My Finally E-mail in the Discussion

It is futile to continue the discussion that I am having on that board. People who claim to be "open-minded" but yet, won't hear anything about Christianity. At least, I admit I have now closed my mind after being a Catholic, Atheist, practicing Hindu, an almost Mormon, into witchcraft, and satanist. My mind is now closed as I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that following Jesus Christ is true.

Anway, this is the last email that was posted by the movie guy, Stan. His is in red and my reply blue. I like how he actually gives evidence to support Biblical claims, but yet, he says it contradicts itself. Funny. I also like how he wants those who claim the existance of Jesus to provide him with credible proof, but yet, he offers none for us with his claims. Internet citation is problematic within research and I'm afraid, that seems to be his extent.

Anyway, I highlighted the portions of his text that I actually replied to in purple to help you out.
I hope you have been encouraged to stand up for Jesus (Although, He doesn't need us to stand up for Him. The point of it is to take a firm stand in what you believe in).


I am the first to admit that Zeitgeistmovie has bias. This is normal, since they are making a point that needs strength to break through the ignorance of the masses. They should have referred to their sources more often, without doubt. Zeitgeist is NOT the end of the discussion, but the awakening of the numb.Many things in the movie already knew. Some things I didn' t know I double-checked. I could not confirm all the facts they stated regarding the simularities between Christianity and other religions, but many of them I COULD find back. The evidence left should still be mindboggling to the ones with an open mind.There some that can' t be helped. Brainwash and ego are terrible things for the weak of mind. I will, however, try one more time to end this discussion with a list of facts, as well as a list of theories. If anyone can prove any of this to be wrongly quoted, or without credible base, feel free to point this out to me with the proper references and I will be silent henceforth.and IsThis is a list of SOME gods and dieties that were born, died, and were reborn again. The resurrection myth is as old as humans are.Aboriginal mythology: Julunggul, Wawalag Akkadian mythology: Tammuz htar Arabian mythology: Phoenix Aztec mythology: Quetzalcoatl, Xipe and Totec Canaanite mythology: Baal Celtic mythology: Cernunnos Christian mythology:Jesus Dacian mythology :Zalmoxis Egyptian mythology :Hora, Osiris Etruscan mythology:Atunis Greek mythology: Adonis, Cronus, Cybele, Dionysus, Orpheus, Persephone Hindu mythology: Trimurti, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, Shirdi Sai Baba Khoikhoi mythology: Heitsi Native American mythology: Kaknu Norse mythology: Odin, Balder, Gullveig, Phrygian mythology: Attis Religion in ancient Rome: Mithras, Aeneas, Bacchus, Proserpina Slavic mythology: Veles, JariloSumerian mythology: Damuzi, Inanna The king of Kings:The idea of the king of kings has prehistoric roots and is found world-wide, on Java as in sub-Saharan Africa. These kings might also be designated to suffer and atone for his people, meaning that the sacral king could be the pre-ordained victim of a human sacrifice, either regularly killed at the end of his term of office, or sacrificed in times of crisis (read the study of Domalde).Among the Ashanti people, a new king was flogged before enthronization.Our lord the PopeFrom the Bronze Age Near East, enthronization and anointment of a monarch was a central religious ritual, reflected in the titles Messiah or Christ which became separated from worldly kingship. Thus, Sargon of Akkad described himself as "deputy of Ishtar", just as the Christian Pope is considered the "steward of Christ".Our lord the shepherdThe king is styled as a shepherd from earliest times, e.g., the term was applied to Sumerian princes such as Lugalbanda in the 3rd millennium BC. (5000 years ago!) The image of the shepherd combines the themes of leadership and the responsibility to supply food and protection as well as superiority.This title was directly transferred to Christ, as was the title of "savior" of semi-divine or deified heroes and rulers, and the title of "Son of Heaven" or "Son of God". As the mediator between the people and the divine, the sacral king was credited with special wisdom (e.g. Solomon) or vision.Our lord ChristIn Egyptian myth, Horus gained his authority by being anointed by Anubis, who had his own cultus, and was regarded as the main anointer; the anointing made Horus into Horus karast, written in Egyptian as ḥr ḳrst, "anointed/embalmed Horus". "ḳrst" is Greek for chrisma which means "unguent" whence the title Christos is derived. Christos was chosen by the Hellenistic Jewish authors of the Septuagint, Alexandria as a translation of Maaḥ because of this similarity.(Tom Harpur,Un.of Toronto)Gerald Massey (1907) compares in particular the embalming of Jesus described in Matthew 26:12 and John 19:39,40 as "making the Christ as the anointed-mummy previous to interment" and refers to Tertullian's claim that the name of the Christians derives from this unction received by Jesus.Our lord J.C.Crucifiction was common practice during Roman rule. So was corruption and deriliction of duty. It is well-documented that few people(in comparison) actually died on the cross. They would not be nailed to the wood. They would be freed at night when relatives or friends would come to the venue to bribe the guards.Crucifiction was always a thing for common people, and NEVER for the wealthy or the famous. Actually, only 2 stories come floating to the surface if one looks for famous crucifictions in the past. Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar. --J.C.--Both crucifictions are said to have happened under Roman rule, and only 32 jears apart, 2000 yrs ago. Coincedence, or simply the same person?Mary and the immaculate conceptionWorship of Isis, Horus' mother, was an important part of religion at the time, and there exists a proposal that this is the basis of veneration of Mary, and more particularly Marian Iconography.The nativity of Christ is similar in some respects to that of Ra, the Sun, in Egyptian mystery religion. Ra is given virginal birth by Neith, who was impregnated by Kneph, the "breath of life", and who had her fate foretold to her by Thoth. A sound-alike to Mary, similar to the case of krst above, is the title of "beloved", "mery", frequently bestowed on Neith.Translations of the dead sea scrolls(old-aramean) into latin were to say the least, incomplete. People simply did NOT have the whole dictionary available to them. Latin has only 1 translation for "woman", "maid" and "virgin", which is "Virgo. Therefore "Mary the woman" could become "Mary the virgin".There are scores of other gaps in translation for those that want to find them. The Trinity:Plutarch states that the Egyptian "kneph" translates to Greek "pneuma", the term for the Holy Spirit. Amenhotep III applied this myth to his wife and the birth of his son, Akhenaten, who was consequently identified as Horus. The bible and the life of JesusA complete religion built on the life and times of Jesus. Jesus is born, gets baptized, starts a brawl in the temple with the Philistines, gives a speech, has a last meal and is removed from the script after the resurrection. What is happening here? The Bible normally is a neverending epic of endless details. It drowns in details. Page after page, numbers, amounts, thoughts, speeches and teachings. There seems no end to it. Jesus lives 33 years and what do we read about his life? As good as nothing. Chapter wisely removed, it seems. This raises essential questions.The Bible:-It is remarkable that the life of Jesus is virtually missing-It was written on ancient scrolls in old-aramean, and then translated again and again. Then it was updated. Whats left is a piece of writing that has no or little relation to the original scrolls. -It was supposedly written by scores of different people in different places, speaking different languages in different times. Not the best bases for a coherent book.-Large parts of the contemporary Bible were never written on scrolls. At least none that the public has ever seen.-The stories in the old testament go back up to many thousands of years ago. Many Christians convienently disregard the old testament, claiming that the New testament is the correct one. This is incorrect, if not absurd, since both books are equally built on quicksand-The old testament, and parts of the new testament has its origins in an era where writing was rare, if not completely absent. The stories in those books were handed down mouth to mouth over many generations by illiterate shepherds, speaking different languages and dialects. The known version that was left after 6000yrs of spoken transfer can therefore in no way be held as a valuable piece of detailed knowledge. It wasn't untill the monks started writing (and later on -printing) that the contents of the stories stopped evolving radically. People then decided on updating the scriptures, leaving out undesirable chapters, breaking away in endless amounts of splinter factions, all of them choosing their own seperate ivory tower and their own dogma. We even had jesus appearing in the USA (God bless America)and thus the Mormons came into existance.Some (of many) contradictions in the Bible: The second Book of Kings,( 3, 27), recounts how King Mehsa of Moab, faced with a strong alliance by the Kings of Israel, Judea and Edom overwhelming his land and besieging his capital, "took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall". This had the desired result, "there was great indignation against Israel" and the three attacking kings had to raise the siege and return to their own land. The Bible does not specify who was "indignant against Israel" but in the context it can only be God; this is remarkable since God is mentioned as having long before abolished human sacrifice, and since the Hebrews rather than the Moabites were God's "Chosen people"; even so, the passage makes clear that Hebrews like other ancient peoples took seriously the power of royal sacrifice in time of national crisis and danger.In Genesis God promises Noah that the water (flood) will never return again and he created a rainbow as proof of his decision.In Revelations there is no end to the destruction, and the water returns again.I will end this for now. I have many pages more of this for those that want to know more. Consider why people need religion to start of with. People need a meaning to their life. They need to answer questions that only "living, thinking and experiencing can answer. People want shortcuts. People want to be important instead of insignificant. People want to hold on to what they were tought because the opposite creates insecurity and ego does not allow it. People feel unsafe and want protection from a stronger person. All these things are embedded in our genes. It is up to us to free ourselves from this line of thinking and stand up for who we truely are: Individuals with common fears and a common future.Stan



Wow! You must be well versed in classical, ancient, and extinct languages! How else will one truly understand the meaning of the phrases within each specific language and culture? Just because we have a word like “resurrection” in English, it doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing within each religion, culture, etc. Remember, the English language is very limited.

For example, Mormons and Christians share the same term “forgiveness.” However, they have two very different implications.

Mormon: Must be earned through what may be "weeks, years, or centuries" of effort. To be forgiven of a sin, one must meet the demands of the Latter Day Saints’ definition of repentance for that sin. God 'remembers' the original sin and you lose your forgiveness if you recommit the sin.

Christian: The undeserved gift of having your sins separated from you "as far as the east is from the west". Because Jesus paid our penalty as our substitute, we are considered guiltless by God. God does not remember our sins.

So already, we have two very different understandings of the same term…and both are from the English speaking language!

To solely base claims based on English or Latin translations is completely unfair and irresponsible research. What does this mean? It means, well, it requires you to do drawn out word studies for each word/term in the original language. You understand the grammar behind each word as prescribed by the ORIGINAL language. You take all the meanings and you string them together to come up with an understanding of that word or phrase.

To state that one has found “tons” of evidence to back up claims seems almost deceptive. I say this because finding “research” on the internet or reading books does not mean that one has found it….Actually, what that means is one has read sources that support what you believe, and in fact you have not done the “research” yourself.

Without a solid understanding of what each word/term means WITHIN each context, truly shows that one does not understand it.

But, of course, you will probably disregard what I’ve just stated and throw more “facts” and “evidence” our way.

As mentioned before, if one part of the research has been proven faulty or fabricated then the rest of the research is not credible. To say that someone is bias or should have cited their research more often is futile. All it does is add more fabrications to their claims!



Three reasons why people ask tough questions about the Bible:

As a barrier to defeat the Christian faith
To show off in front of others
Out of a real desire to find out the answer

Which one do you fall under?

And that’s not an attempt to call you out, just think about it.

But I will say this, if you take the time to truly study out the Bible in GRAMMATICALLY and HISTORICALLY, you will find that, in fact, it does not contradict itself, but rather supports itself.

You brought up the example of 2 Kings 3:27, well, let’s take a look at it. It is not a contradiction at all. By YOUR OWN analysis, you are supporting what God says in the Bible.

When we take a look at Chapter 3 we find that Jehoram reigns over Israel. He is an evil ruler. He imitates the sin of Jeroboam and causes the nation of Israel to fall into sin. The king of Moab rebelled against Jehoram and he went after him. So, he creates this evil alliance between the king of Judah and the king of Edom. As they searched for the king of Moab, they entered into a dry place: no food, no water. They believed that God had brought them together to destroy them, for they knew they were not following God’s law. They also knew they were not trusting God and had taken matters into their own hands.

We see that the kings inquire of the Lord through Elisha. Elisha wants nothing to do with them. Elisha knows they are evil, but he regards Jehoshaphat and inquires of the Lord.

God tells them that He will deliver the Moabites to them and defeat them. God kept his promise in v 24. He delivered the Moabites into the hands of the Israelites and they defeated them. The problem becomes after the Moabites retreated, Israel followed them. The continued to pillage and plunder; killing all in their path.

This is NOT what God told them to do. In fact, again, they had taken things into their own hands by chasing after the Moabites. God delivered them for defeat, but this was not good enough for them; they continued to chase them back to their own land.

Now, to v 26, the king of Moab knew he could not with stand further battle. So, he offered a sacrifice to the Moab god, Chemosh, (see Numbers 21:29, Judges 11:24, 1 Kings 11:7, 1 Kings 11:33, 2 Kings 23:13, Jer 48:7, 13 and 46). This god delights in the blood, murder, and the destruction of mankind.

These people believed that more precious the offering, the more it was accepted by their gods. And therefore, children were the best sacrifice.

Human sacrifice is unacceptable to God because humans are no pure and spotless. Only the blameless can be used for atonement and that’s why God instructs people in the Old Testament to sacrifice certain animals. (Notice that vegetable and fruit offerings are unacceptable).

God becomes indignant toward Israel because THEY CAUSED the king of Moab to offer his sacrifice which is an abomination of heathens (see 2 Kings 16:3). The king of Moab did this to show the Israelites (that is why he did it on the wall) that he was willing to sell his own life rather than to surrender. (We call this “pride.”)

You state: the passage makes clear that Hebrews like other ancient peoples took seriously the power of royal sacrifice in time of national crisis and danger.

Actually, if you read carefully, it does not state this. The passage states, “And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.”

God anger came before they departed. (Which maintains the Bible’s claim that God does not approve of human sacrifice. Never once in the Bible is human sacrifice acceptable in God’s eyes, except through Jesus).

They departed because of God’s anger. The Bible does not record that they felt sorry for the king of Moab. No, God’s anger came upon them because of what they drove the king of Moab to do. And then they left.

Further, your claim of contraction cannot stand because the sacrifice of the son was not offered to the Lord but to Chemosh, as the people of Moab did not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The God of the Bible was not moved on behalf of Mesha, but rather by the evil done by his people.

To take the Bible in context is to consider the entire manuscript, not just within chapter. Remember, there are no chapter breaks in the original text. Those were placed in to make it easier to reference. My Bible is 1323 pages long. Imagine trying to find something from it without a reference system?

Anyway, that little study took me over 1 ½ hours to do. And that was just one verse!

By the way, never listen to what I say or anyone else says about the Word of God. Take what they said about it and judge it in light of the Scripture. What does Scripture say about what someone said…

Take care…