Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christianity is a pagan religion.

Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 11:20:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I propose that Christianity is a pagan religion and has its roots in Egypt in the time of Akhenaten. The symbols and writings of Christianity clearly point to a monotheistic sun worshipping religion. The use of the common word 'amen' in the Bible writings clearly demonstrates that the Bible is an Egyptian text and the stories within the Bible are just adaptations of the history of the Egyptian Pharaohs. The word 'amen' is really the Egyptian god of creation Amen-Ra.

The celebration of Christmas on the winter solstice days of 23-25 of December, clearly demonstrates that sun worship is the main purpose of Christianity. On the 23 rd of December the Sun is said to die on the cross, that's,[the Southern Cross]. Note - On the 23rd of December the Southern Cross points towards the sun rise in the Northern Hemisphere. 3 days later, the Sun is reborn and starts to move north again. As we can plainly see, the story of Jesus is just a figurative analogy of the movements of the sun. Thus, The Son of God should really be the Sun of God.
One_Servant
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 11:24:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 11:20:16 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
I propose that Christianity is a pagan religion and has its roots in Egypt in the time of Akhenaten. The symbols and writings of Christianity clearly point to a monotheistic sun worshipping religion. The use of the common word 'amen' in the Bible writings clearly demonstrates that the Bible is an Egyptian text and the stories within the Bible are just adaptations of the history of the Egyptian Pharaohs. The word 'amen' is really the Egyptian god of creation Amen-Ra.

The celebration of Christmas on the winter solstice days of 23-25 of December, clearly demonstrates that sun worship is the main purpose of Christianity. On the 23 rd of December the Sun is said to die on the cross, that's,[the Southern Cross]. Note - On the 23rd of December the Southern Cross points towards the sun rise in the Northern Hemisphere. 3 days later, the Sun is reborn and starts to move north again. As we can plainly see, the story of Jesus is just a figurative analogy of the movements of the sun. Thus, The Son of God should really be the Sun of God. : :

Christianity is a mix of pagan religions ( including Jewish traditions and beliefs ) and ideas from the true gospel that God's saints preached to His believers. Christians who believe in the new testament have been very deceived by it. It was written by pagans who had no idea who our Creator was.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 11:59:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 11:24:08 PM, One_Servant wrote:
At 10/10/2015 11:20:16 PM, Akhenaten wrote:

Christianity is a mix of pagan religions ( including Jewish traditions and beliefs ) and ideas from the true gospel that God's saints preached to His believers. Christians who believe in the new testament have been very deceived by it. It was written by pagans who had no idea who our Creator was.

The New Testament. The word testament - test -amen -t ; as we can plainly see; the word 'amen' is hidden in the name of the Bible itself. Note - amen means the hidden one.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 12:12:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The monotheistic god of Egypt was Aten, not Amun-Ra.

The worship of Aten was abolished 4 centuries before Israel began distinguishing itself from its Canaanite relatives. Israel was still pagan at this time.

The "Sun of God" theory is unsubstantiated.

While Christianity did incorporate some pagan elements from Germanic mythology (e.g. Father Christmas, and Easter Eggs), the New Testament is free of this, having been written centuries prior to the Christianization of Northern Europe. Judaism incorporated aspects of Zoroastrianism, but those elements were changed significantly from the source material.
One_Servant
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 12:27:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 11:59:03 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/10/2015 11:24:08 PM, One_Servant wrote:
At 10/10/2015 11:20:16 PM, Akhenaten wrote:

Christianity is a mix of pagan religions ( including Jewish traditions and beliefs ) and ideas from the true gospel that God's saints preached to His believers. Christians who believe in the new testament have been very deceived by it. It was written by pagans who had no idea who our Creator was.

The New Testament. The word testament - test -amen -t ; as we can plainly see; the word 'amen' is hidden in the name of the Bible itself. Note - amen means the hidden one. : :

The name, "New Testament" is unimportant. What's important is the testimonies of God's saints and prophets that contain information about the future and how God created everything.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 12:37:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 12:12:53 AM, SM2 wrote:
The monotheistic god of Egypt was Aten, not Amun-Ra.

The worship of Aten was abolished 4 centuries before Israel began distinguishing itself from its Canaanite relatives. Israel was still pagan at this time.

The "Sun of God" theory is unsubstantiated.

While Christianity did incorporate some pagan elements from Germanic mythology (e.g. Father Christmas, and Easter Eggs), the New Testament is free of this, having been written centuries prior to the Christianization of Northern Europe. Judaism incorporated aspects of Zoroastrianism, but those elements were changed significantly from the source material.

The Egyptians had many different spellings for the God Amen. Aten and Amen are both gods of the sun. Akhenaten changed the name from Amen to Aten. This was only a temporary change which was reversed upon his death.

http://www.varchive.org...
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 12:44:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Bible was written under instructions from Constantine in about 300 AD. Constantine was under instructions from his mother. Christianity was forced onto Europe by military action and threat of death under Constantine. It was not a religion that was spread peacefully by word of mouth. The purpose being to unite all the countries of Europe using religion as a motivation to protect Europe from Eastern countries and their religions.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 12:54:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 12:44:56 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The Bible was written under instructions from Constantine in about 300 AD. Constantine was under instructions from his mother. Christianity was forced onto Europe by military action and threat of death under Constantine. It was not a religion that was spread peacefully by word of mouth. The purpose being to unite all the countries of Europe using religion as a motivation to protect Europe from Eastern countries and their religions.

If the Bible was written in 300 AD, the why do we have fragments of it from much earlier, like the John Rylands or Bodhmer Papyri?
:) nac
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 1:45:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 12:54:10 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 10/11/2015 12:44:56 AM, Akhenaten wrote:

If the Bible was written in 300 AD, the why do we have fragments of it from much earlier, like the John Rylands or Bodhmer Papyri?

The stories of the Bible are thousands of years old. They are mostly about the Pharaohs of Egypt. Jesus represents the Sun of God.[son of god] Mosses represents Thutmosis III; Yakubher is Aramean for Jacob; King David is Psusennes and King Solomon is Pharaoh Siamun. They all match perfectly in chronological order which includes time periods of battles and the enemies that they fought.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 1:46:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 12:37:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:

The Egyptians had many different spellings for the God Amen. Aten and Amen are both gods of the sun. Akhenaten changed the name from Amen to Aten. This was only a temporary change which was reversed upon his death.

http://www.varchive.org...

Regardless, the "Sun of God" theory is unsubstantiated.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 1:53:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 1:46:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/11/2015 12:37:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:

Regardless, the "Sun of God" theory is unsubstantiated.

In order to "unsubstaniate" a claim, you must first prove that the evidence that I have already provided is false. Until that that time has come and the evidence is shown, the claim remains viable and true.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 2:27:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 1:53:12 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/11/2015 1:46:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/11/2015 12:37:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:

Regardless, the "Sun of God" theory is unsubstantiated.

In order to "unsubstaniate" a claim, you must first prove that the evidence that I have already provided is false. Until that that time has come and the evidence is shown, the claim remains viable and true.

Wrong. Your sources aren't credible, so you haven't met BOP.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 2:40:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 2:27:14 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/11/2015 1:53:12 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/11/2015 1:46:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/11/2015 12:37:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:

Regardless, the "Sun of God" theory is unsubstantiated.

In order to "unsubstaniate" a claim, you must first prove that the evidence that I have already provided is false. Until that that time has come and the evidence is shown, the claim remains viable and true.

Wrong. Your sources aren't credible, so you haven't met BOP.

I think he's a Christian who is trying to make "anti-Christians" look ignorant. The guy can't be serious.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 3:56:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 2:40:23 AM, annanicole wrote:

I think he's a Christian who is trying to make "anti-Christians" look ignorant. The guy can't be serious.

"Never assume malice until you've ruled out stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 4:39:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Archaeology experts have found absolutely no evidence what so ever that Hebrew Jews lived as slaves in Egypt or of their exodus from Egypt...... The plain truth is that Moses didn"t lead Hebrew slaves out of Egypt anymore then Chilton Heston did..... There is not one shred of archeological evidence for the existence of Moses or of any of the bible"s main cast of Hebrew characters " from Abraham to Jacob to King David to King Solomon...... There is however plenty of evidence for the existence of Egyptian pharaohs who these biblical characters are based on.....

Evidence shows that the ancestral patriarch of the Hebrew Jews is Amenemhet the first and that his biblical name is Abraham. Since pharaoh Amenemhet worshipped the god Amen, are Amen and the biblical god the same god?

Since Yakubher is the Aramean name for Jacob, Egyptology experts interpret this as factual evidence that the biblical Jacob and the hyksos king Yakubher were one of the same,

Moses closely matches Thutmosis the third, even the names Moses and Thutmosis are almost identical.

King David reigned for 50 years, Egyptian history reveals that pharaoh Psusennes also ruled Canaan for 50 years at the same time as the biblical king David " both battled the same enemy called the sea people or philistines.

Pharaoh Siamun and King Solomon reigned at exactly the same time and fought the same enemies in Canaan called the Matani, the Hittites and the Philistines.

(Jacob: 1758 " 1611 BC, King Yakubher reign: 1655 " 1646 BC)

(King David reign: 1012 " 962 BC, Psusennes reign: 1039-991 BC)

(Moses: 1527 " 1407 BC, Thutmose the third reign: 1479 - 1425 BC)

(Abraham: 2055 " 1880 BC, Amenemhet the first reign: 1991 " 1962 BC)

(King Solomon reign: 970 " 931 BC, Siamun reign: 978 " 959 BC)

Refute those facts!
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 5:26:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 4:39:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Archaeology experts have found absolutely no evidence what so ever that Hebrew Jews lived as slaves in Egypt or of their exodus from Egypt...... The plain truth is that Moses didn"t lead Hebrew slaves out of Egypt anymore then Chilton Heston did..... There is not one shred of archeological evidence for the existence of Moses or of any of the bible"s main cast of Hebrew characters " from Abraham to Jacob to King David to King Solomon...... There is however plenty of evidence for the existence of Egyptian pharaohs who these biblical characters are based on.....

Evidence shows that the ancestral patriarch of the Hebrew Jews is Amenemhet the first and that his biblical name is Abraham. Since pharaoh Amenemhet worshipped the god Amen, are Amen and the biblical god the same god?

Since Yakubher is the Aramean name for Jacob, Egyptology experts interpret this as factual evidence that the biblical Jacob and the hyksos king Yakubher were one of the same,

Moses closely matches Thutmosis the third, even the names Moses and Thutmosis are almost identical.

King David reigned for 50 years, Egyptian history reveals that pharaoh Psusennes also ruled Canaan for 50 years at the same time as the biblical king David " both battled the same enemy called the sea people or philistines.

Pharaoh Siamun and King Solomon reigned at exactly the same time and fought the same enemies in Canaan called the Matani, the Hittites and the Philistines.

(Jacob: 1758 " 1611 BC, King Yakubher reign: 1655 " 1646 BC)

(King David reign: 1012 " 962 BC, Psusennes reign: 1039-991 BC)

(Moses: 1527 " 1407 BC, Thutmose the third reign: 1479 - 1425 BC)

(Abraham: 2055 " 1880 BC, Amenemhet the first reign: 1991 " 1962 BC)

(King Solomon reign: 970 " 931 BC, Siamun reign: 978 " 959 BC)

Refute those facts!

1. The Philistines have nothing to do with so-called "sea people", and were not called such. You'll need to prove that the two are synonyms or near-synonyms.

2. "Psusennes" looks nothing like "David" or "Dabid" (Gr) or "Dud" (Heb).

So it's not really a matter of refuting. You haven't given any evidence other than that of a vivid imagination.

Provide some strong evidence that the Philistines were synonymous with "sea people", for one thing. Then provide some strong evidence that "Psusennes" is etymologically similar to "David".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 6:58:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 5:26:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/11/2015 4:39:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:


1. The Philistines have nothing to do with so-called "sea people", and were not called such. You'll need to prove that the two are synonyms or near-synonyms.

Refuted - http://www.crystalinks.com...

2. "Psusennes" looks nothing like "David" or "Dabid" (Gr) or "Dud" (Heb).

Refuted - There are no archaeological records of King Solomon or King David. The Bible is the only reference. http://www.hiddenmysteries.org...

So it's not really a matter of refuting. You haven't given any evidence other than that of a vivid imagination.

The evidence is in, now, who has the big imagination?

Provide some strong evidence that the Philistines were synonymous with "sea people", for one thing. Then provide some strong evidence that "Psusennes" is etymologically similar to "David".

The evidence for Psusennes lies in the battle records and the timeline which are exact matches.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 7:57:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 6:58:10 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/11/2015 5:26:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/11/2015 4:39:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:


1. The Philistines have nothing to do with so-called "sea people", and were not called such. You'll need to prove that the two are synonyms or near-synonyms.

Refuted - http://www.crystalinks.com...

2. "Psusennes" looks nothing like "David" or "Dabid" (Gr) or "Dud" (Heb).

Refuted - There are no archaeological records of King Solomon or King David. The Bible is the only reference. http://www.hiddenmysteries.org...

So it's not really a matter of refuting. You haven't given any evidence other than that of a vivid imagination.

The evidence is in, now, who has the big imagination?

Provide some strong evidence that the Philistines were synonymous with "sea people", for one thing. Then provide some strong evidence that "Psusennes" is etymologically similar to "David".

The evidence for Psusennes lies in the battle records and the timeline which are exact matches.

Neither of those sources is credible. For all we know, you made them.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 8:27:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 7:57:35 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/11/2015 6:58:10 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/11/2015 5:26:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/11/2015 4:39:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:

Neither of those sources is credible. For all we know, you made them.

Sanford Holst was the author.

I had better tell the BBC to stop broadcasting their historical series - Ancient Worlds.

University lecturer and member of Royal Historical Society.

Not good enough eh?
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 8:52:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 6:58:10 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/11/2015 5:26:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/11/2015 4:39:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:


1. The Philistines have nothing to do with so-called "sea people", and were not called such. You'll need to prove that the two are synonyms or near-synonyms.

Refuted - http://www.crystalinks.com...

2. "Psusennes" looks nothing like "David" or "Dabid" (Gr) or "Dud" (Heb).

Refuted - There are no archaeological records of King Solomon or King David. The Bible is the only reference. http://www.hiddenmysteries.org...

So it's not really a matter of refuting. You haven't given any evidence other than that of a vivid imagination.

The evidence is in, now, who has the big imagination?

Provide some strong evidence that the Philistines were synonymous with "sea people", for one thing. Then provide some strong evidence that "Psusennes" is etymologically similar to "David".

The evidence for Psusennes lies in the battle records and the timeline which are exact matches.

Well, provide some EVIDENCE that the Philistines were known as the "sea people" to the exclusion of others. I already knew where they were located.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 9:30:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 6:58:10 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/11/2015 5:26:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/11/2015 4:39:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:

Provide some strong evidence that the Philistines were synonymous with "sea people", for one thing. Then provide some strong evidence that "Psusennes" is etymologically similar to "David".

The evidence for Psusennes lies in the battle records and the timeline which are exact matches.

I didn't ask for "evidence of Psusennes". What I said was this:

Then provide some strong evidence that "Psusennes" is etymologically similar to "David".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 10:39:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I didn't ask for "evidence of Psusennes". What I said was this:

Then provide some strong evidence that "Psusennes" is etymologically similar to "David".

Psusennes name means"The Star Appearing in the City".

Star of David? City of David? Say no more!
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 6:03:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 10:39:06 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
I didn't ask for "evidence of Psusennes". What I said was this:

Then provide some strong evidence that "Psusennes" is etymologically similar to "David".

Psusennes name means"The Star Appearing in the City".

Star of David? City of David? Say no more!

What does "David" mean?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 8:19:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 11:20:16 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
... Jesus is just a figurative analogy of the movements of the sun. Thus, The Son of God should really be the Sun of God.

To me Jesus is more likely the words that he said in the Bible. Dates and other earthly things are irrelevant tin comparison to his words.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 8:39:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 11:59:03 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/10/2015 11:24:08 PM, One_Servant wrote:
At 10/10/2015 11:20:16 PM, Akhenaten wrote:

Christianity is a mix of pagan religions ( including Jewish traditions and beliefs ) and ideas from the true gospel that God's saints preached to His believers. Christians who believe in the new testament have been very deceived by it. It was written by pagans who had no idea who our Creator was.

The New Testament. The word testament - test -amen -t ; as we can plainly see; the word 'amen' is hidden in the name of the Bible itself. Note - amen means the hidden one.

Ok I think you were a little carried away on that last one...

Btw testament is a misstranslation, the hebrew word is covenant.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 11:12:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 6:03:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/11/2015 10:39:06 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
I didn't ask for "evidence of Psusennes". What I said was this:

Then provide some strong evidence that "Psusennes" is etymologically similar to "David".

Psusennes name means"The Star Appearing in the City".

Star of David? City of David? Say no more!

What does "David" mean?

I think I have already provided sufficient evidence to prove my point that Psusennes and King David are one and the same person. The name David was made up by the persons unknown who wrote the Bible. Why hasn't the Bible got a list of authors and publishers in the front of it like all other books? What do they have to hide?
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 12:23:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 11:12:10 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/11/2015 6:03:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/11/2015 10:39:06 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
I didn't ask for "evidence of Psusennes". What I said was this:

Then provide some strong evidence that "Psusennes" is etymologically similar to "David".

Psusennes name means"The Star Appearing in the City".

Star of David? City of David? Say no more!

What does "David" mean?

I think I have already provided sufficient evidence to prove my point that Psusennes and King David are one and the same person.

Well, about all you've done is suggested that the "sea people" just had to be the Philistines, while giving no evidence whatsoever that "sea people" was a synonym for the Philistines.

The name David was made up by the persons unknown who wrote the Bible.

Then the name "David" apparently has nothing to do with Psusennes, at least etymologically. Nothing whatsoever. The two aren't even similar.

I think we'll also find that identifying the Philistines as "the sea people" is a huge and unsubstantiated leap. I think we'll find that you can't find a single such reference that this phrase was applied to them, especially to the exclusion of the other peoples. If you have any such evidence, perhaps you'll present it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 1:18:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 1:45:26 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Jesus represents the Sun of God.[son of god]

How does the fact that the English words for sun and son are similar prove your point? They are both from Indo-European roots, but where is the proof that they were etymologically related, and their relation was known at the time when the Bible was created?
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 1:29:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 1:53:12 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/11/2015 1:46:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/11/2015 12:37:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:

Regardless, the "Sun of God" theory is unsubstantiated.

In order to "unsubstaniate" a claim, you must first prove that the evidence that I have already provided is false. Until that that time has come and the evidence is shown, the claim remains viable and true.

Actually, you are the one who needs to provide more positive evidence, as opposed to your opponents being required to provide negative evidence, because of a principle of logic called the burden of proof: the idea that the person making a positive claim has the burden to prove it.

The burden of proof is real and logical, because if any claim which has not been disproven is viable and true, then one could claim that there is an invisible teapot floating around in space, and that would be absolutely true since said claim cannot be disproven--it is unfalsifiable. Plus, if someone has not met his burden of proof for one of his claims, then his opponents would find it hard to disprove said claims, since they wouldn't know why he is claiming what he is claiming.

You have provided some very weak evidence; you just said that certain biblical words sound the same as the names of Egyptian gods, but did not provide any evidence that said words are etymologically related with the names of Egyptian gods. I could not find much literature about the so-called connection between Amen-Ra and amen online. Therefore, you are not really meeting your burden of proof.
:) nac