Sun worship or Son worship?

reply to post by AshleyD

I rarely see you rebut my arguments but instead make it personal 90% of the time with condescending remarks

I would wager that this is no where near being true. Unless you went and tallied up a total of all my posts and then operationally defined each one as being a personal attack on you or something else, like say, oh...a rebutal, then you have no right to make such baseless claims as this. If you take a religious debate as personal, that's your problem. I don't take much of this too seriously, virtually none of it can be objectively proven. Religion is subjective and mostly based on opinion...thanks for the reminder on the ignore button, and I know where it is and how to use it should I feel the need to. I'd watch those condescending posts too. Perhaps you could tell us all about the bible verse that says something about getting thine beam out of thine own eye first or some such...you brought this up once before that I am "always" (there again, very few posts but you say "always" clearly an exaggeration and a condescending remark) preaching against judging...that's really funny, because your the one with a cross for an avatar, and it says bible thumper extrodinair...you're the one who professes the religious dogma, not me, and you more than any of us should practice YOUR preaching...sheesh!!!!!!!

[edit on 2-2-2008 by skyshow]

Christ is anthropomorphized as the sun….. and so Christians are blindly worshipping the sun...

Now from what I understand from research, Amen Ra is the god of the sun as is Horus, whom is also anthropomorphized as the sun and that Christians will often say ‘Amen’ after prayer just before eating, they give thanks to their god for the food etc, but in a more logical sense they are giving thanks to the sun….. ( also, Amen Ra – Ray – sun rays)

And apparently Amen is used in every single Abrahamic religion out there, even in Buddhism they say Amen.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3-2-2008 by andre18]

Ashley, you and all of Xtianity are 'seriously reaching' by insisting someone quote a source. Not only do we not have any original texts of what is referred to as the 'holy bible' but we no longer have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies any longer. Here is an excellent resource for study:

books.google.com...://www.google.c om/search?q=Misquoting+jesus&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

As for the myth of Horus being like the myth of Jesus - your stance is no more substantial than a child insisting his imaginary friend is more 'real' than another child's imaginary friend.

There is much scholarly speculation about the actual existence of Jesus. Read this:
www.nobeliefs.com...

I have nothing against faith. People use faith to get through any number of things. But let us not confuse faith with science, or history, or actual research.



[Mod Edit -fix link]

[edit on 3/2/2008 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Fortinbras
Ashley, you and all of Xtianity are 'seriously reaching' by insisting someone quote a source.

Again, the point is missed. The burden of proof/evidence is not the immediate responsibility of the audience. The burden of proof/evidence is on the original poster or whoever is setting forth the claim. One cannot make a claim, provide no evidence or sketchy anecdotal evidence and then say unless you prove me wrong, this is correct. Pretty much everything provided to support the sun worship accusation has either been debunked or shown to be very loose.

books.google.com...://www.g oogle.com/search?q=Misquoting+jesus&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US

fficial&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbna il

The site opened for me but that was it. The first page of the "ebook" worked but the other pages would not load..

There is much scholarly speculation about the actual existence of Jesus. Read this:
www.nobeliefs.com...

I read that article a few years ago and even used its material to find skeptic arguments concerning the historicity of Jesus when writing my article series.
I'll make a new comment for that one even though the burden of proof/evidence is not on me, the audience, but on the one claiming the sun worship accusation.

But let us not confuse faith with science, or history, or actual research.

Agreed. Exactly what I am about to show with the above article.

This will not be a thorough refutation against all things that article mentions since it is not my responsibility to do so but these are some of the obvious errors that jumped out at me during a casual reading. The claims from the article will be paraphrased in quotes:

LYING FOR THE CHURCH
The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. The fathers of the Church possessed the texts and determined what would appear in the Bible.

Take, for example, Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32)

Oops! Gross misquote from Eusebius. Eusebius was criticizing and quoting Plato's work. Plato's Work. A full explanation of this is given HERE. Eusebius was not condoning lying to the masses but quoting from an external work and the title chapters were later added in as divisions.

Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred a darkness over all the earth. Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone anywhere in the world. Note also that, for obvious reasons, eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons),

This is untrue. Two Roman pagans (Thallus and Phlegon) recorded this odd darkness but tried to assign it a scientific explanation of it being an eclipse. Julius Africanus corrects this explanation with the following rebuttal:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness. The rocks were rent by an earthquake and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover. But an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time... Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one of which we speak." Chronology XVIII, 47.

And I'll stop there as much of what the article claims is explained in this thread, published works, and other websites. The vast majority of the world (Christians, Mulsims, Buddhists, Hindus, and even some atheists) believe Jesus was a historical figure although many, obviously, deny He was the Son of God. The easiest way to debunk Christianity is to claim the figure who started it all never existed. There is evidence of His existence- even better evidence that many figures of antiquity. But it's easy [lazy] to hold a historical Jesus to a different standard that these other figures, therefore saying He couldn't be divine if He never existed.

Anyways, again, the burden of proof still is not on proving He existed or not.

I hate that just lost all that here we go again. Found dvd called Talk 5 The Origins of Religion by David Boyle. One of a series of lectures he has conducted, cannot locate any of the others. Might need help to upload it to ats. So dont hold your breath.

The similarities between the Christian character Jesus and the Indian messiah Krishna are also many and have not yet been discussed. Indeed, Gerald Massey finds over 100 similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors, and Graves, who includes the various noncanonical gospels in his analysis, lists over 300 likenesses. It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was "Christna," which reveals its relation to '"Christ." It should also be noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.

From Gerald Massey's list of comparisons between Krishna and Christ lets just take a quick sample of points;

* Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One")
* His father was a carpenter.
* His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
* He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
* He was of royal descent.
* He was baptized in the River Ganges.
* He worked miracles and wonders.
* He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
* Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
* "He lived poor and he loved the poor."
* He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
* In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
* He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
* Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word."
* He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
* He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
* His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."
* Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth

Now lets look at reliable sources that will back up the above points. The greatest reference point is the Srimad Bhagavatam (also known as the Bhagavat Purana) written approx 5,000 years ago and one of the earliest literary works known to mankind. You can find the entire work here;

bhagavata.org...

The Srimad Bhagavatam details the entire life of Krishna and his advent into the world. Even a casual read of his life story will demonstrate the many similarities with the life of Jesus (for example that like Jesus was forced to flee as a baby because King Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents, so too Krishna was forced to flee as a baby because King Kamsa ordered the slaughter of the innocents). The similarities are just too many to simply call it coincidence.

Another source of reference where we can examine the life of Krishna closely is The Mahabharata;

www.sacred-texts.com...

At over 90,000 verses and over 1.8 million words, the Mahabharata is one of the world's longest poems. The text encompasses the entire life-history of the Bharata dynasty which ruled the Indian continent in approx the 5th century BC. The text also details the life of Krishna including his eventual crucifiction on a tree (this in keeping with many other tree-slain saviours such as Quezalcoatl of Mexico, Mithras and many others).

The similarities are just too many.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by sapatos]

[edit on 3-2-2008 by sapatos]

Originally posted by sapatos
The similarities between the Christian character Jesus and the Indian messiah Krishna are also many and have not yet been discussed. Indeed, Gerald Massey finds over 100 similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors, and Graves, who includes the various noncanonical gospels in his analysis, lists over 300 likenesses. It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was "Christna," which reveals its relation to '"Christ." It should also be noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.

Oh dear. Massey and Graves have both been exposed for their faulty research. I mentioned Graves by name in this very thread. Pay close attention when you read their books. Neither offer any sources to the Hindu texts as to where the supposed parallels are found in their scriptures. Here we go.

I've debunked most of these on my site HERE with links to the actual Hindu texts to show most of these are FALSE.

* Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One")

Devaki was not a virgin and the Hindu texts never say she was. In fact they state just the opposite by stating Krishna was Devaki's eighth child.

* His father was a carpenter.

No, Krishna's father was a member of the royal courts of Mathura. His wife (Devaki) was a princess. They were royalty.

His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Not true. Krishna was born in a prison cell where his parents were being held captive by Krishna's uncle. There was no visiting hour in this prison as his parents were trying to keep his birth a secret.

He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.

Not true. His uncle tried to kill Krishna by targeting Devaki's children so none of her royal children could usurp the throne. Which was why Devaki and Krishna's father were imprisoned. There was no mass slaughter of the innocents.

He was of royal descent.

This is true. Krishna was of immediate royal descent (so no carpenter for a father) while Jesus was a distant descendant of King David although he was not a member of Jewish royalty in His time.

He was baptized in the River Ganges.

I could never find any thing of this sort while searching the Vedic writings. Not that it isn't there, but I never found it.

He worked miracles and wonders.
He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
He lived poor and he loved the poor.

All of these are either a huge "duh" for any God or utterly untrue. But the parables and lepers, deaf, etc. did not ever happen in the texts. Krishna was seen as a military hero by the people and almost everything he did pertained to military conquests to liberate the people.

He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.

This happens in no tradition. Krisha died after being shot by an arrow after being mistaken by a hunter, named Jara, for a deer. He was then brought back to life. No "transfiguration" or "crucifixion" nevertheless in front of his imaginary apostles or between two thieves.

He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

This is true, sort of. He immediately returned to life after the hunter killed Him and reached Nirvana. Different from our concept of Heaven but we'll let this one slide.

Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word.

Shepherd God: Maybe. Krishna, after escaping from his evil uncle, hid out among goat/sheep herders known as gopis.
Lord of Lords: Maybe.
Redeemer: Maybe in a military sense.
Firstborn: No. Again, he was the 8th sibling.
Sin Bearer: No. Krishna was never believed to atone or wipe away sins.
Liberator: Is Jesus even called this? Anyways, maybe a military liberator.
Universal Word: Maybe. Not aware of this.

He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the

Not really. The "Hindu trinity" does exist between Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma but this was formed much later. Krishna was only believed to be an avatar and not part of a trinity.

Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

Resurrection: Maybe but I don't think so. Way to the Father: Not remotely. And omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Not that this would be surprising for any god to have these qualities but our answer is still No. Krishna was not believed to be any of these things.

His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."

Krishna didn't have disciples. He had gopis- goat herders that would follow him around with flutes.

Gopis, disciples, followers. Call them what you want. The fact remains that there were 12 of them, just like the 12 followers of Mithras, the 12 workers of Hercules, and so on.

Oh, and Chrisna's full name was Zeus Chrisna. Am I the only one that sees the similarity with the name Jesus Christ?

Look, Ashley, if you want to believe in the same old recycled fairy tale based upon astro-theology that was originally created to quell early man's fear of death, fine. But to sit here and attempt to rebutt the massive amounts of damning evidence against the Christ story really comes off as overwrought and desperate. I suggest you research deeper into the rebirth deities of ancient time and really think pragmatically about what you believe. In the end, it's your choice. No harm, no foul.

reply to post by KanehBosm
And why do you constantly mention the Zodiac over, and over, and over again? Why? I sorry to say, but as a Christian the Zodiac means only constellations in the sky that have been ashamed by the fact that they are used for horoscopes. Oh, and you said that fifteen people were born from a virgin on December 25th? Could you name any of them, excluding Jesus Christ of course? Also, where is your proof?

Originally posted by Vampyr_Lover
reply to post by KanehBosm

 

And why do you constantly mention the Zodiac over, and over, and over again? Why? I sorry to say, but as a Christian the Zodiac means only constellations in the sky that have been ashamed by the fact that they are used for horoscopes. Oh, and you said that fifteen people were born from a virgin on December 25th? Could you name any of them, excluding Jesus Christ of course? Also, where is your proof?

He mentions the zodiac because it is the heart of the astro-theology that is passed off as religion today. Jesus was the sun/son. 12 signs of the zodiac circle the sun. Jesus had 12 followers. So did Hercules. So did Horus. And all 3 were born on the 25th.

Another interesting tidbit. Horus raised Osiris from the dead. Osiris in some texts was referred to as "Lazarus." Guess who Jesus raises from the dead in the Bible? Lazarus!

Originally posted by ModernDystopia
Gopis, disciples, followers. Call them what you want. The fact remains that there were 12 of them, just like the 12 followers of Mithras, the 12 workers of Hercules, and so on.

Krishna did not have twelve anything. There were many but never "twelve." And the gopis were not his disciples, students, apostles, or anything else you want to call them. They were farm children/people he lived with. So no twelve and no apostles. Where on earth does it say Hercules had 12 workers? Are you thinking of the 12 labors Hercules had to accomplish? And Mithras did not have 12 followers. He was believed to have existed before the creation of humans. The only 12 ever associated with him was the zodiac. The 12 (or 13) apostles of Jesus wrote some works that exist to this day. They were not "the zodiac."

Oh, and Chrisna's full name was Zeus Chrisna. Am I the only one that sees the similarity with the name Jesus Christ?

Go and tell a Hindu that. They will correct you in a heartbeat if you don't want to take my word for it. Krishna means "the black one" in Sanskrit as he was believed to have blue-black skin. Calling Him "Zeus Chrisna" is trying to force it into Christianity. The word "Christos" is Latin for the Hebrew word "Messiah." Nothing more.

Look, Ashley, if you want to believe in the same old recycled fairy tale based upon astro-theology that was originally created to quell early man's fear of death, fine. But to sit here and attempt to rebutt the massive amounts of damning evidence against the Christ story really comes off as overwrought and desperate.

Are you serious? What damning evidence? Nothing has been shown from an original religious text. Nothing. Where is the evidence? The words of Massey and Graves? It has been proven their works are rife with false information. But if you want to believe in the same old recycled fairy tale that Jesus is based on Krishna and pagan deities due to fear of believing Jesus really existed, fine. But if you do the research of the actual religions instead of depending of Massey and Graves, you'll be irritated with them for passing such information around indiscriminately.

But like you said" No harm. No foul. People are apparently going to believe whatever they want regardless.

Ashley if you really want to test logic then go ahead.....

Hercules the son of god (Zeus), Jesus was the son of god..... Both sons of gods....... Jesus had 12 disciples.....in the Greek religion there are 12 titans.... there are 12 signs of the zodiac......

Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Ares, Hermes, Hephaestus, Aphrodite, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Hestia.

Roman gods

Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, Ceres, Mars, Mercury, Vulcan, Venus, Minerva, Apollo, Diana and Vesta.

OWNED

Originally posted by andre18
Hercules the son of god (Zeus)
Jesus was the son of god.....
Both sons of gods.......

Hercules was one of Zeus' many sons. Jesus was God's only Son. But how could Christianity have created (or plagiarized if you want to use that word) this concept from pagan cultures when the Messianic prophecies predicted the Messiah would be God's son almost 800 years in advance in the Old Testament? It wasn't a case of first century Christians pulling this out of thin air.

Jesus had 12 disciples
in the Greek religion there are 12 titans
there are 12 signs of the zodiac......

Did the Titans leave any writings behind that exist to our time? Did the Titans have any eye witnesses who testified to their existence? The apostles did. And again, technically there were thirteen core apostles. But we also buy our eggs by the dozen, we have 12 Function keys on my keyboard (F1-F12), we have 12 people on a jury, etc. Seeing something in two accounts means nothing when their meanings are completely different. Show me a religious figure preceding Christianity that had twelve literal followers from an original religious source. Anyone can find loose examples if we look hard enough.

Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Ares, Hermes, Hephaestus, Aphrodite, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Hestia.

Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, Ceres, Mars, Mercury, Vulcan, Venus, Minerva, Apollo, Diana and Vesta.

Um... And? By the way... you missed a few dozen or so HERE .

reply to post by ThemacX


Yes, exactly what I was thinking about Zeitgeist!
I think this is the third thread today that I have read that points to that movie!

reply to post by ModernDystopia


an MD in my corner, TY,... zodiac... explained... but don't forget the 13th the center of the Galaxy, Nov 30ish my b-day... oh lucky me

Originally posted by Givenmay
reply to post by ThemacX

 

Yes, exactly what I was thinking about Zeitgeist!
I think this is the third thread today that I have read that points to that movie!

Pharmacratic Inquisition 2007 spread more truth and less fear that the other one does, zetgeist uses so much from this peaceful perspective on what happened and what to do....

video.google.com...

Zetgesist, although IMO is and as valid, tends to stir fear into the "everyday" person... as well as A.J.

to me Jordan Maxwell personifies how to behaive with this understanding much better than A.J.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by KanehBosm]

reply to post by AshleyD


You wana be like that…fine……why do think in occult art depicting Jesus, his head is always in front of a sun or a cross……because he is the sun…….the cross is a pagan symbol of the zodiac.

The Gospels are laid out according to the zodiacal motifs with Jesus, the sun, passing through the four seasons. He is born every year on December 25, the first day when daylight hours start to increase.
In the winter months, the darkness of evil is still in force. As the daylight hours start to increase, he is said to be increasing in strength. His mission starts on the first day of spring when daylight hours equal nighttime hours. Spring is the time of righteousness.
He is at full strength at the summer solstice when the sun is at its highest position in the sky. As the sun descends through the summer months, the dark forces of evil are said to be sapping his strength.
When the sun passes through the autumnal equinox, the evil forces of darkness are said to be ruling. On the three darkest days of the year, the sun is dead from December 21 to 24. His resurrection restarts on December 25, when the sun starts to ascend again.

Sun god ‘Horus’ Egyptian 3000 BC

He is anthropomorphised as the sun

He’s life is about the suns movements in the sky

Horus also means light, day

‘Set’ (god of the underworld) darkness, night (at night the sun ‘sets’)

Born on December 25 of the virgin Isis meri and was accompanied be the star on the east, followed and located by the 3 kings, age of 12, was a prodicle child teacher, age of 30 he was baptised by a figure known as Anup, and had 12 disciples he travelled about with. Preformed miracles, healing the sick, and walking on water.
The truth, the light, gods anointed son, the good Shepard, the lamp of god,
After being betrayed by typhoon, he was crucified, berried and dead for 3 days and then resurrected.

This has all been explained maybe five times on this thread alone.

why do think in occult art depicting Jesus, his head is always in front of a sun or a cross……because he is the sun…….the cross is a pagan symbol of the zodiac.

1) Were such things part of the original ministry of Jesus? No.
2) When did this symbolism start to be used? Centuries after Jesus' life when Constantine and Catholicism merged pagan concepts with Christianity. Not taking Christianity from pagan concepts. The Jesus movement had been in existence for centuries at the time when Constantine started his own ecumenical movement for all religions in his empire with Christianity at the helm. Thank him.
4) The cross is not a pagan symbol of the zodiac no matter what Zeitgeist says. If anything, the example they use looks more like the symbol of Odin.

The Gospels are laid out according to the zodiacal motifs with Jesus, the sun, passing through the four seasons. He is born every year on December 25, the first day when daylight hours start to increase.
In the winter months, the darkness of evil is still in force. As the daylight hours start to increase, he is said to be increasing in strength. His mission starts on the first day of spring when daylight hours equal nighttime hours. Spring is the time of righteousness.

I never noticed this before. Is "The Gospel of the Zodiac" part of the Apocrypha or considered pseudographical because it's not in my Bible. I'm being silly because I've explained all of this already.

Sun god ‘Horus’ Egyptian 3000 BC
He is anthropomorphised as the sun
He’s life is about the suns movements in the sky

Here we go again. Horus was not representative of the sun- that was RA.

Horus also means light, day
‘Set’ (god of the underworld) darkness, night (at night the sun ‘sets’)

Check again. Osiris was the god of the underworld.

Born on December 25 of the virgin Isis meri and was accompanied be the star on the east, followed and located by the 3 kings, age of 12, was a prodicle child teacher, age of 30 he was baptised by a figure known as Anup, and had 12 disciples he travelled about with. Preformed miracles, healing the sick, and walking on water. The truth, the light, gods anointed son, the good Shepard, the lamp of god,After being betrayed by typhoon, he was crucified, berried and dead for 3 days and then resurrected.

I think my brain finally short circuited. I need to stop replying to this thread because it is the same lies and misinformation over and over again.

Horus was born in NOVEMBER. His mother was not a virgin as she was married and impregnated herself with Osiris' SEMEN. NO mention of a star or three kings. NEVER did anything special at the age of 12. Did NOT have 12 disciples. Four, sixteen, and an unmentioned amount but never 12. Was NEVER crucified because he NEVER was believed to have died. Hence, NO resurrection. Provide me with links to the actual Egyptian texts reproduced online attesting to such things about Horus and then we'll talk. Until then, I'll leave you with the following:

Horus 1
Horus 2
Horus 3
Horus 4
Horus 5

If anyone else would like to claim other figures were crucified, born of a virgin, visited by shepherds and wisemen, resurrected after three days, baptized by someone whose name resembles John, had 12 disciples, etc., please provide links to the actual religious texts relating to whatever figure you are trying to point out. That way you won't look silly passing around the same information uncritically that has been debunked for ages. Thanks.