (as part of the Dead Sea Scroll collection). O’Callaghan concluded that this fragment (called the ‘7Q5&rsquoEye-wink is actually a piece of Mark’s gospel (Mark 6:52-53). The fragment is dated at 50AD. 

There are many good reasons to believe that the gospels were written very early and circulated by the early Christians who read them, quoted them and preserved them for later generations. We’ve assembled thirteen pieces of evidence that establish the early dating of the gospels and we’ve arranged them from most recent to most ancient for a reason. As we read down the list of evidences, we come to understand that the first piece of evidence from 250AD is further validated and supported by the second piece of evidence from 200AD. Each subsequent piece of evidence then continues to support the prior evidential claims. There is good reason, therefore, to believe that the gospels appeared within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses who claimed to write them.

 


daley
Theist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-09-22
User is offlineOffline
criterion

My question to you is, by what criterion do you establish that a person did exist in history at all? and why doesn't Jesus pass this criterion?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Because

 

daley wrote:

My question to you is, by what criterion do you establish that a person did exist in history at all? and why doesn't Jesus pass this criterion?

 

The references to his life are loaded. Because you can't use the literary historical method to prove that the son of god walked the earth.

Why do christians insist on the rigours of the historical method being applied to their book but deny the rigours of the scientific method?

Ordinarily a couple of independent references would be sufficient to say some one lived but in the case of a metaversal deity better proof

is needed. Massaging of the gospel texts by the early church is certain.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Daley, you just don't

Daley, you just don't understand at all!! Those "eyewitnesses" to Jesus you posted are NOT eyewitnesses AT ALL!! This is why Christianity has been wrong for THOUSANDS of years and NONE of the far fetched supernatural predictions will EVER come true!!

You are getting confused  between theology and history!! You just rambled off a bunch of scripture that means NOTHING! 95% of scripture is OUTSIDE the bible!  Haven't you ever look at any of that??

For example, there are many eyewitness to Krishna such as Arjuna, the Pandava Brothers, Rukmini, etc.  So then he is the Supreme Personality of Godhead right?  So then all the other gods are inferior gods or demi-gods.  You also forget that Mithras, Horus, Dionysis, as well as some Native American and African gods had apostles too! So they are eyewitness to their gods right?

There is not a SINGLE person in the Roman Empire anywhere from  0 AD to 150 AD who even SAW or heard of Jesus, Mary, Moses, or ANY of the apostles or ANY bible character!! No historical references to the bible apostles even exist!!

The bible is MYTH!! It's just that some people haven't realized it yet but more are getting there. That is what happens when a fairy tale tells you an invisible carpenter in the sky is supposed to come down to earth but he's 2000 years late!!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


daley
Theist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-09-22
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

 

The references to his life are loaded. Because you can't use the literary historical method to prove that the son of god walked the earth.

Why do christians insist on the rigours of the historical method being applied to their book but deny the rigours of the scientific method?

Ordinarily a couple of independent references would be sufficient to say some one lived but in the case of a metaversal deity better proof

is needed. Massaging of the gospel texts by the early church is certain.

 

 

 

Past events in history such as the existence of the Jewish historian Josephus are by nature in the past, and therefore must be examined historically. Josephus existence is not open to investigation by laboratory experience. I don't see why you would have a problem with using the historical method to determine the historicity of a person. If that person were physically available to us, we could do scientific tests on them, but events long past in history need to be examined historically. For instance, how do we know what Manetho did or wrote? What scientific tests can we do? None! We have to look back at the historical writings of the period, and sift out the facts from the fiction!

 

As for needing better proof for a metaversal diety, let me ask you this. If a man really did once live, who raised another man from the dead. Let's say for arguments sake that it did happen. That a man lived who did heal the sick, etc. When that man died and was gone, and all the witnesses died and eroded, what proof do you expect to find that it did happen? Only a wrtten historical record of what happened. So I don't know exactly what better evidence you'd expect to find. What we have is exactly what we'd expect to have.

 

I'm curious though, of exactly what kind of scientific evidence you'd expect to find of a man who did the things that the Bible says Jesus did. Can you tell me?

 


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
You are wrong daley

We don't have what we would expect to have.  The bible is not a contemporary history piece, but was written much after the events.  One would expect something so extraordinary to be well documented at the time of the event.  Romans kept pretty decent records of the goings-on in their neck of the woods and the actual contemporary pieces of that time-period fail to mention something as significant as the son of god.

[Free Hug]s are no longer available
Please refer to our older [Cheap Hug] model.
*provides slightly less comfort*


daley
Theist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-09-22
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Daley, you just don't understand at all!! Those "eyewitnesses" to Jesus you posted are NOT eyewitnesses AT ALL!! This is why Christianity has been wrong for THOUSANDS of years and NONE of the far fetched supernatural predictions will EVER come true!!

You are getting confused  between theology and history!! You just rambled off a bunch of scripture that means NOTHING! 95% of scripture is OUTSIDE the bible!  Haven't you ever look at any of that??

For example, there are many eyewitness to Krishna such as Arjuna, the Pandava Brothers, Rukmini, etc.  So then he is the Supreme Personality of Godhead right?  So then all the other gods are inferior gods or demi-gods.  You also forget that Mithras, Horus, Dionysis, as well as some Native American and African gods had apostles too! So they are eyewitness to their gods right?

There is not a SINGLE person in the Roman Empire anywhere from  0 AD to 150 AD who even SAW or heard of Jesus, Mary, Moses, or ANY of the apostles or ANY bible character!! No historical references to the bible apostles even exist!!

The bible is MYTH!! It's just that some people haven't realized it yet but more are getting there. That is what happens when a fairy tale tells you an invisible carpenter in the sky is supposed to come down to earth but he's 2000 years late!!

 

You claim that they were not eyewitnesses. But they were. And this can be shown with much ease. The oldes fragment of John's gospel still extant is the John Rhylands Papyrus (P52) and dated about 120 AD (Time, April 26, 1996, p.Cool This fragment was discovered in Egypt. So by 120 CE handwitten copies of this manuscript were circulating in Egypt. The original must have been written earlier. Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament including John, so even in the mid-first century we have John's gospel already existing. If a manuscript dates back close enough to the time of the events to which they related (in this case about 2/4 BC to 33 CE) it increases the possibility that it was written by an eyewitness. Not only do the gospels date back to the time of which they speak, but the early church fathers and even non-Christian writers unanimously attribute most of them to the same authors.

 

You said that "there are many eyewitness to Krishna such as Arjuna, the Pandava Brothers, Rukmini." Let me ask, does the Bagavadgita (which contains the story of how God talks with Arjuna) date back to the time of which it speaks? Are there any manuscripts of this book in existence today that date back close to that period? Further, in which verse does THE AUTHOR of the book claim to be an eyewitness? Let me share some historical info with you:

 

Quote from "The Bible's Manuscript Evidence"

"There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts (taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17).

AuthorDate WrittenEarliest CopyTime SpanCopies (extent)
 
Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History)480 - 425 BC900 AD1,300 years8
Thucydides (History)460 - 400 BC900 AD1,300 years?
Aristotle (Philosopher)384 - 322 BC1,100 AD1,400 years5
Caesar (History)100 - 44 BC900 AD1,000 years10
Pliny (History)61 - 113 AD850 AD750 years7
Suetonius (Roman History)70 - 140 AD950 AD800 years?
Tacitus (Greek History)100 AD1,100 AD1,000 years20
 
Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)1st century50-60 ADco-existant (?) 
John Rylands (John)90 AD130 AD40 years 
Bodmer Papyrus II (John)90 AD150-200 AD60-110 years 
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)1st century200 AD150 years 
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)1st century200 AD150 years 
Codex Vaticanus (Bible)1st century325-350 AD275-300 years 
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)1st century350 AD300 years 
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)1st century400 AD350 years 

(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)

What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testament manuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number of them hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript. This not only shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures, but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation."

 

Quote from "Evidence for the Resurrection: A Challenge to Sketics"

"2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop. The original demythologizers pinned their case onto a late second-century date for the writing of the Gospels; several generations have to pass before the added mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts. Eyewitnesses would be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions. We know of other cases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious founder -- for example, Buddha, Lao-tzu and Muhammad. In each case, many generations passed before the myth surfaced.

The dates for the writing of the Gospels have been pushed back by every empirical manuscript discovery; only abstract hypothesizing pushes the date forward. Almost no knowledgeable scholar today holds what Bultmann said it was necessary to hold in order to believe the myth theory, namely, that there is no first-century textual evidence that Christianity began with a divine and resurrected Christ, not a human and dead one.

Some scholars still dispute the first-century date for the Gospels, especially John's. But no one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. So let us argue from Paul's letters. Either these letters contain myth or they do not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. There is not even one generation. If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels. Julius Muller put the anti-myth argument this way:

"One cannot imagine how such a series of legends could arise in an historical age, obtain universal respect, and supplant the historical recollection of the true character [Jesus]....if eyewitnesses were still at hand who could be questioned respecting the truth of the recorded marvels. Hence, legendary fiction, as it likes not the clear present time but prefers the mysterious gloom of gray antiquity, is wont to seek a remoteness of age, along with that of space, and to remove its boldest and most rare and wonderful creations into a very remote and unknown land." (The Theory of Myths in Its Application to the Gospel History Examined and Confuted [London, 1844], p. 26)

Muller challenged his nineteenth-century contemporaries to produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death. No one has ever answered him.

(3) The myth theory has two layers. The first layer is the historical Jesus, who was not divine, did not claim divinity, performed no miracles, and did not rise from the dead. The second, later, mythologized layer is the Gospels as we have them, with a Jesus who claimed to be divine, performed miracles and rose from the dead. The problem with this theory is simply that there is not the slightest bit of any real evidence whatever for the existence of any such first layer. The two-layer cake theory has the first layer made entirely of air -- and hot air at that.

St. Augustine refutes the two-layer theory with his usual condensed power and simplicity:

"The speech of one Elpidius, who had spoken and disputed face to face against the Manichees, had already begun to affect me at Carthage, when he produced arguments from Scripture which were not easy to answer. And the answer they [the Manichees, who claimed to be the true Christians] gave seemed to me feeble -- indeed they preferred not to give it in public but only among ourselves in private -- the answer being that the Scriptures of the New Testament had been corrupted by some persons unknown...yet the Manicheans made no effort to produce uncorrupted copies." (Confessions, V, 11, Sheed translation)

Note the sarcasm in the last sentence. It still applies today. William Lane Craig summarizes the evidence -- the lack of evidence:

"The Gospels are a miraculous story, and we have no other story handed down to us than that contained in the Gospels....The letters of Barnabas and Clement refer to Jesus' miracles and resurrection. Polycarp mentions the resurrection of Christ, and Irenaeus relates that he had heard Polycarp tell of Jesus' miracles. Ignatius speaks of the resurrection. Puadratus reports that persons were still living who had been healed by Jesus. Justin Martyr mentions the miracles of Christ. No relic of a non-miraculous story exists. That the original story should be lost and replaced by another goes beyond any known example of corruption of even oral tradition, not to speak of the experience of written transmissions. These facts show that the story in the Gospels was in substance the same story that Christians had at the beginning. This means...that the resurrection of Jesus was always a part of the story." (Apologetics, chapter 6)

(4) A little detail, seldom noticed, is significant in distinguishing the Gospels from myth: the first witnesses of the resurrection were women. In first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses. If the empty tomb were an invented legend, its inventors surely would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered worthless. If, on the other hand, the writers were simply reporting what they saw, they would have to tell the truth, however socially and legally inconvenient.

(5) The New Testament could not be myth misinterpreted and confused with fact because it specifically distinguishes the two and repudiates the mythic interpretation (2 Peter 1:16). Since it explicitly says it is not myth, if it is myth it is a deliberate lie rather than myth. The dilemma still stands. It is either truth or lie, whether deliberate (conspiracy) or non-deliberate (hallucination). There is no escape from the horns of this dilemma. Once a child asks whether Santa Claus is real, your yes becomes a lie, not myth, if he is not literally real. Once the New Testament distinguishes myth from fact, it becomes a lie if the resurrection is not fact.

(6) William Lane Craig has summarized the traditional textual arguments with such clarity, condensation and power that we quote him here at length. The following arguments (rearranged and outlined from Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection) prove two things: first, that the Gospels were written by the disciples, not later myth-makers, and second, that the Gospels we have today are essentially the same as the originals.

(A) Proof that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses:

(1) Internal evidence, from the Gospels themselves:

(a) The style of writing in the Gospels is simple and alive, what we would expect from their traditionally accepted authors.

(b) Moreover, since Luke was written before Acts, and since Acts was written prior to the death of Paul, Luke must have an early date, which speaks for its authenticity.

(c) The Gospels also show an intimate knowledge of Jerusalem prior to its destruction in A.D. 70. The Gospels are full of proper names, dates, cultural details, historical events, and customs and opinions of that time.

(d) Jesus' prophecies of that event (the destruction of Jerusalem) must have been written prior to Jerusalem's fall, for otherwise the church would have separated out the apocalyptic element in the prophecies, which makes them appear to concern the end of the world. Since the end of the world did not come about when Jerusalem was destroyed, the so-called prophecies of its destruction that were really written after the city was destroyed would not have made that event appear so closely connected with the end of the world. Hence, the Gospels must have been written prior to A.D. 70.

(e) The stories of Jesus' human weaknesses and of the disciples' faults also bespeak the Gospels' accuracy.

(f) Furthermore, it would have been impossible for forgers to put together so consistent a narrative as that which we find in the Gospels. The Gospels do not try to suppress apparent discrepancies, which indicates their originality (written by eyewitnesses). There is no attempt at harmonization between the Gospels, such as we might expect from forgers.

(g) The Gospels do not contain anachronisms; the authors appear to have been first-century Jews who were witnesses of the events.

We may conclude that there is no more reason to doubt that the Gospels come from the traditional authors than there is to doubt that the works of Philo or Josephus are authentic, except that the Gospels contain supernatural events.

(2) External evidence:

(a) The disciples must have left some writings, engaged as they were in giving lessons to and counseling believers who were geographically distant; and what could these writings be if not the Gospels and epistles themselves? Eventually the apostles would have needed to publish accurate narratives of Jesus' history, so that any spurious attempts would be discredited and the genuine Gospels preserved.

(b) There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not.

(c) The extra-biblical testimony unanimously attributes the Gospels to their traditional authors: the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, Theophilus, Hippolytus, Origen, Puadratus, Irenaeus, Melito, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Tatian, Caius, Athanasius, Cyril, up to Eusebius in A.D. 315, even Christianity's opponents conceded this: Celsus, Porphyry, Emperor Julian.

(d) With a single exception, no apocryphal gospel is ever quoted by any known author during the first three hundred years after Christ. In fact there is no evidence that any inauthentic gospel whatever existed in the first century, in which all four Gospels and Acts were written.

(B) Proof that the Gospels we have today are the same Gospels originally written:

(1) Because of the need for instruction and personal devotion, these writings must have been copied many times, which increases the chances of preserving the original text.

(2) In fact, no other ancient work is available in so many copies and languages, and yet all these various versions agree in content.

(3) The text has also remained unmarred by heretical additions. The abundance of manuscripts over a wide geographical distribution demonstrates that the text has been transmitted with only trifling discrepancies. The differences that do exist are quite minor and are the result of unintentional mistakes.

(4) The quotations of the New Testament books in the early Church Fathers all coincide.

(5) The Gospels could not have been corrupted without a great outcry on the part of all orthodox Christians.

(6) No one could have corrupted all the manuscripts.

(7) There is no precise time when the falsification could have occurred, since, as we have seen, the New Testament books are cited by the Church Fathers in regular and close succession. The text could not have been falsified before all external testimony, since then the apostles were still alive and could repudiate such tampering.

(Cool The text of the New Testament is every bit as good as the text of the classical works of antiquity. To repudiate the textual parity of the Gospels would be to reverse all the rules of criticism and to reject all the works of antiquity, since the text of those works is less certain than that of the Gospels.

Richard Purtill summarizes the textual case:

"Many events which are regarded as firmly established historically have (1) far less documentary evidence than many biblical events; (2) and the documents on which historians rely for much secular history are written much longer after the event than many records of biblical events; (3) furthermore, we have many more copies of biblical narratives than of secular histories; and (4) the surviving copies are much earlier than those on which our evidence for secular history is based. If the biblical narratives did not contain accounts of miraculous events, biblical history would probably be regarded as much more firmly established than most of the history of, say, classical Greece and Rome." (Thinking About Religion, p. 84-85)"

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Congratulations, by your

Congratulations, by your standards of evidence Sai Baba is a true mystic and miracle worker.  Eye witness accounts abound.  Thousands of written examples of his miracles.  Video even.  Hundreds of thousands of contemporary followers.

 

If you weren't able to go to youtube and look up some videos exposing his trickery, how, using the standards you apply to Jesus, would you disprove his claims?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

Congratulations, by your standards of evidence Sai Baba is a true mystic and miracle worker.  Eye witness accounts abound.  Thousands of written examples of his miracles.  Video even.  Hundreds of thousands of contemporary followers.

 

If you weren't able to go to youtube and look up some videos exposing his trickery, how, using the standards you apply to Jesus, would you disprove his claims?

LOL...daley never answered because he knows a bunch of baseless ramblings that are NOT corroborated by any source OUTSIDE the bible don't mean JACK SQUAT!!  If you don't have any source OUTSIDE of the source of your claims to corroborate those claims then it's just like ANY OTHER book of fiction or mythology and that is EXACTLY what the bible is!!

 

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
OhMan wrote: I have been

OhMan wrote:

 

I have been attempting to collate a list of similarities between stories of the Bible pre-existing stories from other religions (that is, written before the Bible was known to be written). I was wondering if anyone can comment on the veracity of my collation, and/or add to it. I have collected all these over various websites from various places, so I can't be 100% of their accuracy.
...
And lastly, Christians contend all of the following pre-Christian sun-gods are mythological: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus, and Horus. Yet, all: (1) allegedly had gods for fathers and virgins for mothers; (2) had their births announced by stars and celestial music; (3) were born on the 25th of December (Solstice); (4) had tyrants trying to kill them when they were infants; (5) met with violent deaths; and (6) rose from the dead.

Thanks in advance for the help,
OhMan.

 

I've studied Buddhism to some degree, particularly the Therevada school, who do not deify the Buddha. I don't ever recall reading or seeing and allusions to a virgin birth, death, or resurrection... But this si from the Thervada school only. I dunno about the others.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
daley wrote: I'm curious

daley wrote:

 

I'm curious though, of exactly what kind of scientific evidence you'd expect to find of a man who did the things that the Bible says Jesus did. Can you tell me?

 

Daley, you are making the same juvenile mistake that so many Christians make. It's why the influence of Christianity has collapsed in the last several hundred years.  Christian theocracies ruled entire continents and now they are ILLEGAL! WHY do you think that is??  Because you are confusing MYTH for some sort of historical truth!

It's very simple.  It's useless to keep quoting apostles since they are just part of the myth.  If there really was a Jesus and his apostles around back then you would have confirmation of this OUTSIDE the bible but it DOES NOT EXIST!!

Not a single Roman authority during the reigns of the Emperors Augustus and Tiberius even mention a Jesus or any of the apostles even existed!! Palestinian historians who lived during the ALLEGED life of Jesus such as  Justus of Tiberius, Arrian Phaedrus, Lucanus Suetonius, Columella Phlegon (among others) not only never mention that any of ridiculous bible events such as the resurrection and walking on water ever happened but don't even mention that a Jesus or the apostles even existed!!

Give it up!! It's a myth and that's why doubt among Christians is at an all time high!! Just watch, the influence of this hateful and intolerant religion will continue to collapse in the years to come until it is no more than a cult of fools!!

 

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Even if the 'miraculous'

Even if the 'miraculous' events in connection with this guy Jesus actually occurred as documented, they do not constitute evidence for a God. 

Super advanced technology from alien visitors would be all that would be required. Still stretching things, but nowhere near as much as 'God did it'.

There actually physically and logically could be adequate evidence for the existence of a being as described, it would be so totally beyond our mind and senses capabilities.

In fact, if a being with such power existed, we could never know with any confidence what its actual motives toward us were - it would be infinitely capable of making us perceive and feel and think anything it wanted.

We could only tentatively assess it from the evidence of history, and looked at globally, all the natural disasters, diseases, and frailties that are imposed on us, the children who die before their life really begins, or are born with horrendous deformities and disabilities, the parasites whose life-cycle involves burrowing into the eyes of children and making them blind. He is an evil trickster.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1540
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Re :: Yama Yahm Yamm a personification ?

OhMan wrote:

Look, I'm sure some of these are true some of these are false, I just grabbed them all off various websites?

 

All I'm looking for is lets say, ten? five? high-quality, authentic similarities between a Biblical claim and another religion, with the other religion predating the Biblical claim. This way I can go, HA see, your Bible stole this from this.

That's all I need, right now I've got quantity over quality, I'm looking for the other way around.

 

rookhawkins wrote: I wouldn't put too much stock in the similar deities concept.  Most of that, and what circulates around the web, is from outdated scholarship.  Kersey Graves and Remmsberg are a few notable outdated scholars who are continually used.  It isn't because of any personal attempt to deceive (regardless what our insane theist friend here thinks) but just a case of ignorance.

.  Please do not come out and explicitly endorse any web sources. I know, With an overly zealous person, often wanting to latch on to anything, without the fact-checking, one will end up with these assertions. Deley is right when he states: "I'd challenge you to prove these similarities by quoting from the ancient texts themselves that were written by the Hindus, Egyptians, etc, and compare the quotes from the Bible, and you will see that there really aren't good parallels at all".   .

 OhMan, There is no smoking gun (believe me I've looked). But you dont have to go so far a-field. I have purposely changed the spelling of the deity "Yamm" to "Yahm" without a Xian batting an eye.  That's an inside joke, you'd need to read the Baal Cycle to know what I am referring to.  I have  'the Theistic'  response  to this encase no one has bothered to do so  or knows nothing of the Baal Cycle,  for your eyes Mr. Theist.