just started to research the who's who of gods!.
really helps to not take any of this 'god' power seriously!.
http://home.swbell.net/dndylion/paganreligions.html, roots of christianity:.
I just don't understand how you can think that one sexless birth story was made up and the other is gospel truth.
Because it isn't based on a simple comment. It's an extremely large and complex issue. And I have investigated and continue to investigate these other claims. It isn't a matter of just accepting one as gospel truth and the others as false.
just started to research the who's who of gods!.
really helps to not take any of this 'god' power seriously!.
http://home.swbell.net/dndylion/paganreligions.html, roots of christianity:.
I didn't mean to say anything mean to you, clarity. I just wanted to push the need to check sources. Like I said, if the connections are there, they are there. But as for me, I have found them to be lacking and greatly exaggerated.
But have fun in your quest!
for example the hairy he-goat is very precise?
i have read some works on the subject but would like your input..
The majority of textual scholars say that Daniel was written ca. 536-530 BC. The book predicts much of middle eastern history from 605BC to 165BC. Many skeptics reject the dates of 536-530 because the predictions are so detailed that it could not have been written so early.
Historians don't dispute the 4 kingdoms predicted in Daniel 11 because archaeology and ancient history confirms their existence exactly as predicted (i.e Herodotus in ca 200 BC).
Many skeptics have claimed that Daniel was actually written around 165BC. However, it was proven incorrect in light of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scross. They provide copies of Daniel that are dated over 200 years before the date given by skeptics. They show that the predictions recorded in Daniel 11 already existed before 165 BC.
We know that Jesus spoke of Daniel, so the book existed before His time.
I believe the general view of skeptics is that Daniel was an evolving book. Portions were written early, others later.
just started to research the who's who of gods!.
really helps to not take any of this 'god' power seriously!.
http://home.swbell.net/dndylion/paganreligions.html, roots of christianity:.
How could anyone make that up -shocking!
I don't know what your comment meant... But I meant that people keep repeating the same inaccuracies. If the link is there, the link is there. But there is no need to make things up to try and MAKE it fit.
just started to research the who's who of gods!.
really helps to not take any of this 'god' power seriously!.
http://home.swbell.net/dndylion/paganreligions.html, roots of christianity:.
When you get down into the details of Krishna, they do not mirror Jesus at all. Many times it appears to be a case of searching for patterns. Much of the comparisons come from a book by Murdock.
Jesus was prophesied a thousand years prior in the OT in Isaiah 7:14. Krishna was the 8th incarnation of Vishnu. Krishna's mother was Devaki and she was not a virgin. She had a total of 8 children. Krishna was the youngest of her children. So the virgin birth - Not true. Hinduism does not teach that the birth was even miraculous, as far as I can see.
Murdock claims that Krishna's father was a carpenter. That is also untrue. Devaki was a princess and married the nobleman Vasudeva. The claim is also made that the birth was attended by angles, wise men, and shepherds and that he was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Again this is completely made up. There is not a single reference to back it up. Reading the story of Krishna's birth shows that only his parents were present. Another claim is that a tyrant ordered the killing of thousands of infants because Krishna was a threat. Again, reading the story shows that only King Kasma only killed 6 of his sisters sons, because they were a threat.
There is also a claim that Krishna was killed on a crucifix between 2 theives. Another case of bad scholarship. Mahabharata 16:4 shows that Krishna was accidentally shot in the heel by a hunter who thought he was a deer.
What I keep seeing is people repeating the same claims over and over again without any proof. Either they repeat claims with no Hindu soruces or they repeat claims from other non scholars.
But people will believe what they want.
just started to research the who's who of gods!.
really helps to not take any of this 'god' power seriously!.
http://home.swbell.net/dndylion/paganreligions.html, roots of christianity:.
Here is a fuller portion of the debate contained in the above video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jhHvuNpACc&feature=related
just started to research the who's who of gods!.
really helps to not take any of this 'god' power seriously!.
http://home.swbell.net/dndylion/paganreligions.html, roots of christianity:.
I think one of the easiest ways to debunked Zeitgeist is to look at its attempt to connect Horus to Jesus. Zeitgeist mixes God's, applies stories from different God's to Horus, fails in it's calling Horus the Sun God, shows a lack of understanding of language, etc etc etc. Most of the stories that they apply to Horus actually belonged to Osirus.
Sadly, though, there are plenty of people that WANT to believe Jesus is a pagan myth, so they will accept the bad scholarship and repeat it without investigating for themsleves. It's almost embarrassing when I see these stories repeated and they are so obviously false.
just started to research the who's who of gods!.
really helps to not take any of this 'god' power seriously!.
http://home.swbell.net/dndylion/paganreligions.html, roots of christianity:.
Well I haven't thoroughly researched it yet, but there are a few problems with this claim of the coin. An understanding of language disproves this claim immediately. Namely, if Dionysus is on one side and the inscription JHVH is on the other, that means that this coin is of late origin and NOT from the 5th century BCE. The tetragrammaton written as JHVH did not come about until MUCH later. The hard "J" is germanic and would have no place on a Greek coin. The "J" is the later product of a stylized I.
I've seen the exact same quote that you posted above about this coin on a ton of sites, with nothing scholoarly to back it up. I haven't seen a photo of this so called coin, nor a scholar saying that this coin is a 5th century BC coin.
Again, many of these claims come from books by non historians, non scholars, non archeologists. They are ameature spiritualists for the most part. Check your sources and you'll usually find a dead end. Nearly all connections of Jesus to pagan god occur AFTER Jesus resurrection. For example the popular amulet that some use that portray Dionysus on a cross were produced AFTER the 1st century AD. If the connection is not AFTER Jesus life, then many times the facts are twisted to attempt to show a similarity.
Like I said, Zeitgeist pulled all of these inaccuracies together and a ton of people started believing it without checking any sources. CHECK YOUR SOURCES!
just started to research the who's who of gods!.
really helps to not take any of this 'god' power seriously!.
http://home.swbell.net/dndylion/paganreligions.html, roots of christianity:.
The connection to Dionysus has very little foundation. Blavatsky was a spiritualist who believed that Lucifer is the only God true God and all should worship Her. Much of what she said was repeated in the thoroughly debunked film, zeitgeist.
One of the only comparrisons that has been able to be upheld regarding the similarities of Jesus to Dionysus is that Dionysus also turned water to wine. However, the first account of this was not given until AFTER the gospels were written. The first account of Dionysus doing this was in the 2nd century in a romance written by Tatius. Interestingly a writer named Suidas, who lived during the tenth century AD, suggests that Tatius was very much influenced by the New Testament, in that he became a Christian and rose to the rank of bishop.
research some actual sources, instead of other writers. Don't take zeitgeist seriously until you research it, since it has proven to be full of bad scholarship. People continue to repeat the same sources, and these sources are not accurate.
i just wanted to take a survey.
let's not let this get into the same old same old debate of atheism vs belief.
just respond with "atheist" or "believer" or "maybe god exists".
You're right. "A god" would have been more proper. It really had to do with my curiosity regarding how many exjws become atheist or agnostic after leaving. I've said to many people in RL that in my experience 80-90% of exjws are atheist. I wanted to see if that was unknowingly wildly exaggerated, or if my perception was accurate. That was the purpose of the OP. it was not to argue belief or atheism.
