What is Christianity? How can we understand it better? What don't we understand?

There are numerous parallels between Horus and Jesus. Even if I list them, you'll try to refute it by saying how untrue it is probably because you're a Christian. So, what's the point? All you have to do is find it on the internet.

I see we differ as to the number of years the Hyksos were in Egypt. However, I still go by the "Evidence" that the Exodus never happened and the story of the Hyksos being removed from Egypt was copied and made into Moses story.

What are you talking about? It says in the Old Testament that Moses was an Egyptian. I don't even have to tell you where to find it. And those pharaohs that were mentioned whose name is similar to Moses were Egyptians. What's this goofy talk about Muhammad Ali and Isiah Thomas?

 

The Horus/Jesus parallels are largely fabricated and you'll want to stop insisting on them.

I'm not a Christian, I'm very much an atheist and anti-religious -- which is exactly why I don't like seeing bad arguments being made by someone on "my" side. You're badly damaging credibility by bringing up this Zeitgeist-popularized nonsense, which the documentary record of the various myths generally does not support.

I'll have to check out D-G's videos later. I'm particularly interested in "Who Wrote the Gospels," since the consensus of New Testament historians is that we don't know for sure who it was, but it was pretty certainly not those to whom they are attributed.

 

There are many errors in the bible. Too many in fact to be listed. Chapters from certain books in the Old Testament are placed in other books in the Old Testament. And speaking of the Crucifixion, it's more evidence that it was really a Crucifiction. 23 different conflicting reports in that one event speaks volumes on how phony the Crucifixion was.

 

The point is that while we might have different opinions, there are facts that either support us or don't. For instance, your contention that Horus was borne of a virgin was not supported by the fact that Isis was impregnated with him by having intercourse with her husband. If all your opinions on this issue are factually wrong, you have no credibility.

 

You need to stop applying modern practices to hostoric accounts. It is a well researched fact that ancient authors were not as concerned about displayin authorship as modern writers. Ancient authors wrote differntly, quoted sources differently, even arranged their timeline differently than modern biographers. Please research this before trying to build an argument. Again, historians do not determine authorship by inscription alone, but by many other means, including agreement among the available copies, supporting documents from the same time period, etc.

The fact is that the church rejects the gospels that come with an author's inscription because these have been found to be forgeries. Gospels such as Thomas and Phillip have been proved to have been written much later and contain false information and teachings about Jesus, thus they are not included in the Biblical canon. People who wanted their gospel to be accepted by the church often forged the name of an apostle to the document. These have been found to be false. If the same were true of the four gospels in the Bible, why choose such obscure names? Matthew was a Jewish tax collector (NOT a good reputation at that time!); Mark was a little know disciple of Peter; Luke was an insignificant companion of Paul. John was the only one of the gospel writers who was one of Jesus' better known apostles.

As to Moses, the general agreement is that Moses wrote Exodus thru Deuteronomy, compiled or wrote Genesis, and after his death someone like Joshua included the account of his death. I don't see how this poses a problem. The Old Testament has been proven by archeology to be reliable time and time again. For instance, many people did not believe that the city of Ur mentioned in Genesis was a real city, until it was discovered in an archeological dig in 1854 by J. E. Taylor. And some more food for thought: if the Exodus was fictional, why are Egyptian chariot wheels and fossilized human and horse bones on the bottom of the Red Sea? Link

Your comment "No matter how much research is done, such accounts are going to be untruths, not actual facts even if there is some truth to the story" is pretty rediculous. I guess we had better just throw out all of the works of the ancient world then, along with every biography and court room testimony ever made because obviously people cannot be relied on to tell the truth about what they saw.

These dates are disputed and not proved to be accurate, as is the order of writing, so you cannot say definitively that these are correct.

 

sorry, "historic" not "hostoric".

 

Well now, this is an interesting spark of activity/discussion.

 

What translation of the Bible you are quoting from? Because the English Bible translation that I'm reading doesn't reflect what you claim. Remember to be accurate you really should be quoting the original language in which those texts were written in, not the English translations.

 

I'm using a Bible in reference to being translated of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised. The text conformable to that of the edition of 1611 commonly known as the Authorized or King James Version.

 

The possibility occurs to me, yes. But ultimately, their motivation doesn't matter. Someone who makes a "list" of items where several are plainly wrong isn't credible, no matter who they are. The mistakes we've already talked about are fundamental, and demonstrate that the author doesn't know what they're talking about. There's nothing else to say.

As we've reviewed (and you've apparently ignored) there's a pattern to why documents were produced, why they were saved. The literate class in Egypt was comparatively quite small to what we see today. They generally did not record defeats, as it would have made no sense in the context of their political program that stresses the power and supremacy of the Pharaoh. By those criteria, one would not expect the Exodus to have been written about.

This is the only vaguely correct thing in your whole post. A single archaelogical study fails to find something? In the grand scheme of things, that doesn't mean much.

This is another sign of sloppy scholarship. The Egyptian imperial administration didn't always guarantee peace between its vassal states. The Amarna letters record requests for Egpytian intervention, denials, mediation, and sometimes overturning of power. The idea that the Israelites couldn't have been there because it was within the Egyptian sphere of influence is a stupid and ahistorical one.

 

I agree that authorship is important. My point is that ancient writers did not identify themselves in the same way that modern writers do, and so historians use different methods of identification. This does NOT mean that authorship cannot be established as legitimate. Particularly when we have so many copies of the ancient Bible texts available that are in agreement, and corresponding works from the same time period quoting the early manuscripts and giving the author's name! Some of these works are from men who would have known the original authors. Again, watch the videos. These are from experts in the field!

Because a few similarities does not mean copy-cat. Particularly since A) Jewish religion is monotheistic, while Egyptian is polytheistic; B) Jewish religion forbids imagery of God, while Egyptian religion is full of images of their gods; C) the Jewish religion would more likely have been influenced by the Canaanites living around them, than by a people living at such a great distance away (we actually see this happening several times in the Old Testament, and each time it met with God's disapproval and punishment). There needs to be a lot more evidence to establish the influence of Egyptian sources

Um, in the middle of the sea? War chariots and their drivers and horses were "dumped" into the middle of the Red Sea? Oh, did I mention there were no boats found? The fact that this find is in agreement with the Exodus account is very important. We cannot prove how these arrived there thousands of years after the event. But the fact that chariots were found at the bottom on the Red Sea is more in line with the Biblical record than any other account.

The dates are important because if they were written at a later date, errors could have crept in and the assumed authors would not have been around at that point. The earlier dates in

 

One internet source documenting archaeological research holds the position that the Hebrews left Egypt about the same time as the Hyksos, around 1570-50 BC. This is due to the mention of Israel as a nation (but no king) on the Merneptah Stele, circa 1210 BC, which states that Egypt "laid waste" to Israel (presumably during the time of the judges). Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian, wrote that the Exodus took place 592 years prior to the building of Solomon's Temple, which would correspond to the 1570-50 date. If this is the case, the Hebrew Exodus was a part of the Hyksos departure, rather than a copycat account.

Source

Also, the 400 years referred to in the Bible may not actually be the time that the Hebrews were in Egypt itself, but also the time that Abraham and his descendants wandered through Canaan.

 

Okay then. Are you familiar with the 42 Negative Confessions of Maat?


The fact of the matter is that the original ?42 Declarations of Innocence? can be found in the sacred spiritual texts inscribed on the walls of the Temple of Unas in ancient Egypt. According to the Euro-Christian Holy Bible, Acts 7:22: ?Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was mighty in words and deeds.?

When Moses took these ancient Egyptian laws to the Jews, he had to change them because he was speaking to a people who had not lived a spiritual way of life. As such, Moses had to transfer the original Kemetic text ?I have not?? to ?Thou shall not?? that is, into Commandments.

These are the original Kemetic spiritual:

?42 Declarations of Innocence?

?42 Admonitions of Ma?at?

?42 Negative Confessions?

1. I have not done iniquity.
2. I have not robbed with violence.
3. I have not stolen.
4. I have done no murder, I have done no harm.
5. I have not defrauded offerings.
6. I have not diminished obligations.
7. I have not plundered the Netcher.
8. I have not spoken lies.
9. I have not snatched away food.
10. I have not caused pain.
11. I have not committed fornication.
12. I have not caused shedding of tears.
13. I have not dealt deceitfully.
14. I have not transgressed.
15. I have not acted guilefully.
16. I have not laid wasted the ploughed land.
17. I have not been an eavesdropper.
18. I have not set my lips in motion (against any man).
19. I have not been angry and wrathful except for a just cause.
20. I have not defiled the wife of any man.
21. I have not defiled the wife of any man. (repeated twice)
22. I have not polluted myself.
23. I have not caused terror.
24. I have not transgressed. (repeated twice)
25. I have not burned with rage.
26. I have not stopped my ears against the words of Right and Truth (Ma?at)
27. I have not worked grief.
28. I have not acted with insolence.
29. I have not stirred up strife.
30. I have not judged hastily.
31. I have not been an eavesdropper. (repeated twice)
32. I have not multiplied words exceedingly.
33. I have not done neither harm nor ill.
34. I have never cursed the King.
35. I have never fouled the water.
36. I have not spoken scornfully.
37. I have never cursed the Netcher.
38. I have not stolen.
39. I have not defrauded the offerings of the Netcher.
40. I have not plundered the offerings of the blessed dead.
41. I have not filched the food of the infant, neither have I sinned against the Netcher of my native town.
42. I have not slaughtered with evil intent the cattle of the Netcher.

These ?Negative Confessions? represent the FIRST moral code of ethics invented with which to live by 24-7-365. Egyptians invented these moral codes in the B.C.E. era. These were developed before there was the Christian Holy Bible or an Islamic Qur?an.

It took the ancient Egyptians fifty (50) generations or 1,200 years to develop these moral, spiritual codes.

The reason why there were ?42 Negative Confessions? is because there were 42 ?Nomes? or Districts in ancient Kemet/Egypt at that time.

At that time also, there were ten (10) categories of sins. Thus, the categories of sins that Moses used as the basis to formulate the so-called ?Ten Commandments? already existed. The ten categories of sins in ancient Kemet (Egypt) are as follows:

1. ?General sins against people?
2. ?

 

Interesting. Thank you for showing the similarities. The similarities between the 42 Confessions and the Ten Commandments are interesting, but I would hardly go so far as to say that one was used to shape the other.

For one thing, the parallels you noted deal with basic moral and ethical understandings that are prevalent through most cultures. Murder, theft, dishonesty, and adultery are forbidden by nearly every culture and religion. Respect for deities was also a given in any religion. Ancient cultures also demanded a high respect for parents and elders. So these similarities would be expected, since most come from a universal understanding of ethics and morality.

There are too many unique aspects of the Mosaic law to say that it was derived from Egyptian law. For instance, Egyptians used a 10 day week in their calender. However the Jews used a 7 day week, based on the Creation account. The Sabbath was the final, or 7th, day. If Moses was deriving his law from Egypt, why the 7 day week? Why not 10? Particularly since the 7th day was reserved as the day of the Lord.

Also, the Jews were prohibited from making any images of their God, but the Egyptians used imagery and art as a part of their religion. If Moses was stealing the Egyptian law, why include this command not to have idols or other images? Nearly every other culture in the surrounding area had an idol representing their god. The Jews had the Ark of the Covenant, which was not an image of God but representative of his presence with them. It was not to be worshiped, or even seen on a day-to-day basis by anyone.

The Law of Moses covers several books of the Bible, and is too long to go through item by item. But I find too many unique aspects in the Hebrew law to accept that it was derived from the Egyptian law.

I'll look more into the Solomon/Amen-em-ope similarities when I have time.

I do find it interesting though that you have shown the similarities between the laws of Moses and the Egyptians, and yet deny the Exodus account. What is your thinking about what happened if the Exodus did not take place?

 

Just because there was no mass enslavement or mass exodus of Hebrews in Egypt does not mean that the Hebrew and Egyptian cultures never crossed paths.

I recommend you read the book Alpha Beta, which traces the origins of the modern Roman alphabet through the millennia and back to Egyptian heiroglyphs. He also traces the transmission of culture and ideas as made possible by the advent of written language, and how Semitic script probably derived in some form from heiroglyphics. It also proposes potential true stories that could have formed the basis for what became, after generations of myth-making, the Exodus.

 

Being a nomadic people prior to conquering the land of Canaan, I'm sure that the Hebrews would have crossed paths with the Egyptians at some point. Genesis even describes how Abraham (then called Abram) visited Egypt for a brief time (Genesis 12). What I was really asking about was D_K's opinion on how the Hebrew Moses would have become learned enough in Egyptian teaching and traditions if the Jews had not been living in Egypt at the time and then came out in the Exodus account. I just find it interesting that one cites the fact that Moses was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians but then rejects the idea that the entire nation migrated in mass following this man. I'd like to hear the theory of what else could have taken place.

 

You assume that Moses actually existed as a person -- as opposed to being a name given to the collective authorship (much as the famous Homer, of Iliad/Odyssey fame, may not have been a real person). Hebrews (they were not Jews, BTW, at this time) could have lived in Egypt for some time without making a mass exodus. Frankly even if Moses did exist, all you needed is for that one guy to be living in Egypt long enough to assimilate what he likes about the traditions and pass them on to another group.

I find it interesting that you believe one necessitates the other. A man being learned in the ways of Egyptians is entirely plausible. An entire nation migrating en masse and leaving no historical traces outside of the mythology of a single religious tradition (and another which co-opts it) is not.

I recommend Alpha Beta again, which gives several.

 

What is Christianity?


The first weakness of Christianity may be likened to when a young man confronted with basic problems relating to reconciling of his every day affairs with the claim of religion. Christianity is a dualism which regards the world as sinful and seeks to turn its back on the reality of life projecting its hope into a future world. As a result it creates a Sunday attitude towards religion which has no place in the rest of the secular week.

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about...?

Christianity does not regard the world as sinful but as good, in fact God calls it "very good." Jesus calls us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, nurture the sick, visit the imprisoned... etc. To treat each other as we would like to be treated... to love one another as Jesus loved us, which was enough to suffer and die for our well-being. The majority of Christians believe in the afterlife and a better world to come, but the focus is very much on this world and making it a better place.

 

What I'm saying is in the Christian world, there's atrocious crimes being done. Women are loose. Men have no morals. Hypocrisy rules.

Christianity cannot provide any solutions to the burning problems of the day as Christianity does not have any plan for man to live on this earth. In Christianity, the rich are exhorted to be kind to the poor. Spirituality is equated with poverty. It is preached that the poor can find it easier to enter the kingdom of heaven and it would be more difficult for the rich to enter it than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. The religious man is expected to despise the good things of this world and the next world will compensate him for what he lacked in this mundane existence. The poor are asked to suffer in patience for a short while for their existence on earth after all is very transient.