A Little Quiz

"Who am I talking about here?

He was born on December 25th to a virgin mother; he was called a savior, the only begotten son, and died to save humanity; he was crucified on a Friday - "Black Friday" - and his blood was spilled to redeem the Earth; he suffered death with nails and stakes; he was the Father and Son combined in an earthly body; he was put in a tomb, went down into the underworld, but three days later, on March 25th, his body was found to be gone from the tomb and he was resurrected as the "Most High God"; his body was symbolized as bread and eaten by those who worshipped him.

Jesus, yes?

No, no. All of this was said about the savior Son of God called Attis who was worshipped by the Phrygians, one of the oldest races in Asia Minor, now Turkey, well over a thousand years before the manufacture of "Jesus". Its is just one of countlesss symbolic deities of whom the same story was told millennia before Christianity. Others are accepted to have been myths and not to have literally existed. But not Jesus. While Christians laugh at those "Pagan" tales and condemn them as evil, they ask the rest of the world to believe, indeed have insisted on pain of torture and death, that their version of the same story is somehow literally true while all the others are not."

Hew rightwood did buhda really live?

Dunno, never met him.

Seems like he would be kind of a jolly fella to me.

Lefty - playing your little games again.

First off Attis was the son of a goddess in a religion that practiced polytheism. Attis was brought to Rome 200 years before Christ not 1000 during a time when crucifixion was common. Also it is also believed that the Attis story changed drastically after the spread of Xianitiy. There are other accounts that say: Attis was a handsome Phrygian shepherd, the "Good Shepherd", the son of Cybele. Cybele loved her son intensely but Attis fell in love with a nymph and jealousy overcame the mother. In a rage she cast a spell of madness on Attis and he castrated himself at the foot of a pine tree. As his life blood dripped to the earth violets sprang up. Thus it was that death and sadness entered the world. Cybele, full of remorse took the body to a cave and wept. She first buried Attis at Pessinus but then used her power to restore him to life and they were reunited, thus bringing nature back to life and hope and salvation into the world. She founded the cult making Attis the priest and the pine tree sacred .

"over a thousand years before the manufacture of "Jesus". "

Manufacture? Do you sleep better at night telling yourself it was all manufactured? Funny how you didn't say Attis was manufactured...lol The truth is there is no person from antiquity that is more verifiable with both primary and secondary sources as Jesus. He far surpasses Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc. Any historian well tell you how important this is in establishing the credentials of a person long dead. Your Attis has no such documented historical support from primary and secondary sources as well as from unfriendly witnesses, such as Jewish commentaries, Muslim writings and Roman historians, as well as archeological evidence, as Christ does..

You laughable imp. Firstly, I pulled this out of a book, secondly, any games are between you and the writer, thirdly, it specifically says how these other accounts were known to be non existent, that was a crucial point.

You missed what he was saying, perhaps because its such a short snippet out of the context of the rest of the book, the point he is making is that the theme with these similar to exact matching details has been told for thousands of years, and indeed before Christ.

The Dates are relevant in the Sun cycle, and the religions, stories, and their terminologies and symbolisms derived from Sun worship. That was but one of many, many examples.

No the dates are relevant especially if the Attis story completely changed after the spread of Christianity and was wholeheartedly different before Christ. This is relevant because it completely disproves your argument, which is that the theme has been told throughout history many times.

Next time you might want to be more careful about so blindly trusting something you read in a book without doing a little research first.

I just told you, that is but one example, if you have direct proof of your claim which is derived from a book, if I may be so bold to venture, then feel free to share it.

I understand your point of the dates, it is relevant, to one example, and equally as relevant is the validity to your own claims about, is it not?

Again, if you have issue with the information, feel free to chime in, all additional info is welcome, but don't blast me for someone else's work, I'm sensitive.

Are you aware of exactly when and how this tale was changed, and by whom? I don't know anything about it personally.

Here's something interesting from just taking a little look so far.

This would make me ask if you are certain your own religion has altered its own accountings in the manner you refer to Attis.

Christianity and Paganism
It is a well established fact that following the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ that paganism steadily crept into the Christian religion leading finally to a politicised and essentially apostate Church. And as all Christian Restorationists have maintained, there followed a spiritual darkness with the loss of the prophetic and other spiritual gifts.

In order to make Christianity palitable to the pagan masses strenuous efforts were made to associate Christ with the Roman Sun-god, Helios. Pagan symbols were abstracted in order to teach the Christian Gospel, and Christ was readily associated with SOL INVICTUS -- the Invincible Sun. It was thus inevitable that the chief pagan sun-worshipping day, 25 December, the Birthday of the Sun, became associated with the Birth of Christ. Indeed, the adoption of 25 December for the celebration of Christmas is perhaps the most explicit example of Sun-worship's influence on the orthodox Christian liturgical calendar. Many of the Christmas traditions known and beloved by the West are, as we know, direct adoptions of idolatrous pagan customs.

Having adopted 25 December as the Birthday of Christ the Roman Catholic fathers were anxious to distance themselves from the responsibility of having borrowed a pagan festival and to avoid being accused of being betrayers of the Faith. Augustine and Leo the Great, for instance, strongly reprimanded those Christians who at Christmas worshipped the sun rather than the birth of Christ (Augustine, Sermo in Nativitate Domine 7, PL 38, 1007 & 1032). It was the opinion of some of the fathers that both the conception and passion of Christ occurred at the time of the vernal equinox on 25 March. Reckoning from that date the nine months of pregnancy of Mary, the date of the birth of Christ was computed to be the 25 December. More recently, some Christians have assumed that Jesus was CONCEIVED on 6 April and born nine months later, on 6 January, thus supporting the Eastern Orthodox position and the earlier position of the fathers before the festival was transferred to 25 December. Which ever date is defended -- 25 December or 6 January -- the computations used to defend them represent an a posteriori rationale advanced to justify an already existing date and practice. As far as 25 December is concerned, J.A.Jungmann has written: "It has become progressively clear that the real reason for the choice of 25 December was the pagan feast of the DIES NATALIS SOLIS INVICTI which was celebrated in those days with great splendour." (Joseph A. Jungmann, "The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great", 1962, p.147).

http://www.nccg.org/109Art-6April.html

http://www.africa-talk.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t145.html

"For several hundred years various Churches celebrated the birthday of Jesus on different dates.The eastern Churches kept it on January 6th, now the Epiphany. Other Churches chose April 24th or 25th and some placed it in May. Only in 354 AD did the Church choose December 25th as the birth date of Christ. Rome was then the leading Church but Romans had celebrated this festival for centuries as Pagans.

Claims of divinity were commonly associated with virgin birth in the ancient world. The Hindu god Krishna, Gautama Buddha and Zoroaster were reputedly the product of virgin births. Alexander the Great, Constantine and Nero claimed to have virgin births. Admirers of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and Pythagoras claimed virgin births for these sages.

http://www.benbest.com/history/xmas.html

I find it interesting that Xris makes an attempt to discredit your book excerpt, by using another book.

yes, interesting.

not all books are equal

Excellent point, but then who knows enough to determine which recorded "facts" are the real ones.

(Do you think anyone who has ever lived has read all accounts of history?)

All history is riddled with disputing accounts and strife with lacking evidence.

All books have agendas when written.

And anyone who takes one interpretation of history, which is even disputed amongst those sharing the same sources and beliefs, without even bothering to look at other possibilities or perspectives, is not learning, but being programmed, and allowing it, even defending it.

If you ask ten historians researching the same event or line of history to explain their findings and research, you will likely come up with ten variations and explanations of either minor or major details. (The same as asking ten priests about a certain line of scripture.)

Often they will even refer to a personal speculation to people's frames of minds, and even personal speculation that contradicts their own research.

Those thinking they have history cornered are deluding themselves.