Plagiarism In The Bible

a reply to: Astyanax

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.

There's a lot more to the word "Christ" than that. Although King Saul and King David were anointed with oil by Samuel, Cyrus the Great and Jesus of Nazareth never were.

The Greek literal translation of the word "Messiah" "anointed", and can apply to anyone who claims to be anointed, or whose followers made the claim. Like Christians claim that Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit when he was, supposedly, baptized.

Christ came to mean "The One", esteemed teacher, king, etc. There were initiates of the Elysian Mysteries who were called
"Christs" and referred to one another as Christians. Term wasn't held in reserve for Jesus. It was being employed for at least 300 years before the advent of Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed.

That being said, I don't see how anyone could say that Horus was not considered "The One", anointed by the divine. He was a savior and an Egyptian messiah of olde. Biblical Jesus was the remake/sequel, imo. He was the Aeon of God that makes an appearance every now and again. Horus reborn.

a reply to: Gryphon66

GIven your statement above about scientific materialism, coupled with your fairly obvious hands on experience with Buddhism, I was wondering how you gauge, or if you've ever even considered the "reality" of the Buddha versus that of the Christ?

Meaning, do I or do I not believe that one, either or both actually existed?

I accept that many of the stories told about them have some foundation in fact. Beyond that, it would be unwise to make any definite claims.

Of the two, Jesus of Nazareth has far more historical definition than Siddhartha Gautama. Jesus is associated with a specific time and place — first-century Judaea — and the earliest mentions of his birth, life and death in literature were completed within a century of his supposed demise. Some of these literary sources, such as the Gospels, are supposed to have been written by eyewitnesses. Modern Biblical scholars give little or no credence to those claims, but many are willing to grant that the Gospels were compiled from sources that were contemporary with Jesus.

Gautama is a far more nebulous figure. The Indology article I linked to earlier shows how much variation there is in the various Buddhist traditions concerning the chronology of his life, and how much controversy prevails among scholars of the subject. The supposed location of his birthplace, Lumbini, is also problematical: it was originally identified by a pillar set there by the Maurya emperor Asoka long after the Buddha is supposed to have lived and died, and the pillar itself was only discovered in 1896. Was the Buddha really born at the present-day Lumbini? There's no reliable evidence of that, any more than there is any evidence that Jesus was born near the modern town of Nazareth in Israel.

You mentioned Coningham and Acharya's 2013 discovery at Lumbini. This was simply an ancient shrine, built upon another even more ancient. It may be Buddhist, but that isn't certain, and there is absolutely no reason to assume that it marks the spot where Gautama was born. Incidentally, the team also discovered the remains of a nearby village dating from about 1300BC — about seven hundred years antecendent to the Buddha. Makes you think, eh?

Personally, I am inclined to wonder whether Gautama did not live and die several centuries later than is claimed by most Buddhists and scholars of Buddhism. His story and that of the Sakyas seems to me fit better with the way things were in northwestern India after the Alexandrian conquest and the establishment of Greek city-states like Taxila. But I am no expert on the subject — certainly not expert enough to have an opinion anyone should take seriously.

To sum up, I believe Jesus and the Buddha probably did exist, but even that cannot be said with certainty. The biographical details given for them are obviously unreliable and largely fictional.

a reply to: windword

The Greek literal translation of the word "Messiah" in anointed one can apply to anyone who claims to be anointed, or whose followers made the claim.

Yes. However, in Christian terminology it refers to the Biblical figure Jesus of Nazareth.

Christ came to mean "The One" esteemed teacher, king, etc. There were initiates of the Elysian Mysteries who were called "Christs" and referred to one another as Christians.

Eleusinian. If you wish to appear knowledgeable in a subject, best learn to spell it right, or those really in the know will laugh at you.

I'm sure there were many other Oily Ones in Greek myth and esoteric tradition, but that is neither here nor there. The derivation I gave for the word and its application to Jesus of Nazareth are correct; I didn't say they were exclusive.

That being said, I don't see how anyone could say that Horus was not considered "The One", anointed by the divine. He was a savior and an Egyptian messiah of olde. Biblical Jesus was the remake/sequel, imo. He was the Aeon of God that makes an appearance every now and again. Horus reborn.

Why people even bother to hold opinions on matters of this sort is a mystery to me. Who cares whether one tall tale was derived from another? There are more interesting things to discuss than this esoteric tripe.

a reply to: Astyanax

Thank you. I have rarely recieved as knowledgeable and insightful an answer here at ATS.

Thomas Paine says it best - from The Age of Reason

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

originally posted by: Jenisiz
I'm a person of science and facts.

Are you really a person of science and facts? You've copied your stuff from the Internet. Just a quick Google search found it. You should have went to the library and you should have purchased books to see if what you posted is true. You have not done your own sources or citations. Even the listverse website has no sources and citations and they site the documentary Zeitgeist which has no sources or citations.

a reply to: Astyanax

Eleusinian. If you wish to appear knowledgeable in a subject, best learn to spell it right, or those really in the know will laugh at you.

Like you? /

Sorry. I did my reading and research on that subject years ago, and no longer have many of my hard copy books, that I used to love to pour through and mark up. So, I posted that antidote and relied on my spell checker.

I'm sure there were many other Oily Ones in Greek myth and esoteric tradition, but that is neither here nor there. The derivation I gave for the word and its application to Jesus of Nazareth are correct; I didn't say they were exclusive.

Why is it correct? Why wouldn't Horus have been remembered as being a "Christ" figure? Jesus of Nazareth wasn't bestowed with the title "Christ" until after his death. But the word was in use in Egypt, Greece, Rome and wherever Jews lived since the writing of the Septuagint during the reign of Ptolemy in the 2nd century BC.

Further, in the Old Testament, God told Samuel to take up is "Little Horn of Oil" and go anoint Saul, and again, David. Jesus was never anointed with oil, nor did he fulfill the messianic prophecy or expectation.

The ONLY reason that Jesus of Nazareth holds the title Christ Jesus is because of the belief that he ROSE from the dead, just like Horus, the Rising Son did/does.

originally posted by: Jenisiz
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.

Thing is, when writing was invented these systems and traditions were already ten- even hundred thousands years old. Even with modern traditions like Christianity or for that matter Islam, no original manuscripts have survived, and if we take the New Testament; to make a sound translation of the New Testament today, we have about ten thousand historical documents that have to be compared and considered in order to give a sound or "correct" translation. About ten thousand manuscripts and fragments-- and none are identical. All these mss differ in words used, language and dialects, a line here, a word there, restructured the text to reflect or work as a theological or doctrinal reference from small commas to whole passages and verses omitted or interpolated, take the story about "Cast the first stone". That one didn't first show up until several hundred years after these books were first written down.

Most of the NT corpus is about 1000 years old, and the oldest fragments date back to medio to late first century. Oldest ms for the OT are three fragmentary texts in Greek translation from the fourth century AD. Oldest Torah around was also written nearly thousand years into the modern era. Parchment and papyrus just don't last much longer.

My point is: There are no originals around. And there probably never were.

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.

I read you, don't worry Reason these books are even around is politics. These books pave the way for dictators and despots, presidents and popes. These books win wars. These books make people run into certain death believing they will be rewarded in some post life paradise. The Bible has shown itself invaluable as such. You can't seriously plan an empire without the right religion to make your subjects, well subjects. Subjects proud to wash your feet in tears. As emperor or king, you need a devil to haunt your subjects' conscience and establish a moral standard none can live up to, save the king, who cannot be blamed of none-- to keep them occupied with their own inadequate morals, and keep a paddle in reach at any moment. Religion is an empire.

a reply to: texastig

Just a minute, so the data that is stored on the internet is ... different from that stored in libraries and in books? In fact, there are far more scholarly and academic studies and research available via the internet than there ever was through "the local library."

You make grand sweeping dismissive gestures toward citations without, yourself, knowing or being able to dispute the source?

Or even making an attempt to?

Information is information; and the truth is the truth. Let's focus on the veracity of things rather than the medium of storage and transmittal, shall we?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Well, in addition to expressed opinions and lies, there are also at least two other important categories, facts and mistakes.

I fear that you're generalizing regarding some of the OPs material (which does include some mistakes) based on your own opinions rather than proven facts.

You have done studies that suggest that the structure of biblical texts is coherent but you are relying on translations for that, right? Some original material? But you are not analyzing or measuring the thousands of small copies and scraps of the biblical texts that are the only real extant artifacts of material from hundreds or thousands of years before the Common Era.

The "truth" is that what has been presented here thus far doesn't prove anything one way or the other. In fact, the question itself is somewhat moot because of what Astyanax pointed out earlier: syncretism.

Cultures melded and interacted throughout history. There is little doubt among biblical scholars, for example, that there is fairly clear "inspiration" in the Hebrew texts from Canaanite, Egyptian, Babylonian and Assyrian influences. Even if these "influences" were transcribed into Hebrew in a standard liturgical pattern, and if the subsequent copies made over time were standardized to appear more seamless as the individual documents were gathered into the more recognizable "holy text" compilations, and thus share a common language and pattern, that does not imply then that the end result of that process (over hundreds or thousands of years) is therefore an original work on its own.

You forgot to mention Chuck Norris.

When he was born, his mother Became a virgin.
He traveled and taught the wisdom of Ass kicking to people of the world.
He performed miracles with an Uzi.
He could swim through land.
He was tempted by Bruce lee by making a movie in which he loses.
He was resurrected on the internet.
There was a great flood of Chuck Norris on the internet.
Chuck Norris is universally believed to be God's superior.

a reply to: Heruactic

Now that is undeniable.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You make some excellent points, but my work is based on ancient manuscripts that atleast date back to the middle ages and are corroborated with the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls. The OP is founded on a theosophical blog.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The OP is also found in a book published in the late 1990's. I'm not a subscriber to that book/thesis myself. For while there are indeed striking similarities, the implication is that if "Jesus" was a "plagiarism" of other "cults" then they are plagiarisms of each other (except the first).

I've repeatedly said I'm not an Abrahamic spiritualist, I've never been one. I also don't belong to a pagan faith from one of the "plagiarized" cultures. My faith has no "savior" in that manner.

It is an interesting little meme however that has been around for quite a while in some form or another. There are also undeniable truths to the idea Christianity absorbed at least some ideas from previous cults.

Note: I am using "" to denote things that are not quite what the word implies.

I had no time to read this whole thread, but I did half of it. So if I may...

If you've seen the first "Zeitgeist", then you've known about these claims of regurgitated storytelling of characteristics of these Messianic or prophetic semi-historical people.

One of Zeitgeists main points is that a lot of these shared traits seem to be "transcribed" figuratively from the movement of the stars across the skies, as their "main source", but with alarming accuracy in these stories' similarities.

That being said, one can point to the fact that only those seeking spiritual recognition seem to be historically tied to these same frameworks. Why don't we ever see non-religious people going through a virgin birth/etc?

I submit that it is a living requirement, as read through astrology/astronomy, that these characters are attempting to fullfill. Whether this was God-mandated, or simply an ancient man-made interpretative superstition, we really cannot say. All these candidates seem to be preaching, and preaching similar things. With such a nefarious nature of deceit tied to misusing or "plagiarizing" these storylines, one would think at least 1 would be evil in intent or at least in character. But none are very much at all evil. That can't be a coincidence.

Personaly, I would expect nothing less of the 1 true messiah/prophet, than his story being literally written in the stars, therefore predating him, leaving much room for "copy-cats" or attempts at fullfilling these prophetic requirements, up until one person actually lives through all of them to completion.


In short: I propose the possibility of all of these "candidates" stories to be "plagiarized", not from 1 original story that happened already, but from 1 that is read from translation & symbology of the stars, written by a creator & trying to make itself manifest.

I question & am skeptical of every aspect of modern/historical religion more than any average believer. Yet when you think about it this way; I would expect nothing less from a "son of God" method of validation & right of leadership, wouldn't you?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Tangerine

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.

Im sorry, I misread your initial question. No, I debunked Zeitgeist for myself back in 2008 or 2009. I didnt take any notes since I have far more important things to study.

conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

This article does a fine job at pointing out all the holes in the Zeitgeist claim. Most of the OP's claims are resolved in the link. Unlike the OP, this author cited their sources. Follow the table of contents to navigate through the research.

I'm not going to do your research for you. I asked YOU to cite your sources. YOU were unable to do so.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

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.)

Assumptions are just that: assumptions. You have made many. You have assumed that something must be eternal. We don't know that. You assumed that there is a prime mover. We don't know that. You assumed that energy would have reached a state of equilibrium. We don't know that.

As for testable evidence being able to prove that God exists as fact, testable evidence is the only thing that proves that anything is fact. Fact is the purview of science and testable evidence is that which science requires to prove fact. Lacking testable evidence, God's existence is not fact. It is belief. If believers stopped claiming that it's fact, they wouldn't be challenged to produce testable evidence.

Do you worship Homer? Neither do I. Are people persecuted and threatened with eternal torture if they don't believe he exists? Have wars been waged over a belief in Homer?

It's immaterial what some scholars may believe. Again, the word believe. That which they can prove is important. None of them have come up with an iota of contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. Most scholars are funded by educational institutions where deviating from the norm makes one unpopular. Being unpopular often reduces funding and prevents advancement. There are also social pressures to be part of the norm. Surely, you know this.

You are assuming that Jesus died. There is zero evidence of that. Will you next argue that wars erased the evidence that Frodo once existed and, therefore, we should worship him? You are tangled up in a circular belief.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Tangerine

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.

Im sorry, I misread your initial question. No, I debunked Zeitgeist for myself back in 2008 or 2009. I didnt take any notes since I have far more important things to study.

conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

This article does a fine job at pointing out all the holes in the Zeitgeist claim. Most of the OP's claims are resolved in the link. Unlike the OP, this author cited their sources. Follow the table of contents to navigate through the research.

I'm not going to do your research for you. I asked YOU to cite your sources. YOU were unable to do so.

Its all there, but its fine by me if you dont want to read my sources, you can stay ignorant for all I care.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Tangerine

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.

Im sorry, I misread your initial question. No, I debunked Zeitgeist for myself back in 2008 or 2009. I didnt take any notes since I have far more important things to study.

conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

This article does a fine job at pointing out all the holes in the Zeitgeist claim. Most of the OP's claims are resolved in the link. Unlike the OP, this author cited their sources. Follow the table of contents to navigate through the research.

I'm not going to do your research for you. I asked YOU to cite your sources. YOU were unable to do so.

Its all there, but its fine by me if you dont want to read my sources, you can stay ignorant for all I care.

If you click on the link to the author of your "source", Edward L Winston, you will pull up a page that says he does not exist or changed his name. LOL

a reply to: Tangerine

It says he does not exist or changed his USER NAME. That's kinda like canceling your ATS or Facebook account. I can see you are having a hard time absorbing information.