That's right. Most people when seeing those words conjure the image of what has been parroted for 2000 years, Jesus Christ, without realizing they were spoken thousands of years prior by a much older civilization -- the Egyptians.
When one looks into the religious doctrines of past cultures, it becomes plain to see that what we are forced to believe today is no different than the beliefs that came before it. In fact, in regards to Christianity and the Bible, it becomes even clearer how the story of Christ was nothing more than a rehash of much older religious traditions and beliefs that existed in the area.
-- Gerald Massey
And there are many more parallels between Horus and Christ -- the most poignant being the raising of a dead man. From Christians, it was Lazarus . . . For the Egyptians, it was El-Azar-us.
Then there was Mithraism. Mithra was often referred to as the "god out of the rock." Jeusus's origin in a cave is an obvious plagiarism from this source. Mithra, too, was also crucified. It should also be added that the Vatican Hill in Rome that is considered sacred to Peter, the Christian rock, was already a place of worship for Mithras. Many mithraic remans have been found there, showing once again the mythic nature and origin of Christ as being a retelling of other myths.
And there are even more parallels with other religions: Zoroastrianism, in which Zarathrustra also taught of a
Sakia - India
Iva - Nepal
Indra - Tibet
Tammuz - Babylonia
Criti - Chaldea
Attis - Phrygia
Odin - Scandinavia 1
This is just a partial list, but it becomes increasingly clear that the story of Christ was not new, nor original.
Nor was his birth.
Virgin births abounded in stories throughout the history prior to and during the time of Jesus's purported existence. Even the name "Mary" was not original -- you can find variations in the other myths, too.
Maia - Buddha
Maia - Hermea
Maya - Agni
Myrrha - Adonis
Myrrha - Bacchus
Miriama, title of - Krishna 2
But the most damning evidence of all against the historicity of Christ is history itself. For someone who supposedly raised a man from the dead, and who rose from the dead himself . . . For someone who, at his crucifixion the dead rose from their graves . . . Why is it none of this is mentioned in the recrods of the time? Is is not to say there were not any valid historians during the time of Jesus, for we have a whole list of them:
Pliny the Elder
Philo
Justus of Tiberius
Plutarch
Livy
Dion Pruseus
Apollonius
Quintius Curtius
Epictetus
Ptolemy
-- just to name a few
Philo was born before the Christian era and died long after the alleged historical Christ. He lived near Jerusalem when Christ was supposedly born and when Herod supposedly killed all the first-born sons (an obvious rehash of the Moses story). He was there when the crucifixion supposedly happened, when the sky turned black and the dead rose from the grave . . . But he mentions nothing of these events. How could that be? And he was not the only one who stayed silent . . .
It is not fathomable that such a man as Christ, had he existed, not be mentioned by ANYONE who supposedly witnessed him. No diaries, memoirs, or written public accounts. It is also not fathomable that such a man as Christ would be denied by any person or creed as being the Son of God in the face of the supposed miracles that he did -- yet the Jews and many others did and still do.
In the nineteenth century an eminent scholar, Rabbi Wise, searched the records of Pilate's court, still extant, for evidence of Jesus's trial. He found nothing. 3
And, if he DID exist, why WAIT to write his gospels? And why didn't Christ himself write down any of his beliefs and teachings, if he truly wanted to help humanity so much?
Most people have been taught to believe that the Gosepls are four eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus. Well, let's see how they stand up . . .
First of all, historically speaking, the earliest writing is considered to be the Gospel of Mark, located at about 70 a.d. However, even this was not used by the founding church fathers. Paul himself never once mentions any of the four gospels in his epistles.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the book of luke was not written for nearly two hundread years after the event. Theophilus, to whom Luke addressed the book, was bishop of Antioch from 169 to 177 a.d. Even early Popes, such as Clement I, 97 a.d. never quoted from any gospel. Nor any Pope for about a century later. The Catholic Encyclopedia also states that early Christian writers were rampant forgerers -- so we're led to believe these words as honest historical perspectives?
Even Justin Martyr, circa 140 a.d., never quoted from them. And it is also widely known that the Gospels we have today are certainly not the originals. There were several different versions floating around -- so what is the Gospel truth?
-- Lloyd Graham "Deceptions and Myths of the Bible," 1993 Carol Publishing
But don't take my word for any of this. Just look at the Gospels themselves. You will find many differences in each which, if they were subjected to a court of honest inquiry and peers instead of religionists, would be found guilty of fraud.
First of all after his birth, Jesus is taken out of Bethlehem and into Egypt to escape the reign of terror by Herod, according to Matthew. Different story altogether in Luke. After Jesus is born, Joseph and Mary take him to Jerusalem for the census initiated by Cyrenius (which doesn't fall into the time frame for the actual historical Christ, but we won't get into that here). Now I ask you, if Herod had demanded the deaths of all the first born children, then why take Jesus in for the census? You might as well be fulfilling his death warrant. In fact, Luke mentions nothing of Herod's decree whatsoever. And to my knowledge, neither does any other history book. How's that for Gospel truth? Mark, considered the first written Gospel, doesn't even mention the Virgin Birth, nor does John. How could they miss such an awesome event in history as that if it actually occurred?
And there are others, the most poignant being the resurrection story itself. None of the four gospels coincide or match. They do not agree as to what order things occured in, what was said and witnessed, etc. And these are all eyewitness accounts? And we are expected to believe this as TRUTH?
For those who still cling to the hope that such a figure existed, then the question must be asked, Is he really the son of God? Does he really deserve that title?
Look at the evidence. Jesus is contradictory, and ignorant. In Matt 15:4, Jesus said to "honor thy father and mother.", yet in Luke 14:26 we have this: "If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother . . . he cannot be my disciple." -- Is this the wisdom of a God-savior?
How about these:
"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out." -- People did back in the Dark Ages!
"If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off." -- They did that, too!
"Resist not evil." -- What kind of spiritual nonsense is this?
"Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" Matt 5:39 -- then five passages later "Love thy enemy" -- Excuse me?
"Do not pray in vain repitition as the heathens do" (Matt 6:7), then in 6:9 -- "Repeat this at every prayer: Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name . . ." Repeat or not repeat, that is the question.
"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink." -- Okay, I won't worry about heart disease or drinking acid.
"I came not to send peace, but a sword." -- Well, history can agree, his sword wielding has caused PLENTY of death and destruction through Holy Wars and Inquisitions, bigotry and racial hatred.
Jesus says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Yet Jesus himself judges throughout the whole gospel, calling people evil, Satan, how their "reward in heaven is going to be" etc. For a "god" that cannot even follow his own advice, and contradicts himself on a number of occasions, his divinity and wisdom is not valid enough to be in the position the church has placed him in. So why should we believe this character and follow him had he actually existed?
And the ultimate proof of Jesus's ignorance . . . His parables themselves. If God so truly loved the world, why didn't he send someone who could speak to each person clearly and concisely, instead of with parables that are misleading, confusing and can be misinterpreted? The Bible claims God is not the author of confusion, yet it is this same God that created the tower of Babel so that people could not communicate. If God so loved the world, why be so damn contradictory throughout the whole "inspired" book by such nonsense as "Bear ye one another's burdens," Galatians 6:2, then in 6:5 say "For every man shall bear his own burden"? Again, only man could be so foolish, and so many have been so foolish as to believe in it as authentic words from a being separate from themselves, who creates everything like toys for amusement, and needing worship because of sad self-esteem (something I would think God would have no problem with).
These are not the words nor behavior of a true savior of men sent from God -- these are the actions and beliefs of ignornant biblical writers trying to propogate a new socio-political structure onto society, using mankind's view of God and soul as the vehicle.
Again, this man Jesus (who never existed according to archeology and historical records) simply doesn't have the mind and knowledge of spirituality to be anyone's savior. In fact, he even spoke of Jonah and the Whale (or big fish, what-have-you) in a parable, as if that whole story were true . . . Since most everyone can agree that story is a fable -- If Jesus believed it was true, how should we gauge his "knowledge" of heaven and God?
I could go at length here, but suffice it to say, when one reads the Bible and the Gospels objectively, without the tinted glasses of religious zealotry, this figure Jesus is not capable, mentally nor spiritually, to be the Son of God and savior of man (nor is the Bible Itself). Jesus cannot follow his own doctrine, he contradicts himself, and he even loses his FAITH on the cross "God why have you forsaken me?" Gee, isn't this God in the flesh? And if he was, why ask the question? And why be dying for man's sins which HE created in the first place, by being so ignorant for making the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil and throwing it in the Garden? What kind of parent was God for doing that? And don't tell me God didn't know what was going to happen -- this God, remember? Knows all, sees all . . . If God didn't know Adam and Eve were going to "sin," how should we feel about the "knowledge" given in Revelations?
Heck, according to Deuteronomy 24:16 we are not even subject to Adam's sins -- "The children shall not be punished for the sins of the fathers." -- Gee, I think the biblical authors and priesthood really screwed up there. What was Jesus dying for? We're not sinners, according to Deuteronomy -- and Reality itself, as I explain further in this website. Especially if the tale in Genesis is just a tale, and not an historical fact -- What sin WAS Jesus dying for?
Since the story of Christ can be traced to earlier myths from cultures whose religions had their origins in the sky, why would the story of Christ be any different? It's not. The Bible is often referred to as the "greatest story ever told." Well, anyone with sufficient knowledge of religious history knows that the greatest story ever told is the story of the sun and its journey across the sky -- astronomy and astrology. All ancient religions had their impetus from the sun and sky, and the story of Christ is just another clothing of this old tale. Here's the evidence:
The sun was the "light of the world" = Jesus is the light of the world.
As long as the sun came up, there would be "everlasting life," for the ancients knew the generative power of the sun on the environment = Jesus is the source of everlasting life
The ancients used to consider the light and heat of the sun as the sun's life energy, and it shed that everday for the salvation of mankind, and thus the sun was considered "our very savior." = The son giving his life for the salvation of mankind and being considered "savior."
The sun is associated with the twelve signs of the zodiac = Jesus associated with twelve apostles (likewise, the "tribe of Israel" is said to be twelve. It's the same astrological story just in a different clothes).
The ancients considered the sky as the abode of God, therefore God's sun resides "up there in Heaven." = Jesus residing in Heaven.
The sun is astrologically "crucified" on the cross of the equinoxes = Jesus sacrificed on the cross (NOTE: On some church steeples, you'll see a cross with a circle emblazened on it. That circle is the symbol of the SUN, not a man, and therefore PROVES the true mythical nature of what Christ is).
Around December 21-22, the sun stops its movement south and holds steady for three days. It was during this three day pause the ancients considered the sun "dead". Then, on the third day, it started its "rise again" north = Jesus being in the cave three days and rising from the dead "and all eyes saw" -- just as they did the sun! (NOTE: This is also the truth behind the Jonah being in the belly of the whale for three days -- its the sun being its most southward and holding steady for three days)
One can see at sunset, the sun's rays reflecting off water = Jesus walking on the water
In ancient times, the new year did not start in January, it started when the sun was in the constellation Virgo (the virgin), therefore, the sun was always "born of a virgin" = Jesus being born of a virgin.
The sun, two thousand years ago, had entered into the age of Pisces = Jesus being represented by the pair of fishes. Likewise, Jesus said to his disciples in regards to the passover (which would be akin to the passover of the sun from one zodiacal age to another) "Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in" (Luke 22:10) -- which is the astrological icon for the age of Aquarius!
Jesus is said to "come upon the clouds" = The sun rising in the east and seen "coming on the clouds"
Every knee "bows" before the sun = Every knee bows before Jesus
The ancients used to consider the rays of the sun as a "crown of thorns" = Jesus wearing a crown of thorns
And that is just the tip of the iceburg! But the truth is certainly available and easily seen.
Just be honest with yourself -- What is the most realistic story here? That a guy raised somebody from the dead, who rose from the dead himself, and whom, at his crucifixion the dead rose from their graves -- and all this just happened to be MISSED by historians OR that this is a story that has been passed down through generations and civilizations, based off the widely known science of astronomy by those in the know, and re-clothed for the Jewish people and their society/environment?
For an even more comprehensive look into the proof of Christ's mythical origins, check out "THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY" by biblical scholar Acharya S (considered the best on the net by Ra-Harakhte)
FOOTNOTES
1 from "Deceptions and Myths of the Bible" by Lloyd Graham, copyright 1993 by Carol Publishing
2 ibid
3 ibid.
copyright 1998 by Ra-Harakhte (Ra-Harakhte@webtv.net)
