For the Christians, what are the last words of Jesus (as)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dawud_uk
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 229
  • Views Views 29K
It might "make more sense", but it would be false. Again, I think you are putting limitations on God's divinity by placing Him in a box He cannot escape from. God is not of the flesh. Christ had a full human nature. The Son did not become the Son as a result of His birth. He was always the Son. However, upon accepting the limitations of the flesh, Christ was submissive and depended upon the Will of the Father. The Tri-unity is and always was God.

Having said that, as I mentioned, there are many who believe this separation never took place. That Christ was merely quoting a Psalm to voice the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.

It is almost pointless to guess given that there is no Scriptural description of what Christ meant or whether any separation occurred at all.

I hope you would pay more attention to the parts bolded. One step closer to Islam.

Anywhoo, I was waiting for the "you are limiting God" comment...really I was.I am not limiting anything. God has said he is one. You have just admitted that your explaination of God would make more sense if you admitted to being polytheistic.

If you want to play the "limiting God" game then I say Hindus who say that the many different gods are part of one whole, have a BETTER god than you.

Why limit God to a trinity? Why not 20 different Gods then? Vishnu, Shiva, Brahman, Ganesh? Why are you limiting God with your trinity?


You tried to give an explanation. Admitted that Christian theology would make more sense if you worshipped more than one god. Then backed up and tried to give an explanation but added that noone really knows and that the answer cannot EVEN BE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE!:enough!:
 
Last edited:
glo, how do you deal with the many contradictions in what you consider to be the word of God such as the one i have pointed out here?
I don't consider the point reaised in your OP to be a contradiction at all for reasons I gave in post 15. Did you read it?

Peace :)
 
Exactly, it was a "sacrifice" and a recreation of the Abrahamic event. Abraham was attempting to sacrifice his son to God based on God's command. Much of religion is based on re-enactment rituals. Muslims re-enact Abraham's sacrifice and Christians re-enact Jesus' Passion (his last days) every Sunday. It is nice that the meat is donated to the poor. But wouldn't it be better if we were all vegetarians and thus left a lighter carbon footprint.



This is common knowledge and I don't need to reference 100 examples of Muslim literalism. But I will give you this example. Muslims often bost that their book is read in the original language and claim that it has never been altered. If this were actually important to Christians; there would not be 1.3 billion Christians existing still 1400 years into Mohammed's mission. The claim falls on deaf ears reading Dostoyevski in Russian, Goethe in German, and Shakespeare in English are all nice but certainly not mandatory. Islam is legalistic whereas Christianity is more literary. Case in point: Islam has the Shariah and Christians are general content with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.



Same with Protestants. Catholics have to "confess" to another person.

There is no use talking with you or arguing with you. You completely ignore the facts I tell you and the links I give you and maintain that the goat sacrifice ( reenacting Abraham's trial which had nothing to do with sin) is comparable to blood atonement.

You ignore the literal example I gave of Christian theology, and how it rests upon those examples BUT still maintain your silly notions about Islam and CHristianity.

1.3 Billion Christians in Muhammad's (pbuh) time? Thats news to historians. I'll tell you what, your idolatrous views masquerading as monotheism fall on deaf ears when told to the billions of Muslims and millions of Jews who ALL view you as polytheistic. Let's not even get into the fact that most converts to Islam are CHristians. I guess not all ears are so deaf huh?:)

In conclusion try going back and grasping the immense problems that arise when your Biblical scripture isnt even consistent with itself.
 
Last edited:
I don't expect you really want an answer to your question ... do you?? :D

To answer it anyway, I used to read the NIV only, but recently I have begun reading other Bible versions too.
Once a week I meet with other people from our church for Bible study. Between us we use several different Bible versions - and it is always interesting to read the differences in translation, and to use those for discussion and debate.
Those discussions alone are another way of getting to know and understand God's word better. :)

There are some Christians who will insist on one particular Bible version, and disregard all others.
Personally speaking, I don't have those concerns.
Reputable Bible versions are not just pulled out of thin air. They are written after careful study, consultation and discussion of Bible scholars and those who have knowledge and understanding of the oldest manuscripts.

I understand how important it is for Muslims to preserve the Qu'ran as closely to its original as possible (I have heard that some changes were made to the Qu'ran, but I have neither specific knowledge of this, nor do I want to take this thread too far off topic).

Christians, on the other hand, are ensured that God's Word and message will be preserved (even through different Bible version). Ever since the books of the Bible were put together in it's final form, people have trusted that God's hand and protection was in that process, and that those in charge of the process were guided by God.

Different Bible versions alike describe how God's relationship with his people developed.
They all contain God's message to us.
They all describe Jesus' life, teaching and purpose to us.
They all call us to seek to know God more through Jesus Christ, to take up our cross and follow him.

Peace :)


True I don't want to go off topic much really but your Bibles right now have tenuously similar messages simply because opposing schools were wiped out in the early years of CHristianity and many other "Christians" were killed as heretics while having their books burned as blasphemy after a debate that raged for hundreds of years.

History is written by the victors. Yet we should all wonder what the losers had to say.
 
True I don't want to go off topic much really but your Bibles right now have tenuously similar messages simply because opposing schools were wiped out in the early years of CHristianity and many other "Christians" were killed as heretics while having their books burned as blasphemy after a debate that raged for hundreds of years.

History is written by the victors. Yet we should all wonder what the losers had to say.

We do know what the losers had to say. The views of Arianism and the various other sects are easily found. Arianism even sent missionaries to the Visigoths and converted many of them. However, in terms of mainstream Christianity their views were considered heretical. They didn't use different books, they proposed different beliefs about known Scripture.
 
I hope you would pay more attention to the parts bolded. One step closer to Islam.

Anywhoo, I was waiting for the "you are limiting God" comment...really I was.I am not limiting anything. God has said he is one. You have just admitted that your explaination of God would make more sense if you admitted to being polytheistic.

No, I didn't say that, but nice try. I stated that when it comes to contemplating the issues surrounding God the Father and God the Son it might make more "sense" to call them two "gods", but of course that is not our belief, regardless of what "sense" it makes to you.

If you want to play the "limiting God" game then I say Hindus who say that the many different gods are part of one whole, have a BETTER god than you.
Okay, if that makes you feel better.

Why limit God to a trinity? Why not 20 different Gods then? Vishnu, Shiva, Brahman, Ganesh? Why are you limiting God with your trinity?
I'm not limiting anything. I just accept the descriptions of a Triune God as laid out in Bible. That is why I'm a Christian.


You tried to give an explanation. Admitted that Christian theology would make more sense if you worshipped more than one god. Then backed up and tried to give an explanation but added that noone really knows and that the answer cannot EVEN BE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE!:enough!:

Here we go again. I didn't say that Christian theology would make more sense...we were discussing the issue of God the Father possibly forsaking Christ the Son. I stated that it might "make more sense" to you, which is what you stated, but that it wasn't Christian belief.

As for the explanation, of course. It is a theological debate even to this day. No explanation was given to us for the meaning of Christ's last words on the cross and what the significance was. It becomes another mystery of God.
 
actually Christianity is but a revival of paganism nothing Abrahamic about it

from Brother Mcpherson, who no longer participates because he is sick of all the bull

The Greeks and Romans converted to Christianity because it resembled their previous beliefs!

Paul produced a religion which encompassed different contradictory elements. He took the Unitarianism of the Jews and added to it the philosophy of the pagans”.

Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”.

I was unaware of the claim that the Devil plagiarized Christianity in advance of Jesus’ life. Of course, they don’t see that the Devil (Shaytan) is not All-Knowing but rather only Allah knows the future.

The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.

The article illustrates just how pagan the Christian religion really is and that despite their good intentions they may be the biggest losers on that Day. And Allah knows best. This brings to mind a quote that Jesus supposedly made in Matthew 7:21-28 Not every one that says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you: depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’ Therefore everyone who that hears these words of mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain fell, and floods came, and the winds blew, and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and does not act on them not, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and slammed against that house; and it fell - and great was its fall.

It seems to me that the Christians build their elaborate house of religion on sinking sand (myth) that will come tumbling down on that Great Day. Christians will admit that Jesus’ life and teaching is not what is important to them but rather his death and resurrection are the focus of their worship and the foundation on their religion. If Jesus never died on the cross, as we believe, then their religion is clearly just a myth. Note the quote that I underlined about practicing lawlessness. Paul has repeatedly stated that Christians aren’t under the yoke of the Law, hence no circumcision, no ritual prayer, no fasting, and eating of pork among Christians. It is interesting how their own book condemns the Christians. In contrast don’t we Muslims at least claim to submit our wills to Allah and do as He commands us to do through the example of Prophet Muhammad saaws.
 
on the Pagan not Abrahamic origins of the cross

The Pagan Origins of the Cross

By Abdullah Kareem
In reading the New Testament we must cease to think of the man Jesus, and even of the “Son of God”, and think of him rather of the sun of god, for this is a solar myth, and its dying hero, a dying sun. [1]​

The cross is a pagan symbol that was adored in Egypt thousands of years before Jesus was born. The Roman Catholic Church adopted the cross symbol at least 600 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified. Even the early Christians of North Africa rejected the wooden cross after Tertullian condemned it.

Tertullian confessed that pagans worshipped crucified saviors hanging on a cross.
"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it." [1]
The pagan roots of Christianity are clearly indicated by this confession. Tertullian was a Christian who later became a Gnostic. He implies that Christians borrowed the sun-god myth.


image002-1.jpg


(Wilkinson's Egyptians, Sir John Gardner Wilkinson 1837-41)

The Pagan philosopher and satirist Celsus criticized Christians for trying to pass off the Jesus story as a new revelation when it was actually an inferior imitation of pagan myths. He asks:

Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.

The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.

The Church father Tertullian writes of the Devil's diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:

The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine.

Studying the myths of the Mysteries it becomes obvious why these early Christians resorted to such a desperate explanation. (The Jesus Mysteries, pp. 26-27)
The scholar Timothy Freke says:

The Vatican was constructed upon the site of an ancient Pagan sanctuary because the new is always built upon the old. In the same way Christianity itself has as its foundations the Pagan spirituality that preceded it. (ibid, p. 12)


Amazingly, the bishop Tertullian believed Jesus was crucified, but he rejected the cross as pagan. This probably means the Church of Carthage also believed what Tertullian believed: The wooden cross is pagan.

Tertullian used to mark the forehead with a cross:

"In all our travels and movements", says Tertullian (De cor. Mil., iii), "in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross" [2]


It seems Tertullian acknowledged Jesus died on a cross, but rejected wooden crosses. Nevertheless, he unambiguously said that Christianity borrowed the cross and the concept of “dying for the sins of mankind”. Therefore, Christianity is rehashed paganism and the New Testament is recycled pagan myth!


The followers of Tammuz also marked the forehead with a cross!

A pagan sign of the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and the Egyptians, this cross was a symbol of the Roman god Mithras and the Greek Attis, and their forerunner Tammuz, the Sumerian solar god, consort of the goddess Ishtar. Conveniently, the original form of the letter 'T' was the initial letter of the god of Tammuz. During baptism ceremonies, this cross was marked on the foreheads by the pagan priest. [3]

The cross symbol (T) was the original cross of Jesus:

The cross of Christ, as experts seem to agree, was actually a bar placed across the top of an upright, so it was not a cross at all. It was a “Tee” (T), called “Taw” in Hebrew and “Tau” in Greek. So the cross that the victim was suspended from was actually a crossbar, and perhaps in those days this was called the cross. The “Taw” sign was the symbol of the dying and rising god, Tammuz, and “Taw” was the sign that was made on the heads of those marked for salvation by the god. So, crucifixion images might not be as conventional as the ones based on the Catholic crucifix. [1]

After the Egyptian/Greek/Roman pagans converted to Christianity, “these different signs of the cross were united in one large sign such as we now make. In the Western Church the hand was carried from the left to the right shoulder; in the Eastern Church, on the contrary, it was brought from the right shoulder to the left, the sign being made with three fingers. This apparently slight difference was one of the (remote) causes of the fatal Eastern Schism. [2]

The early Christians of Egypt were accused of sun-worship:

A letter ascribed in the Augustan History to the Emperor Hadrian refers to the worship of Serapis by residents of Egypt who described themselves as Christians, and Christian worship by those claiming to worship Serapis:

The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. (Augustan History, Firmus et al. 8) [1]

The cross was adopted six hundred years after Jesus’ departure.

It will come as a surprise to many that the first known figure of a god on a cross is a likeness of the sun god Orpheus from some three centuries B.C.E. The crucifix on the amulet on the cover of The Jesus Mysteries, by Freke and Gandy, clearly depicts this image. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, pp. 45-46)

"That which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians -- the true original form of the letter T -- the initial of the name of Tammuz [...] That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on the foreheads of those initiated in the Mysteries, and was used in every variety of way as a most sacred symbol. [...] The Vestal virgins of Pagan Rome wore it suspended from their necklaces, as the nuns do now. The Egyptians did the same [...] There is hardly a Pagan tribe where the cross has not been found. The cross was worshipped by the Pagan Celts long before the incarnation and death of Christ."

"The ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol of life -- the ankh, a tau cross surmounted by a loop and known as crux ansata -- was adopted and extensively used on Coptic Christian monuments." (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1995, volume 3, page 753)
"A still more curious fact may be mentioned respecting this hieroglyphical character [the Tau], that the early Christians of Egypt adopted it [...] numerous inscriptions, headed by the Tau, are preserved to the present day on early Christian monuments." (Wilkinson's Egyptians, by Sir J. G. Wilkinson, volume 5, page 283-284)
The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times, and among non-Christian peoples, may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship."
(The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, 1910, volume 7, page 506)


Here is an excerpt from Misha'al ibn `Abdullah Al-Kadhi

The ancient Egyptians also adopted the cross as a religious symbol of their pagan gods. Countless Egyptian drawings depict themselves holding crosses in their hands. Among them, the Egyptian savior Horus is depicted holding a cross in his hand. He is also depicted as an infant sitting on his mother's knee with a cross on the seat they occupy. The most common of the crosses used by these pagan Egyptians, the CRUX ANSATA, was later adopted by the Christians.
The Egyptian savior, Osiris, the Egyptian god of the dead and the underworld, is sometimes represented holding out this cross to mortals signifying that this person has discarded mortality for the life to come.
Another cross has been unearthed in Ireland. It belongs to the cult of the Persian god of the sun "Mithra" and bears a crucified effigy. The Greeks and Romans too adopted the cross as their religious symbol many centuries before Christianity did the same. An ancient inscription in Tessaly is accompanied by a Calvary cross. More crosses can be found to adorn the tomb of king Midas in Phrygia. The above references may be referred to for many more examples. [1]



image004.jpg


(Orpheus crucified)


The legendary stories of ‘man-god’ saviors dying for the sins of their people (and rising three days later) were very common. Christianity is based on the sun-god myth. In fact the whole religion was fabricated after the departure of Jesus. None of these saviors are historical, but only personifications of the sun.

Here is an excerpt from Mather Walker’s essays:

Orpheus (from whom the Orphics received their name) and Dionysus went to Hades and returned. The Christians created the tradition that during the three days while Jesus was dead before his resurrection He went to hell and preached to the souls in prison.

Significantly, Plato, who follows the Orphic and mystery teachings throughout his dialogues, has the following to say, in the Republic II (362e), referring to the just man:
"What they will say is this, that such being his
disposition the just man will have to endure the lash,
the rack, chains, the branding iron in his eyes, and
finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will
be crucified."
The Orphics had a number of books which contained the details of their theology.These books have been lost, but I have no doubt this little jewel from Plato came straight from one of these. Dionysus was known by the name "Pentheus", i.e. "man of suffering." [1]
The Babylonian god Tammuz also died and resurrected.

Tammuz was a god of Assyria, Babylonia and Sumeria where he was known as Dumuzi. He is commemorated in the name of the month of June, Du’uzu, the fourth month of a year which begins at the spring equinox. The fullest history extant of this saviour is probably that of Ctesias (400 BC), author of Persika. The poet has perpetuated his memory in rhyme.
Trust, ye saints, your Lord restored,
Trust ye in your risen Lord;
For the pains which Tammuz endured
Our salvation have procured.


Tammuz was crucified as an atonement offering: “Trust ye in God, for out of his loins salvation has come unto us.” Julius Firmicus speaks of this God rising from the dead for the salvation of the world. This saviour which long preceded the advent of Christ, filled the same role in sacred history. (Warning: atheist website [2]

Christianity is based on the sun-god myth.



image5.jpg




image6.jpg


image7.jpg


Source: [1] [2]


The doctrine of salvation by crucifixion had, like many of the ancient forms of religious faith, an astronomical origin. The sun is hung on a cross or crucified when it passes through the equinoxes. People in northern climates were saved by the sun’s crucifixion when it crossed over the equatorial line into the season of spring, at the vernal equinox at Easter, and thereby gave out a saving heat and light to the world and stimulated the generative organs of animal and vegetable life. (*)


This pagan festival is actually a combination of both Astoria (from which the word Easter is derived from), the female goddess of fertility of the northern European Saxons and the Isis-Osiris cult. The lover of Astoria, Attis, dies and is reborn annually, in conjunction with the summer solactice (spring time), the time of the year of the Easter celebrations. The theology of Attis was incorporated into the events of Prophet Jesus (as), according to the Christian church that is. The symbol of Astoria is the EGG, which is part of the Easter celebration (Easter Egg). In the Isis-Osiris cult of ancient Egypt, crucifixion was often a required means of sacrificing the King as the INCARNATION OF GOD for the SALVATION of man. Such bloody sacrifices were accompanied by the belief that the saviour’s flesh and blood had to be eaten and drank in a cannibalistic sacrament. This is currently practiced by the Catholic church, metaphorically, in all their masses. Yet, one cannot ignore the pagan roots of this act. The Catholic church actually believes in the transubstantiation of this ceremony, instituted by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 12th century, meaning, the Catholics believe that the bread and wine used turns into the actual flesh and blood of Prophet Jesus(as), exactly in line with the ceremony of the Isis-Osiris cult, which dates back to 1700 BC. The notion that Prophet Jesus(as) had to be sacrificed for the salvation of all mankind traces back to this older barbarism. [1]


The scholar Tom Harper states:

“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 145)


When the Council of Nicea took place, the Emperor Constantine


- Declared the Roman Sun-day to be the Christian Sabbath.


- Adopted the traditional birthday of the Sun-god, and the twenty-fifth of December, as the birthday of Jesus;


- Borrowed the emblem of the Sun-god, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity;
- And, although the statue of Jesus replaced the idol of the Sun-god, decided to incorporate all the ceremonies which were performed at the Sub-gods birthday celebrations into their own ceremonies.

Christianity betrays the True Jesus as portrayed in the Quran, and there is no other alternative but to accept the True Jesus. The only Revelation of God that does not degrade Jesus is the Quran. All other Scriptures must be abrogated in favor of the Quran alone.

Here is the evidence for my assertions.
The fertilizing winter sun having been crucified, and the summer sun risen into the heavens in resurrection, the blood of the grape, ripened by its the heat, was symbolically “the blood of the cross,” or “the blood of the Lamb.” Jesus is not the true vine for no reason.

Because of our Christian culture and its imagery, the cross is necessarily the instrument of the saviour god’s torture. However, because the celestial origin of crucifixion in solar myths is that the sun crosses over the celestial equator, the heavenly sign of the equinoxes, the image of a crossover in the sky would be a cross like the Greek letter Chi (X) not a Plus (+). (Warning:Atheist website [1])

The evidence that Christianity was in its beginnings firmly rooted in an Egyptian-style, equinoctial mode of thinking still abounds today. The birthday of Jesus Christ was first celebrated by the earliest Church in the spring of the year. But in 345, Pope Julius decreed that the birthday (nobody knew any precise date for it, suggesting again that the entire thing was pure myth) should thenceforth be held on December 25, three days after the “death” of the winter solstice and the same day on which the births of Mithras, Dionysus, the Sol Invictus (unconquerable sun), and several other gods were traditionally celebrated. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 82).

The sun is born on the 25th of December, the birthday of Jesus Christ. The first and greatest of the labors of Jesus Christ is his victory over the serpent, the evil principle, or the devil. In his first labor Hercules strangled the serpent, as did Krishna, Bacchus, etc. his is the sun triumphing over the powers of hell and darkness; and, as he increases, he prevails, till he is crucified in the heavens, or is decussated in the form of a cross (according to Justin Martyr) when he passes the equator at the vernal equinox. (Lloyd Graham, Myths and Deceptions of the Bible, p. 208)

"Although surprising to us now, to writers of the first few centuries CE these similarities between the new Christian religion and the ancient Mysteries were extremely obvious. Pagan critics of Christianity, such as the satirist Celsus, complained that this recent religion was nothing more than a pale reflection of their own ancient teachings. Early 'Church Fathers,' such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, were understandably disturbed and resorted to the desperate claim that these similarities were the result of diabolical mimicry. Using one of the most absurd arguments ever advanced, they accused the Devil of "plagiarism by anticipation," of deviously copying the true story of Jesus before it had actually happened in an attempt to mislead the gullible!" Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999).

Julius Firmicus was a Christian author of the fourth century. He wrote a book called "The Errors of the Profane Religions." He found that many of these pagan religions of the Roman world had Saviors or Redeemers. He learned that every year the birth of these gods was celebrated, often in mid-winter, and every year, often about the time of our Easter, the death and resurrection of the gods were celebrated. He discovered that in some of these religions bread and wine were used at the altar, and candles and incense and sacred water were part of the ritual. (Joseph McCabe (1867-1955) The Story of Religious Controversy. Chapter 2)

“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.” Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
The desperate response by Christians to solve these parallels is weak because the Gospel story doesn’t have to be
100% plagiarized! For example, Osiris was ripped to pieces and restored to life, but Jesus was never “ripped to pieces and restored to life”.
The cult of Osiris had a particularly strong interest towards the concept of immortality. According to the myth surrounding the cult, Set (Osiris's evil brother) fooled Osiris into getting into a coffin, which he then shut and threw into the Nile. Osiris's wife searched for his remains until she finally found them and brought them back to Egypt. Once Osiris's evil brother found out, he cut the body into pieces, and again threw them into the Nile. The faithful companion of Osiris, Isis, gathered up all the parts of the body and bandaged them together for a proper burial. The Gods were impressed by the devotion of Isis and thus restored Osiris to life in the form of a different kind of existence as the god of the underworld. [1]
Okay, we know Osiris died and resurrected differently from Jesus, but the story is the same: A “man-god” who dies and resurrects. The idea was borrowed by the Church, not the story itself. (*)

The website Tektonics confesses that Tammuz ‘resurrected’, but it has “no parallel to the Christian religion” which is nonsense. The early Church borrowed the idea.

The death and "raising" of Tammuz occurs every year and corresponds with the natural cycle of vegetation. This provides no parallel at all for the Christian religion, expect by redefining terms into meaninglessness (i.e., "resurrection" meaning not just a specific Jewish concept, but any dead-alive transition!) and ignoring vast differences in meaning. [2]


Nobody worships Tammuz today, but millions of Christians worship Jesus as the “crucified savior who rose again”. The writer desperately says “this provides no parallel at all to the Christian religion”. But the parallels are very striking and evident. The Greeks and Romans converted to Christianity because it resembled their previous beliefs!

A true Jew would have immediately recognized the teaching of Jesus as a reaffirmation of what Moses had taught. But to many a pagan, it must have seemed new and strange and perhaps a little complicated. Most of the pagans still believed in a multitude of gods who, it was thought, mixed freely with human beings, mated with them, and took part in every sphere of human life. To the common people of Greece, any description of Jesus must have seemed like a description of one of their gods, and they were probably quite ready to accept Jesus in this capacity. There was always room for one more god. However, the actual teaching of Jesus negated all their gods, since it affirmed the Divine Unity”. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 62)

Whatever else one may believe about Jesus, it is clear both from the New Testament documents and from the creeds of the early Church that he was a fully human being. He knew hunger, thirst, weariness; he endured pain, grief, and the agony of doubt; he experienced birth and death. His appearance must have been ordinary, for on several occasions when trouble was brewing he was able to simply lose himself in the crowds. The Church of the first few centuries had little trouble selling the idea of God-in-human form to a non-Jewish audience: this kind of myth was commonplace at this time. (Tom Harper, For Christ’s Sake, p. 32)

Paul produced a religion which encompassed different contradictory elements. He took the Unitarianism of the Jews and added to it the philosophy of the pagans”. (Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 71)

This shift of emphasis from Jesus as a man to the new image of Christ, who wasdivine, enabled the intellectuals in Greece and Rome to assimilate into their own philosophy what Paul and those who followed him were preaching. (ibid, p. 70)

“…By using material familiar to these congregations, even while reshaping it for his own purposes, Paul was performing as an accomplished rhetor. That would not have been unusual for the times. (Mack Burton, Who Wrote the New Testament? p. 77)

Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”. (Roshen Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul p. 69)


The following is a list of dying-rising gods.





The above crucified saviors are personifications of the sun, or symbolizing the birth and death of vegetation. The Gospel story of Jesus is plagiarized from the pagan myths.
According to the Bible, Jesus died on a tree

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30, 10:39)

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13)

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Peter 2:24)

The scholar Arthur Weigall describes that Osiris was crucified upon a tree, like many previous ‘man-gods’, the cross was not unique, its pagan symbol. The Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus was crucified upon a ‘stake’.

The ‘tree story’ was indeed plagiarized from the story of Osiris and Isis.

The Popular and widespread religion of Osiris and Isis exercised considerable influence upon early Christianity, for these two great Egyptian deities, whose worship had passed into Europe were revered in Rome and in several other centres, where Christian communities were growing up. Osiris and Isis, so runs the legend, were brother and sister and also husband and wife; but Osiris was murdered, his coffined body being thrown into the Nile, and shortly afterwards the widowed and exiled Isis gave birth to a son, Horus. The coffin, meanwhile, was washed up on the Syrian coast, and became miraculously lodged in the trunk of a tree, so that Osiris, like other sacrificed gods, could be described as having been.' slain and hanged on a tree.' (The Paganism in Our Christianity, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p118)


Islam has destroyed the false charges against Jesus.

Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (Al-Quran 5:75)

O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight. (Al-Quran 5:15-16)


[1] (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 361)
 
always a pleasure to present the obvious to those who prefer to bury their head in the sand!

cheers
 
'your faith' is of no concern to me..
This is an Islamic forum and I post for enlightenment!

cheers
 
for someone who isn't 'shook by all this' you seem to be persistent in contributing indecipherable nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic.. why is that?

My posts are a clear answer to the one who thinks the 'blood sacrifice and the cross' is Abrahamic in origin.. I have clearly posted evidence to the contrary and well sourced where from the pagan roots of Christianity and the foundation of the cross -- 'faith' as strong as ever doesn't loan itself to puerile comments when it is at a loss for logic!

Perhaps you should concede as your church elders, that it is the devil at play, than have to search your mind for an answer to all of this!

cheers
 
for someone who isn't 'shook by all this' you seem to be persistent in contributing indecipherable nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic.. why is that?

My posts are a clear answer to the one who thinks the 'blood sacrifice and the cross' is Abrahamic in origin.. I have clearly posted evidence to the contrary and well sourced where from the pagan roots of Christianity and the foundation of the cross -- 'faith' as strong as ever doesn't loan itself to puerile comments when it is at a loss for logic!

Wait, I thought you posted it for Muslims...you're asking me to respond? Well, you are mixing two separate and unrelated issues. On the issue of blood sacrifice, of course that is Abrahamic in origin. It is all over the Old Testament.

When you mention the cross and blood sacrifice, you are mixing two unrelated issues. Sacrifical atonement is Abrahamic and is a large part of Mosaic Law. The cross is a symbol. Like other symbols of Christianity, such as the fish. Most now believe Christ wasn't crucified on a cross, but on a stake...meaning one pole. The cross itself has no real significance other than as a religious symbol.

As for the rest, I find it amusing that you cite a pagan philosopher for your "evidence." I realize you just copied and pasted this, but it is full of holes. Modern scholarship recognizes that there was a competition of sorts between Christianity and the pagan cults of Rome during that period. However, there is more evidence that many cults were copying elements of Christianity, not the other way around. Christianity was growing and the pagan cults were not.

As for Constantine, we are all well aware of the origin of some of the observed holidays within Christianity. It is really a non issue. Christ never stated we were to observe the day of His birth or His death. That is something we do as an act of praise. The bulk of your post is old news as far as Christians are concerned, and is nothing that threatens the validity of our faith.

I could copy and paste a large page of text to counter every issue on there, but I doubt anyone would actually read it. Not that I would necessarily expect them to. :D
 
Wait, I thought you posted it for Muslims
I post for enlightenment and for the Muslims on board.. do you have a problem with that?

...you're asking me to respond?
I am not sure where in my posts I have asked you to respond?

Well, you are mixing two separate and unrelated issues.
If you read before you write (and I know it takes a little more than three minutes to read all I have posted as I myself am still on Sumaria whose Gods were men) your posts might be a bit more thoughtful than Jejune at best!

On the issue of blood sacrifice, of course that is Abrahamic in origin. It is all over the Old Testament.
The sacrifice of Ishmael has nothing to do with Jesus' alleged crucifixion.. in the first God was testing Abraham, in the latter as you allege God is testing himself? does that make any sense?

When you mention the cross and blood sacrifice, you are mixing two unrelated issues. Sacrifical atonement is Abrahamic and is a large part of Mosaic Law
see above comment

. The cross is a symbol. Like other symbols of Christianity, such as the fish. Most now believe Christ wasn't crucified on a cross, but on a stake...meaning one pole. The cross itself has no real significance other than as a religious symbol.
Your religion rests on Jesus' alleged crucifixion -- if there is no crucifixion there really is no Christianity.. what otherwise are you basing your religion on-- it doesn't come down to the moment where God eats your sins so that you are free to sin? What rituals or commandments have you upheld that are Abrahamic in origin? Did Abraham or even Jesus, play the organ and clapped happy, ate pickled pork feet or did away with the covenant of circumcision? Saul was very successful doing away the commandments see the first post on Paulian Christianity!
As for the rest, I find it amusing that you cite a pagan philosopher for your "evidence." I realize you just copied and pasted this, but it is full of holes. Modern scholarship recognizes that there was a competition of sorts between Christianity and the pagan cults of Rome during that period. However, there is more evidence that many cults were copying elements of Christianity, not the other way around. Christianity was growing and the pagan cults were not.
Actually according to your church scholars and I quote again (because I know I may have copied but at least I have have read it before I wrote like an ignoramus:

The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.

The Church father Tertullian writes of the Devil's diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:


The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine.


As for Constantine, we are all well aware of the origin of some of the observed holidays within Christianity. It is really a non issue. Christ never stated we were to observe the day of His birth or His death. That is something we do as an act of praise. The bulk of your post is old news as far as Christians are concerned, and is nothing that threatens the validity of our faith.
I know that this is a non-issue and that is a non-issue, you need not state the obvious to me-- an entire faith on non-issues the fact of the matter is that the bulk of your religion is little snippets of paganism and/or mythology and some elements although I have my reservations (from monotheism) -- as far as christians are concerned they are dance and clap happy, then this doesn't concern them.. I am not sure really why you are writing much ado about nothing? you are entitled to your beliefs.. I am at a duty to put forward to people the roots of those beliefs!

I could copy and paste a large page of text to counter every issue on there, but I doubt anyone would actually read it. Not that I would necessarily expect them to. :D
You do what you have to do.. every thread above is linked to an article ( too numerous to counteract) with the 'devil did it' and folks are free to make up their minds...


cheers
 
Last edited:
I post for enlightenment and for the Muslims on board.. do you have a problem with that?
Nope

I am not sure where in my posts I have asked you to respond?

Well, I did anyway.


If you read before you write (and I know it takes a little more than three minutes to read all I have posted as I myself am still on Sumaria whose Gods were men) your posts might be a bit more thoughtful than Jejune at best!
I didn't have to read all of it. Just skimming the topics and those cited for their opinion leads me to believe I've seen it all before. I was right.

The sacrifice of Ishmael has nothing to do with Jesus' alleged crucifixion.. in the first God was testing Abraham, in the latter as you allege God is testing himself? does that make any sense?
The issue when it comes to Christ is sacrificial atonement. Which is displayed throughout the OT, meaning Mosaic Law. The death of Christ had nothing to do with "testing."


Your religion rests on Jesus' alleged crucifixion -- if there is no crucifixion there really is no Christianity.. what otherwise are you basing your religion on-- it doesn't come down to the moment where God eats your sins so that you are free to sin? What rituals or commandments have you upheld that are Abrahamic in origin? Did Abraham or even Jesus, play the organ and clapped happy, ate pickled pork feet or did away with the covenant of circumcision? Saul was very successful doing away the commandments see the first post on Paulian Christianity!
Actually according to your church scholars and I quote again (because I know I may have copied but at least I have have read it before I wrote like an ignoramus:


That isn't correct. The religion of Christianity is based on Christ's atonement for sin and His triumph over death. As for eating sins, I have no idea what you're talking about, besides the obvious insulting sarcasm, which you display with every post you make. Perhaps if you learned what Christianity actually was instead of looking to copy and paste jobs to do your learning for you we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.

The myths of Osiris and Dionysus have very little similarity when one gets past the wordplay. Of course all religions with a divine Creator will share some similarity, but Osiris and Dionysus have very little in common with Jesus Christ.

As for the words of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, and the issue of religious plagiarism, I'm sure that was a belief of the time. Regardless of how the article presents it, the cult of Mithra was a contemporary of Christianity. The cult of Mithra did indeed "borrow" many Christian elements in its design. Whether that was the Devil in action or simply good marketing, who can say.


I know that this is a non-issue and that is a non-issue, you need not state the obvious to me-- an entire faith on non-issues the fact of the matter is that the bulk of your religion is little snippets of paganism and/or mythology and some elements although I have my reservations (from monotheism) -- as far as christians are concerned they are dance and clap happy, then this doesn't concern them.. I am not sure really why you are writing much ado about nothing? you are entitled to your beliefs.. I am at a duty to put forward to people the roots of those beliefs!
No, you are putting forward the Islamic and/or athiest propoganda on the topic. That is fine. You are a Muslim and it doesn't surprise or bother me.

You speak of being "dance and clap happy"...well that is a Christian form of praise. It is not an issue because that is a form of praise described in the New Testament. As for you opinion of my religion...think what you will.

You do what you have to do.. every thread above is linked to an article ( too numerous to counteract) with the 'devil did it' and folks are free to make up their minds...
cheers
Indeed they are.
 
Great!



Well, I did anyway.
I am glad you are admitting to insinuating yourself with a topic not directed at you!



I didn't have to read all of it. Just skimming the topics and those cited for their opinion leads me to believe I've seen it all before. I was right.
That doesn't address the subject matter or rebuts contents-- you merely stating your belief has no impact on the validity of what is written!


The issue when it comes to Christ is sacrificial atonement. Which is displayed throughout the OT, meaning Mosaic Law. The death of Christ had nothing to do with "testing."
The death of God has nothing to do with Mosaic Law, from the lowest common denominator if the 'death of God' had roots in the OT, they would have been all over Christianity, instead they chose their OT in lieu of Paul's version of it!



That isn't correct. The religion of Christianity is based on Christ's atonement for sin and His triumph over death. As for eating sins, I have no idea what you're talking about, besides the obvious insulting sarcasm, which you display with every post you make. Perhaps if you learned what Christianity actually was instead of looking to copy and paste jobs to do your learning for you we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Atonement for whom? Does God atone for his own self? I wasn't aware God needed to do that? you mistake my honesty for sarcasm.. that is actually the bottom line of your religion.. God comes and dies so you can go to heaven.. there is no need for major adjectives where none is needed!


The myths of Osiris and Dionysus have very little similarity when one gets past the wordplay. Of course all religions with a divine Creator will share some similarity, but Osiris and Dionysus have very little in common with Jesus Christ.

Egyptian god of the underworld and of vegetation. Son of Nut and Geb. His birthplace was said to be Rosetau in the necropolis west of Memphis. Brother of Nephthys and Seth, and the brother and husband of Isis. Isis gave birth to Horus after his death, having impregnated herself with semen from his corpse. Osiris was depicted in human form wrapped up as a mummy, holding the crook and flail. He was often depicted with green skin, alluding to his role as a god of vegetation. He wore a crown known as the 'atef', composed of the tall conical white crown of Upper Egypt with red plumes on each side. Osiris had many cult centers, but the most important were at Abydos (Ibdju) in Upper Egypt, where the god's legend was reenacted in an annual festival, and at Busiris (Djedu) in the Nile delta.
One of the so-called "dying gods", he was the focus of a famous legend in which he was killed by the rival god Seth. At a banquet of the gods, Seth fooled Osiris into stepping into a coffin, which he promptly slammed shut and cast into the Nile. The coffin was born by the Nile to the delta town of Byblos, where it became enclosed in a tamarisk tree. Isis, the wife of Osiris, discovered the coffin and brought it back. (The story to this point is attested only by the Greek writer Plutarch, although Seth was identified as his murderer as early as the Pyramid era of the Old Kingdom.)

So I guess I'll leave that to the discerning reader to decide! and by the way that was your mere attempt at one story, not the lot! Ancient Egyptian religion was Paganistic, hence the pharoh was angry with what Moses brought!

As for the words of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, and the issue of religious plagiarism, I'm sure that was a belief of the time. Regardless of how the article presents it, the cult of Mithra was a contemporary of Christianity. The cult of Mithra did indeed "borrow" many Christian elements in its design. Whether that was the Devil in action or simply good marketing, who can say.
lol.. the question is of dates really.. who is borrowing from whom?!


No, you are putting forward the Islamic and/or athiest propoganda on the topic. That is fine. You are a Muslim and it doesn't surprise or bother me.
It doesn't bother you, yet you keep replying.. I have no agenda or propaganda on an Islamic forum, I assure you if I did, christian forums would be the first place I frequent.. I never thought of Christianity as a contender-- it is so silly to me on all levels.. and I believe that is why you have cults of Dawkin following in his own words:


In GD, Dawkins quotes Einstein as saying that he prefers not to call himself religious, because that implies “supernatural”. But Einstein acknowledged that behind everything “there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly”.
Dawkins admits: “If that’s what you call religion then I’m religious.” But when I suggest that, in this case, he is in touch with the transcendent, he accuses me of “playing with words”. He says: “If by transcendent you mean what Einstein believed then yes, but what I think, to come back on your statement that more intelligent and sophisticated religious people believe something close to what Einstein and I believe, that may be true, but they are a tiny minority of religious people in the world. It’s the majority of religious people in the world that we have to worry about.”





Once you make small Gods of men, and you advance and outgrow them you can only have atheism, or something 'bigger than God' when all Christians wake up to see is a meek God who dies after forsaking himself-- yet expects of people to believe that he'll save them through his 'atonement'

Youspeak of being "dance and clap happy"...well that is a Christian form of praise. It is not an issue because that is a form of praise described in the New Testament. As for you opinion of my religion...think what you will.
I agree.. it is your belief and 'praise' in the form of dance and clap and organs wasn't subscribed to you as part of the commandments-- there is nothing to think about it, other than laying for folks the obvious!
Indeed they are.
Then I hope with that we are done.. unless you want to purge yourself some more?


cheers
 
Last edited:
No, I have responded to the article. If I wish to seriously debate a religious topic I will wait for someone with a little more maturity and intellectual honesty.
 
^ Now now lets not start losing our temper here pls.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top