There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Akheia]

Is fine, Ouro As I said, I think we both kind of agree on a number of points. I take it a bit further than you do, is all. If new info emerges, that's cool with me. Learning and growing's what it's all about.

 

@LL: I was noticing that disturbing trend as well. To some extent a lot of historical controversies become a battle of the sources; how one frames the question and approaches it can be just as important.

 

Dafuq, AM, that is not what a primary source is. Unless your gal can time travel, she is most certainly not a primary source on Jesus Christ. A primary source isn't just someone who is tremendously knowledgable. It's a source from the period of time under study. It's hard to take you seriously when you make that kind of elementary mistake. There *ARE* no primary sources regarding Jesus Christ.

 

ETA: From the Bowling Green University Library system:

 

Primary sources are the "materials on a topic upon which subsequent interpretations or studies are based, anything from firsthand documents such as poems, diaries, court records, and interviews to research results generated by experiments, surveys, ethnographies, and so on."* Primary sources are records of events as they are first described, usually by witnesses or by people who were involved in the event. Many primary sources were created at the time of the event, but can also include memoirs, oral interviews, or accounts that were recorded later. . .

 

Secondary sources, on the other hand, offer an analysis or a restatement of primary sources. They often attempt to describe or explain primary sources. Some secondary sources not only analyze primary sources, but use them to argue a contention or to persuade the reader to hold a certain opinion. Examples of secondary sources include dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks, and books and articles that interpret, analyze, or review research works.

 

Seriously, DAFUQ.

[Ouroboros]

Is fine, Ouro As I said, I think we both kind of agree on a number of points. I take it a bit further than you do, is all.

Funny thing is that I had the same opinion about this topic just until a few months ago, but then I started to think about what/how/why anyone would even start or consider to convert to a new religion. Usually, it takes someone at the helm. It doesn't have to be a "Jesus". I can agree on that. But my point is that something made this early Christians very aggressive in their growth. And I think I know what it could be (or who), but he wasn't even called "Jesus" or "Joshua" for that matter.

 

And when it comes to the historical sources that you mentioned for Caligula, some of them are the same sources we are dismissing for Christianity. So I'm not sure how to take it that Tacitus didn't mean or say "Christians", but he did say "Caligula". (Caligula wasn't even his real name, as you know.)

 

If new info emerges, that's cool with me. Learning and growing's what it's all about.

Look into the people who had a huge following and called themselves "Messiah" (Christ) around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Not many, but very popular terrorists. Is it impossible that one of them (I have one particular in mind) might have called himself the "savior"? I also think there might be something to the making of the mythical character Judas Iscariot and the sicarii. Someone was trying really hard to distance themselves from their violent roots perhaps? But these questions are for a different discussion. So I'm leaving it at that.

[Akheia]

Yeah, I'm well aware of Little Bootikins' real name Funny, I was just reading about him last night and thought of this thread. A source can be credible for one thing but not credible regarding another. A lot depends on context. Tacitus also wrote about tribes of men with faces in their tummies. That's why we take them in the aggregate and are critical regarding stuff that sounds drastically out of place considering the other sources. As I mentioned, I think it'd be really worthwhile for you to examine how history does decide someone existed or not. If you're trying to make the case that we're just being too hard on poor li'l Yeshuah/whoever and demanding more out of him than we demand out of other historical figures, that's going to be a really tough sell. But you're welcome to try to make it.

 

At this point it may not be possible to single out any particular person who might have inspired the Christian myth. That's one reason I don't take the idea of a real sparker-of-Christianity very seriously. Whoever it was, he made absolutely no splash on anybody important in Jerusalem. There were plenty of men in Jerusalem and around there, Jews and gentiles alike, who were being meticulous about keeping records of stuff going on around them. Not a single word breathed about any Christian-like cult or any savior-like person that I've ever seen until many years after Christ's theorized execution. At some point you have to wonder how minor someone has to be to evoke so little reaction from the record-keepers of his era. Whatever evidence or proof or contorted argument you make about his potential realness, you have to overcome the simple, stunning grace of Occam's Razor: it is far easier and makes far fewer unlikely assumptions to just say the guy was ethereal and not physical. Such a theory completely explains and accounts for the lack of sources or details about Jesus during his lifetime (ahem, the lack of primary sources for him), explains why the gospels were written so late and why they seem to borrow so heavily from the OT and pagan myths, and even more than that it accurately predicts exactly what we'd expect to see in the historical record if he didn't exist. I did not arrive at my position without much deliberation--and I don't reckon you arrived at yours any differently. So what do you have that works better than that? Who do you think the sparker was?

[Ouroboros]

So what do you have that works better than that? Who do you think the sparker was?

Does it really matter? I'm not a professional historian, so my opinion would only be speculation.

[Akheia]

Why not? That's what the thread's about, isn't it? I've already put my money on the ben Sirach horse. Feels like a dirty game of "I showed you mine, now you show me yours."

[Vigile]

I still say a sparker is just a hypothesis without direct evidence. It may be a decent hypothesis, but that doesn't make it the truth. There could be many explanations for what happened and in fact, I don't think we have a clear idea of what happened because all we have is recordings of what happened years after the fact. A lot can get lost over 40, 70, 100 years, not the least of which the beginning of a religious movement given religious movements are the rule not the exception; especially in primitive societies.

[Ouroboros]

Why not? That's what the thread's about, isn't it? I've already put my money on the ben Sirach horse. Feels like a dirty game of "I showed you mine, now you show me yours."

Okay. Promise to go easy on me then.

 

I had Menahem Ben Judah in mind.

[Ouroboros]

I still say a sparker is just a hypothesis without direct evidence.

That's what speculation is...

 

 

[Vigile]

I still say a sparker is just a hypothesis without direct evidence.

That's what speculation is...

 

Ok, cool. I was under the impression you were thoroughly convinced of this. I'm still pretty much in the agnostic camp myself.

[mcdaddy]

Ouro, I'm going to let the derail just glide past, if that's okay. It's not getting you closer to presenting evidence for your unsupported hypothesis that there was a "real" Jew (of whatever name) who specifically started the Christian religion. I do think however that you should really put some thought into just how history "decides" that this or that historical personage existed. I think it'd be really eye-opening for you.

 

Between all the arguments from ignorance ("I can't personally imagine how a religion could start without a kernel of truth, so therefore there had to be a Jesus"), all the special pleading ("well THIS one time we have to take it on faith that this person existed without any primary document sources whatsoever and plenty of contradictions/forgeries in the way-later agenda-riddled writings we do have"), false analogies ("I had an 8th grandmother so therefore Jesus must have existed"), and incorrect understandings of history ("oh, we just take history's word that every historical figure ever mentioned must have existed; we don't need proof"), demonization of evidence (this bizarre insistence that "nobody *really* decides things on evidence"--um, yes, we all do), and belittling of those who actually do like having evidence of facts before accepting those facts are real (the constant insinuations that those who refuse to accept Jesus' "existence" on faith are un-evolved), not to mention a childishly simplistic attempt to shift burden of proof (newsflash: those who put forth the positive assertion that Jesus existed are the ones who must prove their statements, not those who rightly stand their ground and say that this Emperor has no clothes whatsoever), nobody's yet actually presented any evidence of this Jesus cat. It's impossible for me to avoid thinking that the very good and simple reason for this is that there simply isn't any. As others have said, the non-mythicists are starting with the premise and then going through increasingly weird contortions in order to argue themselves into a Jesus prove it.

 

It's really hard to imagine that the early Jewish and Christian writers, at the very very least, wouldn't have mentioned him a lot more often if he'd really existed and started a cult of any importance whatsoever. But as that video series McDaddy discovered/linked pointed out, there isn't even really any evidence that Christianity itself existed before Mark's gospel got penned. I'm growing closer and closer to just thinking that based on what evidence we do have, it's entirely possible that Jesus himself was never meant by his creators to have been a reflection of any historical person--that he was always meant to be ethereal, real to his believers but not of flesh and blood--a person who'd existed forever and ever in the spiritual world, who died in the spirit and gave his followers life--in the spirit. Too much of his life looks lifted straight from the OT and contemporary pagan tales of wonder and mystery. Occam's Razor holds here very nicely; it's a lot easier and makes way fewer outlandish assumptions to go to the dark side of mythicism. But myths aren't always bad and being mythical doesn't make something intrinsically false or true. It just means that it didn't happen in meatspace.

 

+300 sextillion

[Ouroboros]

I still say a sparker is just a hypothesis without direct evidence.

That's what speculation is...

 

Ok, cool. I was under the impression you were thoroughly convinced of this. I'm still pretty much in the agnostic camp myself.

We're cool, but just so you know, I don't remember that I said it was the truth or a fact.

I was told, however, that I was wrong because it wasn't a fact, but I can't remember I said it to be some "undeniable truth and get down on your knees and convert" thing.

 

I think I used words like "believe," "think," and such. And I also expressed (I think) that I think it's more possible, and even more probable, that there was one guy that got the attention and was the epicenter of an early religious storm. Think about it, first Jews converted from Judaism to Blah-blah-ism (later Christianity). Then Romans started to convert from Paganism (the old traditional myth with many gods) to Blah-blah-ism (with only one god instead of many, and a Jewish god on top of it all... Jews... loved by every Roman). I'm not sure the explanation of "a myth for a myth" really cuts it. People were pissed. Or convinced from a very convincing and convicted crowd of followers. Not even Raelians or Scientologists have had the same convincing society changer. Imagine America converting to Islam in 200 years... for no other reason that "it's just the same as Christianity." I'm not sure that's enough for people to change old religion to new. Christianity is just another myth religion, but it got a nation to change religion... just because it was the same as the old? Something is missing... but what? I think it's fair to be able to speculate what it was.

[Antlerman]

Is fine, Ouro As I said, I think we both kind of agree on a number of points. I take it a bit further than you do, is all. If new info emerges, that's cool with me. Learning and growing's what it's all about.

 

@LL: I was noticing that disturbing trend as well. To some extent a lot of historical controversies become a battle of the sources; how one frames the question and approaches it can be just as important.

 

Dafuq, AM, that is not what a primary source is. Unless your gal can time travel, she is most certainly not a primary source on Jesus Christ. A primary source isn't just someone who is tremendously knowledgable. It's a source from the period of time under study. It's hard to take you seriously when you make that kind of elementary mistake. There *ARE* no primary sources regarding Jesus Christ.

 

ETA: From the Bowling Green University Library system:

 

Primary sources are the "materials on a topic upon which subsequent interpretations or studies are based, anything from firsthand documents such as poems, diaries, court records, and interviews to research results generated by experiments, surveys, ethnographies, and so on."* Primary sources are records of events as they are first described, usually by witnesses or by people who were involved in the event. Many primary sources were created at the time of the event, but can also include memoirs, oral interviews, or accounts that were recorded later. . .

 

Secondary sources, on the other hand, offer an analysis or a restatement of primary sources. They often attempt to describe or explain primary sources. Some secondary sources not only analyze primary sources, but use them to argue a contention or to persuade the reader to hold a certain opinion. Examples of secondary sources include dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks, and books and articles that interpret, analyze, or review research works.

 

Seriously, DAFUQ.

I did not, nor you cannot find where I said she was a primary source for the historical Jesus. Please show us all where I did. That is a completely careless strawman on your part. Do you read what I say, or just leap off into these knee-jerk conclusions? She can be considered a primary source for modern understanding of the gnostic history, which is what I meant, of course, because she has such credentials.

 

From your same Wiki article your quote is included in, "Though the terms primary source and secondary source originated in historiography as a way to trace the history of historical ideas, they have been applied to many other fields. For example, these ideas may be used to trace the history of scientific theories, literary elements, and other information that is passed from one author to another.... "In the history of ideas or intellectual history, the main primary sources are books, essays and letters written by intellectuals." I cited that to show that she is in fact a well noted expert. Not some hack with Google as their source of authority.

 

I originally brought her up to talk about John of Patmos who wrote the book of Revelation. It had nothing at all to do with the historical Jesus. I cited her credentials because BDP believes he is just as qualified as a Princeton Professor to make statements about history. You really need to read what I write.

 

So, DAFUQ, back at you.

 

Seriously.

[mcdaddy]

DAFUQ ERRYBODY

 

 

[Malcolm]

 

We think the first gospel to be written was Mark...sometime around 70AD.

 

If only people would study the Egyptian Jesus and how the three Abrahamic Religions all developed from Egyptian beliefs. There is so much there it is astounding that Christianity hasn't been blown clean off the planet decades ago, at least as soon as people like Budge were able to read the tomb and temple texts in Egypt.

 

Mark is interesting because he has to have been literate in Ancient Egyptian. That would most likely place him in Alexandria where Christianity was transformed out of the old religion into the gospel myths. Christians burned down the Library in Alexandria to hide the truth.

 

We know he knew Egyptian or could at least read it because of Mark 8:33. Here we have Jesus addressing Peter as Satan. There is nothing at all wrong with that when you understand what it really means.

 

In English we have many words that have multiple meanings and in English very often the only way to know what is meant is by the context or tone of the orator. In Egyptian they used 'Determinative' hieroglyphs to separate words with more than one meaning.

 

As it happens the word 'Devil' in English can mean Old Nick or it can be used as a verb meaning 'to season with pepper as in cooking'.

 

In Egyptian, Set, Sat or Sut - all three variations are used by translators - has at least 3 different meanings. The letter 'N' which we have now come to accept at the end of this name is really the genitive case as it is in Greek.

 

So to an Egyptian 'Satan' could have a God Determinative glyph after the name in which case it did refer to the Evil brother of the God Uasar (Greek Osiris). But the Egyptian god 'Satan' eventually repented and became good, hence the name being popular in Egypt, e.g. King Sety. (The Y means 'He Who Is'.)

 

If however the Determinative glyph was a truncated hillock hieroglyph then the meaning of 'Satan' is a Hill and not the Evil One.

 

But here is the important bit in understanding Mark 8:33 and who Mark was, when the Determinative glyph was a tiny rock, then the meaning of 'Sat' is 'Rock' (In Greek Petra, in English Peter).

 

Amazingly Christians have been bothered by this verse since they first read the gospel of Mark, yet the Copts had to have known.

 

The first big religious split that we know about was when the Hebrew population of Egypt accepted the New Age of Aries the Ram. Solomon lined the avenue leading to his temple in Luxor with Ram headed Sphinxes. Genesis refers to Hebrews as The Sheep and to Egyptians as The Cattle, because the latter refused to accept that the Holy Child Jesus was now a lamb born in the stars of Aries, but was still a child born in the Manger of Taurus, the outgoing constellation. There was a huge civil war over this which is recorded in the Tempest Stela.

 

Akhenaten/Moses went wild when he found that some of his people were still making graven images of the Bull and not the Ram.

 

So the Bull worship persevered in Egypt right up to the latter days of the Roman occupation. The religion then turned into the cult of Serapis which was the forerunner of Christianity, but they still revered the Bull and that is why you still see the Bull being worshipped in Catholic Churches when the Sun Monstrance with a Bull's Head is paraded through their churches. Hadrian even referred to the Bishops of Serapis as Chrestians in one of his letters.

 

But the word KHRST is also Egyptian and it really means 'BURIED'. You can find it on the net on images of Egyptian coffins - e.g. that of Nakht-Ankh - containing Mummies. The mummy had been ANNOINTED with embalming fluids, hence the misconception that Christ means annointed.

 

Isn't that ironic. Christ is the Buried and that is what is happening to that religion now.

[Vigile]

I was told, however, that I was wrong because it wasn't a fact,

 

Not by me.

[Ouroboros]

I was told, however, that I was wrong because it wasn't a fact,

 

Not by me.

That's true. And I appreciate that.

[Malcolm]

 

At this point it may not be possible to single out any particular person who might have inspired the Christian myth. That's one reason I don't take the idea of a real sparker-of-Christianity very seriously. Whoever it was, he made absolutely no splash on anybody important in Jerusalem. There were plenty of men in Jerusalem and around there, Jews and gentiles alike, who were being meticulous about keeping records of stuff going on around them. Not a single word breathed about any Christian-like cult or any savior-like person that I've ever seen until many years after Christ's theorized execution.

 

There is no doubt at all where the figure came from. Jesus was known as IOSA to the whole of the Middle Eastern Ancient World from about the 14th Dynasty onwards. He was never more than a Spiritual Son of God who was thought to be inherent in the current King of Egypt. So each King was Jesus. The name has never changed, other than to be Hellenised into IESOUS and then in English into JESUS. Otherwise it is still IOSA in Gaelic - check for yourselves at 'Read Many versions of the Bible on Line', then look up Mark 8:33 and you will find the old name of Jesus as IOSA. In Arabic it is Issa.

 

In the Egyptian version when a King died then he became the Father, the God Uasar and The Ever Coming (IW or IO or IU {Jew}) became the next living King of Egypt. In this way the son was always resurrected from the Father Uasar - Greek Osiris - Arabic Al-Osiris or Lazarus.

 

Jerusalem was King David III's city so that makes it Uaset - today Luxor/Karnak. The new Jerusalem had to be Akhetaten - refer The Copper Scroll, The New Jerusalem Scroll and the Temple Scroll. All of these can only be talking about Akhetaten. So the name had to have been the Egyptian IAH (The Moon God Yah {plural Yah Weh] aka AL-LAH) RE (God), KA (Spirit of). IA RE KA.

 

Refer also Ezekiel. The scribes called it a dream because it was the only way to explain that today's Jerusalem does not have a Great River flowing past it. Karnak of course does and exactly the distance and description in Ezekiel.

[Adam5]

There is no doubt at all where the figure came from. Jesus was known as IOSA to the whole of the Middle Eastern Ancient World from about the 14th Dynasty onwards. He was never more than a Spiritual Son of God who was thought to be inherent in the current King of Egypt. So each King was Jesus.

 

I think I have heard this conspiracy theory before. Ralph Ellis book entitled "King Jesus: From Egypt to Camelot".

 

No doubt? I used to be into conspiracy theories myself. And I personally see a lot of parallels with religion, however believers engage in confirmation bias where they search out only information that confirms their beliefs. I have spent a lot of time doing this in both as a Christian and a conspiracy believer

[LivingLife]

argumentum ad verecundiam

Not at all. I am not saying she is "right". I am saying she is qualified, over some Internet "scholar". That's a fact. There are other qualified scholars who hold different opinions. That's how we uncover new truths, through multiple perspectives. Qualified perspectives are of more value than arm-chair Internet so-called scholars.

 

Your point misses that point. I'm sure there's a fallacy I could find to point that out, but I'm lazy tonight.

I had to call you out on that as even though she is vested in it from a career perspective, had access to primary material, the idea that a scholar that publishes on the internet should be seen as less reliable does not gel for me.

 

When you are searching for the truth™ and are honest, you will not merely stop at one port of call and finalise the decision on that one opinion.

 

At the end of the day, no one has anything conclusive to say THIS is what really happened and I think most scholars would keep an open mind to additional materials.

 

When most of these resources have the similar pattern suggesting that the historicity is questionable you can remain agnostic on the topic or simply do what I did and call it a day and Bull-shit at the same time. This is a frigging deep rabbit hole and to try and get a conclusion that works for you without driving yourself nuts.

 

Getting it back to a soundbyte, did Jesus exist? The answer is what does it matter either way. I am not Semitic in origins and they certainly were not our forefathers. Once you have added the BBT and ToE into the mix, then it becomes easier to dismiss, the latter of which I already held to anyway even as a theist.

 

All of us have confirmation biases and depart from that premise by default when in search of truth. Indoctrination is not and easy thing to unlearn and is in itself a lengthy process.

 

Determining that the flood is total bullshit is pretty easy to dismiss, geological records, Ice cores plus genetic constraints as far as pairs. The bloodline traces through Noah so one need not even have to dismiss the creation story. Exodus never happened so the law was made up not received as reported. The rest is just fillers,

 

See it as a stool with four legs, creation, flood, law, jesus. Well a one legged stool can only stand up by magic.

[Adam5]

See it as a stool with four legs, creation, flood, law, jesus. Well a one legged stool can only stand up by magic.

 

I like the analogy. Jesus, as reported in the gospel accouts, believed in the creation, flood and law, as literal events. This left me with conflicted beliefs as a Christian. Knowing these events were fictional, and pretending it didnt matter, that Jesus accepted them as literal history. So we left as Jesus either as a character of fiction, or as a real person but believing in fictional mythology. Either way you look at this stool its a pile of pooh.

[Antlerman]

argumentum ad verecundiam

Not at all. I am not saying she is "right". I am saying she is qualified, over some Internet "scholar". That's a fact. There are other qualified scholars who hold different opinions. That's how we uncover new truths, through multiple perspectives. Qualified perspectives are of more value than arm-chair Internet so-called scholars.

 

Your point misses that point. I'm sure there's a fallacy I could find to point that out, but I'm lazy tonight.

I had to call you out on that as even though she is vested in it from a career perspective, had access to primary material, the idea that a scholar that publishes on the internet should be seen as less reliable does not gel for me.

 

When you are searching for the truth™ and are honest, you will not merely stop at one port of call and finalise the decision on that one opinion.

To be clear, your 'calling me out' was actually an error on your part. I was not making an appeal to authority to make a case for my opinion. I fully recognize her views as scholarly opinion, not facts. I also enjoy other scholars of her level who hold differing perspectives, and combined they help create a richer and fuller understanding of possibilities. No way at all was I making an appeal to authority, so the fallacy applied to me was wrong. To make sure we're clear on that.

 

I did not say that a scholar published on the Internet is less reliable. What I am contrasting here in all of this comes back to arm-chair "scholars" (not actual scholars) who use Google as their research tool and come back saying their opinions carry as much weight as a Princeton professor. It's a case of saying simply this: education matters. The opinion of this, is not a fallacy, but a fact.

 

I am struck that this 'my opinion means as much as theirs' to be, well, like a teenager who armed with a little bit of knowledge thinks they know as much as everyone else now. It's almost like an extension of anti-intellecualism carried forward from fundamentalist Christianity, like those who dismiss 99% of what actual scientists say because it differs with their opinions and "research" on the age of the earth!

 

At the end of the day, no one has anything conclusive to say THIS is what really happened and I think most scholars would keep an open mind to additional materials.

Of course. Most actual scientists likewise do not share in the popular notions that through science we can offer definitive answers to everything. That, is where your fallacy you cited does in fact come into play. It's like citing Richard Dawkins for something he can't speak definitely towards, and making your case for your view just because he said something that agrees with you.

 

Of course, you won't see me doing that.

[mcdaddy]

 

We think the first gospel to be written was Mark...sometime around 70AD.

 

If only people would study the Egyptian Jesus and how the three Abrahamic Religions all developed from Egyptian beliefs. There is so much there it is astounding that Christianity hasn't been blown clean off the planet decades ago, at least as soon as people like Budge were able to read the tomb and temple texts in Egypt.

 

Mark is interesting because he has to have been literate in Ancient Egyptian. That would most likely place him in Alexandria where Christianity was transformed out of the old religion into the gospel myths. Christians burned down the Library in Alexandria to hide the truth.

 

We know he knew Egyptian or could at least read it because of Mark 8:33. Here we have Jesus addressing Peter as Satan. There is nothing at all wrong with that when you understand what it really means.

 

In English we have many words that have multiple meanings and in English very often the only way to know what is meant is by the context or tone of the orator. In Egyptian they used 'Determinative' hieroglyphs to separate words with more than one meaning.

 

As it happens the word 'Devil' in English can mean Old Nick or it can be used as a verb meaning 'to season with pepper as in cooking'.

 

In Egyptian, Set, Sat or Sut - all three variations are used by translators - has at least 3 different meanings. The letter 'N' which we have now come to accept at the end of this name is really the genitive case as it is in Greek.

 

So to an Egyptian 'Satan' could have a God Determinative glyph after the name in which case it did refer to the Evil brother of the God Uasar (Greek Osiris). But the Egyptian god 'Satan' eventually repented and became good, hence the name being popular in Egypt, e.g. King Sety. (The Y means 'He Who Is'.)

 

If however the Determinative glyph was a truncated hillock hieroglyph then the meaning of 'Satan' is a Hill and not the Evil One.

 

But here is the important bit in understanding Mark 8:33 and who Mark was, when the Determinative glyph was a tiny rock, then the meaning of 'Sat' is 'Rock' (In Greek Petra, in English Peter).

 

Amazingly Christians have been bothered by this verse since they first read the gospel of Mark, yet the Copts had to have known.

 

The first big religious split that we know about was when the Hebrew population of Egypt accepted the New Age of Aries the Ram. Solomon lined the avenue leading to his temple in Luxor with Ram headed Sphinxes. Genesis refers to Hebrews as The Sheep and to Egyptians as The Cattle, because the latter refused to accept that the Holy Child Jesus was now a lamb born in the stars of Aries, but was still a child born in the Manger of Taurus, the outgoing constellation. There was a huge civil war over this which is recorded in the Tempest Stela.

 

Akhenaten/Moses went wild when he found that some of his people were still making graven images of the Bull and not the Ram.

 

So the Bull worship persevered in Egypt right up to the latter days of the Roman occupation. The religion then turned into the cult of Serapis which was the forerunner of Christianity, but they still revered the Bull and that is why you still see the Bull being worshipped in Catholic Churches when the Sun Monstrance with a Bull's Head is paraded through their churches. Hadrian even referred to the Bishops of Serapis as Chrestians in one of his letters.

 

But the word KHRST is also Egyptian and it really means 'BURIED'. You can find it on the net on images of Egyptian coffins - e.g. that of Nakht-Ankh - containing Mummies. The mummy had been ANNOINTED with embalming fluids, hence the misconception that Christ means annointed.

 

Isn't that ironic. Christ is the Buried and that is what is happening to that religion now.

 

+1 bazillion! Source?

[Antlerman]

The Internet, no doubt.

[Ouroboros]

Getting it back to a soundbyte, did Jesus exist? The answer is what does it matter either way. I am not Semitic in origins and they certainly were not our forefathers.

I might be misunderstanding your "what does it matter" statement, but I get the feeling that you think it shouldn't be discussed? This is a discussion forum though, right?

[Ouroboros]

Isn't that ironic. Christ is the Buried and that is what is happening to that religion now.

Well... I know there are many parallels between Christianity and Egyptian religion, just like there are many borrowed/copied features from Unix to Windows. But... Windows isn't Unix.

 

But, it can't be the whole story.

 

For instance, I still can't see why Jews and Romans switched to Egyptian paganism over their own religion and then called it "Christianity." If there's nothing unique to Christianity, not even the name, and nothing in the concepts, then we're saying that "Christians" existed in Egypt hundreds of years before 1 AD. Where's the evidence for that? If we can't trust the source that Christians existed in the first century, how can they have existed before it? It's a huge logical jump. The Romans were not Egyptian-Christian-Pagans and just changed the label to some old Egyptian label. If that's the case, what did Constantin convert to? His own pagan religion with the same name?

 

It's all good to find the similarities of religious symbols and myths etc, but taken too far, it gets a bit silly.

 

Unix is just another version of MS-DOS...