The Anti-Christian conspiracy

JJ,

Why was nothing authored durring jesus' time or by jesus himself? Surely he was an educated man and live a better life being the son of god and all right? What gospel's are there for his childhood years? Surely the son of god had the ability to commit miracle's at an early age. Or was he only able to do miracle's after becoming a rabbi around the time when most people became rabbi's as law permited back then? Why aren't christian's jewish anyway's? Seeing as how jesus himself was jewish...



shaunybaby,

You have to excuse Crystal. Just do as I did and point out his own inadequicies. Of course, he'll conviently forget them and try to get you to continue the childish argument that has no meaning to the topic of the thread. He has a tendancy to point out other people's 'idiocy' and labeling them 'fools'. Yet, he has no problem accepting that it's his god given duty to ... uhh... 'enlighten' people and dispense his uhh... version of 'truth'.

Originally posted by Produkt
Why was nothing authored durring jesus' time or by jesus himself? Surely he was an educated man and live a better life being the son of god and all right? What gospel's are there for his childhood years? Surely the son of god had the ability to commit miracle's at an early age. Or was he only able to do miracle's after becoming a rabbi around the time when most people became rabbi's as law permited back then? Why aren't christian's jewish anyway's? Seeing as how jesus himself was jewish...

there's nothing of his childhood because when he was young people didn't believe he was any sort of messiah. it was only after he started to preach, that people began to listen and follow, much like you might follow a person called martin luther king. nothing special, just a person you want to follow and be near so you can hear them speak.

he later died on the cross and everything that jesus spoke of people saw as now false. the resurection, miracles, walking on water, feeding the 5000 were added in, and the jesus myth of being the son of god was kept alive.

how fortunate for god to pick his son to be born in a time where it was almost impossible to record anything. why were all messiahs from all religions born a long time ago? coincidence maybe, or perhaps it's because people back then 'made' the messiahs what they were. as stories afterwards were written etc. when all they were, were normal people 'with a dream' just like martin luther king.

jesus is only the son of god in biblical text. he was not the son of god in person. the bible makes him out to be something he never was. they kept the jesus myth alive and that he was the son of god because it gave hope. it wasn't even until 400 AD that jesus' name even cropped up again. that's a huge blank 400 years, where almost nothing happened...then jesus' name just pops up. you would have thought his impact would have been a bit more dramatic than that. afterall this person dies on a cross and then comes back to life...but takes 400 years for anyone to take notice

he later died on the cross and everything that jesus spoke of people saw as now false. the resurection, miracles, walking on water, feeding the 5000 were added in, and the jesus myth of being the son of god was kept alive.

Pretty much what I'm thinking here, seeing as how nothing was written of jesus durring his time and only well after the guy died. Thing's just got added. Look at the dragon mythology. Important guy for his time. Miraculous attribute's added to his story after he died. The guy became immortalized as a dragon. People knew howto write back then, maybe not all, but some one would've recorded something about jesus' miracles ... IF he actually performed them. Nothing was recorded until years after his death about him... I'm sure there's some christian's out there who played telephone before? There's no possible way jesus said all those thing's in the bible, word for word, and people just happened to remember word for word years after his death. Hell, there's not many people alive who can remember word for word what they themselve's said march 23, 2004. I don't even remember what I said last week, let alone word for word lol. Those supposed conversations with jesus in the bible are pretty much just stories.

Ahh, cool, that's actually directly addressed at the end of part 2, which will be going up a little later today. As to the writing, it would stand to reason that Matthew could write, being a tax collector, but James, the brother of John, and John would have no reason to, being fishermen. As to Jesus' reading and writing, I'm sure He could, and I really wish the disciples had expanded on what it was He was writing in the sand as the people contemplated His words, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It could also be contended that He did write the whole Bible through the Holy Spirit, but I'm going to stay away from the theology and focus on the scientific and logical.

Shawny does bring up an interesting point about His childhood and, indeed, most of His life up to the time He was 30. I'm going to add another part to that reply addressing the way histories and biographies were written and kept way back when as opposed to now, as it will be a rather lengthy post.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Apparently they are, JJ... which is why I told them to learn some basic Logic.

ALL of these examples are examples of BAD LOGIC, logic which makes you a total idiot.

Dude, can you cut it out? Not all of us can be as intelligent as you.

The foundation for the literary evidence comes from what is actually written in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, comparing it to history and to other works of the time, both scriptural (other gospels, for example) and extrascriptural (in this case Papias). It also involves linguistics, or the terms used to describe things, much as we can date movies by their slang, but that will come in part 3, primarily addressing the book of Luke and Acts.

First and foremost is the book of Acts. The book of acts is Luke’s account of the early church, or what took place after Christ ascended into heaven following his resurrection. The book of acts presents a detailed account of important events effecting the church, from Peter’s bigotry being crushed, causing him to present the gospel to the Gentiles, to Saul’s experience in the desert changing him from one of Christianity’s greatest rivals to it’s greatest supporter. The book of acts was most likely written in 62 AD.

In 70 AD, Jerusalem fell to Rome, where they destroyed the temple and sacked the town. Jerusalem is central to much of acts, and such an event would be impossible to omit. There is also nothing of Nero’s persecution of the early church; it ends with Paul in Rome, confined by Nero. Acts also fails to mention martyrdoms of three of its principle characters, James (killed 62 AD), Peter (killed 65 AD), and Paul (killed 64 AD). However, Stephen was mentioned, who was stoned after his trial before the Sanhedrin (Acts 6:8-7:60), as was the martyrdom of James, the brother of John, who was put to death by Herod (Acts 12:1-3).

If Acts was written by Luke in 62 AD, one would assume he wrote the Gospel of Luke beforehand. This would put the authorship of Luke around the late 50s.

The early church fathers claimed that Matthew wrote his gospel first, though some critics claim it was actually Mark. Most, however, concur they were written before Luke. Therefore, they must have been written before the late 50s. It is possible there were earlier drafts or partial drafts circulating before they were finalized into the Gospel accounts as we know them, but none have been found to date. If they did exist, this would place the authorship in the early 50s or 40s.

As a result, the formative period would have been between 17 and 30 years. That assumes there was no “Q” document, which many critics of the authorship of the gospels claim there was. If there was a “Q” document by which the synoptic gospels were modeled off of, this would cause the formative period to be around 7 to 17 years.

Make no mistake, the formative period did not mean the period by which all these stories were made up. Oral traditions at the time were very common, many people being illiterate. Due to this, great emphasis was put on accurate memorization. There were rabbis at this time who had all of the Old Testament memorized, along with significant tracts of the Talmud.

You also have to take into account that it was not only Christians who witnessed what happened to Jesus. If this were to have been made up and people were preaching fake lies, and writing fake lies, nonbelievers who had witnessed the events would have stood and called them on their lie. We would expect, if this were to have taken place, that Josephus and the Talmud would have dedicated more time to point out the lies the Christians were telling the people in their accounts of Christ’s ministry and the early church. They don’t.

This evidence leads a strong weight to a short formative period of the Gospels, and gives strength to their accuracy. However, this can of worms has only begun to be opened. There is far more evidence supporting the accuracy of the Gospels that I will soon be getting to, starting with a linguistic analysis of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, coming in the next part of this multi-post reply.

Originally posted by junglejake
You also have to take into account that it was not only Christians who witnessed what happened to Jesus. If this were to have been made up and people were preaching fake lies, and writing fake lies, nonbelievers who had witnessed the events would have stood and called them on their lie.

Maybe they did call his bluff...but you're not going to read about that in the bible are you

It'd be the same as going to a magic show, watching the magician cut a person in half and shouting out ''Duurrrr you're all being duped, he's not really cutting him in half.''

Jesus wasn't the only messiah of his time, nor was he the only person to ever preach in his time. There were 100s. People who claimed they could heal, predict the future, and all because they're in-tune with God.

As for the miracles, they could easily be staged to further his own career. It's not that hard to get a person that perhaps looks as though he's blind, spit in the dirt, rub it on his eyes...and then he can see. That just sounds like a mere street con. So the reason people didn't shout out 'fake' or 'lies', is because just like the rest of the crowd...they were duped.

Instead of walking away and thinking 'nice trick'...they walked away thinking...'he's the son of God'.

As for 'evidence' about accounts of being resurected, healing blind people, feeding the 5000, they are mere later fabrications added by writers, who were certainly not any of his disciples.

This evidence leads a strong weight to a short formative period of the Gospels, and gives strength to their accuracy. However, this can of worms has only begun to be opened. There is far more evidence supporting the accuracy of the Gospels that I will soon be getting to, starting with a linguistic analysis of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, coming in the next part of this multi-post reply.

Sure historically the writers may have put in dates and actions that suggest when they were written etc. however, this in no way proves they are correct about Jesus. Even if the first gospel was written in 60-70 AD, it still means that was 30+ years after Jesus died. If you're in any way going to suggest that the disciples wrote any of the gospels, then why did they wait 30 years? If they did wait 30+ years, then their memories would not have been great...they could have added parts in etc. The gospels are not sound material, as evidence 'for' Jesus' miracles.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Maybe they did call his bluff...but you're not going to read about that in the bible are you

Ahh, but as I said, Christ's followers were a direct threat to the Jews. Rome, for a period of time, considered them to be a sect of Judaism. If they were lying, yes, they'd verbally call the lie, but those lies would definitely be in the Talmud, and Josephus wouldn't talk about Jesus working miracles. Remember, Josephus was a devout Jewish historian. He would have exposed the lies, as well. None of this happened, though. There was writing at the time, written language wasn't developed by Christians. Yet there are no credible contrary accounts of the believers preaching Christ being called on a lie, nor were there accounts of Jesus not performing miracles.

Part 6 (now 7) will address the Messianic elements of Christ and why Matthias and others like him were not the Messiah.

JJ,

What's your take on the similarities of jesus with a few older deities?

For instance, Horus has many of the same attribute's as jesus and quiet a few similar saying's. Moses was pretty much an egyptian, came from egypt. Possibly influenced by atenism, egypt's form of monotheism. It's quiet probable jesus was horus. Or the story of jesus was influenced by the story of horus, or other similar stories. People of those time's had no problem's with attributing mystical properties to those they followed or worshipped. The dragon mythology is one example. Christianity is already known for it's borrowing from paganism. The noah flood is borrowed from the epics of gilgamesh, which comes from an even older sumerian flood myth itself. Honestly, what are the chances that no other culture would have written anything of jesus durring his lifetime? The first mentioning of jesus is after his death... by christians. How is it that everyone fails to record anything of him, nothing written untill years after his supposed death? How is it that jesus bears remarkable similarities, not to just horus alone, but many other 'pagan' saviors written about well before his supposed birth? Obviously the story of horus can't have been copied from the story of jesus. Horus was worshipped well before jesus' time. As were other 'pagan' gods/saviors that tell similar stories.

A relatively simple question requiring yet another lengthy answer to cover most, if not all, aspects of doubt this could arise. Believe me, those questions plagued me, as well, as I was learning about Egyptian mythology, Hinduism, and even, to a lesser degree, Greek mythology.

First, I would like to say that, coming from a purely secular viewpoint not believing in anything divine, the easy answer cannot apply: they were reflecting God in their myths, but no one was getting it right, for the most part, so God raised a nation (Israel) from one of the people who did.

One of the biggest differences, though, between Egyptian avatar accounts and accounts of Vishnu avatars coming to earth involves geography. That's in part 4, but here's a preview. Jesus was flesh and blood, and his movements were recorded. In conjunction with that, all of his teachings at each place make a whole lot more sense if you're aware of the geography and culture of the area.

Egyptian and Hindu myths tend to be more general, applying to the whole of the community, and rarely, are geographical locations given. As such, there's no fallibility to their claims, whereas in Christ's case, if a place he goes to never existed, it adds a lot of doubt to the trustworthiness of the Bible (don't worry, I'll be addressing Nazareth ).

IDK ... that doesn't really answer the question much. The remarkable similarities are too striking to be by chance of earlier culture's just getting the idea of god wrong. Not only that, the logic behind it just doesn't make any sense at all. You can look through the history of religous belief's and see an evolution of religion quiet easily. As well as borrowing's from previous belief sturcture's. Even today, some christian's no longer believe the creation story and are evolving their belief's along with scientific discoveries. Earlier culture's are known to attribute mysticism in with their religous belief's, and as I mentioned, borrow from other's. Christianity itself isn't free of this either. So honestly, nothing was really answered. Even if nazareth did exist, what's that mean? Not much. Many other older myth's also talk of cities that are known to have existed, but the stories themselve's are known to not be true. If you'd like to discuss geography from the biblical sense, I can throw your way a few site's where a few biblical writer's got geography pretty much wrong in the bible.

At any rate, looking forward to the next installment

[edit on 9-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by junglejake
Ahh, but as I said, Christ's followers were a direct threat to the Jews. Rome, for a period of time, considered them to be a sect of Judaism. If they were lying, yes, they'd verbally call the lie, but those lies would definitely be in the Talmud, and Josephus wouldn't talk about Jesus working miracles. Remember, Josephus was a devout Jewish historian. He would have exposed the lies, as well. None of this happened, though. There was writing at the time, written language wasn't developed by Christians. Yet there are no credible contrary accounts of the believers preaching Christ being called on a lie, nor were there accounts of Jesus not performing miracles.

I also stated that maybe they were dupped in to thinking everything they saw was real. such as my explanation of healing the blind man. hence, they didn't 'know' he was lying. so they couldn't have called his bluff, as they real did believe the magic before their eyes.

Please do throw those geography factoids into the mix. I would prefer you do so after I post part 4 in case I already address them, but if you want to do so earlier I could, if I have time, adjust what's written to account for those geographical anomalies.

As to the evolution of religion, I'm preparing and researching to play on your evo thread It hadn't really been an area I had been studying, but I came across some interesting information researching for these posts, and am now better equipped to address some of your points, rather than just saying you're wrong or throwing out theories without any evidence to back them up.

Looking forward to what you've dug up. I'll wait till part four for the geography, as well as dig up some more info.

Shaunybaby, I don't know what you've been going through. I don't know what troubles have struck. Just hold on, Love will find you. He's behind you now, picking up the broken pieces, wanting you to turn around and see His compassion for your plight. I know it's hard when it seems that the whole weight of the world is on your shoulders and people keep trying to add more. Believe me, I know. You just want to lay it down, at least some of it so it's more bearable, but you can't, and it keeps getting heavier and heavier, harder to bear. Often, it feels as though you're trapped under this load. God is there, though, with you, and He will take that burden from you. He took the burdens of all the world when He died on the cross. The problems may still be there, but the burden will be lifted. That's what it means to be free in Christ.

Christ said, "come to me, all who are weary, and I will give you rest." No matter what it is in your life you're going through, if you blame yourself for it, even if it was, indeed, your fault, He will be there for you. There is nothing you could have done or been through that would make him love you less. When Christ walked the Earth, He didn't come for the righteous, he stayed with thieves, whores, liars, and lepers. Those rejected by society were His crowd. There is nothing that can turn Him away from you; He will stand by you even as you curse His name.

God loves you, Shaunybaby. He loves you, and so do I.

A lot of contention has been raised as to the intelligence of Luke, the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Though he’s regarded as a historian and a doctor, he did a terrible job of actually writing his account, massacring words all over the place. Though he was regarded as an esteemed historian, he appeared to have the linguistic skills of a 12 year old. He wasn’t even that good of an historian, screwing up Jesus’ birth, throwing in factoids that simply weren’t true, as archaeology and history had proven.

Or had it?

The critics of Luke’s account of the birth of Christ claimed that, first, there was no census in Rome at that time, so there would be no reason for Joseph and Mary to have gone to Bethlehem while Mary was pregnant. Nor did he get the name of the governor of Syria right, naming him Quirinius. Josephus noted in his history that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 AD, well after Christ had been born.

Then the archaeological came in and shattered both claims. It turned out the Romans had a census of taxpayer enrollment every 14 years, and this began with Augustus Caesar in either 23 or 22 BC. That would mean Luke was probably talking about the second census to be held, taking place in 8 or 9 BC. There was also evidence of Quirinius being governor of Syria in 7 BC, after discovering an inscription in Antioch ascribing a Quirinius to the post in 7 BC. Now it is supposed there were either two governors named Quirinius, or the same man was selected to be governor twice, once in 7 BC, and the other time in 6 AD, as Josephus stated.

A piece of papyrus was discovered in Egypt giving directions for the census, leading more evidence to what we would now consider a bizarre practice:

Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrollment and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them

(Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983, pp. 159-160, George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955, p285)

There was also doubt about Luke writing of a civic assembly taking place in a theater in Acts 19:23, instead of some governmental building. This was widely accepted as another weak point in Luke’s ability to record accurately the facts, until an inscription discovered in Ephesus speaking of silver statues of Artemis to be placed in the theater when there was a full session of “Ecclesia” (the Greek word Luke uses that we translate as civic assembly). After it was excavated, the theater turned out to be able to have room for 25,000 people!

Some of the words Luke used to describe things were questioned, as well, with critics saying that, if he couldn’t get the word right, how can we expect him to get the important details right?

One example is Luke calling Phillipian rulers “praetors”. Scholars believed two duumvirs would have ruled the town, but instead, findings demonstrated that the word praetor was used by magistrates of a Roman colony. Another example would be Luke giving Publius, the mayor of Malta, the title of “First man of the island”, long considered to be wrong. However, inscriptions have been unearthed giving Publius the title First Man. As one last example, Luke uses the word “politarch” to describe the civil authorities in Thessalonica. This was known to be wrong, because no literature ever used such a word. Yet again, Luke proved to be correct and his critics wrong since 19 inscriptions have been unearthed using this term, 5 of them in reference to Thessalonica.

F. F. Bruce, a professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis (study of the inspiration behind writing the Bible) at the University of Manchester until 1978, said,

Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.

(Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament – an Introduction. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1965)

In Joseph Free’s “Archaeology and Liberalism” article in Bibliotheca Sacra’s July 1956, he quotes Bruce saying,

A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate where the means for testing him are not available. Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate. Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.

Originally posted by junglejake
Shaunybaby, I don't know what you've been going through. I don't know what troubles have struck. Just hold on, Love will find you. He's behind you now, picking up the broken pieces, wanting you to turn around and see His compassion for your plight. I know it's hard when it seems that the whole weight of the world is on your shoulders and people keep trying to add more. Believe me, I know. You just want to lay it down, at least some of it so it's more bearable, but you can't, and it keeps getting heavier and heavier, harder to bear. Often, it feels as though you're trapped under this load. God is there, though, with you, and He will take that burden from you. He took the burdens of all the world when He died on the cross. The problems may still be there, but the burden will be lifted. That's what it means to be free in Christ.

Christ said, "come to me, all who are weary, and I will give you rest." No matter what it is in your life you're going through, if you blame yourself for it, even if it was, indeed, your fault, He will be there for you. There is nothing you could have done or been through that would make him love you less. When Christ walked the Earth, He didn't come for the righteous, he stayed with thieves, whores, liars, and lepers. Those rejected by society were His crowd. There is nothing that can turn Him away from you; He will stand by you even as you curse His name.

God loves you, Shaunybaby. He loves you, and so do I.

Sounds like you poured your heart out JJ. Although it just doesn't wash with me. God's not there, and nor is Jesus. I'm not about to throw away my logic and reality for a bunch of pagan beliefs. Be it if I'm wrong, I don't care...I'd rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. This sheep is too far away from the flock. Go tell your sales pitch to someone without a need for reason or sense.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Sounds like you poured your heart out JJ.

I have regular dialogue with JJ and yes, I can verify he does truly care. If you don't believe me, send him U2U and talk bunches with him too. Lookout JJ, INCOMING! Like how I volunteered ya like that?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Although it just doesn't wash with me. God's not there, and nor is Jesus.

Yes they are...whether it washes with you or not.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm not about to throw away my logic and reality for a bunch of pagan beliefs.

Oxymoron, good one. Listen to the thunderous silence, behold the invisible sight!

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Be it if I'm wrong, I don't care...I'd rather reign in hell than serve in heaven.

Actually those aren't your choices. A bit of a selfish daydream really.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
This sheep is too far away from the flock.

Your call friend. JJ disagrees and I'll trust his judgement since he's on orders.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Go tell your sales pitch to someone without a need for reason or sense.

What is JJ selling? I've heard no exhange offered. To say you deny a free gift would be accurate though.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
I have regular dialogue with JJ and yes, I can verify he does truly care. If you don't believe me, send him U2U and talk bunches with him too. Lookout JJ, INCOMING! Like how I volunteered ya like that?

I didn't say that he didn't care. I'll pass on the U2Us.

Yes they are...whether it washes with you or not.

Jesus and the Christian God exist, like Shiva, Vishnu, Allah, Ra, Thor...and so on exists...hence, they exist in your mind. Ra and Thor DID exist. millions used to believe in them just like you do today with Jesus and God, however, Ra and Thor are taught today as mythical gods and not part of something that we should literally believe in.

Oxymoron, good one. Listen to the thunderous silence, behold the invisible sight!

Not sure what you find so funny. I see you love to use the word 'oxymoron'. It's like those days back in school where you'd learn a word and just use it over and over because you think it makes you look clever. I think I used to do that when I was 8... how old are you?

I guess you're denying christianity stemed from pagan beliefs. The pagan beliefs before christianity merely took some christian ideals and patched their old religion. Believe it or not, the 25th of december is not Jesus' birthday. It was a traditional pagan holiday, which then patched with christianity became Jesus' birthday. Hence, christianity being nothing but patched pagan beliefs.

Actually those aren't your choices. A bit of a selfish daydream really.

I never said I 'was' choosing. Slight assumption and ignorance on your behalf to think so.

Your call friend. JJ disagrees and I'll trust his judgement since he's on orders.

I'm not your friend. JJ disagrees because JJ is disillusional beyond what could be considered as 'normal'.

What is JJ selling? I've heard no exhange offered. To say you deny a free gift would be accurate though.

He was selling Jesus' and God's love. Maybe you'd like to go back and read... i'm sure you read his post. Perhaps you didn't see it as a sales pitch. Although I did, i'm not as blind as you.

Also 'free'? what's 'free' about it?... when I have to do something to have God or Jesus notice me... that means I have to do something to get their approval. hence... 'not free'.

I guess you're denying christianity stemed from pagan beliefs. The pagan beliefs before christianity merely took some christian ideals and patched their old religion. Believe it or not, the 25th of december is not Jesus' birthday. It was a traditional pagan holiday, which then patched with christianity became Jesus' birthday. Hence, christianity being nothing but patched pagan beliefs.

Speaking of ...

I've been looking more and more into the similarities between egyptian and biblical belief's and the influence's of egypt over the hebrews ... I'm starting to come to a better understanding how it all started. The Egyptians have been around far longer then the birth of the hebrew people, they had a major influence over the land of the hewbrews, both lived nearly side by side, moses was egyptian, horus and jesus have nearly the same exact story, noah's flood is essentially stolen from the epics of gilgamesh. And like you said, Dec. 25th is stolen from a pagan holiday. I'm still waiting for part 4, I want to see if JJ raises the geographical error's written by a certain someone in the bible. We all know, and even some, if not most christians admit that certain parts of the bible are just stories, and other's are definatly taken from other source's. The validity of the bible as a whole is false. Anyone who's played telephone would know that a message can get royally screwed even after 2 mins of playing. Sometime's it could sound similar to the original message, sometime's not. There are too many ommision's, other books left out of the 'official' gospels. The book of enoch discusses a flat earth cosmology, similar to other's believed in durring that time period, for example. And given that people supposedly remembered word for word, action for action, everything jesus said and did (despite the geogrphical errors and similarities to horus), not one could remember or find it important to discuss what the son of god did or had to endure as a child growing up around a group of jews and other culture's who say he wasn't the messiah. We all know that many 'important' men in history have exaggerated stories added to their history. Pharoahs become god's, succesful emprors become dragons, etc. If there were indeed an historical jesus, chance's are even he wasn't free from such exaggerations. And the heavy similarities in both life and teaching between horus (being much older) and jesus are too much to brush aside. And JJ's way of dismissing it by saying the egyptians just got the 'concept of god' wrong is plainly ridiculous. The more logical, and along with the evidence at hand, early monotheistic belief's possibly stemmed off of egyptian atenism.