Jesus is a metaphor for the sun!

Adam, feel free to lay out the rules and I will try to follow your lead.

Are you guys serious about these videos? Ill argue against them but first I want to make sure that this isnt some kind of joke. I mean, maybe you guys should watch them again, maybe this time you will see the stupidity that I saw. I can honestly say that, while I have seen many pathetic attempts to disprove the story of Jesus, this has to be one of the dumbest I have ever seen. Seriously, let me know if this was meant as a joke, 'cause I would feel dumb if I argued something that wasn't meant to be taken seriously...its so hard to type...i cant stop laughing!

No prblemo. K, if any of you had actually bothered to read up on Horus, you would have found that there are two stories regarding his birth, and niether has any mention of a virgin. In fact, one even specifically says that Isis (Horus' mother) is not a virgin. She supposedly brought Osiris back from the dead to give her a son...hmmm...why would she need Osiris if she were already pregnant as a virgin? As far as Horus' "12 desciples" these were not actual men or gods but were the 12 signs of the zodiac. Jesus' desiples were actual men whos lives are documented by historians. This is just a small insignificant coincidence. December 25 as both Jesus' and Horus' birthday? December 25 is not the birthday of either Jesus or Horus. Horus' birth was celebrated in the month of Khoiak (october/november) While Jesus is thought to have been born in May. As for the mountain top encounter, two completely different stories, no similarities at all except that both were on a mountain. Last but not least, Horus was never said to have been crucified, nor was he said to have ressurected himself, he was said to have died, then to have merged with Osiris, thats it, no crucifixion, no ressurection. Maybe do some research next time, and dont believe everything you see on you-tube.

No I do not see how you can compare Jesus and the sun god, I understand why stories were told by our ancestors, its just that the story of jesus has very few similaritys to the story of Horus, or any of the other gods that were mentioned. Don't go strictly by the video, read the actual stories, you will see that while most are similar to each other, the story of Jesus has very little in common with the rest. Not to mention it is the only one in wich the character's lives and deaths are documented by historians. These people actually did live, they are not made up characters, they are actual people. Many eye witnesses confirmed the Bibles claims.

These are not just stories that were passed down to kids at bedtime. Hundreds of people claimed to have seen Jesus alive, after they had seen him hanging on the cross. I am sure that if you twist the facts enough, then you can pretend that these stories are similar, but they are not. No one ever claimed to have actually seen Horus, Jesus on the other hand was one of the biggest celebrities of his day, everyone saw him do what he claimed to do.

Are you telling me that if you were there when Jesus claimed to raise Lazurus from the dead, and you saw that he did not really do it, that you wouldn't say something to someone. Anyone would speak out in a situation like that, but no one did, because it actually happened, and everyone saw it plain and clear.

You do realize that both Mathew and John (the guys that wrote the gospels) were Jesus' apostles, dont you? How could they have been his apostles without ever actually meeting him?
And what about Luke? He never actually met Jesus, but he was writing his gospel for a freind and gathered the story from eye witnesses, why would he write a metaphor for a freind, and go around asking eye witnesses? Luke was one of the most educated authors of the New testiment, do you really think he would be dumb enough to take a metaphore literally, and go around asking people if they saw it happen?
Also, the Bible is considered by most historians to be the most accurate historical account in existance, are you just choosing to believe that when it says that hundreds of people saw Jesus alive after his crucifixian, that they just lied about that part but not the rest? I can understan if you don't believe the supernatural claims of the bible, but what kind of idiot would claim that hundreds of people saw the same thing as him, if he had no witnesses to back him up?
And yes, I do see a few similarites, but I also see a few similarites between a kitten and an elephent. Both are mammels, both breath air, both eat food, both start out small then gow larger, in fact, I am willing to bet that there are kittens and elephents that were born at the exact same time, does that meen kittens are just a rip off from elephents? No. It just means that there are some similarites...who cares.

And the first account of Jesus' life was written by his apostle Mathew, between 37-68 AD...GEEZ!! Do some research!

Ok, Mr. Sensitive, no more exclaimation points, I promise.

There are no outside sources that talk about those eyewitnesses, but wouldnt it be pretty stupid of the author to claim that hundreds were there, if no one will admit that they were there?

yes very

I think that would be a pretty foolish thing to do. If no one actually saw these things, then wouldnt someone speak up?

Why doesn't anyone speak up against the Qu'ran or the Vedas or any other such religious claims?

Wouldnt they write something disputing the claims of Mathew and John? Why isnt there even one single document from that day that diputes what those men wrote? If someone says something happened, and not even one single person argues with him, even though he claims that they were all there, then he is probably telling the truth.

who might you think would "speak up"? The witnesses are the only people who would know whether it happened or not, but there are no witnesses to speak of so who exactly do you expect to "speak up"?

I am not sure what you mean by that last statement.

There were hundreds of witnesses, so I would expect them to speak up. If nothing else, Mathew and John both claimed that there were hundreds of witnesses, why wouldnt anyone ask who they were? Why would thousands of people (the ones they preached to right after the event) just take their word for it?

How did Luke get the story from eyewitness acounts, if there were no eye witnesses? Why wouldnt the sudacees and pharisees, (who hated Jesus) say or write something to inform people that there were no witnesses?

Ok, Mr. Sensitive, no more exclaimation points, I promise.

There are no outside sources that talk about those eyewitnesses, but wouldnt it be pretty stupid of the author to claim that hundreds were there, if no one will admit that they were there? I think that would be a pretty foolish thing to do. If no one actually saw these things, then wouldnt someone speak up? Wouldnt they write something disputing the claims of Mathew and John? Why isnt there even one single document from that day that diputes what those men wrote? If someone says something happened, and not even one single person argues with him, even though he claims that they were all there, then he is probably telling the truth.