-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
OK so the site you link to is basically using the arguments from the Zeitgeist movie which has been completely debunked. Zeitgeist tries to say that Jesus was based on Mithra, Horus, Krishna and Dionysis. And this has all be proven wrong. Zeitgeist gets almost all of its "research" from one source, Acharaya S., an occultist and author of the Christ Conspiracy, who has no scholarly credentials and has been ripped apart by academics and historians for her shoddy, unsubstantiated work.
From your site:
Krishna- Born of a virgin 900 BC.
This is from Joseph Campbell's Occidental Mythology:
""In India a like tale is told of the beloved savior Krishna, whose terrible uncle, Kansa, was, in that case, the tyrant-king. The savior's mother, Devaki, was of royal lineage, the tyrant's niece, and at the time when she was married the wicked monarch heard a voice, mysteriously, which let him know that her eighth child would be his slayer. He therefore confined both her and her husband, the saintly nobleman Vasudeva, in a closely guarded prison, where he murdered their first six infants as they came.”"
So no, Krishna's mom was not a virgin.Krishna was not even the first born.
As for the other so-called similarites, the writings on Krishna were AFTER Christ:
Benjamin Walker in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India, "[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name."(28) Bryant also comments that these parallels come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former "to be prior to the 7th century AD (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to be 11 century AD."(29) Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts. Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation. An earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but that it may be as early as the second century. Even if this early date is accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires
Next up Dionysis --
According to your site:
Born of a virgin on Dec 25th.
Ok first off, Jesus' birthday was not 12/25, so that point is irrelevant.
As for a virgin birth, this is from Wikiepedia:
His mother was a mortal woman,, Semele, the daughter of king Cadmus of Thebes, and his father was Zeus, the king of the gods. Zeus' wife, Hera, discovered the affair while Semele was pregnant. Appearing as an old crone (in other stories a nurse), Hera befriended Semele, who confided in her that Zeus was the actual father of the baby in her womb.
Again. WRONG.
Turning water to wine: Dionysis made wine, but never from water.
In particular the motif of changing water to wine is not present in the Dionysus legends; the jugs of Elis, for example, were not filled with water but were empty, and the fount of wine in Andros did not replace one of water. To suggest that the Evangelist or his source wished to demonstrate through the Cana miracle that a greater than Dionysus has appeared is a speculation without warrant.
Mithra -- Born of a virgin on Dec 25th. Again this is absolutely wrong.
Mithra's history is not even recorded in books. It's in artwork. So that date doesn't even make sense. And it's irrelevant since the Bible never mentions the date anyway. But more to the point, Mithra was created from a rock. He was not born from a woman.
"Mithra had 12 disciples" -- This is all based on a picture of Mithra surrounded by 12 figures. Could they be his disciples? Possibly. But they could also be his enemies. Or his kids. Or the IRS. It's only unscholarly research that led to this "12 disciples" fiction.
Horus -- Born of a virgin. This one is the craziest. It is extremely well-known that in Egyptian mythology, Isis conceived Horus with the Phallus of Osiris. I mean, I learned that story in 6th grade. So she was clearly not a virgin.
So no, the Bible is not taking from other books. It is God's Holy Truth. I hope you take the time to read the right text. God bless.
And for anyone who is curious and wants to know more about this, here is the Zeitgeist Debunked film which is excellent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFI6m6Icav4
From your site:
Krishna- Born of a virgin 900 BC.
This is from Joseph Campbell's Occidental Mythology:
""In India a like tale is told of the beloved savior Krishna, whose terrible uncle, Kansa, was, in that case, the tyrant-king. The savior's mother, Devaki, was of royal lineage, the tyrant's niece, and at the time when she was married the wicked monarch heard a voice, mysteriously, which let him know that her eighth child would be his slayer. He therefore confined both her and her husband, the saintly nobleman Vasudeva, in a closely guarded prison, where he murdered their first six infants as they came.”"
So no, Krishna's mom was not a virgin.Krishna was not even the first born.
As for the other so-called similarites, the writings on Krishna were AFTER Christ:
Benjamin Walker in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India, "[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name."(28) Bryant also comments that these parallels come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former "to be prior to the 7th century AD (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to be 11 century AD."(29) Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts. Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation. An earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but that it may be as early as the second century. Even if this early date is accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires
Next up Dionysis --
According to your site:
Born of a virgin on Dec 25th.
Ok first off, Jesus' birthday was not 12/25, so that point is irrelevant.
As for a virgin birth, this is from Wikiepedia:
His mother was a mortal woman,, Semele, the daughter of king Cadmus of Thebes, and his father was Zeus, the king of the gods. Zeus' wife, Hera, discovered the affair while Semele was pregnant. Appearing as an old crone (in other stories a nurse), Hera befriended Semele, who confided in her that Zeus was the actual father of the baby in her womb.
Again. WRONG.
Turning water to wine: Dionysis made wine, but never from water.
In particular the motif of changing water to wine is not present in the Dionysus legends; the jugs of Elis, for example, were not filled with water but were empty, and the fount of wine in Andros did not replace one of water. To suggest that the Evangelist or his source wished to demonstrate through the Cana miracle that a greater than Dionysus has appeared is a speculation without warrant.
Mithra -- Born of a virgin on Dec 25th. Again this is absolutely wrong.
Mithra's history is not even recorded in books. It's in artwork. So that date doesn't even make sense. And it's irrelevant since the Bible never mentions the date anyway. But more to the point, Mithra was created from a rock. He was not born from a woman.
"Mithra had 12 disciples" -- This is all based on a picture of Mithra surrounded by 12 figures. Could they be his disciples? Possibly. But they could also be his enemies. Or his kids. Or the IRS. It's only unscholarly research that led to this "12 disciples" fiction.
Horus -- Born of a virgin. This one is the craziest. It is extremely well-known that in Egyptian mythology, Isis conceived Horus with the Phallus of Osiris. I mean, I learned that story in 6th grade. So she was clearly not a virgin.
So no, the Bible is not taking from other books. It is God's Holy Truth. I hope you take the time to read the right text. God bless.
And for anyone who is curious and wants to know more about this, here is the Zeitgeist Debunked film which is excellent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFI6m6Icav4
L
You are reading it with the assumption that there is a gap between verse 1 & 2.
Verse 1 is a general overview and verse 2 starts the detail of what God did from day 1. In chapter 2:4 starts a new thought again
Genesis 2:4-7
(4) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
(5) And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
(6) But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
(7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Notice from verse 4 talks about the creation of man. Chapter 1 already talked about the creation of man, what he is doing is going back over the same ground but with more detail. There is no gap from verse 1 & 2 you are not reading the Bible correctly
L
They were there because God created them on day 1
Genesis 1:2
(2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
We do not have to have the sun to have a 24 hour day. A day comes from the earth spinning, didn't you learn that in school.
Yes, (5) And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, (What was it?)...... SEED
and every herb of the field before it grew: (what was it?)....SEED
And what was that SEED?
Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Luk 8:11Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
L
I believe what the Bible says and that is a six day creation
Exodus 20:11
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Do you want it to be plainer? God made everything in 6 days and rested the 7th. It is the same Bible writer in Exodus as in Genesis, Moses.
Exodus 20:11
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Do you want it to be plainer? God made everything in 6 days and rested the 7th. It is the same Bible writer in Exodus as in Genesis, Moses.
C
God "made" or asah in the Hebrew. Some argue that asah means to make out of pre-existing material and "created" or bara means to create out of nothing.....Only God has ever been able to bara. If that verse used bara....then it would be game over for the gap theory. Some think the two words are synonymous but thats a long debate I dont feel like getting into. Maybe someone else will
Gap theory may be right or wrong......
Gap theory may be right or wrong......
L
The Bible in Exodus 20:11 is clear that God made everything on this earth including the earth in 6 days.
Exodus 20:11
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
It is a matter of believing the Bible. Do you believe the Bible?
Exodus 20:11
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
It is a matter of believing the Bible. Do you believe the Bible?