musicwriter: When you check you'll see where they got it. Meanwhile, it's interesting the bible has no reference or bibliography, yet you believe it without asking for sources.
lol, you have read these books but can't quote just one reference from any that links to a quotation or oral tradition of crucifixion of a god before Jesus, issorite.
musicwriter: I said check the sources in given books. Even two early church fathers (Justin Martyr and St. Augustine) made reference to such older saviors that existed before Jesus. How about Horus you saw holding a cross 5, 000 years before Jesus in the papyrus picture?
where the older savior was crucified on a cross? Why I am sure this doesn't exist is that crucifixion was not something celebrated in the ancient world, it was a stigma in the Roman Empire and it was not invented during the period of the Horus mythology in Egypt, hence ascribing it to a god would have been useless, so I wonder where your sources would have gotten their stories from.
musicwriter: Of course, why not? I'll advise you to download the books and check the bibliography yourself.
Books to download.
Christianity before christ by John G. Jackson.
Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill.
Jesus never existed by Kenneth Humphreys.
Who is this son of glory? ........ I forgot name of author.
The book of the dead by Wallace Budge.
Pagan origins of the Christ myth by John G. Jackson.... this's just a pamphlet of few pages before he wrote Christianity before Christ.
Bible myths and their parallel in other other religions by......I forgot the author's name.
101 myths of the bible- how bible authors invented biblical characters by......... I forgot the author's name.
There're so many other books out there. You can get many for free. Download them and go to their various bibliographies. This would lead you to true history and into the early days of the Jewish sect that would later become christianity and beyond.
ok I would download them, but instead of giving me books, it's surprising that you couldn't give me at least one reference from those books where an Ancient Roman who lived before christ said Mithra was crucified. Because they are books, doesn't mean everything within are all true.
musicwriter: All the books I've mentioned on this thread have one or two paragraphs on Mithra and all the other ancient resurrected saviors. Read them. One source could also be found in the documentary I posted earlier. See the other post and watch the documentary on how Constantine invented christianity by deceit.
Do those books have references at the end? Give me the references they quoted at the end, that's all I want. As for the documentaries, I can also find you documentaries that explores the story of Jesus as an historical figure, so documentaries by themselves are meaningless without scholarly sources or references backing them up.
musicwriter: I also told you earlier that the Romans never had a book on Mithra, rather the story was passed orally. This's one of the reasons they adopted a similar myth held by the early Jewish sect.
But the ancient Egyptians wrote theirs down in papyrus and stone carvings. Read the book of the dead or Christianity before christ. There're so many other books on ancient Egyptian religion.
How then do you know mithras was crucified? okay give me a quotation from any Roman before Jesus that said mithras was crucified. At least that would be proof.
musicwriter: The story didn't begin from Jesus!!. I said before the Jesus story, Rome already had their own version of a resurrected savior called Mithra. The old Roman story was superimposed on the new story of the early Jewish sect.
show me the story before Jesus that says Mithra was crucified.
musicwriter: How it proves that is because nobody outside the bible saw Jesus being crucified. Upon all the marvelous stories of Jesus and the multitude of followers in your Bible but nobody in history said he met Jesus. Therefore, the Jesus story must have been copied from older Horus in nearby Egypt who was also said to have been crucified on the cross. And the cross didn't just signify resurrection. It signified a number of things, such as the way, the truth, life.
show me the Egyptian text that says Horus was crucified.
musicwriter, if Romans want to invent a religion, they would not invent a man dying on a cross, rather he would look very much like your ankhi story where he carries the cross to make intercession for eternal life before God like in your video, but we do not find this in the bible, rather we find that he was crucified. To be crucified in the ancient world of Rome was the worst death given to slaves only, so much so that a Roman citizen was never to be crucified. Wouldn't it then be stupid to invent a religion where the hero was crucified? Think about this. Isn't this why Paul said dying by crucifixion was foolishness to the gentiles and weakness to the jews? can't you see it was a barrier to the message of the early christians?
musicwriter: And I told you the cross is at least 5, 000 years older than the Jesus story. The proof is in the Ani papyrus sitting in the British museum which I attached earlier. There's no other image of a cross any where in the world that's older than that of ancient Egypt.
So how does this prove that Jesus crucifixion was copied from this ankhi in ancient Egypt rather than he being crucified in first century Judea by Romans? Also cross in Mark's gospel was not interpreted as a symbol to eternal life as in ankhi, but it was seen as oppression which it was to first century jews. Also cross used to crucify was invented by the Babylonians 400 years before Jesus. In the gospels, Jesus never stood to intercede with cross as in the ankhi story, rather he was crucified with it, and no where in Christian text is he holding it before God in heaven to bring eternal life, so your ankhi story does not correlate with that of Jesus which was about physical crucifixion ( a common practice of the Romans on criminals)
musicwriter: Where did you copy that from? Even as your account of the origin of the cross isn't accurate but at least you see that the cross predate Jesus. Therefore, the christian cross and the story of Jesus in your bible is plagiarism. It's fake!!.
Jesus is not an original story. It's plagiarism.
I never claimed the cross was invented in the time of Jesus, I said it was invented 400 years prior way after the Horus and Krishnna myths. Read my answers again.
musicwriter: In the papyrus drawing (made before Jesus) which is now in the British museum, Horus is seen holding a cross, which signified RESURRECTION in ancient Egyptian religion. Again, the museum attendant explained the drawing in the second video. Or read it in the BOOK OF THE DEAD by Wallace Budge.
Who invented the cross? Probably originating with the Assyrians and Babylonians, it was used systematically by the Persians in the 6th century BC. Alexander the Great brought it from there to the eastern Mediterranean countries in the 4th century BC, and the Phoenicians introduced it to Rome in the 3rd century BC. In all the gospel stories(especially in Mark, the earliest gospel), the cross in the teachings of Jesus was a symbol of burden which we must carry, it was oppression rather than a symbol of eternal life. Only later in the writings of Paul especially, did cross become somewhat of a symbol for eternal life and the catholics later exagerrated these writings making it similar to that of the Egyptians which you talk about here. But cross as a form of crucifixion was not known until 6th century BC.
musicwriter: You're being shown evidence all the time but your religious dogmatism isn't allowing you to think, not even to examine something given you.
In the picture attached in the last post and also in the second video you can see Horus shown holding a cross. The cross already signified RESURRECTION in ancient Egyptian religion about 5, 000 years before your Jesus. In the second video given earlier, the event drawn in the picture was thoroughly explained by the attendants at the British museum. And no, the story of Horus was at least 5, 000 years older than any Jesus. Again, there were so many such saviors and messiahs in ancient time.
Your early church leaders were aware of that fact and indeed used it to encourage the older saviors. Another early church father, Justin Martyr, said "And if we even affirm that he (Jesus) was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you already accept of Perseus."
Perseus was another ancient virgin born messiah who died and resurrected before anybody heard of Jesus. What else do you need to wake up?!!
Sorry these are not strong enough evidences to.prove that Jesus was created from Horus. It is more reasonable to believe that a jew was crucified by Romans since this happened all the time in first century judea than to believe the Horus conspiracy. Virgin birth was common in ancient mythology but it was not a central focus of all christian authors. Matthew(or Author of Matthew) got his version from his interpretation of Isaiah's prophecy( Isaiah 9v6), not Perseus. Can you give me the texts from ancient Egyptian religion mentioning cross? not videos but links to read them from a scholarly source.
musicwriter as for the quotes or teachings of Jesus which you gave e.g Do unto others what you would have them do unto you, that teaching is called the golden rule, it was not copied from old gods but rather a repetition of the teaching of Hiliel ( a Jewish rabbi) which Jesus reversed to make it more actionable. The Hiliel version is what was common in all religions and fables.
musicwriter: I told you already that Rome also had their version of a resurrected savior called Mithra. The Greeks also had their version of a resurrected savior called Dionysus. So, it wasn't a new concept to them.
Everything about Jesus was copied from older saviors believed for thousands of years before Rome and Greece came to power. But it wasn't used to enslave people.
Example; the saying "I am the way, the truth and life. No one cometh to the father except by me" was first claimed by the African God-son called Horus here in Africa and it was documented in papyrus (ancient books) over 5,000 years before anybody heard of Jesus. This's why the older books have to be outlawed by Rome once the bible was written. Also in terms of the teachings of Jesus which you say are copied from Horus, Buddha, etc Give me the original quotes of these gods similar to that of Jesus. You don't just claim things. Do unto others what you want them to do unto you wasn't copied from older fables, it is a unique version of the golden rule which Jewish rabbi Hiliel ( who lived 100 years before Jesus) taught, but both he, Buddha, Confucius, etc didn't state it thesame way. There are other claims you made which on close scrutiny is likely also blown out of proportion, but I don't have the time now.
There were older saviours before Jesus's supposed time. All the bible quotes were actually copied from older sayings by older saviours, such as Zoroaster, Horus, Mithra, Buddha, Tammuz, etc. Do unto others as you'll have them do unto you, reap what you sow, love thy God your God, thou shall not kill, thou shall not lie, come to me all ye that labour, I am the way the truth and life, love thy neighbour as yourself, No one cometh to the father except by me, etc, were copied from older saviours into the bible and Koran.
Everything from the bibles concept of heaven, hell, resurrection are all found in the book of coming forth by day and night a.k.a the book of the dead. In the below drawing (attached) made several thousands of years before anybody heard of Jesus, an African God-son Horus (the resurrected son of God Osiris) is seen holding a cross while taking a dead man through the gate of hell. The emblem of cross signified SALVATION before Jesus!!.
Before anybody heard of Jesus, we already had an emblem of a cross in Africa called ankh and it meant SALVATION or ETERNAL LIFE. But they've lied to you that the cross originated from Christianity and that Jesus is the way. If Jesus is real; how come there was already a cross signifying RESURRECTION before anybody heard of Jesus?
Europeans succeed in hijacking your original African spiritual system and giving you one designed in their image. You no longer have any recollection of your ancient spiritual system because they've set the meaning and context for God in your head. But you don't realize he who sets the context for God, sets your spiritual truth.
Now, let's return to the story of the dead man and Horus....
Fortunately, the dead man made it through the gate of hell and Horus is seen taking him to the father (Osiris/God) on his throne because it was said that he (Horus) is the way, the truth and life. No one cometh to the father (Osiris) except by him. This's where the bible authors copied the concept.
Its in drawing for all to see!!
The scenario I narrated above could be seen in the attached picture and can also be viewed in the 2 short video clips below.
I never said the cross originated from christianity, the cross originated about 400 years before christianity and was not in existence wen the myth of Horus and Krishnna were created which were about 1000 years plus prior. Almost every myth or story that skeptics bring as examples of copying cannot be traced to the original but usually reinvented after the facts, if not I challenge you to give me original manuscripts or examples of Horus, Mithras, Buddha, etc being crucified, and then dying and rising after 3 days. When you check, it is usually not part of the original myth of these various fables or it is usually overblown to make it seem like it's similar to Jesus, that's why present day scholars in the field after studying the matter, hardly take these claims seriously. As for Horus as the way, truth, and life, I am ready to accept that the version of John 14v6 could be copied from it but I want you to give me the link to the original Horus myth, then your story would be more authentic to me than that of other skeptics.
sonmvayina: Does a fables...they are stories just like jungle book or Aladin...watch them and learn the message in the story..
Snake symbolises or means "to charm" or beguile...
Donkey in the Balaam story. Donkey is a beast of burden. You have to read the whole story to know.
Jonah story is about God will coming to pass, nothing can stop it. No matter how man may have strong head..
Ah sonmvayina, I think you are confused here.
Anyway Jesus called himself a bread because the ancestors of the Jews needed bread or manna to survive on their way to the promised land. Jesus already said man shall not live by physical bread alone but by the word of God. So to eat jesus as bread is to understand the word of God spoken by Jesus, while to drink his blood is to accept the new covenant that arose due to his death just like the passover lamb was slain before the ancestors of the jews could be set free.
musicwriter: Bro. you're not yet ready for your freedom. But I hope some day you will.
St. Augustine never said Jesus didn't exist. He was doing a hard-sell to unbelievers trying to get them understand that Jesus was no different from the other pagan gods they already believed. The people St. Augustine was talking to already knew that Horus was born by a virgin before Jesus, Horus had 12 disciples before Jesus, Horus did miracles like healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the poor before Jesus, Horus was crucified on the cross before Jesus, Horus resurrected from the dead before Jesus. Etc.
St. Augustine was a kind of asking the people; if you believe in Horus, why not believe in Jesus? And the people would have, of course, replied him; why do we need to believe in Jesus when we already have Horus?
So that's why St. Augustine would say that. When the British got to India, the Indians ask them similar question; why do we need to believe in Jesus when we already have two people in India (Buddha and Krishna) who had same qualities before Jesus?
That's what I'm saying. Give me the link to the full quote of this discussion of Saint Augustine with the people or any scholarly work that tells us that Horus was crucified on a cross and rose from the dead after 3 days. This is not believable, because during the era of the Horus myth in Egypt and Krishna myth in India there was no such thing as crucifixion on a cross. This is why I say until we see the full text of what Augustine and the people were discussing, we cannot take your conclusions as factual. There is likely a misunderstanding or quote out of context. Also John F Kennedy and another American president ( forgotten the name) were similar in many ways, does it mean both never existed, so why can't Jesus and Buddha be similar(besides Buddha was not even born of a virgin, nor was he baptized, crucified, or ressurected). Think about it, skeptics say Jesus alone is similar to Horus, Mithras, Krishnna, Buddha, etc. and the Romans who created Jesus seemed to know about all these gods from far and wide, isn't that laughable?
You go to hell for not obeying the teachings of Jesus according to Matthew 25v31-46. There is nothing about belief or accepting his blood sacrifice there. It is simply about not caring for your fellow men among you who need help. This was also the problem with the rich man who refused to care for Lazarus and these were the only instances where Jesus described Hell vividly.
Hell is simply a spiritual state or place where there is gnashing of teeth and wailing without the water of life ( that is the Holyspirit). It is regret of the children of God who were supposed to show love to their fellow men but didn't.
musicwriter: St. Augustine is simply saying that the belief around a deity such as Jesus wasn't new. There were other "messiah's and saviors" before anybody heard of Jesus. Indeed, the full quote ends with something like "existed among the ancients and was never not". Simply google the quote and it'll take you to so many sources. Or read it in Christianity before Christ by John G. Jackson.
I have read a lot of Saint Augustine and even his critics would not accuse him of saying Jesus never existed. What he is saying there of course is that other messaiahs and deities existed before Jesus, which we all know and is nothing new. That doesn't counter the fact of the existence of Jesus or the christianity Augustine himself believed in.
musicwriter: If you want to find the answer to that question, I said you should go and find out what St. Augustine meant when he said "the same thing which is now called Christian religion existed among the ancients. They have begun to call 'Christian' the true religion which existed before."
Rome didn't create christianity from scratch. They edited and influenced the original Jewish writings to create the religion now called Christianity. That's what St. Augustine is telling you above!! The true religion existed before Christianity which is but a Roman copy of ancient beliefs!! I didn't say so, it's your church father St. Augustine himself. Again, go and find out what's that true religion that existed before christianity. In doing so, you'll discover the truth yourself.
Give me a link to the full text and quote from Saint Augustine. It is most likely that you misunderstood him because Saint Augustine never implied or asserted that Jesus didn't exist. Even from your quote, it seems to me he is saying what we know as christianity in terms of the moral teachings and some of the doctrines also existed among the ancients. He is not saying Jesus and early new testament characters didn't exist. You say Rome didn't create christianity from scratch but Amujale(the op) is not implying that and he is only just arguing for black power (which is good), but he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about. As for your statement about Rome creating some parts of the doctrines of the present day Religion, I agree this may be true, but it happened at a later time most certainly from the evidence so far.
budaatum: Only ignorant fools read it literally. Your London rabbi must have taught you that so stop playing ignorant.
He is always willing to say parts of the old testament are metaphorical even though some conservative jews today would not agree with him. But he is ready to criticize all parts of the new testament that may also be metaphorical. Isn't this what we call double standards?
musicwriter: You cannot find the truth about christianity within christianity. So, are you ready to read books outside of christendom where you'll the truth?
Of course, there would've been thousands or even millions of people called Jeshua (original Jesus name for Jesus, which just means God saves) but the Jesus character in your bible did not exist. That's certain. It's a fictional work copied from ancient pagan gods. Example and since you like mentioning early church fathers, here is what early church father St. Augustine said "the same thing which is now called Christian religion existed among the ancients. They have begun to call 'Christian' the true religion which existed before."
So, an honest early church father opened up the truth. I challenge you to go and find out more about the "true region which existed before" but now called Christianity.
I am ready to read all books and I've been doing that for some time. My question to you is: Are you open to new information that differs from your ideology and beliefs?
I never said there weren't many people called Yeshua. This statement of yours adds nothing to the debate. Josephus speaks of James the brother of Jesus and Paul in Galatians also speaks of this same particular jesus calling him christ as did Josephus. It means paul and Josephus were likely speaking of thesame Jesus and James, or isn't it more logical to infer that rather than conspiracy theories without proof?
I don't care what the name of the religon of Jesus is called, what I am almost certain of is that there was a Jesus and a religion built after him, and no it wasn't created by Rome. The new testament as a whole doesn't come across as what ancient Romans can create, this is why I'm asking for your evidence that they did and you've given me nothing so far as proof.
musicwriter: Wasn't the bible supposed to be from God? If you could indeed find something inside that you can't believe, it means it was created by infallible man not God.
There's nothing special or holy or spiritual about the bible. It's an ancient work of imperial powers to rule their citizens by keeping their heads cool.
What is bible? there are 66 different books there and who told you they weren't created by fallible men? When did God start writing books? I don't know if the books are special or created by imperial powers to rule their citizens. That is your opinion and the burden of proof is on you.
musicwriter: When Rome came to power and conquered the Greeks, they both ruled that region with Rome in upper hand. That's where you get Greco-Romans. They both created christianity.
It's easy to assert this, but there is no evidence. It could also be that jesus existed but not all stories about him are true. That's a more logical stance. Maybe christianity existed from the jews but some parts of it have been corrupted.
musicwriter: Please keep your response in one post. If you don't believe everything in the bible, you shouldn't believe anything there at all.
So if you don't believe everything in whatever volume of books you read, you shouldn't believe anything in part of it at all? Even in school, do you believe everything your professor told you? I don't understand your thinking here.
musicwriter: Greece was also once a colonial power in that region before Rome, so Greece also colonized the Jews and like every other colonial power, they gave them a new religion or at least tried to influence their Jewish faith.
Whatever those Hellenized Jews did was the beginning of Greco-roman take over of the beliefs of original Jewish sect. Indeed, that was the beginning of the creation of Jesus!. That was the beginning of the problem!!
Note: Please keep your argument in one post.
ok so who created jesus now? Romans or Greeks or both?
musicwriter: The problem is that the person that gave you Jesus also gave you the scholarship sorrounding it. So, it'll be difficult for you to realize there're wealth of other "scholarship" outside of your school of thought.
Caesar's Messiah is a scholarly work by Joseph Atwill. Christianity before Christ is a scholarly work by John G. Jackson. Jesus never existed is a scholarly work by Kenneth Humphreys.
So, what else do you mean by "scholarly" ? By the way, that word "scholarly" makes you sound irrational because you didn't need a scholarly work to believe the bible. Sorry, about that if you feel I am going strong on you but if I am wrong, answer me below.
Do you have any "scholarly" work that verified that Jesus was born by a virgin?
Do you have any "scholarly" work that verified that Jesus walked on water?
Do you have any "scholarly" work that verified that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead?
Do you have any "scholarly" work that verified Jesus resurrected from the dead?
Is the bible itself a "scholarly" work? If yes, tell me, who peer-reviewed the bible?
If you have "scholarly" work on the character called Jesus in your bible, please share it with me and I'll gladly apologize to you and convert to Christianity.
Here are names of recent popular new testament professors both atheists and Christians. I cannot find the name of any of your scholars there, it means your research on the matter are either outdated or from Historians who are not specifically new testament historians.
musicwriter: The problem is that the person that gave you Jesus also gave you the scholarship sorrounding it. So, it'll be difficult for you to realize there're wealth of other "scholarship" outside of your school of thought.
Caesar's Messiah is a scholarly work by Joseph Atwill. Christianity before Christ is a scholarly work by John G. Jackson. Jesus never existed is a scholarly work by Kenneth Humphreys.
So, what else do you mean by "scholarly" ? By the way, that word "scholarly" makes you sound irrational because you didn't need a scholarly work to believe the bible. Sorry, about that if you feel I am going strong on you but if I am wrong, answer me below.
Do you have any "scholarly" work that verified that Jesus was born by a virgin?
Do you have any "scholarly" work that verified that Jesus walked on water?
Do you have any "scholarly" work that verified that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead?
Do you have any "scholarly" work that verified Jesus resurrected from the dead?
Is the bible itself a "scholarly" work? If yes, tell me, who peer-reviewed the bible?
If you have "scholarly" work on the character called Jesus in your bible, please share it with me and I'll gladly apologize to you and convert to Christianity.
And who told you I believe everything in the bible? Who is Joseph Atwill, John Jackson, and Kenneth Humphreys and when did they write? did they write within the late 20th century and the 21st century in the light of recent research? Are they particularly new testament scholars who study new testament manuscripts?
musicwriter: There's no original text of the bible anywhere in the world. The only thing that could be said to be original text are the Nag hamadi and the dead sea scrolls found about 1957 or there about. Indeed, they date to the first century. But before you get too excited, the biggest size, is about the size of a credit card, according to a researcher, Kenneth Humphreys. So it's not enough to use them to prove the bible was not written by Rome since it's patches here and there. Everything other manuscript in any museum, no matter how highly held by christendom is a copy of copy of copy of copy.
The rule of thumb is that any writing that's not in Hebrew or Aramaic which is the language Jesus and his disciples would have spoken is fake, fraud, scam. In fact, anything in Greek is not authentic because the supposed Jesus and his disciples were not Greeks.
There are manuscripts of the new testament dating well before Constantine ( 2nd and 3rd century especially) and they are not small. There are also Church fathers like Iraneus and Pappias who lived in the early 2nd century. Also Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic and didn't claim to write anything. The manuscripts of the gospels we find from the 2nd and 3rd century ( scattered all over even to Ethiopia) are all in Greek which was a general language in the Empire and that is to be expected. To say that because the new testament books were written in Greek by unknown authors, therefore they were created by Rome is not a strong arguement in my opinion. Why couldn't they have been created by Hellenists of this new Jewish sect?
When I was researching the history of christianity, I got to a point where I was asking the same questions you have above. Those questions consoled me for sometime that the bible and Jesus must be real until I discovered the MOTIVE of Rome and the FACT of the matter.
Yes, Vespasian and his brother Titus ,and indeed, other Roman rulers were enemies to the early Jewish sect (it wasn't called Christianity yet) and they killed them in thousands. At the same time they had been scheming to influence their faith by writing a book that would pacify them in order to keep their heads cool.
This turmoil between the Jewish sect was raising the political consciousness of other ethnicities/nationalities under the Roman empire (same way Nnamdi Kanu has raised the political consciousness of other regions of Nigeria) to secede. So, the initial motive was to quell the Jewish sect which was causing major disturbance in the empire and not to destroy Christianity because there was no such religion yet. It wasn't because Rome had special hate for the Jews, rather they just wanted to calm them down. But no matter how much Rome tried they refused to bow to Rome until their ultimate destruction in 70 AD.
Constantine....
Before the time Constantine became Emperor, the empire was no longer one but had divided into four parts because different nationalities under the Roman empire had already adopted the message of the Jewish sect and they kept agitating for freedom even after the defeat of the Jewish sect itself.
The message of the Jewish sect (that would later be called Christianity) didn't stop to spread after chasing the Jews away. In fact, it made it worse for Rome. Keep this in mind because you said "If Romans want to create a religion to dominate the world, it wouldn't be such a contradictory religon like christianity"
Remember what I said earlier. The Roman empire had divided into four before Constantine became emperor and four potential emperors were vying for who shall rule the empire. Constantine came up with a very good idea on how to defeat his opponents so that he may become emperor and bring back Rome under one rule. He reasoned that since they were millions of this radical Jewish sect in the empire and their illegal beliefs is causing secession, that it would be nice to make a deal with them. He said to them that if they could be on his side and help him fight off his rivals and he become emperor that he would make their faith legal in the whole empire. But this was a BIG trick, in fact, a scam.
The christians in their eagerness to practice their faith openly, agreed. Indeed, Constantine won the battle against his three other rivals and became emperor. But instead of making the good old faith of the Jewish sect the religion of the empire, he refurbished the religion of the Roman empire. This's verifiable because the God Constantine himself worshipped till death was Apollo and Mithra.
Mithra was born by a virgin. Mithra performed many miracles, like healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the poor, etc. Mithra was crucified on the cross. Mithra resurrected from the dead on the third day. Mithra ascended into heaven. Etc, etc.
However, the Romans had no written works about Apollo or Mithra but just oral history and mythology which as you can see above looks same as christian mythology. Fortunately for Constantine, his predecessors Vespesian and Titus already dropped an idea to future emperors of what to do to pacify and influence the belief of the Jewish sect. The idea was to take over the beliefs of the Jewish sect and make them obedient to Rome. That's clean politics!. Very fantastic!!. Properly understood, you'll realize there's nothing contradictory about Rome so called making christianity the religion of their empire. But let me not get ahead of myself.
So, Constantine used the books of the Jewish sect, edited it and added whatever he wanted (such as pray for your enemy and pay your tax) and he banned the reading of other books read by same Jewish sect. This caused yet another form of unrest but it was gotten under control after many years of killing the Jewish sect yet again.
Constantine did not make the original faith of the Jewish sect the religion of the empire!. This's the view being promoted but if you do your research two levels deep, you'll discover for yourself the truth about Constantine. He killed his son, his wife and in-laws few months after so called becoming a christian. He strangled his son to death and boiled his wife in a drum of hot water few months after supposedly converting to christianity!!. You'll never hear this in your bible school or church. Constantine himself was never a christian. Example; he refused to be baptized. It's said that his friends out of shame baptized him on his death bed when he had no more power to resist them. Constantine did not convert the Roman empire to Christianity, he merely reinvented Mithraism, and that's what is now called Christianity. The good old Christianity (believed by the early Jewish sect) has long been destroyed and replaced with Roman Christianity.
The below two documentaries will throw more light on the above, if you're looking for history. Watch it in the order it's posted.
Origin of Christianity- the Peso Flavian dynasty. This documentary is from the book; Caesar's Messiah.
Also comparisons of Jesus to Mithra or Horus are usually blown out of proportion. They do not come out of scholarly circles and have been debunked many times. There are some comparisons like baptism for instance, and of course maybe you could say virgin birth ( but even virgin birth is not in all gospel descriptions ). However I am yet to find scholarly documents or evidence( not blogs) of Mithra rising from the dead after 3 days. Most of the mythicism comparison stories have been debunked by many scholars in the field ( both christian and non Christian) as blown out of proportion to a large extent but I wonder why skeptics keep bringing them up in their blogs without sound research of scholarship on the matter.
When I was researching the history of christianity, I got to a point where I was asking the same questions you have above. Those questions consoled me for sometime that the bible and Jesus must be real until I discovered the MOTIVE of Rome and the FACT of the matter.
Yes, Vespasian and his brother Titus ,and indeed, other Roman rulers were enemies to the early Jewish sect (it wasn't called Christianity yet) and they killed them in thousands. At the same time they had been scheming to influence their faith by writing a book that would pacify them in order to keep their heads cool.
This turmoil between the Jewish sect was raising the political consciousness of other ethnicities/nationalities under the Roman empire (same way Nnamdi Kanu has raised the political consciousness of other regions of Nigeria) to secede. So, the initial motive was to quell the Jewish sect which was causing major disturbance in the empire and not to destroy Christianity because there was no such religion yet. It wasn't because Rome had special hate for the Jews, rather they just wanted to calm them down. But no matter how much Rome tried they refused to bow to Rome until their ultimate destruction in 70 AD.
Constantine....
Before the time Constantine became Emperor, the empire was no longer one but had divided into four parts because different nationalities under the Roman empire had already adopted the message of the Jewish sect and they kept agitating for freedom even after the defeat of the Jewish sect itself.
The message of the Jewish sect (that would later be called Christianity) didn't stop to spread after chasing the Jews away. In fact, it made it worse for Rome. Keep this in mind because you said "If Romans want to create a religion to dominate the world, it wouldn't be such a contradictory religon like christianity"
Remember what I said earlier. The Roman empire had divided into four before Constantine became emperor and four potential emperors were vying for who shall rule the empire. Constantine came up with a very good idea on how to defeat his opponents so that he may become emperor and bring back Rome under one rule. He reasoned that since they were millions of this radical Jewish sect in the empire and their illegal beliefs is causing secession, that it would be nice to make a deal with them. He said to them that if they could be on his side and help him fight off his rivals and he become emperor that he would make their faith legal in the whole empire. But this was a BIG trick, in fact, a scam.
The christians in their eagerness to practice their faith openly, agreed. Indeed, Constantine won the battle against his three other rivals and became emperor. But instead of making the good old faith of the Jewish sect the religion of the empire, he refurbished the religion of the Roman empire. This's verifiable because the God Constantine himself worshipped till death was Apollo and Mithra.
Mithra was born by a virgin. Mithra performed many miracles, like healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the poor, etc. Mithra was crucified on the cross. Mithra resurrected from the dead on the third day. Mithra ascended into heaven. Etc, etc.
However, the Romans had no written works about Apollo or Mithra but just oral history and mythology which as you can see above looks same as christian mythology. Fortunately for Constantine, his predecessors Vespesian and Titus already dropped an idea to future emperors of what to do to pacify and influence the belief of the Jewish sect. The idea was to take over the beliefs of the Jewish sect and make them obedient to Rome. That's clean politics!. Very fantastic!!. Properly understood, you'll realize there's nothing contradictory about Rome so called making christianity the religion of their empire. But let me not get ahead of myself.
So, Constantine used the books of the Jewish sect, edited it and added whatever he wanted (such as pray for your enemy and pay your tax) and he banned the reading of other books read by same Jewish sect. This caused yet another form of unrest but it was gotten under control after many years of killing the Jewish sect yet again.
Constantine did not make the original faith of the Jewish sect the religion of the empire!. This's the view being promoted but if you do your research two levels deep, you'll discover for yourself the truth about Constantine. He killed his son, his wife and in-laws few months after so called becoming a christian. He strangled his son to death and boiled his wife in a drum of hot water few months after supposedly converting to christianity!!. You'll never hear this in your bible school or church. Constantine himself was never a christian. Example; he refused to be baptized. It's said that his friends out of shame baptized him on his death bed when he had no more power to resist them. Constantine did not convert the Roman empire to Christianity, he merely reinvented Mithraism, and that's what is now called Christianity. The good old Christianity (believed by the early Jewish sect) has long been destroyed and replaced with Roman Christianity.
The below two documentaries will throw more light on the above, if you're looking for history. Watch it in the order it's posted.
Origin of Christianity- the Peso Flavian dynasty. This documentary is from the book; Caesar's Messiah.
So what you are saying is constantine is the author of the Christian texts or that he edited it. If this is true, then how come we have manuscripts of the Christian texts and church fathers dating to the 2nd century and well before Constantine? Have you read the Didache from AD 70, was that also edited by Constantine and Rome? oh come on.
When giving me answers, give me answers about scholarship on first and second century christianity( or the Jewish sect), not Constantine all the way in the 4th century. I know so much about Constantine and what you wrote here is nothing new. I've never met any christian who considers Constantine a hero of christianity.
Culture › Re: Why Didn't Eurocentric's Write A Correct Version Of African History? by GeneralDae: 9:40pm On Mar 21, 2021
