The Horus of Christianity

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Bring it on
Metatron

Metatron is Busy
Whattapity
S/He cannot balance on the Four Worlds

S/He can bring it on
through U

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I know, Aristophanes saw him after he died.

Aristophanes killed Socrates

Originally posted by black beetle
Aristophanes killed Socrates

At the bidding of the stern goddess Diamat.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
At the bidding of the stern goddess Diamat.

I am not sure; it seems to me that it was a kill like the nowdays ones commited from the media
The damn comedian twisted so much Socrates's beliefs that the ignorant Athenians became eager to devour the philosopher
and they finally did it

Originally posted by black beetle
I am not sure; it seems to me that it was a kill like the nowdays ones commited from the media
The damn comedian twisted so much Socrates's beliefs that the ignorant Athenians became eager to devour the philosopher
and they finally did it

Please say a bit more about 'devouring the philosopher'.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Please say a bit more about 'devouring the philosopher'.

Socrates was a superb philosopher warrior and a good stone sculpture
amongst many incidences, singlehanded he saved Alkiviades at the expedition of Potidaea
he was quite famous for his well known abilities
but he was also very humble although quite fearless
therefore he was teasing the rich and the ignorant all the time and everywhere
and since the youth were amazed with his philosophical and war skills
the rulers of the city were driving loco with his accurate criticism
Aristophanes started pushing it too far through his famous comedies (ie Nephelae), producing a false facet of Socrates
and step by step the mob of the city started to believe that the philosopher was insulting the Gods and a non-believer

the rest is history

Originally posted by black beetle
Socrates was a superb philosopher warrior and a good stone sculpture
amongst many incidences, singlehanded he saved Alkiviades at the expedition of Potidaea
he was quite famous for his well known abilities
but he was also very humble although quite fearless
therefore he was teasing the rich and the ignorant all the time and everywhere
and since the ...[text shortened]... to believe that the philosopher was insulting the Gods and a non-believer

the rest is history

...and a good stone sculptor, please excuse me

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, there's no incontrovertible historical evidence of Jesus' existence. Same goes for Socrates. It's just one of those things.

Don't be ridiculous.

When it come to historical evidence you can't find more evidence for the existence of any other historical figue than that of Jesus.

Why don't you be honest about it?

Originally posted by josephw
When it come to historical evidence you can't find more evidence for the existence of any other historical figue than that of Jesus.

Are you joking?

Originally posted by josephw
you can't find more evidence for the existence of any other historical figue than that of Jesus.

Historical figures: Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich? Leo McKern? George Best?

Come on!

Is your "evidence" in the Holy Bible by any chance?

Originally posted by josephw
Don't be ridiculous.

When it come to historical evidence you can't find more evidence for the existence of any other historical figue than that of Jesus.

Why don't you be honest about it?

It's just a question of method.

I'm not sure what it is you insist I be honest about.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Because they want to know if they really existed. It's good not to accept things at face value, you know. Mana figures always generate stories subject to embellishment. Buddha's another case in point. Imagine taking all the stories literally! Ultimately you have to weigh up the evidence for yourself.

I suppose it depends upon the source from which you pull such data. For example, all this talk reminds me of historians who once questionted the existence of king David in the Bible. However, over a period of years some archaeological digs uncovered evidence that he, in fact, did exist. In fact, historians had no record of the Philistines ever having existed, yet it was there in the Bible. However, recently, digs uncovered that these people acutally existed. I guess what I'm saying is, the Bible has shown itself time and time again to be a credible source of information in regards to people actually existing. It is about real people during real historical times. Therefore, it is up to you as to whether you view it as a cedible source of information.

As for Buddha, I am not that familiar with the stories he told, however, if these stories had been corraborated like those of the Bible then they should be taken seriously.

Originally posted by black beetle
Maybe you mean that many of Jesus' quotes sound strangely like those of Socrates?

So which came first, the chicken or the egg, eh? It is a far different assertion, however, to say that neither the chicken nor the egg exist!! In fact, someone had to come up with these sayings so why not give credit to those who have been given credit for saying them?

I suppose you are free to question anything, but to say that someone did not exist or that someone did not say something I would assume that you would first have evidence to the contrary. Call me crazy. 🙄

Originally posted by whodey
So which came first, the chicken or the egg, eh? It is a far different assertion, however, to say that neither the chicken nor the egg exist!! In fact, someone had to come up with these sayings so why not give credit to those who have been given credit for saying them?

I suppose you are free to question anything, but to say that someone did not exist or ...[text shortened]... something I would assume that you would first have evidence to the contrary. Call me crazy. 🙄

I call you wise and I call myself ignorant;


Therefore my friend you could try to answer to my exact question😵

Originally posted by whodey
As for Buddha, I am not that familiar with the stories he told, however, if these stories had been corraborated like those of the Bible then they should be taken seriously.

It's not the stories he told that are questionable so much as the stories told about him. In both cases.