• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How Jesus Became God

calamity said:
Lots of people question the cross story
65 Reasons to Believe Jesus Did Not Die on the Cross | The Muslim Times
Jehovah Witnesses, who actually believe in Christ, do not believe Christ was killed on a cross.
Click to expand...

The muslims times seriously? you quote that as a source. at least this joke of a thread has come full circle. why not go do some real research. get some real information from actual theologians IE the people that actually study this stuff. you might learn somethings.

so far you original OP has been blow out of the water.

Luke is a story---fiction. There is more evidence that the book is literature, a historical novel, than that it was an account of historical fact.
Click to expand...
Prove it so far you haven't.

Luke is has been accepted by historians and theologians alike to be highly accurate and in fact more detailed than some of the other books. this has been confirmed for centuries. yet you know better than people that have studied this for years.

yep that is a good argument to make.
 
ludin said:
1. The muslims times seriously? you quote that as a source. at least this joke of a thread has come full circle. why not go do some real research. get some real information from actual theologians IE the people that actually study this stuff. you might learn somethings.

so far you original OP has been blow out of the water.


Prove it so far you haven't.

2. Luke is has been accepted by historians and theologians alike to be highly accurate and in fact more detailed than some of the other books. this has been confirmed for centuries. yet you know better than people that have studied this for years.

yep that is a good argument to make.
Click to expand...

1. Its no better or worse source than that of Christian "theologians". You dismissed the scholarly study I linked to which stated crucifixion was not used by Romans at that time. And, you didn;t even bother reading the literature review which completely demonstrated that Luke is a work of fiction--so, why can't you at least accept the Muslim account which says Christ never died on the cross at all, but rather survived the humiliation and then appeared to his followers as a human, still alive and breathing? After all, this is a much more believable account than the BS that he rose from the dead, wounds and all.



2. Luke is a fantasy. From the link you ignored:

Luke/Acts is a very interesting example of evolved early Christian literature because the author now is undertaking this work... commissioned by a benefactor. And he goes about it very, very methodically as a good Roman author would. He sets the stage historically as you would expect in some kind of sort of almost historical novel, and then he tells a perfectly wonderful story. In fact, it's such a good story that many scholars have compared it to the novelistic literature of time, and have interpreted Luke/Acts as really an early Christian romance, with all the ingredients of romance, down to shipwrecks and exotic animals and exotic vegetation, cannibalistic natives - all kinds of embellishments that one finds in the romance literature....
Click to expand...

Here's a list of items found in all of the Gospels which show obvious signs that those books are fiction, not fact.
Shredding the Gospels: Contradictions, Errors, Mistakes, Fictions by Diogenes the Cynic

Luke, first off was written by a "companion" of Pauls--that's a frequently used trick in fiction writing, insert yourself into a historical event and embellish away. They call that taking literary license.
Luke, it is an anonymous Gospel whose author makes no claim to first hand knowledge and no claim to knowledge even of Paul. It was written more than a half century after the crucifixion, is dependent on secondary sources and contains numerous historical errors and contradictions with the other Gospels. The fable of a physician named Luke who traveled with Paul comes from a claim made 150 years after the crucifixion and is corroborated by nothing in the text itself.
Click to expand...
 
ludin said:
no he doesn't i have already caught him doing this several times already. this is a horrible attempt to bash christians and he has failed miserably.
the claims in the OP have already been refuted.

so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured.
 
calamity said:
1. Its no better or worse source than that of Christian "theologians". You dismissed the scholarly study I linked to which stated crucifixion was not used by Romans at that time. And, you didn;t even bother reading the literature review which completely demonstrated that Luke is a work of fiction--so, why can't you at least accept the Muslim account which says Christ never died on the cross at all, but rather survived the humiliation and then appeared to his followers as a human, still alive and breathing? After all, this is a much more believable account than the BS that he rose from the dead, wounds and all.
Click to expand...

First off the guy in the article is wrong. we can date crucifixion back to 200bc during the persians and back to 100 bc for the romans. So i do not know where he is getting his information but he is wrong or hasn't fully studied history. It took me all of a 5 minute google search to verify what he was saying is not correct.

Why should i accept a none theological source more so what muslims have to say?

More so when they have located the actual tomb that he was buried in from the writing of josephus.
you still haven't even dealt with the fact that you OP is so far wrong on historical christian society that it isn't even funny.

you didn't survive crucifixion the romans made sure of it. for those that didn't die on their own they broke their knees so they could no longer support themselves.


2. Luke is a fantasy. From the link you ignored:



Here's a list of items found in all of the Gospels which show obvious signs that those books are fiction, not fact.
Shredding the Gospels: Contradictions, Errors, Mistakes, Fictions by Diogenes the Cynic

Luke, first off was written by a "companion" of Pauls--that's a frequently used trick in fiction writing, insert yourself into a historical event and embellish away. They call that taking literary license.
Click to expand...

Yes i ignore bad an inaccurate information from people that have no clue about what they are talking about.

no Luke was written by Luke who was a companion of Paul. Luke also wrote the book of acts as well. Luke knew the disciples of Christ or met them at some point in time.

this guy doesn't even know what he is talking about and you are giving it some kind of credence.
i think you need to do some fact checking before you make assertion from people that have already been addressed and refuted time and time again.
 
ludin said:
First off the guy in the article is wrong. we can date crucifixion back to 200bc during the persians and back to 100 bc for the romans. So i do not know where he is getting his information but he is wrong or hasn't fully studied history. It took me all of a 5 minute google search to verify what he was saying is not correct.

Why should i accept a none theological source more so what muslims have to say?

More so when they have located the actual tomb that he was buried in from the writing of josephus.
you still haven't even dealt with the fact that you OP is so far wrong on historical christian society that it isn't even funny.

you didn't survive crucifixion the romans made sure of it. for those that didn't die on their own they broke their knees so they could no longer support themselves.




Yes i ignore bad an inaccurate information from people that have no clue about what they are talking about.

no Luke was written by Luke who was a companion of Paul. Luke also wrote the book of acts as well. Luke knew the disciples of Christ or met them at some point in time.

this guy doesn't even know what he is talking about and you are giving it some kind of credence.
i think you need to do some fact checking before you make assertion from people that have already been addressed and refuted time and time again.
Click to expand...
I disagree on both counts. The "Luke" more so than the cross-thing, mostly because I haven't read much about that. However, this is not the first time I've read that the Gospels are fiction, written at least a hundred years after Christ supposedly lived and died; written by people who are not who they claimed to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forged

Forged demonstrates that this is incorrect and the practice would have been condemned as dishonest by all authorities in antiquity. Falsely attributed writings are often referred to as "pseudepigraphs" but Ehrman maintains that the more honest term is forgery. The book posits that 11 or more books out of the 27 books of the Christian New Testament canon were written as forgeries.[1] In his book, Ehrman points out numerous inconsistencies which he finds within the New Testament which appear to support many of his claims, such as the fact that in Acts 4:13 the statement is made that both Peter and John were illiterate, yet in later years entire books of the Bible were then alleged to have been written by them.
Click to expand...
:roll:

It's almost impossible to push this "the Bible is truth" nonsense in the internet age.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Probably not. The Big Bang broke through from another Dimension. Certain powerful people based in Rome pushed the Jesus is God idea, probably as a rallying cry to get idiots to fight for the empire.

Christians back then were like today's Muslim suicide bombers. Martyring oneself was the highest honor. Hell, Jesus supposedly did it, and he's God.
Click to expand...

If you are going to continue to attack Christianity, and you will, at least don't be a liar. Tell the truth. This abject BS historical account is well, BS!
 
calamity said:
nonsense. Constantine came along in mid 200 AD. Christians themselves were maybe around from 100 AD forward. So, the little bit of persecution they received from Romans is not really worth discussing...unless, of course, you are a Christian looking to play the victim card.
Click to expand...

Another lie. Constantine became Roman Emperor in 306 AD.

You don't really have a clue about most of your anti-Christian BS. You seem to just make things up as you go along.
 
Christianity Reboot.jpg

hehehe
 
Texmex said:
Another lie. Constantine became Roman Emperor in 306 AD.

You don't really have a clue about most of your anti-Christian BS. You seem to just make things up as you go along.
Click to expand...
He was born in the mid 200s
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
All contrary to the teachings of Christ. If everyone in the world followed the teachings of Jesus there would be no more wars or death by violence.
Click to expand...

But that's not what happens. Ask the gays in Uganda, where American "Christians" fired up the local haters who then passed laws which persecute those poor sexually anguished souls.

Time marches on, but people never change. I suspect more people were killed in the name of the prince of peace than the man of steel.
 
Ikari said:
View attachment 67164208

hehehe
Click to expand...

Source for Horus? For any of those?

For example Born of a Virgin Isis

"Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[7][8] or sometimes by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account (see Osiris) used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus[9] to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving)."

Horus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...


Yeah ... just like Jesus.

"Set is depicted as trying to prove his dominance by seducing Horus and then having intercourse with him. However, Horus places his hand between his thighs and catches Set's semen, then subsequently throws it in the river, so that he may not be said to have been inseminated by Set. Horus then deliberately spreads his own semen on some lettuce, which was Set's favorite food. After Set had eaten the lettuce, they went to the gods to try to settle the argument over the rule of Egypt. The gods first listened to Set's claim of dominance over Horus, and call his semen forth, but it answered from the river, invalidating his claim. Then, the gods listened to Horus' claim of having dominated Set, and call his semen forth, and it answered from inside Set."

Just like Jesus.

That Picture is full of ****, there is NO Connection, you won't find an Egyptologist or any historian that claims there is.
 
RGacky3 said:
Source for Horus? For any of those?

For example Born of a Virgin Isis

"Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[7][8] or sometimes by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account (see Osiris) used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus[9] to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving)."

Horus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...


Yeah ... just like Jesus.

"Set is depicted as trying to prove his dominance by seducing Horus and then having intercourse with him. However, Horus places his hand between his thighs and catches Set's semen, then subsequently throws it in the river, so that he may not be said to have been inseminated by Set. Horus then deliberately spreads his own semen on some lettuce, which was Set's favorite food. After Set had eaten the lettuce, they went to the gods to try to settle the argument over the rule of Egypt. The gods first listened to Set's claim of dominance over Horus, and call his semen forth, but it answered from the river, invalidating his claim. Then, the gods listened to Horus' claim of having dominated Set, and call his semen forth, and it answered from inside Set."

Just like Jesus.

That Picture is full of ****, there is NO Connection, you won't find an Egyptologist or any historian that claims there is.
Click to expand...
Virgin birth crap has a long history. But, this is probably where the Christian myth originated.
"It was said that (Zoroaster's) birth was foretold from the beginning of time, and that the moment he was born, he burst out laughing and the whole universe rejoiced with him." After his birth evil demons tried to destroy him, but with Ahura Mazda's protection, he survived all attempts on his life.[52] The Zoroastrian tradition differs from the Christian one because the divine only assists in the preservation of Zoroaster’s seed. "The central scripture, the Avesta and also the Pahlavi texts include the tradition that the 'kingly glory' is handed onward from ruler to ruler and from saint to saint for the purpose of illuminating ultimately the soul of the Zarathushtra." Also the scriptures clearly allude to conjugal relations between his parents, during which evil spirits try to prevent his conception.[1] But according to later tradition, Zoroaster's mother, Dughdova, was a virgin when she conceived Zoroaster by a shaft of light.
Miraculous births - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

As for Horus, you're both right...sort of.

The belief in the conception of Horus by Isis is traced to the beginning of Egyptian history. Horus' conception and birth were understood in terms of the Egyptian doctrine of parthenogenesis, which was connected with the goddess Neith of Sais. (page 220)[56] In Upper Egypt, Net was worshipped at Seni and represented with the head of a lioness painted green, with the titles: "Father of fathers and Mother of mothers," and "net-Menhit, the great lady, lady of the south, the great cow who gave birth to the sun, who made the germ of gods and men, the mother of Ra, who raised up Tem in primeval time, who existed when nothing else had being, and who created that which exists after she had come into being."(page 150)[57]

Many of the attributes of Isis, the God-mother, the mother of Horus; and of Neith, the goddess of Sais are identical with those of Mary the Mother of Christ." (page 161)[1] Early Christian stories in the Apocryphal Gospels, which record the wanderings of the Virgin and Child in Egypt are similar to stories found on the Metternich Stela texts about the life of Isis. (page 161)[1] Also, the pictures and sculptures of Isis suckling her child Horus are the foundation for Christian figurines and paintings of the Madonna and Child. Of course, the legend of the birth of Horus has many elements not found even in the Apocryphal Gospels. Egyptian texts mention numerous forms of Horus. In one he is "Heru-sa Ast, sa-Asar, or Horus, son of Isis, son of Osiris." Isis is described in the Hymn to Osiris, as finding and restoring the body of her dead husband, and using magical words given her by Thoth to restore him to life. Then, by uniting with Osiris she conceives Horus. Horus represented the rising sun and in this respect was comparable to the Greek Apollo.[58]

There were at least fifteen other Horuses in the Egyptian pantheon. . .
Click to expand...
 
Since the symbol of Christianity is a dying, wretched, dirt smeared, bloodied, law breaker that symbol must be what God is.
 
calamity said:
Virgin birth crap has a long history. But, this is probably where the Christian myth originated.


As for Horus, you're both right...sort of.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because Zoroasterism was super popular in Palestine in the first Century ....

It differs in other ways to, i.e. no shaft of light, no sex between parents With evil spirits trying to stop the seed, and so on, it's total nonsense to try and find a Connection, which is why no historians buy it.
 
RGacky3 said:
Yeah, because Zoroasterism was super popular in Palestine in the first Century ....

It differs in other ways to, i.e. no shaft of light, no sex between parents With evil spirits trying to stop the seed, and so on, it's total nonsense to try and find a Connection, which is why no historians buy it.
Click to expand...

I go with Zoroasterism because it was the first monotheistic religion. Hence it is the seed which bore fruit to Jadaism. But, I admit that even the link I provided argues against my point trying to connect that immaculate conception event to Christ. However, you have to now admit that the link doe sreinforce the Horus connection made earlier.

We can't have it both ways.
 
calamity said:
I go with Zoroasterism because it was the first monotheistic religion. Hence it is the seed which bore fruit to Jadaism. But, I admit that even the link I provided argues against my point trying to connect that immaculate conception event to Christ. However, you have to now admit that the link doe sreinforce the Horus connection made earlier.

We can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't .... Judaism was first ....

No, the link doesn't reinforce the Horus Connection at all ... read the Horus myths, they don't look ANYTHING like Jesus, which is why you will find exactly 0 egyptologists or historians of anykind backing Your theory.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. No, it wasn't .... Judaism was first ....

2. No, the link doesn't reinforce the Horus Connection at all ... read the Horus myths, they don't look ANYTHING like Jesus, which is why you will find exactly 0 egyptologists or historians of anykind backing Your theory.
Click to expand...
1. Wrong.
Zoroaster's ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam.
Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


2. Buy it or don't---but, if you reject this out of hand, you'd be denying rational thought.
 
calamity said:
1. Wrong.

2. Buy it or don't---but, if you reject this out of hand, you'd be denying rational thought.
Click to expand...


Judaism as called Judaism (post exhilic), but yahwehism (as scholars Call it) existed and was monotheist much longer than Zoroasterism. That's what I meant by Judaism, exclusive worship of Yahweh.

I'm denying rational thought? THen why does every scholar and historian dissagree With you???
 
calamity said:
But that's not what happens. Ask the gays in Uganda, where American "Christians" fired up the local haters who then passed laws which persecute those poor sexually anguished souls.

Time marches on, but people never change. I suspect more people were killed in the name of the prince of peace than the man of steel.
Click to expand...

You can't diss Christianity by citing examples of people who violate its principles.

And in the end, the evil are vanquished and those who remain will live in eternal peace and joy. Humanists don't have that hope in any serious measure.
 
RGacky3 said:
Judaism as called Judaism (post exhilic), but yahwehism (as scholars Call it) existed and was monotheist much longer than Zoroasterism. That's what I meant by Judaism, exclusive worship of Yahweh.

I'm denying rational thought? THen why does every scholar and historian dissagree With you???
Click to expand...
1. It doesn't matter what you call it. Belief in one god versus a pantheon is monotheism. And, in that Zoroasterism is at least 3000 years older than Judaism.

2. It really is impossible to deny the pagan influences/similarities with Christianity if looked at from an objective POV.
 
Logicman said:
You can't diss Christianity by citing examples of people who violate its principles.

And in the end, the evil are vanquished and those who remain will live in eternal peace and joy. Humanists don't have that hope in any serious measure.
Click to expand...

"No true Scotsman" arguments do not hold water. If people claiming and recognized to be Christians commit atrocity, you can't just claim they were not true Christians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom