Why Focus On The Bible First, And Proof God Is Real Second?

[Ouroboros]

I realize they don't believe they were real people with a real birthdate. I don't believe they were real either, but when they say both had a birth date on December 25th I assume they mean "this is the date that their mythology claims they were born"

 

Now when I look, and the mythology does not say this at all...I say they are being misleading.

Besides, if I remember it right, there's no evidence that Christians celebrated the 25th of December before 150 CE. So if they did take it from pagan belief, they most likely did it later in the development of the religion, and not as a concept of the inception of the religion.

 

I believe Christianity started as a Jewish cult, and then it got fused and merged with pagan cults and religions. But I have strong doubts that it started as a Buddhist/Mithraism sect in Jerusalem.

 

Judaism was influenced by paganism too, and astrology, and Zoroastrianism, but it got its own spin on things. Just like Christianity took its own spin, and then other stuff was added on. It's a potpuri of faiths.

[Mriana]

Judaism was influenced by paganism too, and astrology, and Zoroastrianism, but it got its own spin on things. Just like Christianity took its own spin, and then other stuff was added on. It's a potpuri of faiths.

 

IF other stuff were added on, then it is quite possible that it added on things from Buddhism and Hinduism too, esp since it is a potpourri, as you say. Judaism also had things from Egyptian, Babylonian, and other mythologies too, not just astrology and Zoroastrianism.

[Guest Thor]

Kuroikaze post 219 "I showed you several places where information was clearly manufactured in Zeitgeist"

 

No, you absolutely did not - there's another version of that myth that says Isis, in the form of a bird, hovered over Osiris & took his seed. So your idea of proving ZG as "manufactured" is based on a false premise & ignorance of the other myth on this issue.

 

Here's a video clip of an image of the very myth I'm talking about here at 5:30 & after with Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov:

 

 

Though, I realize that myth you bring up is the same one xians chose to rely so heavily to use as a straw man & they also make the same errors & assumptions you did here. Of course it's convenient to their agenda to disprove ZG/Acharya. I guess I expected more from you. The video PROVES that view utterly false.

 

k "Of course they are just myths"

 

Okay, fair enough I thought you were next going to attempt to use that "real sex" issue to make the case that Isis wasn't a virgin, even though she's known as having perpetual virginity.

 

k "then you continue on to this "

 

The fact remains, all you've brought to the table is sanitized mainstream status-quo endorsed by Christianity. I realize you may not know that. Most major universities began as religious institutions - folks tend to forget that.

 

k "This just smacks of conspiracy theory."

 

Er, okay - How much time did your course spend on sun gods, it's history & it's origins? What did you take theology or comparative & at what university? How much time did they spend on the mountain of evidence demonstrating the origins of religion was largely based on natural phenomena?

[Guest Thor]

Actually, Zeitgeist and Acharya make it categorically clear that the gods discussed are myths, allegories, metaphors, personifications & anthropomorphizations. If you ever actually studied Acharya's work you'd already know this. ZG 1 transcript:

 

Ugh...this is so silly.

 

I realize they don't believe they were real people with a real birthdate. I don't believe they were real either, but when they say both had a birth date on December 25th I assume they mean "this is the date that their mythology claims they were born"

 

Now when I look, and the mythology does not say this at all...I say they are being misleading.

 

That's another false premise - how can you expect an ancient mythology to say "December 25th" when the Gregorian didn't exist until 1582? The point is not to get confused on calendars but to pay attention to the reason for the celebration - the birth of the sun god at the winter solstice.

 

I already provided you with a couple quotes from that book you provided earlier saying:

 

"the birth of Horus to Isis occurs neatly on the Winter Solstice" 106

 

"Isis, in her role as a supreme mother goddess, brought forth a Sun-child, Horus, at the time of the winter solstice" 216

 

- The Mysteries of Isis, By deTraci Regula

 

I guess you missed it because you surely wouldn't just omit it just because it proves you wrong, would you?

[Guest Thor]

Which is what I've been trying to say too, right down to the last statement concerning myths, allegories, metaphors, etc etc.

 

It seems that neither one of you have any clue what I am actually saying or arguing for even though I have spelled it out quite thoroughly four or five times.

 

I'm done discussing this with the both of you. Have a good one.

 

Ah C'mon don't get mad... It's really sad that you assume it's all "manufactured" - I believe you're sincere but we've demonstrated to you each time that there's an entire other side to this that you are absolutely unaware of. It's disappointing to see you quickly give it the hand-waving dismissal without fair investigation. Try actually reading some the articles I've shared:

 

Was Horus "Crucified?"

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/washoruscrucified.html

[Mriana]

Interesting. Seems to me the pot has called the kettle black, but that's ok.

[Ouroboros]

Judaism was influenced by paganism too, and astrology, and Zoroastrianism, but it got its own spin on things. Just like Christianity took its own spin, and then other stuff was added on. It's a potpuri of faiths.

 

IF other stuff were added on, then it is quite possible that it added on things from Buddhism and Hinduism too, esp since it is a potpourri, as you say. Judaism also had things from Egyptian, Babylonian, and other mythologies too, not just astrology and Zoroastrianism.

Absolutely. I believe things were added on.

 

Like the 25th of December was most likely something that grew out of the mixing of the Jewish Christians and the Hellenized Jews. So what I was trying to say is that we have to be careful to think or believe that Christianity was started from a pagan religion, like Mithraism etc, since there are no evidence for that. But it grew and expanded into those beliefs. So today it's a mix of that, and other things, and also Judaism, but it started as something else.

[Mriana]

I truly believe it was started with pagan practices and beliefs- Yule, Mother Night, and other fertility/sun based religions, as well as Judaism. I think it used other sources of mythology to create a new religion and force it on people to control them.

[Kuroikaze]

Ah C'mon don't get mad... It's really sad that you assume it's all "manufactured" - I believe you're sincere but we've demonstrated to you each time that there's an entire other side to this that you are absolutely unaware of. It's disappointing to see you quickly give it the hand-waving dismissal without fair investigation. Try actually reading some the articles I've shared:

 

I'm not mad, just decided this was pointless.

[Ouroboros]

I truly believe it was started with pagan practices and beliefs- Yule, Mother Night, and other fertility/sun based religions, as well as Judaism. I think it used other sources of mythology to create a new religion and force it on people to control them.

I find that hard to believe though, because the evidence that it had that sequence isn't really there. The Jewish Christians did exist first as it seems, and then the Hellenistic Jews and then the rest. And the Jews didn't celebrate solstice or Yule as far I as I can remember. But it's okay that you believe that though. I just don't think these things are facts.

 

Another question I have is the "son" and "sun" connection. How is that one explained?

[Guest Thor]

"I'm not mad, just decided this was pointless. "

 

It's clearly not pointless - everything has been substantiated with facts & evidence to a small degree considering it's a quick post at a forum. It would show a sign of compromise if you could at least acknowledge what has been shared thus far, such as the two quotes from the very book you provided admitting Horus was born on the winter solstice and the video clip with Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov concerning the myth of Isis hovering over Osiris' dead body in the form of a bird etc. I would just like to see you comment something like, "okay whatever, I'll give "Christ in Egypt" a fair chance & I'll stop with the libelous remarks until I've actually studied her work."

[Mriana]

I truly believe it was started with pagan practices and beliefs- Yule, Mother Night, and other fertility/sun based religions, as well as Judaism. I think it used other sources of mythology to create a new religion and force it on people to control them.

I find that hard to believe though, because the evidence that it had that sequence isn't really there. The Jewish Christians did exist first as it seems, and then the Hellenistic Jews and then the rest. And the Jews didn't celebrate solstice or Yule as far I as I can remember. But it's okay that you believe that though. I just don't think these things are facts.

 

Another question I have is the "son" and "sun" connection. How is that one explained?

 

I chalk it up to humans going from animism to anthropomorphism. IMO, it explains it quite well. The story of the sun turns into a human version, much like many other myths over the years.

[Ouroboros]

Another question I have is the "son" and "sun" connection. How is that one explained?

 

I chalk it up to humans going from animism to anthropomorphism. IMO, it explains it quite well. The story of the sun turns into a human version, much like many other myths over the years.

By why the "son", why not something else? Why isn't the sun the father, the life giver, the creator?

 

And didn't the anthropomorphism already happen before that, like Horus, Ra, etc? So why a "son"?

 

---

 

Wait, I think I know. It's the idea of offspring. The first born son, which during the year grow up and then die, and a new son is born.

[Ouroboros]

"the birth of Horus to Isis occurs neatly on the Winter Solstice" 106

 

"Isis, in her role as a supreme mother goddess, brought forth a Sun-child, Horus, at the time of the winter solstice" 216

 

- The Mysteries of Isis, By deTraci Regula[/size]

So where does deTraci get the information from? This is the same question I gave Mriana. What ancient documents do we have that provide us with this information and that they celebrated the winter solstice? Just curious. And textbooks, book references, etc, don't do much, unless we can find a document which is 2,500 years old with these details. It's extremely hard to find this information on the Internet. I tried, but probably just failed to figure out the correct search string. Since you have information and knowledge in this area, there must be something in your books which can tell us what the original sources are.

[Badger]

Your claims here Badger emphasize precisely what has *NOT* been validated - Jesus because Josephus mentions "Jesus" does NOT guarantee it was the biblical Jesus. There's no valid evidence demonstrating Jesus was crucified at all, no valid court case documents either. We still have no reason to believe Jesus was a real historical human at all. There's also no valid evidence supporting that the James mentioned in the biblical James. And there's even less reason to believe Josephus would use the word "Christ" and never explain what he meant by it.

If Josephus would be the only who happens to mention this Jesus, a messianic pretenter during the reign of Pontius Pilate, being crucified, linked with a tribe of Christians, and brother of one James, you likely wound't even question his existence. No arguing he wasn't a historical person.

[Badger]

What archeological evidence do you have? Where are Jesus's writings? A first hand account of his existence? Someone who saw, spoke to, or witnessed something he did, or something that happened to him?

I'm curious to know, since you talk much about history as a science, have you studied history? What's the source for your knowledge of the subject?

 

There are just as many experts who disagree with your historians. It's heavily contested on both sides of the issue.

Just noticed you made it here again. So who are those experts you're referring to, any reference? Names?

[Guest Thor]

Your claims here Badger emphasize precisely what has *NOT* been validated - Jesus because Josephus mentions "Jesus" does NOT guarantee it was the biblical Jesus. There's no valid evidence demonstrating Jesus was crucified at all, no valid court case documents either. We still have no reason to believe Jesus was a real historical human at all. There's also no valid evidence supporting that the James mentioned in the biblical James. And there's even less reason to believe Josephus would use the word "Christ" and never explain what he meant by it.

If Josephus would be the only who happens to mention this Jesus, a messianic pretenter during the reign of Pontius Pilate, being crucified, linked with a tribe of Christians, and brother of one James, you likely wound't even question his existence. No arguing he wasn't a historical person.

 

It goes back to the point I made earlier (& probably others as well) on page 9. Repeating rumors, traditions & myths doesn't constitute substantiating the claims with valid evidence. We are in the same position today as the earliest church fathers with no valid evidence supporting the claims :

 

"...let us for a moment assume that the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, in whole or in part. Even with such an assumption, the TF still does not constitute credible, scientific proof of the historicity of Jesus Christ, since it was not written by an eyewitness, nor is it based on any discernible documents of any authority. The TF reflects only a tradition or rumor of something that purportedly occurred 60 to 70 years earlier and made little to no impact upon anyone significant outside of immediate Christian circles."

 

- WWJ 91

 

A point of fact here is that the reason Christians are so heavily reliant upon Josephus is because there is no valid contemporary evidence for Jesus during his supposed like time. The reliance upon the TF & James passage serves to demonstrate the flimsiness of the evidence for Jesus. Even belief in a historical Jesus requires a giant leap of faith. I will accept a historical Jesus as soon as VALID evidence is offered that can stand up to peer review & scientific scrutiny. After 2,000 years none has passed the test.

 

"These "great crowds" and "multitudes," along with Jesus's fame, are repeatedly referred to in the gospels, including at the following: Mt 4:23-25, 5:1, 8:1, 8:18, 9:8, 9:31, 9:33, 9:36, 11:7, 12:15, 13:2, 14:1, 14:13, 14:22, 15:30, 19:2, 21:9, 26:55; Mk 1:28, 10:1; Lk 4:14, 4:37, 5:15, 14:25, etc."

 

- Who Was Jesus? by d. m. murdock page 85

 

So we have Jesus claimed to be famed far and wide in over 20 passages in the bible ... why can't any of them be substantiated with contemporary evidence? That would be far more valid than anything by Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus or Suetonius

 

The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

 

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus

http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

[Guest Thor]

"the birth of Horus to Isis occurs neatly on the Winter Solstice" 106

 

"Isis, in her role as a supreme mother goddess, brought forth a Sun-child, Horus, at the time of the winter solstice" 216

 

- The Mysteries of Isis, By deTraci Regula[/size]

So where does deTraci get the information from? This is the same question I gave Mriana. What ancient documents do we have that provide us with this information and that they celebrated the winter solstice? Just curious. And textbooks, book references, etc, don't do much, unless we can find a document which is 2,500 years old with these details. It's extremely hard to find this information on the Internet. I tried, but probably just failed to figure out the correct search string. Since you have information and knowledge in this area, there must be something in your books which can tell us what the original sources are.

 

I found those quotes in that book because Kuroikaze shared it trying to make the case that Horus' birthday was in July or some date other than the winter solstice. Which is misleading because the Egyptian calendar wondered so the winter solstice was eventually on every date of the year.

 

Excellent questions & points Hansolo. If you're really sincere about wanting more info on that then CIE is a must have. The Pyramid Tests are around 4,500 years old, while the Book of the Dead is at least 3,600 years old but is based on the older Pyramid Texts. We have the Coffin Texts & much more. It's all pointed out in CIE

 

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_ZmsRUmuWU...re=channel_page

 

http://forums.truthbeknown.com/index.php

 

And your right to point out "textbooks, book references, etc, don't do much...It's extremely hard to find this information on the Internet"

 

This is detailed throughout CIE as well. There has been much suppression & censorship of this info as it was inconvenient for the Christian leaders to allow into the hands of the general public. They're still fighting against any way they can today - look at all the anti-Zeitgeist & anti-Acharya stuff out there.

[Ouroboros]

Excellent questions & points Hansolo. If you're really sincere about wanting more info on that then CIE is a must have. The Pyramid Tests are around 4,500 years old, while the Book of the Dead is at least 3,600 years old but is based on the older Pyramid Texts. We have the Coffin Texts & much more. It's all pointed out in CIE

CIE?

 

The problem I have with those dates is that I can't find any information about the actual copies with those dates.

 

Let me put it this way: usually there are two different dates we have to look at when we investigate these things:

 

1) The date on the oldest copy of the text, and it would be a manuscript, papuri, stone, book, or something like that. In other words, a real tangible object which is dated. Just like for the Christian Bible, I think the oldest fragment is from something like 90 CE, and it's a piece of one of Paul's letters.

 

2) The second date is when the historians estimate the authoring of the original document, which we do not have a copy of, but we assume based on content and other artifacts to be older than the oldest copy.

 

So are these year estimates the first kind of date, or the second? If it's the first one, I wonder how they dated them, and what kind of material they're of.

 

Next question I have is: does these documents contain the information we are discussing? Like, do these documents talk about Horus, virgin birth, resurrection etc, or is it in later documents? The reason I'm asking is because I understand that are a whole bunch of different documents, and they focusing on different religious ideas. So do we know that the Horus beliefs are in these older documents, or could they perhaps be in newer ones?

 

(I haven't looked at your sources yet, but I will go through them.)

[Mriana]

Another question I have is the "son" and "sun" connection. How is that one explained?

 

I chalk it up to humans going from animism to anthropomorphism. IMO, it explains it quite well. The story of the sun turns into a human version, much like many other myths over the years.

By why the "son", why not something else? Why isn't the sun the father, the life giver, the creator?

 

And didn't the anthropomorphism already happen before that, like Horus, Ra, etc? So why a "son"?

 

---

 

Wait, I think I know. It's the idea of offspring. The first born son, which during the year grow up and then die, and a new son is born.

 

It did, but at the same time animism was still out there, but so many sun gods were anthropomorphisized already and I would assume it was just one more step in the evolutionary thinking of humans. So many fertility religions has the sun sit on the Southern Cross (crux) for three days (Solstice means 'sun stood still' and the shadow did stay in one place for about three days). Then it went below the hemisphere (the underworld) and eventually returned to bring new life to the northern hemisphere. The story of Jesus is basically the same literary outline of other god-men. However, I think the use of the sun for that story is more appealing then a human sacrifice. The thing is humans weren't happy unless they brought their god concept down to earth instead of leaving it up in "the heavens". Mind you, that is my theory, my view of human religious mythical thinking, so take it for what it is worth. If it gives you an "ah-ha" moment good, if not that is fine too.

[Mriana]

Excellent questions & points Hansolo. If you're really sincere about wanting more info on that then CIE is a must have. The Pyramid Tests are around 4,500 years old, while the Book of the Dead is at least 3,600 years old but is based on the older Pyramid Texts. We have the Coffin Texts & much more. It's all pointed out in CIE

CIE?

 

Christ In Egypt.

[Ouroboros]

Christ In Egypt.

Ah. So not Computer Integrated Engineering then.

 

Since you have the theory that Christianity started from Egyptian/Buddhist beliefs, then the next thing I wonder, when did Christianity start? And who started it? Was it one of the Roman emperors who created it? And for what purpose. And I assume it also means that Christianity did not start with the Jews, or Paul either, correct?

[Guest Thor]

Excellent questions & points Hansolo. If you're really sincere about wanting more info on that then CIE is a must have. The Pyramid Tests are around 4,500 years old, while the Book of the Dead is at least 3,600 years old but is based on the older Pyramid Texts. We have the Coffin Texts & much more. It's all pointed out in CIE

CIE?

 

The problem I have with those dates is that I can't find any information about the actual copies with those dates.

 

Let me put it this way: usually there are two different dates we have to look at when we investigate these things:

 

1) The date on the oldest copy of the text, and it would be a manuscript, papuri, stone, book, or something like that. In other words, a real tangible object which is dated. Just like for the Christian Bible, I think the oldest fragment is from something like 90 CE, and it's a piece of one of Paul's letters.

 

2) The second date is when the historians estimate the authoring of the original document, which we do not have a copy of, but we assume based on content and other artifacts to be older than the oldest copy.

 

So are these year estimates the first kind of date, or the second? If it's the first one, I wonder how they dated them, and what kind of material they're of.

 

Next question I have is: does these documents contain the information we are discussing? Like, do these documents talk about Horus, virgin birth, resurrection etc, or is it in later documents? The reason I'm asking is because I understand that are a whole bunch of different documents, and they focusing on different religious ideas. So do we know that the Horus beliefs are in these older documents, or could they perhaps be in newer ones?

 

(I haven't looked at your sources yet, but I will go through them.)

 

More excellent questions hansolo. The dating falls into your category # 1 - The Pyramid Tests are inscribed on the inner chamber walls of ancient stone pyramids hence, the name "Pyramid Texts" starting around the 4th dynasty around 4,400 years ago. They were written in Old Egyptian and are spells primarily concerned with protecting the pharaoh's ascension into heaven.

 

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

 

The Coffin Texts and Book of the Dead were written in scrolls around the 5th dynasty & derive from the Pyramid Texts.

 

H "do these documents talk about Horus, virgin birth, resurrection etc, or is it in later documents?"

 

Yes, the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, book of the Dead & much more are all sourced in "Christ in Egypt." And, some variations demonstrate a sort of evolution since the Egyptian religion was quite popular for over 3,000 years.

 

h "So do we know that the Horus beliefs are in these older documents, or could they perhaps be in newer ones?"

 

Yes, Horus is mentioned in some of the oldest Egyptian artifacts in existence such as the 5,000 year old Narmer Palette (CIE page 51). Osiris, Isis & Horus were popular right up into the common era into about the 5th century CE until the Christians at that time went on a massive destruction rampage wiping out everything they could - this is all explained in CIE as well as it's a fascinating read to find out what all went on back then.

 

Pagan Destruction Chronology (314-870 C.E) - video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzbxJ0RNFY

[DarthOkkata]

Once again, you try to divert from the subject by asking irrelevant questions.

 

I've made no claims that I was an expert. I don't have to agree with yours just because they are either. You don't appear to know any more about the subject than I do. You've made claims just as bold, if not bolder than any I have made about the subjects in this thread.

 

Formal training does not by default make someone correct. Nor does a lack of it invalidate arguments posed by another. I admit that University training does help, but that doesn't mean that someone without it cannot make good arguments, even against someone who has it.

 

Yes, I've studied History, I took the same classes as everyone else in the country with a diploma, unlike many of them, I passed them all with good marks. No, not in a college course. I don't care if you've taken one or not, there are other ways to find knowledge beyond formal courses. I do hope you're not just looking for an easy out with that question and a way to belittle my intelligence and discredit me for no good reason beyond 'well, you've got no formal training, so there's no way you can make claims about a subject'.

 

That argument doesn't stand up, there are other ways to learn. Education is a matter of self discipline, and knowledge is easy to find if one only looks for it. Many people further their own education outside of formal universities, and it does not invalidate that knowledge.

 

This includes my knowledge of History as a Science, that came up at even a High School level and I've heard about it from outside sources. Such as lectures held at the Smithsonian in Washington DC, and lectures at the National Archives, as well as other smaller museums in Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Virginia. All of them had staff and lecturers who were more than happy to answer my questions about how we knew certain things about the people in our past.

 

I also attended public lectures at local Universities on occasion, such as JU here in Jacksonville who sometimes hold public lectures. I keep my eyes open for subjects that interest me, sometimes I'll go to an interesting lecture instead of say, going to the movies. [i've seen Dawkins, Hitchens, and Kevin Smith this way.] In other words, my information comes straight from the horse's mouth so to speak, and has been backed up by my reading on the subject. Though, I admit a couple have put me to sleep, most of them have been worth the time and effort to attend.

 

I do hope you're not attempting to make such an intellectually shallow argument as 'well, you've never been to school for it or had formal training...'.

 

I study literature, English, and writing, I'm working my way through school, but can't afford University tuition at the moment and am at an [intentionally Unnamed] community college.

 

History is just a hobby of mine. I'm one of those people who always has a book, and I enjoy the subjects of religion, history, and sciences in particular. I don't stick to one particular side of the issue, I often frequent the Christian book store down the street from me to get both sides of the issue. I've got a large collection of Christian literature to go with my Atheist, Secularist, and Historical books.

 

Though, admittedly, most [not all] of my books about History have to do with other periods. Despite the way this topic has turned out, I'm not particularly interested in proving or disproving the existence of Jesus Christ as a real person. I also have no reason to believe that he was, but no proof that he wasn't. I've even ordered a few books because of this site. I should be getting CIE by the end of the week. I want to have a look at it for myself considering the argument about it.

 

I realize I sound a little defensive, and I want to make clear I'm not accusing you of making that argument just by posing the question. Rather, call it preventative, because aside from idle curiosity, it seems to be the only reason for asking such a thing in the manner you phrased it.

 

I don't think Jesus was real, but I have no evidence to say he wasn't either. I'm awaiting further evidence, and have not discounted the possibility that he might have been a real man, but with nothing concrete that indicates he was, why should I think so?

 

The only thing you've provided as evidence of your claims are shoddy heavily contested second hand accounts. [Claim already cited by references earlier in the thread, so don't bother asking for them again.] I don't care how authentic they are, or who backs them up. They're still just second hand accounts from unknown sources from years after the fact. There are experts with just as much credentials who don't agree with the one's you've cited. [Also, already provided information from earlier in the thread.]

 

I'm a huge bookworm, a total nerd, and I am in the midst of furthering my education. No, I don't have a doctorate, nor do I desire one in History. I like it, but I'm not -that- interested in the subject.

 

Writing is my thing, and history is useful for that. I'm working on getting published while I'm at school. Fiction, by the way.

 

I don't need references beyond myself for what I posted in that last post in particular, because, in case you didn't notice. I was referring to my personal experience and what I have personally seen throughout that entire post. That was intentional and I used language that points to that, and made clear that I was stating my opinions and personal experiences with such things. References were unnecessary given the context, especially given how many examples of exactly what you just asked me have already been given throughout this thread.

 

I assume you've been reading, and you're just being facetious. Because you're ignoring the obvious in favor of asking arrogant sounding questions that you know damn well have already been answered in an attempt to be nothing more than confrontational and argumentative. Why?

 

Why do I need to consolidate and repost them again? Did you forget, or were you just not paying attention? Why do I need to put up the same information that has already been supplied to you in abundance already again? Just because I didn't personally provide it, doesn't mean it's not there. I see no need to put it up for your inspection again, when others have been kind enough to supply it already.

 

It would just be redundant.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks Thor.

 

So there's two different theories here that we have to examine a bit further.

 

1) Christianity started as a Jewish cult (around 30-40 CE), and the pagan traditions were added on later by Paul, and whoever else.

 

2) Christianity started as a pagan religion (unknown date?), and never were a part of any Jewish cult. (Or the alternative, a Jewish cult took on pagan traditions from start)

 

What kind of evidence is there for one or the other?