Well With All This Religion Around...
Nineteen
Join Date: 2003-12-23 Member: 24701Members
Join Date: 2003-12-23 Member: 24701Members
in Discussions
I read this not too long ago and thought this was very interesting and id like to hear some opinions. If you take a look at the rest of this guys site you'll see that he has some pretty far fatched theories, but he does back himself up continously and brings up alot of interesting points.
Its a long read but very interesting and I would really like to hear from people who have a strong belief in god.
<a href='http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/christianity/origins.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/c...ity/origins.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/christianity/origins.htm' target='_blank'>Origins of Christianity</a>
Its a long read but very interesting and I would really like to hear from people who have a strong belief in god.
<a href='http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/christianity/origins.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/c...ity/origins.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/christianity/origins.htm' target='_blank'>Origins of Christianity</a>
Comments
You may not believe that he is God - great - but for being an actual human being, there is little doubt.
The author of the web site you referenced made one huge mistake. He immediatly wrote off the entire New Testament as a historical document.
Once agian, you may not believe that the NT is inspired, but when holding a document like that up to literary critique, you can't discount that it may have some historical facts in it. Especially since the 4 gospels mention many names of very prominent political figures - Herod, Pontious Pilate.
The author of the site then goes on to try to point out "inconsistancies" in the Gospel records - while at the same time completely disregarding the nature of those records. None of them were attempting to give a day by day, year by year "life of Jesus" - Rather they were each trying to show a different aspect of Jesus. David Icke is trying to look for something the Bible is not trying to provide - and then faulting the Bible on not giving him an almanc on Jesus's life!
As for his "proof" that Jesus didn't exist - selective quoting from schollars of his choice - combined with a leingthy comparison to mythology. Unfortunatlly for David, even the secular scholarly community has accepted that the person of Jesus actually existed.
It appears that Mr. Icke has a vendetta against Christianity. On this fight, however, He has already lost.
I stopped reading when author said the Jesus story was based on
Quetzalcoatl of Mexico
among other dieties. Show me how man of 2005 years ago, in the Middle East, knew about something from what was then not even called "Mexico" and then maybe I'll believe you - is what I said in my mind.
Little "facts" like this are everywhere in that peice. It just detracts from its percieved quality and authenticity.
Much of what is written near the bottom of that article is very much correct. Especially when comparing the other religions to christianity.
I do have one question for you though Pepe.. and this is not intended to offend at all. What happens when ancient text from egypt bear exactly the same message as christianity, yet predate it by almost four thousand years?
The exact same story christianity is telling has been told for thousands of years in almost the exact same words, with minor name changes and/or location changes.
I agree with rob, lets not have a religion vs science debate considering that is a bit too hot of a topic. I'd rather explore the similarities of religions pre-dating current christianity which has a date of about two thousand years, to something that can go back to six thousand years and carry the same message and even the same context.
So here is my plausable explanation - take it for what you will.
Garden of Eden - Man falls into sin - God punishes man. At that same time, God tells man that sometime, somewhere, there will be someone who can set things right (Jesus).
At this point, though, all we have is oral tradition - which gets passed from person to person over the years. Then, we have a flood (worldwide, yeah - I know most of you are sceptics, but that is what I belive) - Noah and his family are saved - again the oral tradition is reiterated.
Concidentally, that would explain why most cultures have a flood story in them.
From there, all the nations of the world split up - (tower of Babel) - each with very similar traditions, and each with a "Christ" being promised, along with all the ascociated names.
Egypt happens to have a very close to correct oral tradition - speaking of a God/Man Horus. However, in egypt, Horus is never placed in time (other than beginning of the world).
To sum it all up - Horus is a mis-named precursor to the comming Christ. He is worshiped as God (incorrectly). Christ then, is the fulfilment of the Egyptian worshiping of Horus (a false god).
Another side note - there was a time when the Jews lived in Egypt - perhaps the distortion of their messiah into Horus was an attempt to "take over" their religion so as to make them loose their national identity. In either case, these are 2 plausable explanations.
However, I must nickpick a little bit.
Supposedly the bible was "written" around two thousand years ago.. give or take a couple hundred years for translations, full stories etc to be complied. That is a fact, not a theory. The fast majority of pastors, bishops etc accept the bible is 2k yrs old.
Now, the egyptian legend is written down six thousand years ago, and is still far older then the bible.
Now.. lets examine the timeline the OT uses.
First I shall use a reference site to assist.
<a href='http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/ottime.htm' target='_blank'>Old Testament timeline</a>
Now I shall use that site, not saying its 100% accurate but it is fairly close to what other sites have determined and the one catholic bishop I called agreed with me, on the time frames. But don't take them literally.
From site.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1900 BC - Jacob, who God renamed Israel.
1800 BC - the Israelites entered Egypt where they remained for over 400 years in eventual slavery.
1400 BC - Moses and the Exodus. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now lets disect this a little bit.
In 1800 BC.. the hebrews <b>entered</b> egypt. That is where I am assuming you get the conclusion they shared their "faith" with the other people of the world.
Now some facts from 1800 BC.
<a href='http://space.about.com/od/astronomyspacehistory/p/year1800bc.htm' target='_blank'>Basic facts from 1800 BC</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The Babylonians began to keep astronomical observational records.
The Phaistos disk, discovered in 1908 dates from 1800 BC to 1750 BC.
The Early Bronze Age began.
The hymn to Ninkasi, the Sumerian goddess of brewing, earliest recipe for beer created.
The Hittites invaded Anatolia.
The Babylonians' sexagesimal system first appeared between 1900 BC and 1800 BC.
The height of Minoan Civilization was 1800 BC - 1550 BC.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Map from 1800 BC.. not completely accurate of course.
<a href='http://www.american.edu/dgolash/slide1.htm' target='_blank'>Map Cira 1800 BC</a>
Now on to the egyptian history.
Reference of course... don't take these date literally after all they are just based upon carbon dating and that isn't 100% accurate.
<a href='http://www.touregypt.net/ebph4.htm' target='_blank'>Egyptian History, Basic example</a>
As for the discovery of the Horus carvings, these have been dated back to 5500 BC, just a little before the Pharohs came into power which would be why "Moses" was rebelling against them.
So.. the question remains, how do you explain that christianity is based off of a 6000 yr old egyptian legend that <b>does</b> predate it by well over, we shall say, 3500 years. With the bible even supporting my claim. Woot, go bible!
*disclaimer* In no way is this meant to offend any one who believes in the bible, I just find the similarities striking.
Anyway - I like your timelines, and they do raise some interesting questions.
If I read your timeline correctly, I think this is how you would write it (simplified)
1. Egypt invents Horus
2. 3000 years later Egypt enslaves Israel
3. Israel adopts Horus as messiah - Moses writes Torah
4. Israel continues to search for Messiah - Christ comes and claims to be Messiah - takes on the stories previously ascociated with Horus (perhaps not even knowing)
It is an interesting timeline - and very believable. I propose one a little different, that starts a little earlier.
1. Flood
2. God tells Noah of Messiah (bright morning star, all that good stuff)
3. Tower of Babel (Nations Scattered - Egypt become full of Egyptians)
4. Egyptians invent Horus from oral tradition passed down - also invent other gods
4a. 3000 years pass.
5. Egypt inslaves Israel (who already have their own similar tradition passed down from Abraham) - Egypt teach that Horus is their god.
6. Moses frees Israel - God comes forward and says I AM - battles egyptian gods (10 plagues was in essence a battle)
7. Moses writes the Torah - fortells coming of Christ - uses language the Israelites would be familiar with.
8. Christ fulfills that.
None the less, it is an interesting topic - one that I haven't researched. Being a Bible literalist, I am more inclined towards the second - but I do see the appeal from the first.
While there is almost no evidence to back that up, historically speaking of course.
I have tried using the uber google searching but other then many christian biased sites, there are no historical refrences to a decent timeline including the supposed "Great Flood." Without using that, and none of the OT timeline sites suggest a time for that either.
I propose leaving out the "Great flood" simply because no one can pinpoint a decent time frame for this to have occured, disreguarding the lack of physical evidence left behind as well.
If you agree, I still claim that all the religions of the world, even the horribly name Scientology are based off of this one egyptian legend.
Even Hinduism? What about the people living in the Americas? They had a completely different set of beliefs from anything Egyptian.
If they are christians in even the most remote way I´m mickey mouse.
But the manuscript does add some intressting things to this discussion.
I wont go into detail, but it does mention the flood and also humanity spent alot of time as clams (some sort of curse allthough the details of why is really vauge)
I just bring this up becuase both of you might find it an intressting read ( if you can get ahold of an authentic copy.. No, I dont have any links for it. They don´t like having their book read by common people)
American indians all had a very similiar tale to jesus. Hinduism as well.
Examples are as follows.
Hinduism has a god-man named Krishna, and below are listed simularities between the two, both Jesus and Krishna.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
#6 & 45: Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
41 & 42: Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
64: Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
66: Both were "without sin."
72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
76, 77, & 78: They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
83, 84, & 85: Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
86 & 87: Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
101: Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
109 to 112: Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
115: Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
121 to 127: Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
128 to 131: Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe... much like the egyptian legend of Horus. Rawr go go actual unbiased websites.
Which for your reference can be found at.
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/' target='_blank'>Relgious Tolerance (Its an .org website woot)</a>
As for the Native americans... Well.. that is more interesting even.
I shall pick a few tribes and show them to you.
Lakota/Dakota:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Simultaneously the Creator and the spirits may be perceived as a single spiritual force, as in the unity called Wakan-Tanka by the Lakota and Dakota. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In addition, many of the native american people do <b> not </b> consider themselves to have a religion it is more a spiritual movement much like humanism of latter today. Which can be traced back once again to the basic egyptian legends/gods/goddesses.
Now if you are referring to the Mezoamerica legends, oh yes, the Aztecs, Inca's and Mayan's had very similar gods/goddesses based upon those in egypt.
Yea but thats the thing, they wern't "based" upon the Egyptions relgions, they were unique to their specific cultures.
I find it hard to belive the Lakota ever had at any point in their history contact with Egypt.
You can find simalarities in anything if you look hard enough.
What about the Sumerians? They had their own set of gods and godeses heres an interesting bit:
<a href='http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM' target='_blank'>http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We know very little about the early Semitic religions, but the Semites that invaded Mesopotamia seem to have completely abandoned their religion in favor of Sumerian religion. Sumerian religion was polytheistic, that is, the Sumerians believed in and worshipped many gods. These gods were incredibly powerful and anthropomorphic, that is, they resembled humans. Many of these gods controlled natural forces and were associated with astronomical bodies, such as the sun. The gods were creator gods; as a group, they had created the world and the people in it. Like humans, they suffered all the ravages of human emotional and spiritual frailties: love, lust, hatred, anger, regret. Among the gods' biggest regrets was the creation of human life; the Sumerians believed that these gods regretted the creation of human life and sent a flood to destroy their faulty creation, but one man survived by building a boat. While the destruction of the earth in a great flood is nearly universal in all human mythology and religion, we can't be sure if the Semites had a similar story or took it over from the Sumerians. This is, of course, a question of contemporary significance: according to Genesis, the originator of the Hebrew race, the patriarch Abraham, originally came from the city of Ur. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kind of suggests the Jews borrowed the story of Noah from the Sumerians, then agian very little of Judaism or Christianity is original.
As it is generally accepted, people began to form civilizations in that middle east area. More specifically it is where this whole crazy notion of living in groups started.
<a href='http://www.touregypt.net/ebph2.htm' target='_blank'>History of Egypt</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Middle Paleolithic: 100,000 - 30,000 BC
Between the Lower and Middle Paleolithic eras, the Abbassia Pluvial ended and the Sahara returned to a desert state. By this time Homo erectus had evolved into Homo neanderthalensis, and began to escape the encroaching desert by migrating to the Nile Valley and to the oases that were left, such as the one at Kharga.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thusly as humans began to spread outward towards the middle east, asia, and americas they took what they had learned from the intial tribe/tribes and spread it around, hence why you find so many similarties amoung all of the relgions that are currently practiced today, whether it be a god-man, or multiple deities.
*edit* Just a very interesting quote I found on that site as well. Again don't take it as law, but is based on quite a few facts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In the Khormusan Industry, stone tools became even more varied and advanced, and tools made of bone and ground hematite became widespread. Of course, these industries did not follow one another one by one, but rather overlap by several thousand years as well as in area. The Khormusan is noted above all for the prolific use of a small, sharp point that greatly resembles the early arrow points of the Native Americans.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again this was 30,000 BC.. that is a LONG time before any native americans and/or mezoamericans were on the contients... most can't even date back past 1200 BC. Over 28,000 years have passed.. lots of time for expansion.
*edit* Bloody typos.
*edit* Bloody typos. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im just ticking off the cultists.
So if you do not wish to know where the RCC (Roman Catholic church) stands on my lovely egyptian theory. You may stop reading now.
Side note, I personally thought this issue was pretty interesting and thusly followed it further, I even went so far as to visit the arch bishop of the SF, SD catholic dioese. (That is were all christians came from anyway, granted Catholics tend to have the most interesting views.)
Now before I begin, I shall divulge a little bit of history of the lovely RCC in Sf.
Over 95% of the population in SF, SD, (read: 213,000 of 225,000) people are claiming to be Catholic, so the vast majority of the population thinks this way.
Alright... now that we have out of the way the lovely city I live in. We shall now discuss exactly what he told me, more or less.
First off, I had to call the cathedral, which is named St. Joesph's. After speaking with Connie (the PR/Secretary), (Yes the RCC here has PR.) I arranged a telephone conversation with him, which took place last night around 8 pm or so.
It is as follows to the best of my recollection and with the few notes I did take down while speaking with him.
Me: Hello, Bishop Carlson (his name of course I knew it.)
Carlson: Hello Misti, (Yes that is my name lol.)
Me: Before I even start this, I suppose you could call it interview, I wanted to say thank you, not many of the priests at the local level would return my call.
Carlson: You are welcome Misti.
Me: Ok, I do have just a few minor questions for you and I'm sure this will take no longer then about ten minutes anyway. So, here we go with number one. I have been doing some research on the various religions of the world and I would like to know what you think of various people comparing Chrisitianity with Hinduism, Buddism, and of course the older Pagan religions, more notably the Norse and of course the old Druids. I mean in terms of how all the religions are using the same myths.
Carlson: That is a question I haven't been asked before. Well of course many of those came after Christianity was founded, most famous would be the Buddist one. The old pagan religions I do not believe hold the same myths that christianity does since they tend to rely on polytheism instead of monotheism like Christianity does. I would say many of the other religions based their stories on Christianity and have been thusly interpeted throughout the ages.
Me: I see, well I guess I really only have one more question then. Can you explain to me how the Dead Sea scrolls only date back to around 1700 B.C. (I found correct date on a DSS website.) Yet there are Egyptian and Hindu legends that date back to around 5500 B.C to 7500 B.C. and mirror the exact stories of Jesus, Noah, and of course Moses. Not to mention many of the older asian religions, Janism, and Budda do actually pre-date Christianity and have very, very similar god-men as their messiah and/or savior.
Intermission: There were about 10 minutes of silence as he thought on this issue. I guess the phone call was longer then I thought it would be. Hehe.
Carlson: I really am not able to answer that one without doing some more research myself. I did not know those specific details of the other legends.
Me: Ok, well thank you for you time Bishop Carlson, you have a nice evening.
Carlson: You have a nice evening as well, my daughter, Go with peace in the Lord.
Me: Bye.
Carlson: Bye.
I have considering emailing the Pope directly, but I don't believe I will get a very good repsonse and he is kind of old and it wouldn't be nice to play havoc with things. I do hope I have helped all those that wish to learn more about various religions and similiarties see where they all began. :-)
I'd also like to thank everyone who participated from letting any emotions get in the way, after all discussions can become very heated and all those that remained calm, kudos to the max.
*edit* It was a longer post so I had a spelling/grammatical error, opps. :-)
Where's Marine0I, anyway? I'd have thought he'd be here by now...
I was curious as to what the RCC would say if they knew their entire religion, in fact almost every one had the same basic myths/stories that the old egyptian one has pre-dating them by around four thousand years, give or take a couple hundred. There is a phone conversation I had with the Archbishop here in SF up above. Sadly I was disappointed because he really did not have very many answers for me. Granted I will admit he probably was not prepared for my questions especially on such a short notice.
Ok, now that the re-cap is over, I shall continue.
I recently found the e-mail for the minneapolis catholic dioscese and I have emailed their archbishop. I am currently awaiting a response and I shall post that email when I do recieve it probably around next week.
So, stay tuned fellow viewers, same egyptian time, same egyptian disccussion forum. Rwar!!!!
Wow. How are we supposed to take you (or anyone who believes this) seriously when you really think that the Noah's Ark story is a real world event. I mean honestly... come on. Look at it from an outside perspective, you look plain loony.
Justifying a tale like that one with "Goddidit" doesn't satisfy me or anyone who isn't brainwashed 5 million times over.
I'm really not trying to flame here, but SERIOUSLY, rethink what you're saying.
OR
You could say that God put a little of Christianity in the religions of people with no contact to Christians, but that's an extremely silly argument to make in a discussion like this.
OR
You could say that God put a little of Christianity in the religions of people with no contact to Christians, but that's an extremely silly argument to make in a discussion like this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is basically what Mormons claim - After Jesus rose up to heaven, he came to North America and hung out with the Indians - buried some artifacts, which Joseph Smith came along and found... along with some extra divine revalation.
@wotlanfear
Here are a couple of links talking about the myths of Egypt in comparison to Christianity. The first is a Main page, addressing multiple myths, the second is the one focusing on Osirus / Horus. They are really long reads, but systematically go through the claims (I gave em a quick skim - and that took me 15 minutes).
<a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html' target='_blank'>Main Page</a>
<a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html' target='_blank'>Osirus / Horus</a>
From reading the Zoroaster article, they seem to think that there is only a similarity if the two religions are exactly the same.
Here's an example:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--># He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
This one is true, sort of -- after 10 years (not 40 days!) of visionary experiences, a sub-demon named J. Buiti was sent by Ahriman (the functional devil-equivalent in this context -- he didn't come himself) "to deceive and overthrow the holy messenger." [Jack.ZP, 51] This temptation involved an attempt to persuade Zoro to renounce the "good religion" of Mazdeism and worship evil spirits -- no bread to stones, no leaps from towers, just talking back and forth with Zoro quoting Persian scriptures. Jackson and Waterhouse indicate no location for this; it could have been the wilderness, but it might have been MacDonald's in Tehran. The story has some roots to the 2nd century BC [Wat.Z, 54] but it bears at best a superficial similarity to the temptation of Jesus.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They seem to think that for the temptation of Jesus to be similiar to the temptation of Zoroaster, it requires the timeframe and method of temptation to be the same. If Christianity took the idea of the devil tempting a messiah from Zoroastrianism, they wouldn't have stolen the entirety of the idea, including the timeframe, because that would be too obvious to anyone familiar with both religions. When preaching to people, someone in the audience who was a follower of Zoroaster could cry out that the story was exactly the same, which wouldn't be good news for the preacher or his religion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--># He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
"Cast out" is a little vague for a description here -- Zoro apparently didn't like demons, but I find no record saying he cast them out of people as Jesus did: This was one of several abilities Zoro had, including driving out pestilence, witches, and sorcerers. There is a record of Zoro healing a blind man, but this comes from a document dated to the tenth century AD -- and he did it by dropping juice from a plant into the blind man's eyes. [Jack.ZP, 94]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, Jesus can cast out demons and illnesses. Zoroaster can cast out pestilence, witches, and sorcerers. Again, this is splitting hairs.
If there are indeed no similarities or stealing (copyright infringement?) from Zoroastrianism, they aren't doing a very good job of arguing that.
This link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm) seems to think that Christians stole very heavily from the myth of Krishna, although the author doesn't quote his cites very much.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If one were to delete from the Gospels the events in Jesus' life that seem to originate in Krishna's story, one would end up with a story of:
bullet A very human, itinerant, Jewish, rabbi-healer.
bullet A teacher who largely followed the teachings of Hillel -- a liberal Jewish rabbi from the 1st century BCE.
bullet An observant Jew who had a special relationship with God -- a kinship so close that Jesus referred to God by the familiar term "Abba."
This is very close to the image of Jesus found by many liberal theologians, in their quest for the historical Jesus.
If the events in Jesus' life that appear to come from Krishna were eliminated as invalid, then most of the key Christian beliefs about Jesus would have to be abandoned: his virgin birth, incarnation, sinless life, crucifixion, descent into Hell, resurrection, ascension to heaven. Criteria for salvation, belief in the Trinity, the inerrancy of the Bible, the inspiration of the authors of the Bible by God, etc. would also have to be rejected.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for the specifics of these things - there really does need to be a direct correlation. Temptation is a relatively widespread thing - so telling a story of temptation would be pretty common. The same thing with giving sight to the blind.
Lets put it this way - have you ever read a commic book? How many people fly? - and therefore are they all a representation of superman?
Obviously not - similar doesn't mean spawned from. The same thing applies when talking about myths (in essence super-hero stories). The thing about Jesus is that he claimes to be the son of God - and his followers believe he is the one and only superman.
(at this point the analogy breaks down and goes flying into the sun).
That's what comes from being the most popular religion in the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the specifics of these things - there really does need to be a direct correlation. Temptation is a relatively widespread thing - so telling a story of temptation would be pretty common. The same thing with giving sight to the blind.
Lets put it this way - have you ever read a commic book? How many people fly? - and therefore are they all a representation of superman?
Obviously not - similar doesn't mean spawned from. The same thing applies when talking about myths (in essence super-hero stories).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that similiar doesn't necessarily mean spawned from. However, if there is a large amount of similiarity between several different things, then there is a great likelihood that they are all stealing/borrowing/copying/influencing each other. I think Christians are against this because it removes the "specialness" of their religion (other religions probably feel the same way).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The thing about Jesus is that he claimes to be the son of God - and his followers believe he is the one and only superman.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This isn't exactly unique to Jesus. Mohammed, Moses, and Joseph Smith claimed that they were the mouth of God. Certain roman emperors claimed that they were gods. The Pope, non-Catholic Renaissance European kings, and others claimed that they were the sole authority over the interpretation of scripture. Sure, if you go down to the minutiae, Jesus is absolutely unique, but so is everyone else. The point is that broad themes carry over very frequently. You can interpret this by saying that religions steal their ideas from each other, or that "wrong" religions have a partial understanding of God that carries over from the "right" religion, or however you want.
That is the whole reason I am attempting to ferret out what kind of excuses I can get from various high-ranking christian officals.
It is also the reason I didn't ask you directly, no offense, but you really don't have a grasp of what the relgious leaders around the world probaby think so I am using a little higher authority to figure out what they are debating about.