Plagiarism In The Bible

a reply to: Krazysh0t

See, the thing (in my mind) with articles like this is that they come back to the idea (as far as I can see) that something got the whole thing starting (Prime Mover) or that the universe is, itself, the Prime Mover (Somehow. I should add that there are some who argue that the various theories about self-creating universes &ct. don't work. I didn't bring up these ideas because they're over my head by a long shot!)

There's a point (at least for me) when the line between [*something* that science can't describe that started the whole thing,] and, well, [God] begins to blur.

Option A is that something we can't scientifically describe because we don't have the data somehow got the universe as we know it to running.
Option B is that something we can't scientifically describe because we don't have the data somehow got the universe as we know it to running.

I said from the get-go I don't think this idea is a slam-dunk idea for God's existence, but I think you can see how the idea of God doesn't seem unreasonable, given the scientific situation (as I understand it.) *Far* be it from me to appeal to ignorance (??? = God, I don't think so...) but I think you can see how the idea of a Prime Mover seems consistent from what we *do* know, agreed? Whether or not the Prime Mover is God, the universe itself (as per the expanding-contracting universe ideas), or some other inexplicable natural or unnatural force...well, perhaps science won't be able to answer those questions.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Jenisiz
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Why even bother resulting then if you're not reading the posts? I've posted several just like this you've managed to overlook twice among others.

Word for Word snip - Zoroaster was born in 660 B.C. into the Persian Spitma family. His mother, Dughdova was a virgin who conceived after a "shaft of light" had visited her. It is also interesting to note that Zoroaster's paternal linage is traced to the Persian Adam, Gavomart, similar to Jesus' paternal lineage being traced to Adam by Luke - The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics

Right, and Isaiah was written before Zoroaster's birth. Isaiah certainly wasnt talking about Zoroaster as he has no tie to Judah, whats next? I addressed the Book of the Dead claim.

originally posted by: Tangerine

No scholar has ever produced an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus lived. Nothing written by a single person who lived when Jesus allegedly lived stating that said person witnessed Jesus living has ever been discovered. Testable evidence could prove that God's existence is fact, except that there isn't any. Could it be found in the future? Sure. Testable evidence could be found in the future proving that Frodo existed, too.

I don't recall scientists saying that energy had a beginning.

The prime mover theory in no way proves the existence of the Abrahamic God. Who created the prime mover?l

Well, the Prime Mover (deity or monster or universe or what have you) would, according to this theorem, have to have either been caused itself or be an uncaused thing. Krazysh0t here is arguing we don't know what happened pre-Big Bang, but certainly it was either caused by a created or uncreated thing. Ultimately, as far as *I* can tell, *something* has to be eternal. That could be energy, sure, but there's got to be more than just energy (without some other force, energy would have reached a state of equilibrium if it's existed for all eternity. Something kicked off the Big Bang: natural forces at work? God? A self-aware computer programs...? Something beyond "energy is eternal" must be at play.)

Now, you say that testable evidence could prove God's existence is a fact. Can you explain what sort of testable evidence you're thinking of here? Most religions, as I understand them, hold that God isn't physical, so...how would one go about it? I'm all for it!

Now, on to the textual stuff: this may be the case, but you'd be hard-pressed to find similar stuff for, say Homer either. But I presume you don't doubt his existence! Also, remember that in terms of big-picture history, almost the first thing that happened after Jesus died was the Romans and Jews engaged in a cute little war. (Wiki) Wars tend to erase evidence of a great many things, especially the way the Romans waged them!!

With all that being said, why do you think most contemporary scholars believe that Jesus did in fact walk the earth? (I'm not exactly plugged into the field; in fact, I'm rather lazy, so I checked the Wiki.)

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: TzarChasm

I have done the research for myself, back when Zeitgheist first came out. I found the claims to be totally unfounded in exception for the case of the Osirian trinity, which I have already explained the Christ vs antichrist dichotomy earlier in this thread.

When you did this alleged research, what sources did you use? Cite them, please.

I used the Bible, the subject of the discussion was ancient text, well just because you resent the bible doesnt exlude it as an ancient text.

a reply to: Jenisiz

Buddha was sheltered until the age of 16 when he was married to his cousin. But, during his tenures in his private palace he was taught all manners of knowledge save for,religion (Wonder why) and death. But up until his early teen years, he was sheltered. He even begins his "mission" at the age of 29 where Jesus is said to have as well around 30.

Earlier, you said that the Buddha (it's not a name, by the way, it's a title) 'went to his temple' at the age of 12. Are you withdrawing that claim now?

Buddha was born around 563 BC...

The date is highly controversial. Nobody knows when, or even whether, the Buddha lived and died. The range of dates proposed down the ages goes from about 1,000BC to the fourth century AD. This article in the journal Indology gives more information on this fascinating subject.

...and was written about 200 yrs after death.

What was written? Biographies of him? The earliest existing one is dated to the second century AD — that's seven to eight hundred years after his death according to the figure you gave earlier.

Lost as to why you all keep asking for sources...they're the same sources you all are claiming to have read.

Evidently not, since you keep making all thse unsubstantiated claims.

Regarding your original premise, taking tradtional folk-tales and re-telling them (with or without variations) is not plagiarism. It is adaptation. Even in intellectual-property law, there are no legal penalties attached to the re-use of traditional material.

originally posted by: Jenisiz
Given the insurmountable evidence proving the Bible stole a majority of it's information from sources 1000's of years prior to the supposed birth of Christ. This has been covered here before in a manner of speaking, but I'm curious as to the justification standpoint of it.

It seems as you look at the Bible as a work of fiction posed in a commercial landscape similar to our contemporary Western society. Therefore, if the Bible rehashed older historical or mythological accounts, it's plagiarism.

I think we need to look at the Bible as a sort of encyclopedia that does not always correspond with the criteria of an encyclopedia today, and that existed in a time when copyright laws and the idea of intellectual property did not exist. In it you find the existing knowledge of it's time, the creation myths, historical accounts, prophecies, religious treaties, stories of intervention and interaction with supernatural and possibly extraterrestial entities, and much more. Yes, the ancient Hebrews appropriated themselves accounts from Babylonian/Sumerian sources and others, and fashioned them with Hebrew names and definitions to please a Hebrew audience.
But we don't have to look at it as if they stole these accounts, we might just as well say they passed these cross cultural accounts on to future generations.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Greetings, O Great Tzar. Although I sympathize with your distaste for Christian special pleading, BELIEVERpriest is right in this case. The source you quote, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours, is a pile of rubbish. If you regard that as a somewhat terse critique (as you have every right to do), a fuller one will be found here.

a reply to: Jenisiz

(The Buddha) entered teachings up until 13.

SHOW ME THE ORIGINAL SOURCE THAT SAYS THIS. Third time of asking.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: TzarChasm

I have done the research for myself, back when Zeitgheist first came out. I found the claims to be totally unfounded in exception for the case of the Osirian trinity, which I have already explained the Christ vs antichrist dichotomy earlier in this thread.

When you did this alleged research, what sources did you use? Cite them, please.

I used the Bible, the subject of the discussion was ancient text, well just because you resent the bible doesnt exlude it as an ancient text.

You used the Bible to determine the dates non-Biblical documents were written and the contents of those non-Biblical documents. Well, that's certainly an entertaining approach to scholarship.

a reply to: JimNasium

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet (still reading through the thread), but if I'm not mistaken, the early church depicted the serpent in the Garden of Eden as a woman. Representing Lilith. It was Lilith who deceived Eve. Also, if it was Satan in the garden, why isn't he slithering on his belly in other parts of the Bible (e.g. when he tempts Jesus) as per his punishment?

originally posted by: Jenisiz
First and foremost, I believe in a higher power...whether it be a form of a universal higher consciousness, I'm unsure. I'm a person of science and facts.

***Note***: Anyone participating in this thread, I ask you please don't turn this into a flame fest. I am genuinely interested in an individuals faith towards Church and Religion.

Through research over the course of a decade still can't fathom as to aside from "faith", what drives individuals to defend the Church and Christianity. Given the insurmountable evidence proving the Bible stole a majority of it's information from sources 1000's of years prior to the supposed birth of Christ. This has been covered here before in a manner of speaking, but I'm curious as to the justification standpoint of it. I won't interact very much, I'm just curious as to see how individuals will counter in support of their belief. ***And please attempt to refrain from the "It's Satan's work"*** I find this excuse incredibly futile as the teachings are still the same along with a majority of the info. I find it alarming that Satan would know more than god and convince individuals to right books against killing ect.

Below you'll find several characters that predate Jesus:

Buddah - Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty–seven days and Jesus for forty. Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:

“When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self–possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the time he was twenty–nine years of age… “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age.” (Luke 3:23). Both were tempted by the “devil” at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: “Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents.” To Jesus, he said: “All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me” (Matthew 4:9). Buddha answered the “devil”: “Get you away from me.”

Jesus responded: “…begone, Satan!” (Matthew 4:10). Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic’s eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away. Jesus said: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;.” (Matthew 5:29).

Could it be because Somadeva was written in the 11th-century after Christ ?

a reply to: Ove38

And because even the farthest-reaching claims of antiquity regarding the sources for the Kathasartisagara, or 'Sea of Stories' (to call it by its true name — Somadeva was the name of the supposed narrator of the stories), go back no earlier than the first century BC. That's still a good few hundred years after the best estimates for the date of the Buddha's demise.

This grows tiresome, however. The OP will not respond to requests for documentation; apparently his or her single source is an online version of Kersey Graves's unreliable book, but whether even this is so he or she will not confirm or deny. There's really no point in further discussion.

a reply to: Astyanax

Again, I provided you a link in the op that shows you all the similarities of not just buddha but 10 others. It's not my problem you disagree with it. I've included links to books I suggest you check out that I already own.

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama, Shakyamuni, or simply the Buddha, was a sage[3] on whose teachings Buddhism was founded.[web 1] He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in eastern India between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.

Gautama is the primary figure in Buddhism, and accounts of his life, discourses, andmonastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition, and first committed to writing about 400 years later.

To keep his son from witnessing the miseries and suffering of the world, Siddhartha's father raised him in opulence in a palace built just for the boy and sheltered him from knowledge of religion and human hardship. He was taught extensively by private tutors until according to custom, he married at the age of 16, but his life of total seclusion continued for another 13 years.

Sources -

Wiki
Book
Another good buy

Provide me with where you're getting all your opinions on Gautama Buddha because your opinions and claims aren't matching up to what can be found everywhere. You continue to gripe about not being able to find when he attended temple...which he was schooled in private and taught a number of skills including the typical three. You make no mention of the gap in their lives, the similar miracles and they both began preaching around 29-30. These are facts easily located. I've provided you with more than enough links...You just refuse to accept them bc they don't support your beliefs lol

And why no mention of any of the other's I and several others have provided?

a reply to: Jenisiz

Again, I provided you a link in the op that shows you all the similarities of not just buddha but 10 others.

You did. It's a web page containing the claim. It does not reference any original sources.

Perhaps you don't understand what is required. I'm asking for an ancient source, preferably contemporaneous with the Buddha (although I can save you the trouble of looking; there are none such), which states that Siddhartha Gautama, known to his followers as Sakyamuni or Gautama Buddha, went to a 'temple' (what kind of temple?) at age twelve. As far as I am aware, no Buddhist scripture makes that claim.

While not a Buddhist myself, I have close Buddhist relatives (grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins), and live in a country where Buddhism is the predominant religion. I have heard the jatakas, the vinaya and the sutras expounded by Buddhist monks on more occasions than I care to name, or remember. I may be wrong when I assert that the claim is false, but you'll have to come up with better documentation than you have provided so far if you hope to convince me. In its absence, I have no option but to reject the claim.

Provide me with where you're getting all your opinions on Gautama Buddha because your opinions and claims aren't matching up to what can be found everywhere.

Really? Where is 'everywhere'? It doesn't seem to be where I live, plumb in the centre of the Buddhist world.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TzarChasm

Greetings, O Great Tzar. Although I sympathize with your distaste for Christian special pleading, BELIEVERpriest is right in this case. The source you quote, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours, is a pile of rubbish. If you regard that as a somewhat terse critique (as you have every right to do), a fuller one will be found here.

you know who else was called christ? horus. horus the KRST.

a reply to: Jenisiz

The thing with Genesis is that it shows the highlights of Semitic cults over thousands of years. Noah and his alter egos in Mesopotamia reflects a messianic tradition quite similar to the Christ cults today and lasted what looks to be thousands of years. Adam and Eve is another such cult which was popular all over the newly civilised world. Genesis is strictly speaking a compendium or sort of an abstract showing the Jewish state of affairs religious wise at around the time of the Babylonian exile when these books were first compiled and standardised.

No less than you can accuse JW for plagiarism for retelling the stories of Jesus--- can you call the Bible plagiarism of other religious texts. The books included in the given canon reflects a multitude of religious paradigms and traditions put together to form an intricate "pantheon" of prophets and kings, patriarchs, heroes and saviours, knit together into what I consider being the most remarkable piece of literature in the known Universe.

a reply to: Ove38

Buddha predicted Yeshua aka Jesus. Traditions were passed orly first and sscribed 200-400 years after death. Depending on the scholar...all before Christ was born.

It's just not Buddha btw, all you guys seem to focus on is he. Where's Attis? Vishnu? Dionysus ect.

You all have failed to address why Osiris is better documented and they don't discuss a single plauge...even book of the dead was pulled in...barely even modifying the script or order of the 10 commandments. AND it is plagiarism when you knowingly "borrowed" without giving credit. Denying the text theft and claiming the bible as being an original when it's known not to be is.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

But what is really cannon, it's passages have been altered or removed depending on what was convenient.

Point is I'm very aware all these figures are modeled after events that occurred long before Christianity was even thought of making it a retelling. But instead, it's claimed an original stand alone. How are you all going to refute the facts of all the similarities? Majority of the accepted cannon was written in the common era...way after every example I provided. why should one religion take presidents over another yet the Church totes it around and emphasis it's the only truth...a lie they've upheld for centuries.

a reply to: Astyanax

I've provided you my sources and links to buy those books. Very good reads and I can suggest several more. Book of Judas is a great and different read as well.

a reply to: TzarChasm

you know who else was called christ? horus. horus the KRST.

An amusing coincidence, if true.

The English word 'Christ' is derived from the Classical Greek word Χριστός (Christos), meaning 'covered in oil' (the Greek word for 'oil' was chrisma). It is a direct translation of the Hebrew word 'messiah', which means 'anointed one'. So the derivation of the word is pretty clear and evidently has nothing to do with Horus.

Having said that, this was the Middle East in the first century, a multicultural melting-pot where influences from nearby Egypt undoubtedly permeated the folk culture beneath the later overlays of Graeco-Roman, Persian and other accretions. Perhaps the homophony of the alternative names for Horus and Jesus may have some such obscure origin, but it hardly bears remark. Such things are common in multireligious, multicultural societies. We have a word for it: syncretism.

It means nothing except that superstitious people don't always distinguish between belief systems.