-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
When free, spend a little time, read this....
- Thread starter Sinkie
- Start date
Interesting. So I presume you read all 500 over pages of this book to stamp your approval of its contents as undisputedly true? Or is this just a casual link to an anti-Christian work to share information to others of which you have never read its contents but believe by faith that it is the Gospel truth? Well I have no time or intention to wade through the whole book, since I don't think I should put in any more time into it than you already have. Thus i took your advice and spend literally a little time (as you woukd have) and I jumped straight to his conclusion and here's what I noted and I quote:
If the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as related in the books of the New Testament, be in part the story of a man who really lived and suffered, that story has been so interwoven with images borrowed*[Pg 509]from myths of a bygone age, as to conceal forever any fragments of history which may lie beneath them. Gautama Buddha was undoubtedly an historical personage, yet the Sun-god myth has been added to his history to such an extent that we really know nothing positive about him. Alexander the Great was an historical personage, yet his history is one mass of legends. So it is with Julius Cesar, Cyrus, King of Persia, and scores of others. "The story of Cyrus' perils in infancy belongs to*solar*mythology as much as the stories of the magic slipper, of Charlemagne and Barbarossa. His grandfather, Astyages, is purely a mythical creation, his name being identical with that of the night demon, Azidahaka, who appears in the Shah-Nameh as the biting serpent."
So basically he seems to be saying that we know next to nothing about basically all figures of history, not just Jesus. Thus we should be skeptical of all of them and any claim to certainty of historical claims that are true. Ok, but that would also mean that we should also apply that same measure of skepticism to his book. How come he can know so much about history to say we cannot know anything true about history? Either a classic case of special pleading or self-pwn. I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over this book. Book dismissed.
It would be little time well spent to read a much shorter work here http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html
What was your TA Doane book link talking about?
Didn't you read?
Did you? Didn't you read what I wrote?
Yes, 500 pages is nothing to me. I read what you wrote but I dun know what you talking about?
Ok, so what do you conclude about the claims made by TA Doane in his book? True or false?
And what does the picture prove?
Hahahaha, chickenshit as usual...
Really? How do you know that to be true? And how do you reconcile this claim with so many other contradictory claims made by many other critics and skeptics who say Jesus was anything but that described in the Bible? Some say Buddhist teachings are in the Gospel. Now you say Egyptian. Can you sort this mess out among yourselves please? Who should I believe?
So which account do you believe?
He did not make any claims. Please.........go read the 500 pages.
No contradiction, jesus was a composite plagarised from many ancient sources. The strong point is that those sources existed and pre dated before christianity
Similar threads
