Quantum wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 9:25pm:

[/quote]

There is still a massive hole in the timeline of your suggestion.

How can the Romans get the Horus story, change the name to Jesus and make it a new religion, when Christianity already existed for 3 centuries before the Romans accepted Christianity?

Or are you suggesting that the Romans created Christianity from the Horus story in the 1st century, and then spent the next 3 centuries trying to destroy their own created religion until deciding to accept it in the 4th century? 

I fail to see how you can not be ignoring the near 300 year persecution of Christians by the Romans if maintaining that the Romans simply adopted the Horus story.


Again this brings us back to the future historian and the World War 2 example. Most of our knowledge of World War 2 in books are those which have been written after the war. But these books where written by people who either witnessed or who investigated primary sources but did not put pen to paper till many years later. We accept this delay as perfectly normal and something inevitable. Why is this such a big issue in the ancient world? If someone witnessed Jesus and wrote their account decades latter, how is that any different to Albert Speers writing his account decades later? Is Weinberg's historical work of the War to be dismissed because it was not written until over half a century after the fact? If not, why dismiss an ancient writing that to would have pulled information from other sources but was likewise written decades latter?

These arguments for taking Jesus out of history would require throwing all history in the bin as the standards being set disqualify everything. [/quote]




Quote:


In their final form. They would not have been passed down by word for decades.

Soren wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:42pm:



Now I understand your fascination with me.

.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 11:07pm:


Yet you did with your suggested alternative scenario. Your scenario is not possible because the Roman Empire did not accept Christianity for almost 300 years after Christianity started. Therefore any idea that the Romans simply adopted the story of Horus is straight out impossible.    

Quote:


How did you jump to that? The final form as written down of many letters would have been sourced from other writings. The final form as written down by many letters would was also have been written by the people of that time. There was not decades of story telling until it was written down wrongly by some ignorant stranger years later.   

Quote:


This is just ignorant myth. What the hell does king James (Protestant), the Vatican (Catholic), and the original manuscripts (The Catholic church does not have all of them locked in their vault) have to do with each other?   

We have Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that pre-date the King James bible by well over a millennium. As in 14-15 hundred years earlier. Where do you think they make all these modern day English translations from? They just get the King James Bible and change a few words? What you just said is the same kind of crap you read on why the bible is a lie type web sites. Completely devoid of fact and anti Christian rubbish.

   

John Smith wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 1:38pm:


You can't be serious. You went from suggesting that the Romans simply changed the Horus story to Jesus because the Romans adopted other religions and made them there own. When it was pointed out that the timeline does not allow for that you simply switched to saying you know nothing of the timeline but that doesn't matter because the Romans didn't have to adopt the story at its inception.

That just beings things right back to the start! 300 missing years where the Romans persecuted Christians before accepting it as the official religion. That still makes it impossible for them to have changed the Horus story and invent Christianity if Christianity already existed for 300 years! You can't have it both ways.   

Quote:


There are quotes from other writings. Creeds and tracts that are separate from the Bible that were spread around in Christianity's early years before the Bible was written. This is not a big secret, and it shows that written records from the time of Jesus were already is circulation.   

Quote:


If you don't know what you are talking about why bring it up? A comment like this;

"the gospels you read today are nothing like what was written back then. They were not written in their final form. King James might have had something to do with that .... ever wonder why the vatican refuses to allow scholars to see many of the old manuscripts  that pre date King James that it keeps in its vaults?"

Is total rubbish. What the Vatican has locked away has no importance on what the Gospels we read today say. We have Greek copies that modern Bibles are translated from that pre-date the vaults of the Vatican. Whatever is in there cannot effect the words on manuscripts that go back to the 2nd century. And what the bugger King James - a protestant King of England - has to do with what modern day translations of the Gospel say is even more bizarre.

What the hell are you trying to say? You are just pulling names out of your arse now pretending that you have some knowledge about this stuff. A complete ignorant would read what you wrote and perhaps think "this guy seems to know what he is talking about", but anyone who has studied this stuff can see you are just pulling bit and pieces from here and there, mixing it all together, and just hoping that it sounds intelligent. Well it doesn't, and it shows you have no idea about not just the history of the church, but just history in general.      

Quantum wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:46pm:


how would you even know? god spoke to you? 

There's nothing like somebody who is trying to convince you that something is real despite a complete and utter lack of evidence of that thing's existence.