Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6- ... rc=fanpage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Religulous -- The "Jesus Is Fake" Evidence Is Fake

All this "Jesus was copied from earlier religions" stuff has been going around the Internet for a while, and it will make you look awesome if you post it on a Halo message board (or CS.com ) , but none of it is true. The Egyptian links have been debunked by actual Egyptologists.

...
Let's start with the "virgin births" part: You've gotta make some pretty big logical jumps to claim that any of those earlier gods were born from virgins, having come from a mother seven times over (Krishna), some freaky necrophilia (Horus), and a fucking rock (Mithras).

Then there's the resurrection thing. Contrary to Maher's claims, Mithras was never resurrected, and the older versions of the guy's story don't have any of the Jesus similarities -- those came about in the first or second century A.D. (that is, after Jesus was born). Horus, like Mithras, was also never resurrected, didn't have 12 apostles, and didn't raise Asar from the dead (which doesn't translate to "Lazarus" even a little bit). There isn't even any record of a figure call Anup the Baptizer; the closest we come is Anubis, the god of embalming, which astute readers will note is a leeeeeetle different from baptism.

...

None of this means the Christian Bible is right or that it represents the one true religion. But if you think something is bullshit, the answer is not more bullshit.

http://www.cracked.com/members/Erratica/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice source:Amanda Mannen.

Goes by the blog name of Erratica.

Check out this religious scholar:

Real Name: Erratica
Location: Portland, OR
Member Since: October 20th, 2009
Last Seen: August 8th, 2013 3:46 pm
Personal tag line: I am not creative enough to have written a personal tag line yet.
Message board posts: 497


Read more: http://www.cracked.com/members/Erratica/#ixzz2bqgB2xX2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An errata sheet is a sheet of corrections, so Erratica really lived up to her tag here.

There is a Yale theology class available online, taught by Dale Martin, that includes a lecture on how the popularity and spread of Catholicism within the first and second centuries influenced pagan myths.

Erratica is completely on the money when she says the Mithra legends that he was born of a virgin and resurrected were not part of the older accounts of Mithra. These aspects of the Mithra myth were added later in response to the accounts of Christ and in an effort to co-opt the popularity of Catholicism.

And all the while she's funny as she schools you.

JoltinJoe wrote:An errata sheet is a sheet of corrections, so Erratica really lived up to her tag here.

There is a Yale theology class available online, taught by Dale Martin, that includes a lecture on how the popularity and spread of Catholicism within the first and second centuries influenced pagan myths.

Erratica is completely on the money when she says the Mithra legends that he was born of a virgin and resurrected were not part of the older accounts of Mithra. These aspects of the Mithra myth were added later in response to the accounts of Christ and in an effort to co-opt the popularity of Catholicism.

And all the while she's funny as she schools you.

Theology.

The catholic church controlled information for 2000 years with an iron fist.. They are not to be believed, at all. They did and will do anything to make it appear the church was more than it was. You, your Portland pannini addict and your catholic historians continue the tradition.

Christianity is a sham.

Well then...I guess it's settled.

D1B wrote:Check out this religious scholar:

Real Name: Erratica
Location: Portland, OR
Member Since: October 20th, 2009
Last Seen: August 8th, 2013 3:46 pm
Personal tag line: I am not creative enough to have written a personal tag line yet.
Message board posts: 497


Read more: http://www.cracked.com/members/Erratica/#ixzz2bqgB2xX2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JoltinJoe wrote:http://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6- ... rc=fanpage

Religulous -- The "Jesus Is Fake" Evidence Is Fake

All this "Jesus was copied from earlier religions" stuff has been going around the Internet for a while, and it will make you look awesome if you post it on a Halo message board (or CS.com ) , but none of it is true. The Egyptian links have been debunked by actual Egyptologists.

...
Let's start with the "virgin births" part: You've gotta make some pretty big logical jumps to claim that any of those earlier gods were born from virgins, having come from a mother seven times over (Krishna), some freaky necrophilia (Horus), and a fucking rock (Mithras).

Then there's the resurrection thing. Contrary to Maher's claims, Mithras was never resurrected, and the older versions of the guy's story don't have any of the Jesus similarities -- those came about in the first or second century A.D. (that is, after Jesus was born). Horus, like Mithras, was also never resurrected, didn't have 12 apostles, and didn't raise Asar from the dead (which doesn't translate to "Lazarus" even a little bit). There isn't even any record of a figure call Anup the Baptizer; the closest we come is Anubis, the god of embalming, which astute readers will note is a leeeeeetle different from baptism.

...

None of this means the Christian Bible is right or that it represents the one true religion. But if you think something is bullshit, the answer is not more bullshit.

Jesus wasn't born of a virgin either so. The texts were mistranslated (and possibly on purpose.)

Ibanez wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:http://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6- ... rc=fanpage

Jesus wasn't born of a virgin either so. The texts were mistranslated (and possibly on purpose.)

Yawn....the virgin birth.....thousands of religions claim that crap.

I like the one about McDonalds better. Fucking liar, Morgan Spurlock.

Ibanez wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:http://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6- ... rc=fanpage

Jesus wasn't born of a virgin either so. The texts were mistranslated (and possibly on purpose.)

Whether Jesus was born of a virgin is an article of faith.

However, you constantly make reference to translation error with respect to this claim, and that is simply not true.

The earliest Christians no doubt claimed Jesus was born of a virgin. In Matthew's Gospel, the Greek term used to refer to Mary specifically implied she was a virgin ("parthenos"). This was said to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, in which it was said that a "sign" of the Messiah would be that he was born of a "virgin."

Some issue has arisen over the meaning of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 -- "almah" -- since the most accurate understanding of that word would be an "unmarried woman of child-bearing age" or perhaps "maiden." Some note, correctly, that the word "almah" itself does not mean "virgin."

However, both at the time at which Isiah was written and at the time of Christ, a sexually-experienced "almah" would have been culturally taboo. As such, the word "almah" always carried with it an implication of virginity.

At the time of Christ, Isaiah 7:14 was readily understood by the Jews to mean that the Messiah would be birthed by a virgin. Matthew's choice of the Greek word "parthenos" was an intentional choice to signify the understanding that Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Further, his word choice confirms the common understanding of Isaiah 7:14 which existed at the time of Christ. Matthew said Jesus was born of a virgin because that is what people commonly expected of the Messiah, based on Isaiah 7:14. Matthew specifically used "parthenos" because it meant what everyone understood "almah" to mean in the context of Isaiah 7:14.

Finally, the context of the use of the word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 is significant. It would hardly be a "sign" of any significance if a young maiden had sex and became pregnant.

More importantly. The bible is still a book of made up stories.

Vidav wrote:I like the one about McDonalds better. Fucking liar, Morgan Spurlock.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Jesus wasn't born of a virgin either so. The texts were mistranslated (and possibly on purpose.)

Whether Jesus was born of a virgin is an article of faith.

However, you constantly make reference to translation error with respect to this claim, and that is simply not true.

The earliest Christians no doubt claimed Jesus was born of a virgin. In Matthew's Gospel, the Greek term used to refer to Mary specifically implied she was a virgin ("parthenos"). This was said to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, in which it was said that a "sign" of the Messiah would be that he was born of a "virgin."

Some issue has arisen over the meaning of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 -- "almah" -- since the most accurate understanding of that word would be an "unmarried woman of child-bearing age" or perhaps "maiden." Some note, correctly, that the word "almah" itself does not mean "virgin."

However, both at the time at which Isiah was written and at the time of Christ, a sexually-experienced "almah" would have been culturally taboo. As such, the word "almah" always carried with it an implication of virginity.

At the time of Christ, Isaiah 7:14 was readily understood by the Jews to mean that the Messiah would be birthed by a virgin. Matthew's choice of the Greek word "parthenos" was an intentional choice to signify the understanding that Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Further, his word choice confirms the common understanding of Isaiah 7:14 which existed at the time of Christ. Matthew said Jesus was born of a virgin because that is what people commonly expected of the Messiah, based on Isaiah 7:14. Matthew specifically used "parthenos" because it meant what everyone understood "almah" to mean in the context of Isaiah 7:14.

Finally, the context of the use of the word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 is significant. It would hardly be a "sign" of any significance if a young maiden had sex and became pregnant.

More crap. So you not only have to have a Phd in Theology, but also ancient languages to understand even the simplest tenet of christianity.

What kind of fucked up god purposely wraps himself in such mystery and bullshit? Certainly not a god worthy of worship.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Jesus wasn't born of a virgin either so. The texts were mistranslated (and possibly on purpose.)

Whether Jesus was born of a virgin is an article of faith.

However, you constantly make reference to translation error with respect to this claim, and that is simply not true.

The earliest Christians no doubt claimed Jesus was born of a virgin. In Matthew's Gospel, the Greek term used to refer to Mary specifically implied she was a virgin ("parthenos"). This was said to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, in which it was said that a "sign" of the Messiah would be that he was born of a "virgin."

Some issue has arisen over the meaning of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 -- "almah" -- since the most accurate understanding of that word would be an "unmarried woman of child-bearing age" or perhaps "maiden." Some note, correctly, that the word "almah" itself does not mean "virgin."

However, both at the time at which Isiah was written and at the time of Christ, a sexually-experienced "almah" would have been culturally taboo. As such, the word "almah" always carried with it an implication of virginity.

At the time of Christ, Isaiah 7:14 was readily understood by the Jews to mean that the Messiah would be birthed by a virgin. Matthew's choice of the Greek word "parthenos" was an intentional choice to signify the understanding that Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Further, his word choice confirms the common understanding of Isaiah 7:14 which existed at the time of Christ. Matthew said Jesus was born of a virgin because that is what people commonly expected of the Messiah, based on Isaiah 7:14. Matthew specifically used "parthenos" because it meant what everyone understood "almah" to mean in the context of Isaiah 7:14.

Finally, the context of the use of the word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 is significant. It would hardly be a "sign" of any significance if a young maiden had sex and became pregnant.

I'm going to stop right there. Messiah was NOT a term for a religious savior. Messiah, anointed one, as in a king. Messiah, a JEWISH term, that has been twisted to suit the Gentile version of the word.

Messiah:

He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15

JoltinJoe wrote:http://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6- ... rc=fanpage

Religulous -- The "Jesus Is Fake" Evidence Is Fake

All this "Jesus was copied from earlier religions" stuff has been going around the Internet for a while, and it will make you look awesome if you post it on a Halo message board (or CS.com ) , but none of it is true. The Egyptian links have been debunked by actual Egyptologists.

...
Let's start with the "virgin births" part: You've gotta make some pretty big logical jumps to claim that any of those earlier gods were born from virgins, having come from a mother seven times over (Krishna), some freaky necrophilia (Horus), and a **** rock (Mithras).

Then there's the resurrection thing. Contrary to Maher's claims, Mithras was never resurrected, and the older versions of the guy's story don't have any of the Jesus similarities -- those came about in the first or second century A.D. (that is, after Jesus was born). Horus, like Mithras, was also never resurrected, didn't have 12 apostles, and didn't raise Asar from the dead (which doesn't translate to "Lazarus" even a little bit). There isn't even any record of a figure call Anup the Baptizer; the closest we come is Anubis, the god of embalming, which astute readers will note is a leeeeeetle different from baptism.

...

None of this means the Christian Bible is right or that it represents the one true religion. But if you think something is bullshit, the answer is not more bullshit.

The sun god that dies and is resurrected daily is about as old as religion itself.

Ibanez wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Whether Jesus was born of a virgin is an article of faith.

However, you constantly make reference to translation error with respect to this claim, and that is simply not true.

The earliest Christians no doubt claimed Jesus was born of a virgin. In Matthew's Gospel, the Greek term used to refer to Mary specifically implied she was a virgin ("parthenos"). This was said to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, in which it was said that a "sign" of the Messiah would be that he was born of a "virgin."

Some issue has arisen over the meaning of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 -- "almah" -- since the most accurate understanding of that word would be an "unmarried woman of child-bearing age" or perhaps "maiden." Some note, correctly, that the word "almah" itself does not mean "virgin."

However, both at the time at which Isiah was written and at the time of Christ, a sexually-experienced "almah" would have been culturally taboo. As such, the word "almah" always carried with it an implication of virginity.

At the time of Christ, Isaiah 7:14 was readily understood by the Jews to mean that the Messiah would be birthed by a virgin. Matthew's choice of the Greek word "parthenos" was an intentional choice to signify the understanding that Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Further, his word choice confirms the common understanding of Isaiah 7:14 which existed at the time of Christ. Matthew said Jesus was born of a virgin because that is what people commonly expected of the Messiah, based on Isaiah 7:14. Matthew specifically used "parthenos" because it meant what everyone understood "almah" to mean in the context of Isaiah 7:14.

Finally, the context of the use of the word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 is significant. It would hardly be a "sign" of any significance if a young maiden had sex and became pregnant.

I'm going to stop right there. Messiah was NOT a term for a religious savior. Messiah, anointed one, as in a king. Messiah, a JEWISH term, that has been twisted to suit the Gentile version of the word.

Messiah:

He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15

First, you have misquoted Jeremiah 33, and specifically Jeremiah 33:15.

Second, don't confuse "a messiah" with "The Messiah." The term "messiah" means "anointed one" or "savior." The term "messiah" is used a number of times in the Old Testament in reference to various people. However, numerous prophecies of the Old Testament foretell specifically of one great messiah, "The Messiah," or the great savior, who shall be "Immanuel," i.e., "God among us." He shall be born to us as a child and called 'Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

Now, regardless of what you think about religion or Christ, you have to admit that, while these terms of have been used at one time or another to describe others, there is but one individual who has ever lived to whom these titles have been attached and remained.

Mashiach is messiah and as the Jews in the OT understood it, that person would be a political/military leader. A person to save them from the Romans. Jesus was not the messiah the Jews wanted nor was he born of a virgin. That was impossible in 7 b.c.

Research Bar Kokhba.


I don't understand why Christians formed their own religion, yet preach from the Jewish holy books. That is so backwards.

D1B wrote: What kind of **** up god purposely wraps himself in such mystery and bullshit? Certainly not a god worthy of worship.

Actually the commandments Jesus emphasized were pretty simple: (i) love your God with all your heart and (ii) love your neighbor as yourself. He said to accept this with the trust of a child who accepts what parents say.

We make it all more complicated because we refuse to accept it is that simple.

Fact is, we know and understand a small fraction of what is true and real and meaningful. The happiest people I know accept these concepts unconditionally and find meaning in every action and every moment.

On the other hand, I know a lot of great people who just cannot or will not accept it is just this simple; reject God; and move from one transient pleasure to another, without ever finding a genuine over-arching meaning to their lives.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote: What kind of **** up god purposely wraps himself in such mystery and bullshit? Certainly not a god worthy of worship.

Actually the commandments Jesus emphasized were pretty simple: (i) love your God with all your heart and (ii) love your neighbor as yourself. He said to accept this with the trust of a child who accepts what parents say.

We make it all more complicated because we refuse to accept it is that simple.

Fact is, we know and understand a small fraction of what is true and real and meaningful. The happiest people I know accept these concepts unconditionally and find meaning in every action and every moment. On the other hand, I know a lot of great people who just cannot or will not accept it is just simple, reject God, and move from one transient pleasure to another, without ever finding genuine meaning to their lives.

Joe...
Your church has done far more to chase people away than anything Jesus said or did or stands for
or anything anybody else has done (including Atheists)

If that's truly what Jesus stood for:
Why does the Catholic Church insist on burying it under a mountain of bullsh!t
None of which actually appear in the teachings of Jesus..?

If it's really just "all about Jesus"
Then You should quickly disavow yourself from all this extraneous nonsense piled on top

But I think we all know:
It's not about Jesus and it hasn't been since the First Ecumenical Council... The end

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Actually the commandments Jesus emphasized were pretty simple: (i) love your God with all your heart and (ii) love your neighbor as yourself. He said to accept this with the trust of a child who accepts what parents say.

We make it all more complicated because we refuse to accept it is that simple.

Fact is, we know and understand a small fraction of what is true and real and meaningful. The happiest people I know accept these concepts unconditionally and find meaning in every action and every moment. On the other hand, I know a lot of great people who just cannot or will not accept it is just simple, reject God, and move from one transient pleasure to another, without ever finding genuine meaning to their lives.

Joe...
Your church has done far more to chase people away than anything Jesus said or did or stands for
or anything anybody else has done (including Atheists)

If that's truly what Jesus stood for:
Why does the Catholic Church insist on burying it under a mountain of bullsh!t
None of which actually appear in the teachings of Jesus..?

If it's really just "all about Jesus"
Then You should quickly disavow yourself from all this extraneous nonsense piled on top

But I think we all know:
It's not about Jesus and it hasn't been since the First Ecumenical Council... The end

Ok. Nice work Cleets.

What shall we talk about next?

Native Americans have had it figured out for 20,000 years when it comes to religion. We missed the boat fucking them over as we did.


"Hey, Dog's Dripping Cock, I'm runnin' outta frankincense here. Go see that Jewish fuck in town and pick up a dime bag, will ya?"

D1B wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Joe...
Your church has done far more to chase people away than anything Jesus said or did or stands for
or anything anybody else has done (including Atheists)

If that's truly what Jesus stood for:
Why does the Catholic Church insist on burying it under a mountain of bullsh!t
None of which actually appear in the teachings of Jesus..?

If it's really just "all about Jesus"
Then You should quickly disavow yourself from all this extraneous nonsense piled on top

But I think we all know:
It's not about Jesus and it hasn't been since the First Ecumenical Council... The end

Ok. Nice work Cleets.

What shall we talk about next?

I don't know... but I'm certainly not going to stand by and listen to this crap from anybody:

"Actually the commandments Jesus emphasized were pretty simple: (i) love your God with all your heart and (ii) love your neighbor as yourself. He said to accept this with the trust of a child who accepts what parents say.

We make it all more complicated because we refuse to accept it is that simple."

Particularly from somebody as well schooled in the history of religion as Joe is...
That statement is absurd in the context of this forum and considering all that we've discussed

The list of things the Catholic Church has "added to" and stacked on top of what Jesus said is a list so long and complicated it can never be undone / and is truly its own worst enemy
If the population of this planet honestly just followed the actual teachings of Jesus there would be ZERO Catholics

ZERO

Joe, bless his heart, is not well-schooled in religion. Rather, he's brainwashed by one particular sect.

Carry on.