(Jeffrey earlier) The connections are obvious that this Jesus is based on Pagan sun gods, that the attributes given to him are identical to sun god lore.

(Me earlier) Such as?

I mentioned a couple in my last email. I can't believe you haven't heard of the obvious connections. Even the day of worship is Sun-day. The day of the sun, or the Sun's day. The sun returns every day, a second coming of the sun. The son? Hum.

Regards, Jeffrey

Except that "son" and "sun" are only homonyms in the English language, which wasn't around back then. So the similarities between "son" and "sun" have absolutely no bearing on the Jesus story.

David

In reference to your link. First thing I noticed.

Correct. The sun doesn't stop, but it might appear as slowed while going down and back up at that time. It is going up by 1 degree on the 25th. I believe that Virgo is coming up on the horizon at that time, not that it is the sign of Virgo.

Regards, Jeffrey

Which begs the question - how slow does it have to go before one considers it (in the relative sense) stopped. Obviously, whoever made up this list considers it to be however slow he wants it to be. That's not really strong evidence, I have to say.

I believe that Virgo is coming up on the horizon at that time, not that it is the sign of Virgo.

Thanks for the clarification. But this the kind of thing where anyone can pretty much make up whatever horoscope mumbo-jumbo they want and call it significant. It reminds me of when people try to argue that so-and-so's name (like the pope's or Bill Gates') fits the '666' pattern in order to declare them the anti-christ. People just read into it what they want to read into it.

David

It was my understanding that it was common practice in those days to write things and then attribute them to someone else as the author. They might have picked the names they felt they needed to promulgate the story. You're right, I provided no source for my statement about what scholars have said. I said that from my personal memory and experience based on what I've seen. I don't carry all my sources with me to have on hand for everything I say. I'm sure you can find sources as easily as I did to support that statement. The net is full such source information.

Regards, Jeffrey

It was my understanding that it was common practice in those days to write things and then attribute them to someone else as the author. They might have picked the names they felt they needed to promulgate the story.

I've heard that claim from Christ-mythers, but I'm wondering if there are any other examples of this "common practice". Are there other texts which were clearly attributed to false authors?

You're right, I provided no source for my statement about what scholars have said. I said that from my personal memory and experience based on what I've seen. I don't carry all my sources with me to have on hand for everything I say. I'm sure you can find sources as easily as I did to support that statement. The net is full such source information.

I'll certainly try looking for other examples, but if you happen to come across them first, let me know, please.

Peace, David

I could take any two items and draw similar parallels between them (both my cell phone and my television are electronic, and allow people from other parts of the world to tell me things, but that doesn't mean one of them is a myth).

Televisions, cell phones? Not sure I see your logic. I believe there are parallels, many more than I have thus far listed. I think they are very significant to the big picture, to the whole story. Halo's were seen over Pagan sun gods in art. Jesus is depicted with a halo, chiefly a Pagan distinction. That Christianity took some elements from Paganism is well known. Some scholars even speak of demythologizing the Christ story of such parallels to get at what the core elements might be.

Regards, Jeffrey

Televisions, cell phones? Not sure I see your logic. I believe there are parallels, many more than I have thus far listed. I think they are very significant to the big picture, to the whole story. Halo's were seen over Pagan sun gods in art. Jesus is depicted with a halo, chiefly a Pagan distinction.

Perhaps, but the Jesus story itself says nothing about Jesus wearing a halo. Thus the fact that pagan gods wore halo's doesn't suggest the Jesus story itself is a fabrication. It only suggests that pagan art influenced Christian art, not that the story of pagan gods influenced the story of Jesus.

That Christianity took some elements from Paganism is well known. Some scholars even speak of demythologizing the Christ story of such parallels to get at what the core elements might be.

That would be nice. But first let's see the parallels (and not just false claims of parallels).

David

(Quoting from my Copycat/Jesus vs Sun page)

2. The sun is the light of the world, cometh on clouds and every eye shall see him, wears a corona-crown of thorns and "walks on water" when it sets.

Yes, it's the light of the world, but clearly not in the same sense that Jesus is. It doesn't 'cometh on clouds', but is far above the clouds. Every eye (at least the non-blind ones) DO see the sun, not SHALL. There are no thorns on the sun, and it doesn't walk on water. Is the critic arguing that if you're standing on the shore watching the sun set over the ocean, it appears to walk on water? Well, what if you're watching it set over a desert, or a city, or a mountain? Does the sun also walk on deserts, cities, and mountains?

I have to say I am not impressed with this argument above. To the ancients, it might well have looked, at least in a poetic sense, that the sun appeared as if coming on the clouds. They didn't possess the knowledge of how far the sun was away from us. They thought it was very close actually. Their cosmology wasn't very advanced.

And I could see your argument about deserts and mountains and such, but that is not what the analogy is comparing. It is comparing the symbology of the sun walking on water to the idea of the "son" walking on water. That there is a connection is fairly certain. In fact, obvious. For thousands of years astrological phenomena had intrigued the ancients. Only kings had astrologers, the astronomy of the day. Astronomy was the worlds first science it is said. This is why three magi (root for magician, and Wizard is related to "wise man."), who'm scholars say were considered astrologers, went to see the alleged king by following a star. The star was likely Jupitor, the star of Zeus, for it moved and could be seen with the naked eye if in conjunction and I believe it was in conjunction around that time (or a bit earlier, can't remember, saw it on the Discovery channel).

Trying to refute it by comparing it to deserts does no service. It doesn't refute it. It never had anything to do with deserts when the ideology was being formed, so of course it only applies to water.

Regards, Jeffrey

I have to say I am not impressed with this argument above. To the ancients, it might well have looked, at least in a poetic sense, that the sun appeared as if coming on the clouds. They didn't possess the knowledge of how far the sun was away from us. They thought it was very close actually. Their cosmology wasn't very advanced.

They certainly knew from simple observation that it wasn't actually on top of the clouds themselves. If they did, how did they think it moved across the sky on a cloudless day?

And I could see your argument about deserts and mountains and such, but that is not what the analogy is comparing. It is comparing the symbology of the sun walking on water to the idea of the "son" walking on water.

But who ever claimed that the sun "walked on the water"?

Trying to refute it by comparing it to deserts does no service. It doesn't refute it. It never had anything to do with deserts when the ideology was being formed, so of course it only applies to water.

Why would they only apply it to water? Can you find many examples of the ancients saying the sun moved over the water, and no references to their saying it moved over land?

David

In fact, I'm looking at the logic on that link you sent me and so far I can say I'm not impressed by it. Sorry, it appears like trying to be logical when it really isn't. At least not what I've seen so far, which is only the first page. But first impressions make lasting ones.

Regards, Jeffrey

In fact, I'm looking at the logic on that link you sent me and so far I can say I'm not impressed by it. Sorry, it appears like trying to be logical when it really isn't. At least not what I've seen so far, which is only the first page. But first impressions make lasting ones.

If you'd like to give me other examples of where my logic is weak, that would be great. But I think any reasonable person would consider the "parallels" to be mumbo-jumbo.

David

I found this information that is definately NOT biased. It states the divine conception and birth of the king, the son of the Creator sun-God, hence son of God, and the very next sentence speaks of this King also being Horus, thus making Horus also a divine conception and birth by default. Horus is King, King is divinely concievd, which in old world terms meant Virgin birth as was common in the pagan religions of the day, and thus Horus is also said to be thus at this temple. As follows, then the link. Ever heard of Serapis? How about the original Madonna and Child? Isis and Horus.

Kingship was believed to be ordained by the gods at the beginning of time in accordance with ma’at., the well-ordered state, truth, justice, cosmic order. The reigning king was also the physical son of the Creator sun-god. This divine conception and birth was recorded on the walls of Luxor Temple, at Deir el-Bahri, and other royal cult temples throughout Egypt. The king was also an incarnation of the dynastic god Horus, and when deceased, the king was identified with the father of Horus, Osiris. This living king was thus a unique entity, the living incarnation of deity, divinely chosen intermediary, who could act as priest for the entire nation, reciting the prayers, dedicating the sacrifices.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/luxortemple.htm

Here is a connection of Re with the hawk. The hawk of course was Horus, the Hawk god. Yet another link between Re and Horus. Also note that this shows a death and resurrection theme, although different in detail to the Christian claims, it nevertheless shows that this motif had definately pre-existed Christianity and was originally Pagan.

http://www.geocities.com/kjfnjy/pres0044.html

Painting from Annex of Tomb of Ramese II The main figure appears to be Harsaphes, a god closely related with Re (the hawk) and Amun (the chief god of ancient Thebes). In this picture he has wings like Re, so he is probably a combined deity. Tomb from 1224 BC.

http://www.geocities.com/kjfnjy/pres0045.html

Painting from Annex of Tomb of Ramese II This scene shows the crossing of the dead over into the land of the gods. The lower scene shows Osiris, the god of the underworld, in ithyphallic form. This is common because according to ancient Egyptian religions, Osiris' brother Seth killed and dismembered him but Osiris' wife/sister Isis reassembled him and became pregnant with Horus as she resurrected him to become the god of the dead.

This next one shows Pharoah as the incarnation of Amun-Ra, a sun god, and also an incarnation of Horus, thus also a sun god. I believe they are associated logically.

http://www.geocities.com/kjfnjy/pres0010.html

Offering Scene from Temple of Hathor In this scene, the pharaoh is shown on the left as the incarnation of Amun-Ra. He is making offerings to the goddess Hathor. The god Horus is seated behind Hathor. Since pharaohs were also considered to be the incarnation of Horus, this scene shows the pharaoh watching himself make an offering. This type of duality was very popular in ancient Egyptian art.

I found this connection to the idea that the cross represented eternal life before Christianity. The Ankh. Egypt had the idea first.

http://www.geocities.com/kjfnjy/pres0005.html

Wall Carving from Temple of Hathor

This carving still retains some of its original paint. It is a typical votive scene, showing a pharaoh making offerings to Hathor. In her hand, Hathor holds the key to eternal life (the ankh) which she will give to the Pharaoh to make him immortal. All Pharaohs are considered to be the reincarnation of Horus, the son of Isis and Osiris.

Here is info that shows Horus to be the son of Osiris. Horus being the one who gives eternal life. (The ankh symbol he holds in his hands. Similar to Jesus and the Cross symbology for eternal life. The Egyptian savior god came first, for the Egyptians themselves).

Horus and Anubis

http://www.memphis.edu/egypt/img0031.htm

This scene of Horus and Anubis paying honor to Osiris is on the lintel above a doorway in the Tomb of Sethnakht (c.1190-1187 B.C.E.) in the Valley of the Kings. In order to balance the scene, Osiris is shown in profile facing both left and right. As god of the dead and the next life, he is mummiform, wears the atef crown, carries a crook-flail-was scepter, and has a curved false beard. Horus (on the left) symbolized the living king and has the body of a man and the head of a falcon. He wears the Double Crown of Upper and Lower Egypt. His left hand holds an ankh, the hieroglyph for "life," while his right hand is raised in homage to Osiris, his father. Anubis (on the right) was the god of embalming and was a protector of the dead. He has the body of a man and the head of a jackal. His left hand extends over an offering table, while his right hand is raised in homage to Osiris.

--

This one is just interesting: The Pharoah (King) saves. The King saves motif that the alleged Jesus also follows.

Wall Carving from Luxor

http://www.geocities.com/kjfnjy/pres0062.html

This is just one small detail from the carvings that cover all of the walls. In this carving, the pharaoh wearing the crown of upper Egypt is being fed an ankh (symbol of evernal life), by Horus. Since the pharaoh was considered the incarnation of Horus, this shows the pharaoh giving eternal life to himself.

--

This link is just interesting:

http://touregypt.net/godsofegypt/horus.htm

Also, hit this link and type in Horus in the "Find" to locate where it mentions Isis being magically impregnated with Horus as the myth unfolds. Then keep clicking Horus in the "Find" until you see the next part I mention below:

http://www.egyptsites.co.uk/upper/dendera/dendera.html

"The reliefs on the exterior walls are superbly preserved, and portray the divine birth and childhood of the infant Horus, celebrated in rites to legitamise the divine descent of the king."

The above pretty much shows that (and there are pictures at that site) that Horus was at least divinely, magically (miraculously) concieved and therefore I have provided that much proof at least. This part is true interpretation of what is carved in stone.

---

This one is just interesting, also further showing the idea of eternal life which the Egyptians were among the first to conceptualize and promise via their gods of salvation, Osiris and Horus.

There also exists a carving of Horus and Anubis honouring Osiris. It is in the Valley of the Kings, in the Tomb of Sethnakht, which is estimated to be from 1190- 1187 BC. The carving is on a lintel over a doorway. Osiris, in mummy form, faces both Horus and Anubis, who are on either side of him. He wears the atef crown and holds a "crook-flail-was scepter", because he is god over the dead and the next life. Horus, with a falcon's head and a man's body, represents the living king and has the Double Crown of Upper and Lower Egypt on his head. He holds the hieroglyph for life, an ankh, and holds it up to Osiris as an expression of praise. Anubis, on the other side, holds his right hand up to Osiris to express praise, and he holds his left hand over an offering table (The West Bank/ Luxor 3).

Regards, Jeffrey

I found this information that is definately NOT biased. It states the divine conception and birth of the king, the son of the Creator sun-God, hence son of God, and the very next sentence speaks of this King also being Horus, thus making Horus also a divine conception and birth by default. Horus is King, King is divinely concievd, which in old world terms meant Virgin birth as was common in the pagan religions of the day,

If we're going to say any miraculous birth, even if the mother wasn't a virgin, is a "virgin birth", then we're watering down the term so much as to be meaningless. Why even call it a "virgin birth" at all, which suggests to most people's minds that the mother is a virgin? Why not just call it a "miraculous birth"?

When Christ-mythers say that gods before Jesus had "virgin births", they're attempting to suggest that Mary's being a virgin when she gave birth to Christ was not the unique event that Christians suppose it to be. But in fact, it is. They're just playing word games in order to count non-virgin births as virgin-births.

and thus Horus is also said to be thus at this temple. As follows, then the link. Ever heard of Serapis?

Yep, covered at http://www.KingDavid8.com/Copycat/JesusSerapis.html

How about the original Madonna and Child? Isis and Horus.

In what ancient text were Isis and Horus called the "Madonna and Child"? Sorry, but people only started referring to Isis and Horus as the "original Madonna and Child" in the last century, again trying to suggest that the story of Mary and Jesus wasn't unique. All we really have is that Isis was Horus' mother just as Mary was Jesus' mother. Wow, some striking parallel!

Kingship was believed to be ordained by the gods at the beginning of time in accordance with ma’at., the well-ordered state, truth, justice, cosmic order. The reigning king was also the physical son of the Creator sun-god. This divine conception and birth was recorded on the walls of Luxor Temple, at Deir el-Bahri, and other royal cult temples throughout Egypt.

So we have a miraculous conception in the Horus story. Not a significant parallel. If it had truly been a "virgin" one (as in, the mother was a virgin), that would be more significant.

The king was also an incarnation of the dynastic god Horus, and when deceased, the king was identified with the father of Horus, Osiris. This living king was thus a unique entity, the living incarnation of deity, divinely chosen intermediary, who could act as priest for the entire nation, reciting the prayers, dedicating the sacrifices.

And this compares to Jesus how?

Here is a connection of Re with the hawk. The hawk of course was Horus, the Hawk god. Yet another link between Re and Horus. Also note that this shows a death and resurrection theme, although different in detail to the Christian claims, it nevertheless shows that this motif had definately pre-existed Christianity and was originally Pagan.

No, it's more like death and reincarnation. The idea of reincarnation definitely did precede Jesus, but is nothing like resurrection. In resurrection, a formerly dead body is brought back to life. In reincarnation, it's brought back into a completely new body.

Of course, even the idea of resurrection precedes Jesus, since it's mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible. But it wasn't a common motif in pagan religions.

The lower scene shows Osiris, the god of the underworld, in ithyphallic form. This is common because according to ancient Egyptian religions, Osiris' brother Seth killed and dismembered him but Osiris' wife/sister Isis reassembled him and became pregnant with Horus as she resurrected him to become the god of the dead.

Which proves that Isis wasn't a virgin. In the Egyptian myth, she was already his wife, and she also had intercourse with the dead body. A miraculous conception? Sure? A virgin one? Nope. A conception that could have inspired the story of Mary's conception? Nope.

This next one shows Pharoah as the incarnation of Amun-Ra, a sun god, and also an incarnation of Horus, thus also a sun god. I believe they are associated logically.

There's little doubt that Horus and Ra are related. But Horus and Jesus?

I found this connection to the idea that the cross represented eternal life before Christianity. The Ankh. Egypt had the idea first.

The Ankh may look similar to a cross, but they're hardly the same thing. The reason Christians use the cross is that it is what Jesus was crucified on. People weren't crucified on Ankhs. Also, the cross does not represent eternal life in the Jesus story itself. It may represent eternal life in the minds of Christians after Jesus' time, but this doesn't show a connection between the Egyptian mythology and the Jesus story itself.

Here is info that shows Horus to be the son of Osiris. Horus being the one who gives eternal life. (The ankh symbol he holds in his hands. Similar to Jesus and the Cross symbology for eternal life. The Egyptian savior god came first, for the Egyptians themselves).

Except that in that carving, Hathor is the one who provides eternal life, not Horus. Eternal life is being given to the latest incarnation of Horus. So in the Egyptian myth, you have eternal life being given to the deity by someone else. How does this compare to Jesus giving eternal life to his followers exactly?

This one is just interesting: The Pharoah (King) saves. The King saves motif that the alleged Jesus also follows.

And who does the pharoah save? I thought that Egyptian believed the pharoah was RECEIVING eternal life, not GIVING it.

This is just one small detail from the carvings that cover all of the walls. In this carving, the pharaoh wearing the crown of upper Egypt is being fed an ankh (symbol of evernal life), by Horus. Since the pharaoh was considered the incarnation of Horus, this shows the pharaoh giving eternal life to himself.

So if Christianity had Jesus giving eternal life to Himself instead of to His followers, you'd have a parallel there. But as it is, you don't.

The above pretty much shows that (and there are pictures at that site) that Horus was at least divinely, magically (miraculously) concieved and therefore I have provided that much proof at least. This part is true interpretation of what is carved in stone.

I concede that Horus was miraculously conceived (which I already agreed to on my Jesus/Horus comparison page). But it wasn't the virgin birth that Christ-mythers would have us believe.

There also exists a carving of Horus and Anubis honouring Osiris. It is in the Valley of the Kings, in the Tomb of Sethnakht, which is estimated to be from 1190- 1187 BC. The carving is on a lintel over a doorway. Osiris, in mummy form, faces both Horus and Anubis, who are on either side of him. He wears the atef crown and holds a "crook-flail-was scepter", because he is god over the dead and the next life. Horus, with a falcon's head and a man's body, represents the living king and has the Double Crown of Upper and Lower Egypt on his head. He holds the hieroglyph for life, an ankh, and holds it up to Osiris as an expression of praise. Anubis, on the other side, holds his right hand up to Osiris to express praise, and he holds his left hand over an offering table (The West Bank/ Luxor 3).

And this compares to the Jesus story how?

David

Except that "son" and "sun" are only homonyms in the English language, which wasn't around back then. So the similarities between "son" and "sun" have absolutely no bearing on the Jesus story.

Yes it does have bearing on the story. It isn't just homonyms. The sun god has almost always, in all cultures, been seen as Male, or Patriarchal. The connection between a King, the sun and Son is there. The sun is the King of the world. Like the Sun King. The corona of the sun means "Crown." In ancient Egyptian, the word for the obelisk was Ben Ben, which represented the Sun god. The Hebrews later used this word in their language to mean Ben Ben, or Ben, son of. The connections are there, even if the English word "Son" wasn't around yet.

Regards, Jeffrey

Yes it does have bearing on the story. It isn't just homonyms. The sun god has almost always, in all cultures, been seen as Male, or Patriarchal.

So have almost ALL gods. It's nothing unique to sun gods.

The connection between a King, the sun and Son is there. The sun is the King of the world. Like the Sun King.

But Jesus wasn't "king of the world", so this is a non-existent comparison.

The corona of the sun means "Crown."

And Jesus never wore a crown (except for the one made of thorns, which was put on him mockingly, not as a sign of royalty). So again, a non-existent comparison.

In ancient Egyptian, the word for the obelisk was Ben Ben, which represented the Sun god. The Hebrews later used this word in their language to mean Ben Ben, or Ben, son of.

"Ben" wasn't a later addition to the Hebrew language. In any language, family relationships are among the first words formed.

The connections are there, even if the English word "Son" wasn't around yet.

I'd love to see them sometime.

David

666 is the number of the Goddess. It has also been associated with the Roman Emperor Nero. The Jews called the Romans Kittem.

Regards, Jeffrey

666 is the number of the Goddess.

Which goddess?

It has also been associated with the Roman Emperor Nero.

That it has. It's the belief of some Christians that he's the one Revelation is about.

David

And I didn't make up any kind of mumbo jumbo. If Virgo comes up on the Horizon, it comes up on the horizon. Nothing made up in that. The associations may very well have been used in ancient astrotheology's tales of the birth of sun gods.

Regards, Jeffrey

If Virgo comes up on the Horizon, it comes up on the horizon. Nothing made up in that.

Except that ALL constellations come up on the horizon. So what's so special about Virgo?

The associations may very well have been used in ancient astrotheology's tales of the birth of sun gods.

It probably was.

David

This is from Acharya's website at www.truthbeknown.com in the section titled The "Historical" Jesus? It is an excerpt and it is very telling indeed.

The Gospel Dates

The Pauline epistles do not reveal any historical Jesus; nor do they demonstrate any knowledge of the existence of the four canonical gospels. The gospels themselves cannot be viewed as "history" written by "eyewitnesses," as has been proved repeatedly. Besides the fact that they date to much later than is supposed, the gospels frequently contradict each other, and, evidently based on the numerous manuscripts composed over the centuries, have been determined (by German theologian Johann Griesbach, for one) to be a mass of some 150,000 "variant readings." As one writer says:

In fact, no two ancient manuscripts of the New Testament agree in every respect, and more than 30,000 different readings have been discovered in one examination of 150 ancient manuscripts of The Gospel according to Luke alone.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, an apparently a Christian text, contains this information in an article written by M.M. Parvis (vol. 4, 594-595), who states:

The New Testament is now known, in whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek manuscripts alone. Every one of these handwritten copies differ from the other one… It has been estimated that these manuscripts and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscripts' tradition is wholly uniform.

Some sources place the figure for the "variant readings" even higher, including The Anchor Bible Dictionary On CD-ROM ("Textual Criticism, NT"), which says, "Perhaps 300,000 differing readings is a fair figure for the 20th century (K. W. Clark 1962: 669)." So much for "God's infallible Word" and his "inspired scribes." Apologists, of course, will come up with all sorts of excuses for this manmade mess; suffice it to say that their excuses only demonstrate further that man's hand--and not that of the Almighty God--has been involved in the creation of Christianity and its texts at every step.

Regards, Jeffrey

The Pauline epistles do not reveal any historical Jesus; nor do they demonstrate any knowledge of the existence of the four canonical gospels.

Very telling. Also very incorrect. I respond to this one at http://www.KingDavid8.com/FAQs/PaulGospels.html

The gospels themselves cannot be viewed as "history" written by "eyewitnesses," as has been proved repeatedly. Besides the fact that they date to much later than is supposed,

In other words, she supposes that they were written later than they really were. The evidence puts Matthew, Mark and Luke's gospels to having been written within 35 years of the time Jesus walked the Earth. John's might have been as much as 60 years after. I discuss the evidence for the dating at http://www.KingDavid8.com/FAQs/GospelsAfterAuthorsDied.html

the gospels frequently contradict each other,

http://www.KingDavid8.com/Contradictions/Home.html, of course

and, evidently based on the numerous manuscripts composed over the centuries, have been determined (by German theologian Johann Griesbach, for one) to be a mass of some 150,000 "variant readings." As one writer says:

Some sources place the figure for the "variant readings" even higher, including The Anchor Bible Dictionary On CD-ROM ("Textual Criticism, NT"), which says, "Perhaps 300,000 differing readings is a fair figure for the 20th century (K. W. Clark 1962: 669)." So much for "God's infallible Word" and his "inspired scribes." Apologists, of course, will come up with all sorts of excuses for this manmade mess; suffice it to say that their excuses only demonstrate further that man's hand--and not that of the Almighty God--has been involved in the creation of Christianity and its texts at every step.

This one's actually kind of funny, since as far as all doctrinal points go, there is complete agreement in all copies. These "30,000 different readings" are, for the most part, minor differences in wording. Would you consider these sentences to be contradictory?:

I consumed a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch

I ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch

I ate a jelly and peanut butter sandwich for lunch

I ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich at lunchtime

That kind of thing is the nature of the "different readings". Some exact idea, just slightly different wording to express it. In fact, those four differences could count as THOUSANDS of variants in the way Griesbach counted them. If the first was the most popular translation, but there were, say, 5000 copies which had the second sentence, 5000 which had the third, and 5000 which had the fourth, he would have counted them as 15,000 variations, even though there's only four different sentences, which all essentially say the same thing.

Of course, Christ-mythers like Acharya S want us to think that these "different readings" mean that each manuscript tells a completely different story.

Why don't you E-mail Acharya S (Acharya_S@Yahoo.com, if I recall correctly) and ask her for any examples where the "different readings" mean that completely different ideas are being expressed in alternate versions of the text. I'd ask her myself, but I doubt she'd respond to me.

"Truth be known" indeed!

David

Based, among other things, on my last email about the thousands of varient readings, and the fact that the Jews hardly recognize their own bible in the Christianized version of their bible, I will not be needing to debate over contradictions, because it is my experience that they are real contradictions. They are real, incontravertable and irreconciliable.

You can try to reconcile them in any apologetic way you wish, but we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of contradictions, because as I've said, I believe they are indeed irreconcilable contradictions. No amount of apologetics is going to reconcile the obvious, common sense contradictions they are to me. There are plenty of websites out there that address these contradictions in detail. If you think you can correct them, I'm sure they would be glad to here from you. Here is just one such website:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Good luck. You're going to need it.

The best scholarship in the world admits there are plenty of contradictions in the bible. There are errors in translation, errors in geography, and errors in time frame. Oh well.

If you'd like to debate a couple, I'd be glad, but I'm not going to get in a long drawn out debate over something like this, since you would never concede defeat and neither would I. We will have to agree to disagree. You find meaning in what you believe, and we all need meaning in this life. I find meaning in what I believe.

Regards, Jeffrey

There are plenty of websites out there that address these contradictions in detail. If you think you can correct them, I'm sure they would be glad to here from you.

I think I already did. But if you disagree, then we'll agree to disagree.

Here is just one such website:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Good luck. You're going to need it.

I don't need it. The Tektonics website (http://www.tektonics.org) has already taken the Skeptics Annotated Bible apart piece by piece, saving me the trouble. Unfortunately, J.P. Holding (the site's host) doesn't seem to have a single page overviewing his dismantling of the S.A.B., but if you put "sab" into his search engine, you'll get a list of his responses to each chapter.

If you'd like to debate a couple, I'd be glad, but I'm not going to get in a long drawn out debate over something like this, since you would never concede defeat and neither would I.

That's probably true. I've debated skeptics in the past, and that's always been the result. I have changed the minds of a few skeptics on individual items, but not on the inerrancy of the Bible as a whole. I'll debate them if you'd like at some later time, but right now this conversation is taking up most of my web time, so I wouldn't want to add to it!

We will have to agree to disagree. You find meaning in what you believe, and we all need meaning in this life. I find meaning in what I believe.

Amen, David

I just wanted to point out that the information I sent to you was unbiased. It made no connections of Jesus. It was pure scholarship based on the Egyptian carvings themselves and their gods. I couldn't find everything I wanted, but I at least showed that there was indeed a magical and divine conception and birth, showing that this much from that site you called biased was based in fact. The other stuff I concede that I do not know where they get it from as yet, for like you, I have not seen unbiased scholarship showing some of these details. I have to trust my sources until I find out otherwise. I will investigate why they haven't released such info, and if I find some I will let you know. I will keep my eyes and ears open.

Regards, Jeffrey

I just wanted to point out that the information I sent to you was unbiased. It made no connections of Jesus. It was pure scholarship based on the Egyptian carvings themselves and their gods.

I have no disagreement with anything that article said.

I couldn't find everything I wanted, but I at least showed that there was indeed a magical and divine conception and birth, showing that this much from that site you called biased was based in fact.

I've already agreed that Horus (per the myth) had a magical and divine conception. I agreed to that much on my Jesus vs. Horus page (http://www.KingDavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html)

I only disagree that his mother was a virgin when she bore him.

The other stuff I concede that I do not know where they get it from as yet, for like you, I have not seen unbiased scholarship showing some of these details. I have to trust my sources until I find out otherwise. I will investigate why they haven't released such info, and if I find some I will let you know. I will keep my eyes and ears open.

Good luck, and definitely let me know if you find such information. I can't imagine (if the Christ-mythers are right) why this information should be so hard to find. Just do a Google search on "Egyptian Mythology" and "Horus" and you'll find plenty of web sites giving many variations on the Horus story, some going into such detail that it fills up several web pages. I have a few Egyptian mythology sites about the Horus story linked at my Jesus Vs. Horus page (linked above). With all of the variations on the Horus story, you'd think that by mere odds, one of them would have at least a few of the details Acharya S claims they do. But if so, I haven't come across it yet.

Peace, David

God's son in his heaven (firmament/sky), God's sun in his heaven (firmament/sky). Still see no connections? And they are not weak, they are profound and telling. The light of the world? In fact, if you substitute the word "sun" for "son" anywhere in the New Testament, you would see an obvious connection to the solar mythos. The word sun can be substituted in every instance where the word son is used. The word Lord comes from the English and means "keeper of the bread." In son god myths, the Sun god was seen as Lord, since he (obviously) made the grain grow. The Sun god Serapis, who's image we really see when you think of Jesus (it was based on earlier art and depictions of Serapis. Serapis and Isis being Jesus and Mary in new art. Serapis was also on coins, Jesus wasn't. Also very telling), had a grain box strapped to his head, suggesting that he made the grain to grow as any sun god did. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus is associated with "the bread of life." Same connection, yet another one borrowed from pre-Christian Pagan culture and equally associated with the sun, thus making Jesus also associated with the sun be default. The Lord is the bread giver, the bread giver was always seen as the sun, obviously, or sun god.

Regards, Jeffrey

God's son in his heaven (firmament/sky), God's sun in his heaven (firmament/sky). Still see no connections?

The Heaven that Jesus is in isn't firmament or sky, it's a spiritual plane. And again, you seem to be playing on the son/sun homonym.

And they are not weak, they are profound and telling.

No, they're pretty weak.

The light of the world? In fact, if you substitute the word "sun" for "son" anywhere in the New Testament, you would see an obvious connection to the solar mythos. The word sun can be substituted in every instance where the word son is used.

Really? Well, let's try the first 5 uses of the word "son" in the New Testament, and see if your argument pans out:

Matthew 1:1: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the sun of David, the sun of Abraham.

Matthew 1:20: But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou sun of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Okay, I'll skip that one, since it's not talking about Jesus...

Matthew 1:21: And she shall bring forth a sun, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a sun, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn sun: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my sun.

Sorry, but none of those seem to be referring to the solar mythos.

The word Lord comes from the English and means "keeper of the bread."

Not the Hebrew or Greek words for "lord" that are in the Bible. They predated the English language by quite a bit.

In son god myths, the Sun god was seen as Lord, since he (obviously) made the grain grow. The Sun god Serapis, who's image we really see when you think of Jesus (it was based on earlier art and depictions of Serapis. Serapis and Isis being Jesus and Mary in new art. Serapis was also on coins, Jesus wasn't. Also very telling), had a grain box strapped to his head, suggesting that he made the grain to grow as any sun god did. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus is associated with "the bread of life." Same connection, yet another one borrowed from pre-Christian Pagan culture and equally associated with the sun, thus making Jesus also associated with the sun be default. The Lord is the bread giver, the bread giver was always seen as the sun, obviously, or sun god.

So I guess that the people who work at the Wonderbread factory must be based on pagan gods, since they make bread, also. Sorry, but these types of arguments only make sense if you're already inclined to accept them. Apply even an ounce of skepticism to them, and they're clearly seen as nonsense.

Peace, David

This is an excerpt from an essay by Dan Barker at http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html

Bible Contradictions

PAUL SAID, "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible! There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the "inspired Scriptures" to prove their conflicting doctrines.

Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn't a document that was "divinely inspired" by an omniscient and omnipotent deity be as clear as possible?

----

Also, just click this link to see the many sites on this topic. There is a whole world to debate on this, and many of it comes from believers like you. I'm in my camp and you are in yours. Besides, I believe in evolution, not the doctrine (myth) of original sin and the need for a divine redeemer, that is alleged to have come to earth, based on this. That is made up by religion. How convenient. Propaganda.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&client=REAL-tb&q=Bible+Contradictions

Regards, Jeffrey

PAUL SAID, "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible!

Then he never read the books I was assigned in my English classes : )

There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the "inspired Scriptures" to prove their conflicting doctrines.

Very rarely do I see the "doctrines" of different churches truly conflict. Their focuses on differing parts of the Bible seem to be the main differences between them.

Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn't a document that was "divinely inspired" by an omniscient and omnipotent deity be as clear as possible?

The problem is that we're talking about 21st century theologians trying to understand a book written for people of the 1st century, who (for the most part) spoke a different language than they do. I've read some of Barker's work, and he seems to think that the Biblical authors should have written the Bible in some magical language that could be easily understood by all people everywhere at all times!

Also, just click this link to see the many sites on this topic.

Oh, I've seen them. I enjoy visiting the skeptic sites, at least to see what questions they're asking that I maybe should be asking.

There is a whole world to debate on this, and many of it comes from believers like you. I'm in my camp and you are in yours.

I used to be in yours. I don't know if you know this about me, but I myself was an atheist for most of my life, and have only been a Christian about 8 years (I'm 36, btw).

Besides, I believe in evolution, not the doctrine (myth) of original sin and the need for a divine redeemer, that is alleged to have come to earth, based on this. That is made up by religion. How convenient. Propaganda.

Evolution is really a red herring when it comes to the big issue here. I definitely believe in evolution to some extent, but even if it's COMPLETELY true (as it may well be), that doesn't take a single step towards disproving the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus.

David

Hello,

Our debate was interesting and challenging to me. I learned a few things from you. I hope you picked up some things from me, but I don't know if you did. I think it is time to end the exchange though, at least for now. Like I said, I will try to find more info and I'll let you know if and when I find anything. I still have grounds to believe much of what I do and I will defend those things to the best of my ability. Of course, we could only go into brief things in this conversation. There are many other things that could be debated as well as you know, but I will let it rest here at this juncture. I give you the last word. (Also, I still don't agree with some of the logic at that website you gave me. I really don't, but to each his own). Goodbye Mike, nice debating with you. I learned from it and that is all we can do. I'm still unconvinced about the Christian claims however. That is why it is called a Faith story. It has to be taken on Faith in the end. (For instance, I can't see a man dead for days, rigemorticed, rotting, come back to life. It defies common horse sense and I can't reasonably be expected to believe such nonsense. I prefer to think of it as old world magical thinking and rumors, or a coma fraud at best, and superstition on a high order).

Regards, Jeffrey

Our debate was interesting and challenging to me. I learned a few things from you. I hope you picked up some things from me, but I don't know if you did. I think it is time to end the exchange though, at least for now. Like I said, I will try to find more info and I'll let you know if and when I find anything.

Please do! And I promise that any unbiased information you find I will gladly post on my website.

Goodbye Mike, nice debating with you.

Mike? This is strange, but although my name is David, people have been calling me "Mike" for about as long as I can remember. That's the name of my older brother who people keep mistaking me for. Don't worry, no offense taken or anything.

I learned from it and that is all we can do. I'm still unconvinced about the Christian claims however. That is why it is called a Faith story. It has to be taken on Faith in the end.

Regarding faith, I'd say that I am about 99% convinced, on a logical basis alone, that something which we may call "God" exists, and about 85-90% convinced, again on a logical basis alone, that Jesus was resurrected. My faith makes up for the remaining 1% on God and the remaining 10-15% on Jesus. And, yes, my 10-15% doubt on Jesus means that I could be convinced that Jesus wasn't resurrected. All of the hard evidence I've seen points pretty well to the resurrection being historical fact. But, yes, it is a pretty tall claim, so there is room for doubt. I'd say that this is what leads me to talk to non-believers such as yourself both via E-mail and in theology chat rooms. If I am missing something, this is how I would find out. I've actually looked for the evidence of the "parallels" between Jesus and pagan god-men with both eyes open. I didn't find them. I asked about a dozen people with Christ-myth web sites for these parallels. They either didn't find them, or they found them, but decided (for whatever reason) not to share them with me. Maybe you'll find them. If you do, I want to know. As much as I like being a Christian, I don't want to believe in something which is a lie.

Peace, David