why cant christians accept the origins of christianity

So, anything that goes against your ideas were put there by Satan to deceive me huh?

You've got a lot to learn son.

Edit to add:
Zoroastrianism has a beginning date of around 2000 BCE. The Vedas have an oral tradition of an estimated 4000 BCE possibly earlier.

So I'll ask, if Satan put this info here to deceive us (the same way he did dinosaur bones) what could his purpose possibly be?

Or are you just embarrassed that you made a factual error and now refuse to own up to it?

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by UnrealZA
There are no other Jesus "characters" in any story claiming to be God Incarnate and the atonement for sin.

Also, which of the creation stories, that "pre-date" Genesis, speak of a Holy God that creates from nothing?

www.wilsonsalmanac.com...
Here's a whole list of "charecters" who were claimed to be God incarnate. Krishna comes to mind off the top of my head.

And every creation story begins with nothing.

Yes, I've heard it all before, however, untrue it is. Anyone can say anything about any religion and claim that it is "just the same as Christianity." Saying it is a far cry from proving it. Almost all of the "scripture" references on that site referring to Jesus, were taken from extra-biblical and apocryphal texts, and the references to the other deities were almost without exception lacking any supporting evidence. In the case of Krishna, there was even an addendum to that section e-mailed to the site owner by a Hindu who trashed 90% of the supposed facts about Krishna.

I don't know or care whether the ancient myths and religions whose gods you note came from Zoroastrianism or not; the important point is this: except for Krishna and
the hindu religion, I don't know too many people in the world who still worship Dionysus, Tammuz, Horus or any of the other people you note. What I do know is that after 2000 years of persecution and efforts to destroy it, the Christian "faith" is still stronger than ever. I say faith because Christianity is not a religion, it is a faith in the personal relationship between Christ and the believer and in the "fact" that those who believe in Him as the Son of God are saved from sin and death.

You don't have to be the member of a particular church or denomination to be a Christian, you only have to believe one thing: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."~.Acts 16:31

Stormrider,
This stuff wasn't just made up, and the number of people who follow it today is of no consequence. WHat matters is that the same key concepts, such as the virgin birth, the death, and resurection are not original ideas. And because these myths were around for millenia before Christ, either Jesus was one of many, or just another adaptation of an old myth.

It's unwise to deny information simply because it contradicts what your parents taught you.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
So, anything that goes against your ideas were put there by Satan to deceive me huh?

No..........that would be anything contrary to the truth........it has nothing to do with my ideas.

You've got a lot to learn son.

No doubt. But I've already been way down this road son.....I know where it goes and why. You need to look beyond the crock you are fed.

Zoroastrianism has a beginning date of around 2000 BCE. The Vedas have an oral tradition of an estimated 4000 BCE possibly earlier.

I told you there are conflicting timelines. I can find many more accurate sources that put Hinduism at or after 2000 BCE. Look where they date Zoroastrianism. Why the confusion. And yet we know it was before 2000 BCE. This link dates religion origins.

www.sacred-texts.com...

AND ANOTHER.........

Although today's Hinduism differs significantly from earlier forms of Indian religion, Hinduism's roots date back as far as 2000 BC, making it one of the oldest surviving religions. Because of its great age, the early history of Hinduism is unclear. The most ancient writings have yet to be deciphered, so for the earliest periods scholars must rely on educated guesses based on archaeology and the study of contemporary texts.

www.religionfacts.com...

AND WIKI.....at 1200 BC or earlier

Śruti ("that which has been heard") refers to the Vedas (वेद, "Knowledge") which form the earliest record of the Hindu scriptures. While they have not been dated with much certainty, even the most conservative estimates date their origin to 1200 B.C. or earlier.

en.wikipedia.org...

So I'll ask, if Satan put this info here to deceive us (the same way he did dinosaur bones) what could his purpose possibly be?

His purpose is to keep you from seeing the prophesied Messiah. Satan did not put dinosaur bones here. But he has people believing that they were alive 200 million years ago. Funny they are mentioned in the Bible.

Or are you just embarrassed that you made a factual error and now refuse to own up to it?

No, I have made no factual error. I told you there are conflicting timelines.........BUT THE TRUTH IS AVAILABLE. I have looked at these things in depth, so I am familiar with the timeline questions.

Where does the snake charming come in? Why are there serpents in Egypt? In Mexico? I'll tell you again, you are being deceived. Jesus was a real person. Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz were real. These religions come from Babylon.

Sun, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. The Vedas have an oral tradition of millenia before they were finally written down (the dates which you provided).

Since Zarathushtra, the legendary originator of the Zoroastrian faith, was born somewhere between 2000 and 1000 BC it's not possible that Zoroastrianism is older than Vedic teachings. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Stormrider,
This stuff wasn't just made up, and the number of people who follow it today is of no consequence. WHat matters is that the same key concepts, such as the virgin birth, the death, and resurection are not original ideas. And because these myths were around for millenia before Christ, either Jesus was one of many, or just another adaptation of an old myth.

Ras-

My point was that aside from websites like the one offered above, no one has put forward any supporting evidence in the historical/religious texts related to these people that any of the so-called similarities, such as the virgin birth, etc actually ever occured. I've said it before, anyone can make a claim that something is true; show me the evidence in the ancient texts of egyptian, phoenecian or greek literature that attribute these events to Dionysius, Horus, Tammuz, etc. As I have already noted above, the claims about Krishna are totally bogus.

It's unwise to deny information simply because it contradicts what your parents taught you.

I don't deny it because it contradicts what my parents taught me; I deny it because it;s not true. My parents were atheists and I had no formal religious training of any kind as a child. I was also an atheist or at the most an agnostic up until I became an adult; I didn't just roll over and accept what I believe blindly or without thought. I believe what I believe because it is true and has withstood any research or efforts to disprove it. Also, I could just as easily say to you: look who's talking! It is also unwise to deny information because it disagrees with your particular worldview. Truth is truth whether you accept it as truth or not.

From the S'rîmad Bhâgavatam (or the bhâgavata purâna).

Setting: Minutes after Krishna's birth, his mother fears ridicule and persecution.

SB 10.3.32 - The Supreme Personality of Godhead replied: My dear mother, best of the chaste, in your previous birth, in the Svayambhuva millennium, you were known as Prsni, and Vasudeva, who was the most pious Prajapati, was named Sutapa.

SB 10.3.33 - When both of you were ordered by Lord Brahma to create progeny, you first underwent severe austerities by controlling your senses.

Essentially saying that his mother was a virgin, impregnated by Brahma. It had happened before in one of her previous lives, implying that it will happen again.

then it is written in the Mahabhata that after being pierced by a hunter's arrow, lord Krishna is killed, and visably ascends into heaven.


That's just the Krishna part.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
From the S'rîmad Bhâgavatam (or the bhâgavata purâna).

Setting: Minutes after Krishna's birth, his mother fears ridicule and persecution.

SB 10.3.32 - The Supreme Personality of Godhead replied: My dear mother, best of the chaste, in your previous birth, in the Svayambhuva millennium, you were known as Prsni, and Vasudeva, who was the most pious Prajapati, was named Sutapa.

SB 10.3.33 - When both of you were ordered by Lord Brahma to create progeny, you first underwent severe austerities by controlling your senses.

Essentially saying that his mother was a virgin, impregnated by Brahma. It had happened before in one of her previous lives, implying that it will happen again.

Right, if you say so. From the context of the verse it appears that Krishna was referring to both his mother and his father, Vasudeva who were bith ordered by Brahma to create progeny. If she were impregnated by Brahma directly, he would not have ordered her to create progeny as Brahma would be the one doing the creating.

then it is written in the Mahabhata that after being pierced by a hunter's arrow, lord Krishna is killed, and visably ascends into heaven.

I notice you did not include any text reference for this event as that is not the accepted version in strict hindu teaching.

That's just the Krishna part.

I noticed that.

In regard to Krishna's mother Devaki's virginity:

Extract from the Pourourava:[

"The lamb is born of an ewe and a ram, the kid of a goat and a buck goat, the child of a woman and a man; but the divine Paramatma (soul of the universe) shall be born of a virgin, who shall be fecundated by the thought of Vischnou."…

yeah I guess Devaki was a virgin at one stage, at least for her husband !!!!

Link

Regarding his death and resurrection:

Pierced by an arrow while hanging on the cross, Krishna died, but descended into Hell from which he rose again on the third day and ascended into Heaven. (The Gospel of Nicodemus tell of Jesus' descent into Hell.) However, the Mahabharata refers only to Krishna's death by being shot by an arrow in the heel – suffering the same fate as the Greek god Achilles. Source

According to Srimad Bhagavatam, Mahabharata and all other Vedic commentaries, the hunter Jara shot an arrow, and taking this as an opportune time to wind up His pastimes as all of His work was completed He ascended to His own spiritual abode and left a mortal body to bewilder the atheists.

The staunch Brahma-madhwa sect of Vaishnavas of which we are part state that the arrow did not pierce the body of Krishna, but it landed nearby. The hunter Jara was actually Brighumuni reincarnate, and there were some interesting pastimes of a similar nature that took place previously also.

Link

Originally posted by Stormrider
My point was that aside from websites like the one offered above, no one has put forward any supporting evidence in the historical/religious texts related to these people that any of the so-called similarities, such as the virgin birth, etc actually ever occured. I've said it before, anyone can make a claim that something is true; show me the evidence in the ancient texts of egyptian, phoenecian or greek literature that attribute these events to Dionysius, Horus, Tammuz, etc. As I have already noted above, the claims about Krishna are totally bogus.

But what, then, exactly, is the difference between that and what you believe....and what are the differing and exceptional reasons for which you believe as you do?

What proof do we have for Christ OTHER than what is written and personal trust and belief in what we read?!?!?!

What IS the difference, pray tell?

Do you not see the narrowness of your view and how it restricts your mind? If you restrict your mind, you limit God's power within that mind...and only without any limits can the mind accept and understand the things which God WILL show.

And these things are not 'exclusive' but are totally and without exception 'inclusive.'

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Stormrider
My point was that aside from websites like the one offered above, no one has put forward any supporting evidence in the historical/religious texts related to these people that any of the so-called similarities, such as the virgin birth, etc actually ever occured. I've said it before, anyone can make a claim that something is true; show me the evidence in the ancient texts of egyptian, phoenecian or greek literature that attribute these events to Dionysius, Horus, Tammuz, etc. As I have already noted above, the claims about Krishna are totally bogus.

But what, then, exactly, is the difference between that and what you believe....and what are the differing and exceptional reasons for which you believe as you do?

The difference is that there is a difference between Krishna (Hinduism), Mohammad (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism) and all the other religions of the world. That is that The Christian concept of redemption from sin and the way that comes about are totally unique, and the reason it is different is in the person and works Of Jesus Christ. When you look at other religions you can find one thing very much in common: they all tell you that to reach perfection or Nirvana or "oneness with the Godhead", etc depend totally on works and on the premise that there is no true free will, only fate or karma.

Just a few examples of the important differences that make Christianity unique:

Hinduism

In Hinduism, there is no doctrine of redemption; union with the divine nature, better put as absorption into the divine nature, is achieved through good works (karma), accumulated over lifetimes. There are several visits of Vishnu to the earth to preserve it -- at least nine, if I recall correctly -- but these have no particular significance to man.

Christianity could not present a more different face. Besides the Trinity, the Incarnation is perhaps the most important doctrine of Christianity. Christianity does teach that only righteousness can come to the presence of God, and be united to Him (but not, like in Hinduism, absorbed); but it also teaches that no man is good enough, or can be. And so, because of the love of God with which He chose to love us, He came down and was made a man -- the God-Man, Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary. For our sakes -- for the sake of men, whom He specially loved -- He suffered, died, and was buried; and for them He rose from death, triumphing over it. And He suffered so that we would not have to suffer like that, He went to Hell in our place, He who knew no sin was a sin offering for us, which atoned for our guilt.

This redemption; and it is unique. Works you will find in every religion, even Christianity: grace you will find nowhere but in the arms of Christ. This is the seminal contrast between Hinduism and Christianity.Source

Buddhism

A Buddhist tries to work out his own salvation by keeping the buddhist commandments. A Christian receives salvation of God as a free gift of grace.

This is the greatest difference between these two religions. Before Gautama Buddha died his disiples cried and said: "Master, who will be our master after your death?" Gautama said: Pratimoksa will be your master instead of me." Pratimoksa means the commandments. Buddhist have many methods of self-culture, but even for "Pure Land" Buddhists who express faith in Buddha Amithaba, the first step is to keep the commandments. Gautama never said "I can save you," or "I shall forgive your sins."

A Christian knows that man cannot save himself by keeping laws. The apostle. Paul said: " For no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin... the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.... They are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemtpion which is in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as an expiation by His blood to be received by faith" (Rom 3: 30-25). "And you must understand, my brothers, that this is through him, Jesus Christ that forgiveness of sins is now being proclaimed to you. It is through him that everyone who has faith is accuitted of everything for which there was no acquittal under the law of Moses"( Acts 13: 38-39).Source

Islam

Christianity insists that belief in Christ is the only way to heaven. Rejection of Christ dooms us to the eternal punishment we deserve as rebellious sinners. (Mark 16:16, John 3:16-18, 36, John 10:7-10, John 12:48, John 14:6, Acts 4:12, Galatians 1:6-9, Philippians 2:9-11, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10, 1 Timothy 2:5, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 2:22-23, 1 John 5:12-13.) While this may seem unfair in one sense, in another sense it is the ultimate in fairness. God provided a way for sinful man— who otherwise falls helplessly short— to be forgiven and to come into communion with him!

Islam is equally exclusive in its claims, as it teaches that only Muslims will go to heaven (Bukhari 4:297, etc). Islam similarly insists that anyone who rejects their Allah and his apostles (read Muhammad) is condemned to hell. So, again, the two religions are at loggerheads.Source

What proof do we have for Christ OTHER than what is written and personal trust and belief in what we read?!?!?!

What IS the difference, pray tell?

What other proof do I need? What is written + personal "experience"+ trust = proof. And I am surprised you need to ask what the difference is; The difference is Jesus Christ.

Do you not see the narrowness of your view and how it restricts your mind? If you restrict your mind, you limit God's power within that mind...and only without any limits can the mind accept and understand the things which God WILL show.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."~ John 7:13-14

Romans 12:2 would also apply!

Originally posted by Stormrider
What other proof do I need? What is written + personal "experience"+ trust = proof. And I am surprised you need to ask what the difference is; The difference is Jesus Christ.

Well there you go

Since you haven't died and faced the "pearly gates" your personal experience is invalid.

Since what is written is what is being debated, that is rendered invalid (Logical fallacy known as Begging the question )

So your "equation" becomes Trust = proof

And if you choose to take the word of people who are known to have commited genocide in the name of the lord as proof, then enjoy.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Sun, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. The Vedas have an oral tradition of millenia before they were finally written down (the dates which you provided).

Since Zarathushtra, the legendary originator of the Zoroastrian faith, was born somewhere between 2000 and 1000 BC it's not possible that Zoroastrianism is older than Vedic teachings. It's as simple as that.

Dig deeper Ras and you will find that Nimrod is Zoroaster. There were no Indians or Vedas before Nimrod and the tower of Babel.

There are many attempts to confuse the timeline. But the truth is there. These religions come from Babylon

Where are you pulling this from Son?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Where are you pulling this from Son?

They don't call them assertions for nothing...

Originally posted by melatonin
They don't call them assertions for nothing...

Are those 'assUMptions' in which only one person is participating?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Where are you pulling this from Son?

Nimrod is Zoroaster or timeline problems?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by Stormrider
What other proof do I need? What is written + personal "experience"+ trust = proof. And I am surprised you need to ask what the difference is; The difference is Jesus Christ.

Well there you go

Since you haven't died and faced the "pearly gates" your personal experience is invalid.

My personal experience does not concern the existence of heaven and I never claimed that it did; my personal experience relates to the existence of Jesus Christ (present tense) and my relationship with Him and the validity of biblical scripture in real life.

Since what is written is what is being debated, that is rendered invalid (Logical fallacy known as Begging the question )

What is rendered invalid, my personal experience? That is ridiculous. Suppose that your personal experience is that drinking hot cocoa and eating apple sauce before bed gives you vivid and lucid dreams; would the fact that it is not my personal experience make yours invalid? That's not logical.

So your "equation" becomes Trust = proof

No, you are missing the point. There is no trust without personal experience that what is written in the bible about God and Jesus and salvation, are valid, and that Jesus Christ is alive today and His Holy Spirit works out God's plan for my life . If you allow that as a given , then and only then, trust = proof would be a correct.

And if you choose to take the word of people who are known to have commited genocide in the name of the lord as proof, then enjoy.

Who are the ones you accuse of genocide? Moses? David? Isiaiah? or maybe you mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Which people are you referring to that are "known" to have commited genocide?

[edit on 11/21/2006 by Stormrider]

"God is no respector of persons" means that he does not hold one above another. He doesn't say, "Because he follows me I will make him the richest man in the world and because she doesn't follow me I will make her the poorest woman." or "Because he is black I'll (blah blah blah) and because she is white I'll (blah blah blah)." In the bible you will find a few references to this (that no one is better than anyone else and that Christians are just sinners saved by grace not that they are better than those who are not).

I'll admit that some of the things in the modern bibles are more than likely taken from other religons from the past since the actual written words were lost or those who made them did not feel it to be in their best interest to include certien things. Like, in several places of the New King James version the words heaven, God, love, and hell are changed or left out. The closest bible to the truth in my oppion is the Old King James version, as King James told Shakespear and his other translators to not change or leave out anything and translate straight from the original documents. Which, I don't care what a lot of these scientists say, where written by the apostles themselves not some dude 100 or so years later.

Also, all religons have some basis in fact. Jesus Christ did exist and so did Budda. What happened after is oppion. So, here is what I say, let us all wait until we die and see who is right. Until then, respect the beliefs of others, their right to say what they want about it, and their freedom of existence.

That goes for all you bible thumpers out there too. Its not Christian to go out there and shove the bible down their throat. If they want to accept it or not, its their choice not yours.

Storm,

Jesus Christ could be Mickey Mouse if you believe in him enough. Factually, there is no evidence for his existance as was written, so your relationship with 'him' is just a relationship with your church and your book. I'm sure you can pull experiences from this book that apply to your life, but I can do the same with the Lion King. And I'm sure you wouldn't take me seriously (as I don't take most Christians seriously) If I started quoting Simba as the prophesised messiah.

SunMatrix,

You are so so so far fone that I can't even argue with you anymore.