Legal wrote:All that I can say is that a pretty interesting part of the video is when it mentions how the Star 'Sirius' aligns with the '3 Kings' in Orions belt.

Now I know you say that his Birthday was not on the 25th of December. I've found from here...

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

... that the 25th of December arose as his birthday to follow with some Roman traditions.

I also think this is very interesting

https://youtu.be/Hg2nB5mrZbE?t=6m54s

I don't really have much to say about it to be honest. You make a good case for a lot of it.

Do you mean the whole video after that, or just that one point with Virgo?

mini0013xx wrote:

Legal wrote:All that I can say is that a pretty interesting part of the video is when it mentions how the Star 'Sirius' aligns with the '3 Kings' in Orions belt.

Now I know you say that his Birthday was not on the 25th of December. I've found from here...

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

... that the 25th of December arose as his birthday to follow with some Roman traditions.

I also think this is very interesting

https://youtu.be/Hg2nB5mrZbE?t=6m54s

I don't really have much to say about it to be honest. You make a good case for a lot of it.

Do you mean the whole video after that, or just that one point with Virgo?

Just the one point

Legal wrote:

mini0013xx wrote:Do you mean the whole video after that, or just that one point with Virgo?

Just the one point

First and foremost, there weren't kings that visited Jesus, as far as I know. The document says there were wise men, and there was no number given. (Matthew 2) Thinking this way is like thinking that the fruit that Adam and Eve ate was an apple. Nobody knows what fruit they ate, and it's absurd to say that any fruit we eat today is the fruit on the tree if we don't have any evidence for that fruit being on the tree.

As for the virgin birth, this is a fallacy in thinking to think it was of an astrological sign. Biblical prophecy clearly tells us that he would be born of a virgin. There are other prophecies of his birth that came true, which will be linked in my second source link. It gives you bits and pieces of the bible, which is just too much to write down.

The east star is also prophesied, speaking of a light in the eastern gate or something like that. (I read it a little bit ago in one of the prophetical books. But prophecy gets a bit dry, and I'm not about to go read through 200 pages of prophecy to find one verse.)

Source 1: The Holy Bible http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+2&version=KJV << Actual scripture for the wise men claim.(KJV)
Source 2: http://www.100prophecies.org/page2.htm
Extra Link: http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/why/why_09.htm

Unless you have anything else to add to your argument, I'm going to assume that this debate is over.

That being said, anybody else wish to throw a topic out here, I'll gladly reply. Same goes for you legal, if you wish to post a new topic on here, please do. But remember everybody, 1 argument at a time.

mini0013x wrote:As for the virgin birth, this is a fallacy in thinking to think it was of an astrological sign. Biblical prophecy clearly tells us that he would be born of a virgin. There are other prophecies of his birth that came true, which will be linked in my second source link. It gives you bits and pieces of the bible, which is just too much to write down

There is no scientific proof that a virgin can or ever will give birth. That said, there is no evidence that such a thing could not happen for some weird reason. So it is pretty cool regardless of what happened.

mini0013x wrote:The east star is also prophesied, speaking of a light in the eastern gate or something like that. (I read it a little bit ago in one of the prophetical books. But prophecy gets a bit dry, and I'm not about to go read through 200 pages of prophecy to find one verse.)

It's not hard to predict the path of a star, even in those days. Someone could have done it.

Legal wrote:

mini0013x wrote:As for the virgin birth, this is a fallacy in thinking to think it was of an astrological sign. Biblical prophecy clearly tells us that he would be born of a virgin. There are other prophecies of his birth that came true, which will be linked in my second source link. It gives you bits and pieces of the bible, which is just too much to write down

There is no scientific proof that a virgin can or ever will give birth. That said, there is no evidence that such a thing could not happen for some weird reason. So it is pretty cool regardless of what happened.

mini0013x wrote:The east star is also prophesied, speaking of a light in the eastern gate or something like that. (I read it a little bit ago in one of the prophetical books. But prophecy gets a bit dry, and I'm not about to go read through 200 pages of prophecy to find one verse.)

It's not hard to predict the path of a star, even in those days. Someone could have done it.

Clearly you don't understand the concept of God. If He can create the Earth in 6 days, he can make a virgin give birth to a child.

The star was specifically said to be seen from the east gate of Jerusalem. The star was right over the top of Bethlehem, specifically on top of Jesus' house. (At least when he was an infant). It was there only a few months, and then never appeared again. Never before there, never there again. Hard to predict that.

The star was also incredibly bright, because the Magi who went to see Jesus were from Persia. That's a long walking distance away.

Who said the Earth was created in six days? It wasn't. Especially not in the way Genesis describes. For several hundred millennia, the Earth was volcanic and dangerous.

'Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so…'

So in several seconds fruit appeared onto the Earth, along with trees and other vegetation. He missed out several million years there (if not more). There was not fruit for a very long time and there is lots more evidence for this than a book that says God did it all in six days. And what even is six days? Six days is meaningless. God is omnipresent. Six days on which planet? It's all so meaningless.

Legal wrote:Who said the Earth was created in six days? It wasn't. Especially not in the way Genesis describes. For several hundred millennia, the Earth was volcanic and dangerous.

'Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so…'

So in several seconds fruit appeared onto the Earth, along with trees and other vegetation. He missed out several million years there (if not more). There was not fruit for a very long time and there is lots more evidence for this than a book that says God did it all in six days. And what even is six days? Six days is meaningless. God is omnipresent. Six days on which planet? It's all so meaningless.

This post breaks the rules of the thread legal!
But I can say for a fact your understanding of biblical creation isn't very large.

mini0013xx wrote:

Legal wrote:Who said the Earth was created in six days? It wasn't. Especially not in the way Genesis describes. For several hundred millennia, the Earth was volcanic and dangerous.

'Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so…'

So in several seconds fruit appeared onto the Earth, along with trees and other vegetation. He missed out several million years there (if not more). There was not fruit for a very long time and there is lots more evidence for this than a book that says God did it all in six days. And what even is six days? Six days is meaningless. God is omnipresent. Six days on which planet? It's all so meaningless.

This post breaks the rules of the thread legal!
But I can say for a fact your understanding of biblical creation isn't very large.

Explain what I don't understand. I just got my info straight from the Bible.

Legal wrote:

mini0013xx wrote:This post breaks the rules of the thread legal!
But I can say for a fact your understanding of biblical creation isn't very large.

Explain what I don't understand. I just got my info straight from the Bible.

Then you've probably read around 2 to 3 verses of the whole book.

In the beginning, God creates heaven and Earth. Now, there is a bunch of stuff that happens in heaven before God does anything in the Earth, explained later. There isn't much detail on the time period in which the time before the war for heaven, or after before God starts creating the earth.

The earth during that whole time was a big mess, very chaotic, formless. (Could easily represent molten). After the large events before happened is when he created the earth.

Now can we lease get back on topic? I don't want this thread filled with that creation v evolution argument that always goes nowhere. That's why its a thread rule!

mini0013xx wrote:

Legal wrote:

mini0013xx wrote:This post breaks the rules of the thread legal!
But I can say for a fact your understanding of biblical creation isn't very large.

Explain what I don't understand. I just got my info straight from the Bible.

Then you've probably read around 2 to 3 verses of the whole book.

In the beginning, God creates heaven and Earth. Now, there is a bunch of stuff that happens in heaven before God does anything in the Earth, explained later. There isn't much detail on the time period in which the time before the war for heaven, or after before God starts creating the earth.

The earth during that whole time was a big mess, very chaotic, formless. (Could easily represent molten). After the large events before happened is when he created the earth.

Now can we lease get back on topic? I don't want this thread filled with that creation v evolution argument that always goes nowhere. That's why its a thread rule!

Sure thing.

Another interesting video about Jesus and his simiralities to other Gods.

I just wanna throw it out there, that I really don't think that the earth was created in 6 days.

In other places of the bible the word "day" is very often used to describe periods or cycles. If you read the original sentences in the creation story, it also becomes more clear that a day does not necessarily mean 24 hours, translations are always a little inaccurate.

So yeah, 6 days doesn't have to mean a week, it could have been millions of years divided into 6 periods. The bible is know for being very poetical in it's descriptions.

Mad Mike wrote:I just wanna throw it out there, that I really don't think that the earth was created in 6 days.

In other places of the bible the word "day" is very often used to describe periods or cycles. If you read the original sentences in the creation story, it also becomes more clear that a day does not necessarily mean 24 hours, translations are always a little inaccurate.

So yeah, 6 days doesn't have to mean a week, it could have been millions of years divided into 6 periods. The bible is know for being very poetical in it's descriptions.

I'd have to agree with you, mainly because on the omnipresent scale of a God, a 'day' has no meaning. On other planets, a day could mean just a few hours or it could mean several hundred Earth hours, depending on how it orbits its parent Star. Time is relative. God's day may be 1 million years.

Legal wrote:

Mad Mike wrote:I just wanna throw it out there, that I really don't think that the earth was created in 6 days.

In other places of the bible the word "day" is very often used to describe periods or cycles. If you read the original sentences in the creation story, it also becomes more clear that a day does not necessarily mean 24 hours, translations are always a little inaccurate.

So yeah, 6 days doesn't have to mean a week, it could have been millions of years divided into 6 periods. The bible is know for being very poetical in it's descriptions.

I'd have to agree with you, mainly because on the omnipresent scale of a God, a 'day' has no meaning. On other planets, a day could mean just a few hours or it could mean several hundred Earth hours, depending on how it orbits its parent Star. Time is relative. God's day may be 1 million years.

Alright, both of you are off on this one.

It WAS a six day thing. Why? Because the day was measured by "evening and morning".
Also, days were only recorded AFTER there was light, as it was the first thing God did after the fall of the angels.
"... And the evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1:5
"... And the evening and the morning were the second day." Genesis 1:8
"And the evening and the morning were the third day." Genesis 1:13
"And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." Genesis 1:19
"And the evening and the morning were the fifth day." Genesis 1:23
"... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Genesis 1:31

He was also on Earth at this time, as it says in Genesis 1:2, "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." -Genesis 1:2

This means that God was moving on the Earth. God can do this, there are many recordings from Genesis and onward stating that God can walk around the Earth whenever he wants. Angels can do the same, as the bible clearly tells you that angels have and will continue to come down to the earth and interact with people on the planet. They will always enter in as a human, in a human body, they will interact with the one they need to interact with. God is known to do this a lot with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Genesis, later on.

Now on to your claim Mike, saying that it was a poem. Take a look at the structure and historical accuracy of the Genesis account. From the combined kingdoms Amorite invasions of Canaan to the destruction of Sodom and Gammorah, these things have all been proven to be true. Moses didn't write poems, he wrote facts. He wrote laws. He wrote what happened. This is why Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all seem to have a dull appearance, and vagueness. It's a factual sort of thing. In fact, Biblical books were like this, based on this sort of format all the way up to the Song of Solomon! (Though it could go back to the book of Job).

The attacks on psalms include things such as "The Earth is flat!" argument because of poetic metaphoric statements made by the writer of Psalms.

And after the Poems, come the prophecies. Then the new testament, with more events, then the letters of the apostles, and then finished off with, again, prophecy.

The only one I can really debate about in this one, is the book of Job, which, due to it's dramatic intro with the invasion of Chaldeans into Canaan (which is a historical event that happened during the times of Genesis, when Job was recorded) could actually be considered an ancient Israeli epic, though Job wasn't an Israelite.

In any case, you're both wrong.

Legal wrote:
Another interesting video about Jesus and his simiralities to other Gods.

I thought I remembered the name Mithra, and I remember where I remember it from. Zoroastrianism. (In Persia he was called Mica though).

So, the man Zoroaster lived around 2000-1500 BC. The god Mithra probably entered into Rome from some way, whether it be through influence during one of their many invasions with the greeks, or their conquering of the nation of Phoenicia, which in turn would have influenced Carthage and then later Rome or the Etruscans. Maybe the influence leaked through the Hittite Empire from the Persians, who were once known as Elam. That detail doesn't matter, the point is that he got into Europe somehow, and into Roman mythology somehow. I don't personally know, but I do know that the Hittite empire was around at that time due to an Indo-Hittite treaty saying such things.

It doesn't seem like Christianity stole the story, not at all. Jesus's purpose here was to save humanity from sin, which is caused by the individual. If Jesus saved humanity from sin by dying as an everlasting sacrifice of a sinless man (Jesus). Jesus didn't kill any primeval bull, at most he royally screwed over Satan. (Didn't kill him. Also, Satan doesn't look like a bull. He's considered the most beautiful thing God ever created. Also, he looks like a human, not the red bull with a pitchfork. He's also not in hell yet.)

Mithras demanded sacrifice, thus the alters. Jesus WAS the sacrifice, thus making all sacrifice after that to be useless. (As a matter of fact, God would probably take it as an insult, because by doing so you'd be rejecting your savior which died for you.)

Also, "worthy of sacrifice and prayer". Jesus was the son of God. He said clearly that he wanted people to pray to the father (Yahweh, as his name respectively is), not himself. He allowed people to use his name against demons. (Demonic entities are afraid of Jesus, mainly because he's a part of the trinity of God... and when you mess with God, well, you get what I'm going at.)

Now, Mithras was the "lord of light" (also of agriculture. That's typical paganism), and attached to the sun god, as the documentary says. I might go deeper into this later to see if it's even true considering how badly wrong the last video was. But for now, I'm not taking many sources, except a few wikipedia links to jog my memory a bit. ANYWAY, he was the lord of light, not THE LIGHT. Furthermore, he was the son of a sun god, Jesus, while known as the son of God, is a part of the trinity of God. (AKA, 1/3 of what makes God God.) This means he's more than JUST the son.

She even says that he wasn't a savior god in the documentary. (He wasn't seen as such).

Mithras offered a life after death, something promised WAY back before Jesus, though not stressed upon, by the Jewish peoples. They talked about Hell a lot, actually, in the Old Testament, however the New Testament there was a lot of stress on both, and less on law. (OT focused a LOT on law.)

The guy says that the sense of feasting was a similarity to Christians. The feasts were things that happened to them that they celebrated. For example the feast of the Passover, a rememberance when God killed every firstborn child in Egypt, those who put the firstborn lamb's blood on top of the doors of their houses were saved. They would have a feast to commemorate the day that God DIDN'T kill the first born of those who listened.

As for working for your own good... not neccessarily true either. You work for God in Christianity, and you still have to make an attempt to please him. (And nobody can ever really please him. It's impossible.) You work to help others in need, and to spread his word so that OTHERS can be saved. He abolishes a lot of the law, mostly the cleanliness laws, but at the same time, keeps a lot of them as they are a morale standard!

A lot of the laws he saved the people from were Judaic traditional laws, which weren't included in the law book.

As for the early Christians, you gotta give to them that their sense of history outside of Israel and their local locations would clearly have been poor. The world we live in now is far more historically superior to a 2nd century person. Think about it.

Egypt was exposed to Judaism a lot more than these people realize. As was the Babylonian empire (Nebucanezzer the 2nd converted to Judaism. The Babylonian Talmud is the rival to the Israeli Talmud in the written oral law. (The oral law was the other half of the law of God not written down in the books of Moses. If you read the Talmud, something that I myself have failed to do, it fills up the "contradictions" in the law, like what to do if rape occurs and what not. Also, fun fact, the Babylonian Talmud is extremely long, containing over 2.5 million words).

Greece, Phoenice, Syria, the nations of Asia Minor and Assyria also were extremely influenced and in some areas converted to Judaism. Christianity would have fit well there, considering most Jews converted to Christians.

Now, I wouldn't go too far as to say whether or not the Egyptians account of Osiris would be very great, they are very much like Sumerians. The religion changes based on the regions. At some point, it changed so much that the ancient Egyptians in the North Kingdom worshipped entirely different gods than those in the South.

She mentions corn bread... which makes me wonder about her credibility or not. Corn derived from Maize, which was located in the Americas. Just saying, I would actually read the stories behind Osiris, and Mithras, AND Jesus, before making any claims about this sort of stuff.

Now the bread and the wine. Wine - with Romans - was a much better thing to drink than water back then. There were no filters or anything to make these things, these waters clean for humans to eat. However, the wine had water inside of it, and could be sold for a price.

That being said, people would rather drink wine than water back then. That was a trend that lasted for a LONG time. Water was used for cleansing.

As for bread for Jesus, they used bread because that was basically all they could ever get their hands on. Meat was for the rich, but for the poor, wine and bread was your every day thing. Not many Jews were rich back then, or not many people at all for that manner. There are many records of high rates of malnurishment among the people under the Roman empire, and this is the cause of it. Most of them could really only eat bread and wine. (They did eat meat... every once in a while...)

Last but not least, with Isis giving birth to Horus, the Egyptian savior, that wouldn't make much sense. You've already read my post on Horus however.

Anyway, when I have the time, I'll get back to this, and give out sources for my information if you require them but not now because I've spent a good couple of hours responding to everything on this thread, haha. I want a break, my eyes hurt.

There is a big difference between writing a poem and expressing somthing poetically.

If I say "the day of the dinosaurs" do I mean that the dinosaurs only exsisted for 1 day? Of course not.

I'm not gonna go over this and explain, just read this article: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
Read the part about the hebrew words and you'll see that it's not so obvious as you may think. Translations can really mess things up.


My favorite example of messed up translations is when Jesus says: "I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Now why would he use a camel in that analogy? I makes no sense at all! There is a very simple explenation: in Aramaic (which Jesus spoke) "rope" and "camel" are actually the same word! I know this from my own experience aswell, because I also speak a modern dialect of Aramaic and we use the same words.
When it was translated into greek, they chose the wrong word...

It makes alot more sense when you put the word rope in that sentence instead of camel doesn't it? See how translations can mess things up?

mini0013xx wrote:

Wow, that must have taken a long time to type. The award for most dedication goes to mini.

Mad Mike wrote:There is a big difference between writing a poem and expressing somthing poetically.

If I say "the day of the dinosaurs" do I mean that the dinosaurs only exsisted for 1 day? Of course not.

I'm not gonna go over this and explain, just read this article: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
Read the part about the hebrew words and you'll see that it's not so obvious as you may think. Translations can really mess things up.


My favorite example of messed up translations is when Jesus says: "I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Now why would he use a camel in that analogy? I makes no sense at all! There is a very simple explenation: in Aramaic (which Jesus spoke) "rope" and "camel" are actually the same word! I know this from my own experience aswell, because I also speak a modern dialect of Aramaic and we use the same words.
When it was translated into greek, they chose the wrong word...

It makes alot more sense when you put the word rope in that sentence instead of camel doesn't it? See how translations can mess things up?

I would argue back but I don't know Aramaic.

I wonder if there's like, an online tutorial for it.

Seriously, how'd you learn that? Hook me up bro.

mini0013xx wrote:Seriously, how'd you learn that? Hook me up bro.

His church uses it for their official language, so he probably learned it from his parents/family/church community.

mini0013xx wrote:I would argue back but I don't know Aramaic.

I wonder if there's like, an online tutorial for it.

Seriously, how'd you learn that? Hook me up bro.

I learned it from my mom...

Bro, I am syriac/aramaic!

Maybe this completely ruins your image of me being some blonde, blue-eyed swedish viking (although I think I have mentioned this a few times before).
But I was born in Sweden and have always lived here!

What I speak is a very modern dialect of Aramaic, also called modern Syriac (languages naturally evolve over time). Although the version we use in church is much closer to what Jesus spoke, we call it the scriptural language. I have a cousin who can speak that fluently, since he's a deacon in the church.

I can also read and write in our alphabet (again, this is the modern alphabet), which looks like this:

Spoiler:

(It probaly sounds very confusing, alot of people haven't even heard of Syriacs and think that aramaic is a dead language... so feel free to ask any questions and what not:)