#151811 - 01/14/08 03:34 PM
Re: opinions despite loyalty to God
[Re: cardw]
|
Registered: 12/15/07
Posts: 228
|
Look Richard i am familiar with Mithraism etc etc. I firmly believe these false religions were inventions of the devil/humans. It is true that Christianity was misused by certain leaders and Church fathers like augustine made a lot of mistakes. But the bible has a message for each of the seven time frames. In this time frime the seventh day adventist church has been given the full truth to spread it to the world before the plagues are going to fall. I don t want to spend the whole day arguing so i ve copied-past some discussion that might be able to give you some insight:
koningdavid op 29 nov: Zeitgeist is a pretty interesting film, well at least the 2nd and 3rd part is.
Too bad the first part contains so many lies using shady sources like Massey and Acharyah. Believing Jesus is a myth was a popular thing to do in the 1800's, but it's really outdated now pretty much and completely out of touch with what present scholars believe. quote:Zeitgeistmovie.com op 29 nov: Jesus is a myth. Buddha and Krishna and even Mithras are still worshiped to this day and he said the same thing about them. quote:koningdavid op 29 nov: "Who" said the same thing about all of them? Don't be a fool and study the evidence. Contemporary egyptology depicts Horus entirely different than Zeitgeist (Massey, Acharyah) does. The same goes for Krisha. Mithras was more influenced by Jesus than vice versa.
Get your facts straight sir, because you're promoting lies. quote:Zeitgeistmovie.com op 29 nov: Thats weird because Mitfras was worshiped 600 years before Jesus.
Unlike you, I have studied the evidence. I can list books that say the same thing. And Mithras is 600 years older than Jesus.
The religion he was in, Zoroastian, which origenated in Persia, found it's way into Rome arond the first century CE where it was called the cult of Mithras.
And answer me this:
Why do you accept what Peter said on the third part? You accept the evidence he put on the Federal Reserve and International Bankers, yet, you ignore the evidence for the first part. Granted, he was off in some areas, but there was so much more that he left out.
I suggest you watch "Jordan Maxwell The Naked Truth". It lists far more gods than Zeitgeist and goes in depth of the Astrological significance of it. quote:koningdavid op 29 nov: > Thats weird because Mitfras was worshiped 600 years before > Jesus.
That's true (actually more than 600 years before Jesus). But have you looked how far back most of the 'Jesuslike' stuff goes? The 'pre-Jesus' Mithras had hardly any shocking comparisons with Jesus. Most comparisons evolved after 30 AD.
> Unlike you, I have studied the evidence. I can list books > that say the same thing.
Yeah books that are terribly outdated. Man, I studied the evidence too. Let's look at your main figure 'Horus'. You depict the Horus of Massey which is a kind of Horus almost NONE of the present Egyptologists depict. Find me ONE present egyptology-website that says Horus was born of a virgin, crucified and resurrected, there are none. Your Horus is the Horus that was depicted (or made up?) by some 19th century amateur-egyptologists (like Massey) that aren't even considered egyptologists in present times.
You choose the outdated Horus over the present Horus. Crazy.
>And answer me this:
Why do you accept what Peter said on the third part? You accept >the evidence he put on the Federal Reserve and International >Bankers, yet, you ignore the evidence for the first part.
I don't accept al stuff on the federal reserve and international bankers. I found it interesting, mainly because I don't know much about it. So I'm not really making judgments about what is true and what not.
But on the first part however I do happen to know a lot. And I know it's nothing less than silly to believe Jesus never existed. It's even more silly to say that Horus, Krishna, Dyonisus and Mithras were crucified and resurrected. But the most silliest part is where Zeitgeist claims that the bible is actually promoting 'astrology'. Dude... the bible condemns astrology and sunworship very clearly.
Stop promoting lies. quote:Zeitgeistmovie.com op 1 dec: Silly to believe Jesus never existed?
It is silly to believe that he did.
How about people who believed Buddha existed? Or Muhammad? Or Zoroaster?
They are all made up. quote:koningdavid op 2 dec: Man... you don't know a thing about history do you?
Just compare the historical evidence for Jesus with Buddha or Zoroaster, the difference is huge. And if you don't believe Muhammad existed, man, that's dumb
Anyway, Jesus: - There are about 27 books written about him in a timespan of a few decades after his death where Jesus' name only is mentioned about a THOUSAND times. In a few decades, that's like a newsflash in ancient times. Show me any 'made-up' historical figure that has the same amount of writings about him written in such a short timespan? There isn't ONE.
- Plus there are mentions from major non-christian ancient historians Josephus (although one is partly interpolated) and Tacitus.
If you don't believe Jesus existed you can scratch 95% from your historybook my man. quote:Zeitgeistmovie.com op 2 dec: Just shut up. Your religion is as made as the ancient Greek Religion.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#151865 - 01/15/08 01:55 AM
Re: opinions despite loyalty to God
[Re: truthseeker007]
|
Registered: 02/22/02
Posts: 1430
Loc: CA
|
James Still on the Last Supper I don t want to spend the whole day arguing so i ve copied-past some discussion that might be able to give you some insight: This whole dialog has little to do with what I said. First, I don't deny that a historical Jesus existed and second, I'm not limited to Horus as evidence of virgin birth. You can find virgin birth associated with many ancient gods and kings. Here is a very fair evaluation of the ritual involved in the last supper or the Eucharist. Whether or not it was specifically a Mithric ritual or not, it certainly was not a Passover ritual, and it has pagan associations with other sacrificial mythologies that involved eating a god's body. James Still on the Last Supper Here is a 1st century description of the Eucharist and there is no mention of eating the body of Christ or drinking his blood. In fact there is quite a different emphasis. Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks as follows.
(2) First, concerning the cup: We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant, to you be the glory forever.
(3) And concerning the broken bread: We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge you have made known to us through Jesus, your servant; to you be the glory forever.
[Didache, Chapters 9 (1st century AD),—which you can find in: Holmes, Michael. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (1999), pg. 259 - 263] I don't have room for the wealth of evidence on this, but this gives you an idea on the type of evidence that I pay attention to.
_________________________
Richard My Blog
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|

Be sure to click on the free shipping at the checkout else you get charged.

|
|
|
7 Registered (Gladussee, Marie, Taylor, 4 invisible),
37
Guests and
19
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Access even more forums by becoming a full member!
- - - - - - - - - - -
IF YOU LIVE IN NEW ZEALAND THIS IS YOUR LINK
Still 30 days from
* * * NEW * * * NEW * * * NEW * * *
|
|
2798 Members
138 Forums
16903 Topics
154298 Posts
Max Online: 1237 @ 04/20/07 08:43 PM
|
|
|