Sixteen Crucified Saviours?

[Chris†opher Paul]

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. In regards to my Hinduism thread, I came across this supposed list of 16 saviors that mirrored Christ in his Crucification/Ressurection. I don't know what basis they have for claiming this, but it should be discredited, if it hasn't already.

What do you think? I know about the Satan's tricks idea, but do you have any knowledge of these supposed saviors?


Kersey Graves
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/graves/


Khrisna of India, crucified 1200 B.C.
Crite of Chaldea, crucified 1200 B.C.
Attis of Phrygia, crucified 1170 B.C.
Thammuz of Syria, crucified 1160 B.C.
Esus of the Celtic Druids, crucified 834 B.C.
Bali of Orissa, crucified 725 B.C.
Indra of Tibet, crucified 725 B.C.
lao of Nepal, crucified 622 B.C.
Sakia, a Hindu god, crucified 600 B.C.
Alcestis of Euripedes, crucified 600 B.C.
Mithra of Persia, crucified 600 B.C.
Quexalcoati of Mexico, crucified 587 B.C.
Aeschylus (Prometheus), crucified 547 B.C.
Wittoba of the Telingonese, crucified 552 B.C.
Quirinus of Rome, crucified 506 B.C.
and Jesus Christ, A.D. 33.

 

[Othniel]

I may be wrong...but in my studies on crucifixion, I've read that it was invented in the mediteranan, shortly before the rise of the Roman Empire. So...from that perspective, a few of those (ie Mexico) are thrown into question.

Promethues was a Greek Titan (pre-god) and he was not crucified, but chained to a rock where a vulture would eat his liver. He never died. Aeschylus was a playwrite and a poet, very famous in Greece.

Something else to keep in mind when dealing with atheists: they have no moral absolutes so there is nothing to keep them from twisting their truths. Their father is the prince of this world and the king of lies. Why listen to a false teacher?

Finally, if all these people resurrected, where are they now? Christ lives in me, Krishna does not. Christ rules the universe, Wittoba is dead. Christ is God Almighty, everyone else is just the anti-christ...including those whose site you visited.

Hope this helps.
<><

 

[Josephus]

And as I understand it, the Roman Empire didn't even invent crucifixion until 300 B.C.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Thanks guys. I found some other information which served as a good rebutal. But you are right about the lies, etc.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Josephus
And as I understand it, the Roman Empire didn't even invent crucifixion until 300 B.C.

Yep, thats what I found as well, around 300 B.C. Wow, people will make up anything to attack our faith.

 

[Othniel]

Here's one for you:

It wasn't the Roman Empire...they only conquered the people who were already practicing it. Why?

They were a people who worshiped an "earth goddess" (similar to Astarte). They believe the soil was therefore holy? (sound like the circle of life and new ageism?) So, when they killed people, they wanted to make sure that the unholy dead body did not ever dirty the earth by touching it, so they hung it on a pole and left it. The Romans were more impressed with the pain it caused, but the original reason for crucifixion was materialistic humanism!

Isn't it funny how it all makes sense in light of Christ ?

<><

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Othniel
Here's one for you:

It wasn't the Roman Empire...they only conquered the people who were already practicing it. Why?

They were a people who worshiped an &quot;earth goddess&quot; (similar to Astarte). They believe the soil was therefore holy? (sound like the circle of life and new ageism?) So, when they killed people, they wanted to make sure that the unholy dead body did not ever dirty the earth by touching it, so they hung it on a pole and left it. The Romans were more impressed with the pain it caused, but the original reason for crucifixion was materialistic humanism!

Isn't it funny how it all makes sense in light of Christ ?

&lt;&gt;&lt;

Yep! It makes sense...the evil side will lie, and mix lies with the truth to confuse us!

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Othniel
I may be wrong...but in my studies on crucifixion, I've read that it was invented in the mediteranan, shortly before the rise of the Roman Empire. So...from that perspective, a few of those (ie Mexico) are thrown into question.

Not really. You assume that something cannot be invented in more than one place.

Look at it this way: people all over the world invented knives. They also invented weaving. And pottery. And cultivation of crops. They did all this, without learning it from each other.

Some problems or situations have obvious or easy solutions. Just because people in the Mediterranean used crucifixion, that wouldn't prevent ancient Mexicans from stumbling on the same practice, all by themselves.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Othniel
Here's one for you:

It wasn't the Roman Empire...they only conquered the people who were already practicing it. Why?

They were a people who worshiped an "earth goddess" (similar to Astarte). They believe the soil was therefore holy? (sound like the circle of life and new ageism?) So, when they killed people, they wanted to make sure that the unholy dead body did not ever dirty the earth by touching it, so they hung it on a pole and left it. The Romans were more impressed with the pain it caused, but the original reason for crucifixion was materialistic humanism!

What's your source for this?

 

[Neo]

That list is from Kersey Graves book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, the entire book can be found online here: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/index.shtml

Be sure to double check information you read though, it does contain misinformation.

This is what infidels.org had to say about the book:
"The scholarship of Kersey Graves has been questioned by numerous freethinkers; the inclusion of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors in the Secular Web's Historical Library does not constitute endorsement by Internet Infidels, Inc. This document was included for historical purposes; readers should be extremely cautious in trusting anything in this book."

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Neo
That list is from Kersey Graves book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, the entire book can be found online here:

Right.

I was asking for a reference for Othniel's claim that crucifixion was something the Romans copied from another people, who practiced it as some kind of reverence for an earth goddess.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Neo
This is what infidels.org had to say about the book:
"The scholarship of Kersey Graves has been questioned by numerous freethinkers; the inclusion of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors in the Secular Web's Historical Library does not constitute endorsement by Internet Infidels, Inc. This document was included for historical purposes; readers should be extremely cautious in trusting anything in this book."

So exactly how does this disclaimer fit in with the "tricky evil atheists" theory that is running through this thread?

Wasn't it the Christians who modified the writings of Josephus to make it look like he was affirming that Jesus was the Messiah?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Ray K


So exactly how does this disclaimer fit in with the "tricky evil atheists" theory that is running through this thread?

Wasn't it the Christians who modified the writings of Josephus to make it look like he was affirming that Jesus was the Messiah?

The Chrisitans in a generalized statement. There are good and bad in ever group, of course.

There is another version of Josephus that is believed not to be altered by a Christian at all. It is much more realistic, and simply mentions Him, but doesn't act in awe.

 

[shibboleth]

Choosing an online dictionary at random:
"crucify
put to death by nailing to a cross, torture, persecute "

"Torture, persecute" could still fit those on that list, even if they weren't nailed to a cross.
Othneil is correct though. several of them are reputed to not have died.

Same randomly chosen dictionary:
"savior
deliverer, redeemer, liberator, rescuer
Savior
one who saves or rescues, one who delivers; one who brings salvation, Jesus Christ (the Savior)"

As Christians we of course agree that Jesus is "The Christ" and "The Savior".
These others could be called, by their followers:
"deliverer, redeemer, liberator, rescuer", but;
wouldn't that be at their own forums, and not at a "Christian Forum"?

Anyone belong to the "Quexalcoatl Forum"?

 

[shibboleth]

Sorry, cannot delete the accidental extra post.

Nobody told me "you can say that again". I just posted twice by mistake.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Othniel

Something else to keep in mind when dealing with atheists: they have no moral absolutes so there is nothing to keep them from twisting their truths. Their father is the prince of this world and the king of lies. Why listen to a false teacher?

This is one of the most exceptionally insulting things I have seen. Making a claim about "atheists" at this level is about as reasonable as making a claim about "people who believe in one or more gods".

Almost every living human has a sense of right and wrong; in fact, the lack of such a sense is so rare, and harmful, as to be considered a mental disorder. To claim otherwise is to bear false witness against these people - and, for that matter, flagrantly contradicts the teachings of Christianity, for the Bible says that God's law is written on every man's heart.

What on earth are you talking about with this "their father ..." thing? You may be thinking of people who believe in, and venerate, Satan. These people would not be called "atheists", in general.

Many of the Christians I know (myself included) spent some number of years without any belief in God. And yet, I can tell you from personal experience, morality became a gradually more important part of my life during that time, as I spent a lot of time trying to understand what the implications of right and wrong really were.

In short, by making that claim about atheists, you have made the claim that, some time back (perhaps ten years? My memory isn't so good anymore), when I was devoting most of my time to the search for moral understanding, to the detriment of many other things in my life, that I had no "moral absolutes" - but in fact, before I came particularly close to believing in God, I had accepted as moral absolutes the need for honesty and honor, compassion, and love for all things, even those you find yourself in opposition to.

Please, distinguish between "doesn't agree with me about this" and "necessarily believes the exact opposite of what I do about everything". Many, many, people believe in right and wrong, but not God.

Perhaps someone will respond "But how can they have morality without God?" Well, my friend, if you think that morality comes from God, you presumably believe He exists, right? Well, if He exists, then He exists *WHETHER OR NOT* these people believe in Him, and is quite capable of producing the sense of right and wrong in everyone, even those who are not willing or able to believe in Him.

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by seebs


Perhaps someone will respond "But how can they have morality without God?" Well, my friend, if you think that morality comes from God, you presumably believe He exists, right? Well, if He exists, then He exists *WHETHER OR NOT* these people believe in Him, and is quite capable of producing the sense of right and wrong in everyone, even those who are not willing or able to believe in Him.

Good answer, seebs. I have a favorite Aunt who is atheist, and she is one of the most moral people I know. Sorry to say, but she has more integrity than some so-called Christians.

 

[HazyRigby]

To the interested: here's a link to a scholarly article examining the stories of the other crucified deities.

Quest for the Historical Jesus

To take one of the gods mentioned in this essay:

Horus of Egypt
The stories of Jesus and Horus are very similar, with Horus even contributing the name of Jesus Christ. Horus and his once-and-future Father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos ("I and my Father are one").The legends of Horus go back thousands of years, and he shares the following in common with Jesus:

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.
Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
He had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
He walked on water.
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").
Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.

The author of the essay provides links to the sources of this information; however, I have deleted the links here, so you'll just have to go to the site to see 'em. It's an interesting read.

 

[seebs]

What I like is how both the European Pagans and the Egyptian Pagans are being credited with the December 25th thing. I now know that at least one of the claims is probably false.

I don't particularly buy the alleged similarities; there's always a certain amount of stretching going on, but I haven't got the time to learn an entire new pantheonic belief system just to explain the differences.

(Personally, I suspect that there *are* bits of the Jesus story floating around all over, not because it's some clever human invention, but because the echoes of what was arguably the single most important event in spiritual history have probably been bouncing around the cosmos for a LONG time.)

 

[HazyRigby]

...but if the stories pre-date the Jesus story, seebs? Does that give them more significance?