Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Medicine*Woman, Jan 29, 2006.

  1. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    M*W: For the gazillionth time, that has already been noted!

    M*W: Yes, that's the myth of it. He may be your god, but he's not the god of the majority. You are free to worship whatever you want, but please don't expect me to believe your myth as you.

    M*W: The concept of a trinity is the most common grouping found in many cultures of the world. This link offers a thorough understanding of the symbolic triad:


    M*W: I'm not stopping anyone from believing what they want. You've obviously confused me with somebody else, because I don't write about astrology here or anywhere else. Had you been paying closer attention, you would have known that I study astro-theology which is the ancient myth of interpreting planetary objects as gods. This is totally different than astrology. The ancients may have viewed astrology as being a science, but I don't buy into that today. ALL religion stems from astro-theological interpretation, but I really don't know why I should explain this to you.

    Finally, the existance of God can not be disproven. You can't prove a negative. So you have no basis to claim that God doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
    M*W: Neither can the existence of god be proven. It is not up to me to prove that your god exists!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Science and religion has always been interwoven, your confusion lies in the fact that now we have a name for it - SCIENCE. The rest about all religion stemming from Sun worship is very complicated to explain and is a far fetched assumption. Why dont you read the thread specifically dedicated to this and learn something.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Hey, sorry I didn't read thru all 35 pages of the thread! Anyway, I'll bet you don't screw that phrase up again.
    Jeez. Like Astro-theology is a widely known field of study. I've never heard of it. All I know is that when religion is being discussed, you often pipe in with what seems to be a non sequitur about astrology.
    Yes, but in the OP, you asserted that God absolutely does not exist. That puts the burden on you.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. maxg Registered Senior Member

    Then who's blood is that on the Shroud of Turin?
  8. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    M*W: John, I am not the one who's confused. I know the difference between science, religion and myth. Religion and myth are not science, although the ancients may have believed religion and myth to be science in their time. I do not.

    M*W: John, I certainly don't expect you to explain this concept to me. I believe this has already been discussed and thoroughly explained to you in the CR Forum. It was one of the few threads I will create over there.

    About all religion stemming from sun worship, there has been much research done on this very subject. As I said before, I'm not going to post another bibliography about this, because I've posted so many. Everytime a new member comes on board, they're asking for citations. This subject can be found at your fingertips, you don't even have to go to a library or bookstore to read it, if you want to learn, but I don't think you do.

    Just ask yourself this question: "What did ancient humans fear the most that they chose to worship it?" I would say the darkness, so they worshipped the sun as the creator of the world and ensured them survival in an agrarian society. This is not my theory, it's an historical and anthropological fact.

    M*W: Which thread would that be? If you mean this particular thread, I have. I'm the one who started it.
  9. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    M*W: This has been discussed at length, but I know you're new here. Whose blood is it? Well it wasn't Jesus's! The cloth was carbon dated to the 14th century CE. Some researchers believe Leonardo da Vinci might have been pulling a major prank on the Church by making such an artifact. He secretely performed autopsies on corpses, and some scientists say that it could have been an image of Leonardo himself or perhaps one of his corpses. He could have easily wounded a corpse to have the markings of a crucified man. The Shroud of Turin has long been refuted.

    Having been a devout catholic for a number of years and traveled to some of those shrines, I don't believe any of those purported holy relics are authentic.

    If you check the authors of some of those books proclaiming the cloth was Jesus's burial shroud, you'll find them to be authors of christian fiction.
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Last edited: Sep 18, 2007
  11. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    M*W: John, the history of the shroud has been all over the History Channel, Discovery Channel, PBS, and many books and scientific research have been published.

    I suggest you read the history of da Vinci. He was way ahead of his time, but he's not that hard to figure out just because he was a genius. Many of his pieces were created as jokes against the Church, including The Last Supper, Madonna of the Rocks (both versions), and even the Mona Lisa may be a self-portrait of young and feminine da Vinci.

    I don't make this stuff up. Google it.
  12. maxg Registered Senior Member

    Sorry, it was a joke.
  13. Learned Hand Registered Senior Member

    Well, if Jesus was a myth, then David was a myth, and if David was a myth, then so was Solomon. Point is, in 2000 years Medicine*Woman will be myth, should she talk to God or perform a miracle worthy of mention. If she doesn't see the flaming bush or cast out devils, 2000 years of time will wipe out all that she has done in her lifetime, and won't even be remembered as ever having lived. Therefore, Medicine*Woman stands a good chance of never having existed. There's my 2 cents on astro-theology for the day.

    BTW, personally, I prefer night to day. Less hectic without ol' Helios scorchin' my back.
  14. Papaver2005 Registered Member

    > MW: I research the specific philosophy of astro-theology. Astro-theology >is the study of how ancient myths became modern religions based on the >ancient worship of cosmological symbols through the study of solar and >lunal models. This is not to be confused with astrology.

    Medicine Woman,

    First, Yes, of the "equivalents" that you listed, this is the only one that is remotely close to being correct. However, it is out of historical and linguistic seqeunce.

    Further, making up sh$t like "astro-theology" doesn't help the fact that you have it out of order from an historical-linguistic context. Your methodology, whatever it was , is clearly faulty. That muc is clear and I can demonstrate it (and have, had you cared to read the origins of lucifer.

    >If you don't understand what I have posted, how do you know it's out of >order? Try again.

    I understand perfectly what you have posted here. My point is that it is clearly not in sequence with the historical language usage of these terms.
    You are quite wrong in the way you sequenced it.

    >I've studied this subject long enough to understand the concepts of how >the myths (religions) came about. I've also posted the bibliography for this >topic numerous times in the past. I don't think it is necessary to have to >post a bibliography every time a new member doesn't understand what I >write, so I'm not going to post it again. I suggest you read my previous >posts, if you are interested in this subject before you comment on >something you don't understand.

    LOL. Nonetheless, you;ve got it wrong. Unlike you, I will explain to you WHY IT IS WRONG

    You wrote Lucifer=Venus = Morning Star did you not ?

    I will once again explain to you why this is not correct. (it is necessary that you realize that "latin" was the lingua franca of the Romans of Italy, dderinved primarily from the latvian people)

    The word "lucifer" is from the latin term "lucis ferre" . This term is from Roman astronomy texts from the period of the Roman Republic.(pre-Augustine and Pre-Julian). In english it means literally "light bringer" and refers to the brightest star in the sky. We know now that this was iin fact the second planet from the Sun (the Roman astronomers did not know this).

    The greek astronomers also called this star/planet "eosphorus" which also means light-bringer. Greek culture preceeded the Roman and thus the latin "lucis ferre" is almost a direct translation from the greek.

    At about this same time the word "Venus" is the proper name of an originally Greek goddess from Greek texts translated into latin. It properly refers to the Greek goddess Aphrodite, but the latin name derives from the earlier latvian words "venus" meaning love, charm,beauty, from the Indo-European base word "wen" or "ven" (wish,desire,lustful desire). possible origin from the Sanskrit "vanas" or "vanati" (loves,desires, wins). Thus, the Romans renamed the goddess in temrs of her qualities taken from the Greek myths.

    Notice that niether the early attic greeks nor the early latvian Romans originally associated Aphrodite / Venus with the celestial object. It is most likely that this association CAME FROM THE association to the Egyptian "Hathor" meaning "second planet from the sun" is attested from c.1290 (O.E. had morgensteorra and æfensteorra).

    The Hebrew term that describes this same star/planet is "“heylel.” nad is used only 1 time in the Tanakh book of the Prophets. According to Jewish sources, the word is literally “shining one” .

    The use of the specific term "morning star" or "dawn star" looks like it comes from the earliest english translations of the Hebrew Tanakh in the late medieval period.

    Now, ther is the question of how the Roman astronomical temr "lucis ferre" became associated with

    So, any way you slice it, your (Lucifer=the Morning Star= the planet we now call Venus) is out of historical sequence. Ther better sequence (reflecting the origin of each name) is as I had it ;

    (Lucifer=the planet we now call Venus) = eng "Morning Star"

    Also, every other of your so-called equivalent are in fact erroneous and I can present evidence to demonstrate why they are in error.


    Medicine Woman,

    Actually ,this one is so wrong it is laughable

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    "e-Zeus " ??? WTF ! Do you just make this up as you go ?

    Please, by all means, please give me your "psycho-astroligical" justification for that "e" prefix. (is it because it makes it come out rhyming with Jesus in english ?)

    Jesus (latin form, proper noun, nominative case) is a latin (Roman) transliteration of the Hebrew/aramaic name "Yeshu". Did you know this, MW ?

    The hebre name "Yeshu" means what medicine woman ? (hint - it has nothing to do with the sun !)

    Do you realize that the -us ending of Jesus is in fact the inflected ending of the latin nominative noun case ? NO

    DUH !!!!
    Any lycee student of latin could have told you this. Is it apparent that you never study latin ? :roflmao:

    And you equate "son" to "Sun" because why ? Because it happens to ryhme in english ! OMFG you are so wrong !

    Do you know ANYTHING about linguistics ? Not so, this is so ridiculous it is just comical !!!

    This blunder is so blatantly ridiculous the fudging of the data is os blatantly obvious, you provide NO linguistic support for any of that !

    I have to question either your level of education or your motives...

    Now, did you mske this up on your own or did you get it from somewhere else ?

    Be honest !!!!! What motivates you to make stuff up like this ?

    I'm not anywhere near done with you yet, we're going to move down your list ! You need to explain this ERRONEOUS CR@P you are passing off !

    Next on the Medicine woman crock of lies and erroneous facts

    (Peter the Jew=Ju-piter)

    Peter the Jew ?????

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    WTF !!!

    So, let me get this straight. You think that because "Peter the Jew" sort of rhymes with Jupiter in english that this makes them equivalent ???

    Read that sentence above again. Can you see how ludicrously ridiculous that is ?

    You deserve this medicine woman ! :spank:

    I invite you to look this up yourself in any etymology dictionary. Do you know what "etymology" is Medicine woman ? (I didn't think so)

    From Etymology Online;
    etymology entry for "Peter" at www dot etymonline dot com slash index.php?search=Peter&searchmode=none)

    masc. proper name, from L. Petrus, from Gk. Petros, lit. "stone, rock," translation of Syriac kefa "stone" (Cephas), nickname Jesus gave to apostle Simon Bar-Jona (Matt. xvi:17), historically known as St. Peter, and consequently a popular name among Christians (e.g. It. Pietro, Sp. Pedro, O.Fr. Pierres, Fr. Pierre, etc.).

    Simply put, the english proper name Peter is from the Latin proper name "Petrus" (see that latin nominative ending -us Medicine woman, are you starting to get it yet? That's the nominative inflected ending, first declension nouns)

    Which is from the greek PN "Petros", It means "rock or stone".

    Jupiter (look it up) is the anglicized version of the latin name of the chief god od the greek pantheon of Mt Olympus whose greek name was "Zeus"(but Zeus" is a latinized form.

    Medicine woman, please explain your "psycho-astrologic" :roflmao: connection as you put it here.

    Please, please, please elaborate the (Peter the Jew=Ju-piter) connection !

    Medicine woman. This is the most pathetic excuse for scholarship that I've ever seen anywhere on the internet .....

    You can take your place right next to Acharya S, who until today I thought was the worst and most stupid purveyor of cr@p. But you have even outdone and sunk lower than Acharya !

    Did you realize just how wrong and pathetic Acharya S was ? Or did you just copy from her not knowing of her worldwide reputation for poor scholarship and erronrous facts ?

    The truth is, you got this from Acharya didn;t you ?
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2007
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Is nothing sacred? Da Vinci was very serious about his work, i cannot believe anyone would make such an outrageous claim. Please familiarize yourself with the Renaissance before you even attempt to understand Da Vinci as well as i do.
  16. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    M*W: John, where have you been living? In a spider hole?
  17. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    M*W: Have you read anything by Ahmed Osman? His books go into great detail about the 18th Egyptian pharaonic dynasty which includes David, Solomon, Moses and maybe even Jesus.

    Here are the names of some of his works:

    Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion

    Moses and Akhenaten

    Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs

    Also worthy of reading:

    Egypt of the Pharaohs, by Alan H. Gardiner

    The Life and Times of Akhenaton: Pharaoh of Egypt, by Arthur Weigall

    As for myself, I don't care if anyone remembers me in 2,000 years. That's not important. What's important is that I live with my greatest effort today.

    I understand that you and most people don't understand astro-theology. Ancient humans created it probably for entertainment purposes, and from the creation of astro-theological concepts came stories, that became legends, that became myths, that became religions which modern man still believes in! But one must understand that the common denominator of astro-theology is always man-made and eternally a myth.
  18. Iasion Registered Senior Member

    Hi all

    David and Solomon probably ARE myths - there is no certain historical or archeological evidence for either of them.

    Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jospeh, Moses, Joshua .... all myths.

    You don't seem to know what a myth is.

  19. Learned Hand Registered Senior Member

    Well, here's how I see astro-theology as a Learned Hand quite far removed from the subject: Man created everything about religion because he saw stars, a moon, and a sun. Since we didn't have telescopes until Galileo (i.e. post Genesis, Exodus, Torah, Gospel, Koran, etc.), it is quite doubtful that man even conceived of other planets, much less spotted and named them. Heck, I still can't tell the difference between Venus and Mars with the naked eye. (And to think, just last year astronomers redefined and found additional planets). There's no way humanity created some hyper-dense cryptographic underpinning of all religion by sun, moon, and stars.

    Now all I can say is that the "heavens" were created to show and remind man of the greatness and enormity of God as even beyond the universe itself, so that when mankind looks to the "heavens" he remembers his/her place in the "world." In the absence of any formal religious training from birth, I think that's about as far as mankind would find symbolism in God and the universe.

    Since you suggested some materials for me to read, allow me to suggest reading John Milton and his three epic poems. Considered by most scholars the greatest English writer next to Shakespeare.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Sep 20, 2007
  20. Learned Hand Registered Senior Member

    Well according to this thread, it's anything that can't be proved. Thus, in 2000 years, Medicine*Woman may never have existed, unless she becomes myth, then legend, then blah blah blah to the significance of Moses, or Julius Cesar (to name a non-religious entity). Take Homer and the Illiad: both mythical a perhaps somewhat historical. But Achilles was certainly not born from a Greek goddess, and who's to say that Helen of Troy truly had the face to launch a thousand ships (to borrow from Christopher Marlowe some 3000 or so years later).
  21. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    No, those are fictional characters.
    Myths and mythological characters are based in some root historical fact or event, which is exaggerated to the point where it no longer becomes true. They are not entirely made up.
    Such as, the Trojan War, or the person of King Arthur. They are based in some historical figure or event. But their current, pop culture image is not factual. Yet at the same time, they are not completely fictitious.
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    A spider hole?

    You are right M.W, Da Vinci painted for a goof...yeah sure.
  23. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    MW - Do you think this is actually a possible explanation?? I mean, do you accept it?

Share This Page