Jonny's Reviews > The Holy Bible

The Holy Bible by Anonymous
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Apr 25, 2007

did not like it
bookshelves: fantasy
Recommended for: Nobody.
Read in January, 2000

If it wasn't for the fact that some people actually took it seriously, this book would be a fantastic read. It's action packed, full of death and destruction, as well as advocating murder, vengeance, wars, sacrifice and rape, and even the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals - it's definetly a thrilling (if somewhat disturbing) read!

However, if you wish to read the original stories, then you may want to refer to Mithraic holy scripts, which predate the Bible by several thousand years, yet amazingly contain many of the same stories. Mithras, for example, was the son of God, born on the 25th December of a virgin in a grotto, where he was attended to by shepherds with gifts. He was, according to Mithraic holy texts, sent to Earth to live as a man, and die to redeem the sins of mankind. He requested people drink of his blood and eat of his flesh (which Mithraic followers did symbolically in Communion) and had a meal with his 12 followers the night before his death. However, do not be concerned, for he was resurrected shortly after, and followers were also baptised so that they too could be resurrected after death. I smell plagiarism here...
54 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Holy Bible.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

04/29/2016 marked as: read

Comments (showing 1-16 of 16) (16 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Dave (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:16PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Dave You cant even begin to understand the significance of this book, so it would be an understatment to say your first sentence is a little ignorant. plus, how can you give it a decent review, and then reccomend it to no one and give it 1 star?

message 2: by Gregory (new)

Gregory It's gratifying to see that at least one other living person in the world has even heard of Mithras. Have you ever heard of Sol Invictus? He was the deity of a monotheistic Roman state religion instituted by Diocletian in an attempt to unify the empire. Sol Invictus also bears many similarities to Mithras, as well as to Apollo. This was before Constantine chose Christianity as the state religion. Draw your own conclusions.

message 3: by Dave (last edited Sep 15, 2008 01:42PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Dave After reading such claims I did research into Mithraism from legitimate historical sources rather than pop history websites, and found the similarities aren't nearly as pronounced as your review suggests. Also, while Mithraism peaked in 300 AD, Christianity was already wide spread, and many scholars believe that Mithraism took elements of the Christ-story, not the other way around. There is no evidence to support Dec 25th as the birthday of Christ in 4 A.D. In fact, almost all scholars agree that this date was adopted centuries later.

Also, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that the early Christians copied anything from Mithraism. In fact, it may have been the other way around....

Shannon Speaking of dates...Did you know that everytime you write a date on a piece of paper or say a date out loud, or look at your calendar to find the date, you are agreeing with Christianity? After all B.C. is "before Christ" (not, Before Mithras) And A.D. would be "Anno Domini" or better known as "Anno Domini Nostri lesu Christi" (In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ) - Again, not Mithras, Allah, Buddah etc...but Jesus Christ.

Thank you and have a blessed day.
Or should I say have a blessed July 23rd in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Shannon Since we're taking God out of everything else, I guess we'll have to change our calendars now too...
That's a lot of trees!


message 6: by [deleted user] (new)

Actually, Shannon, nowadays the more acceptable way to write the date is using the terms "B.C.E." and "C.E." - "Before Common Era" and "Common Era". This is what is used in most recent textbooks etc.

Shannon Actually Eamon, "Common Era" is also known as "Christian Era" and "Current Era". All three abbreviated as C.E. Dates before the year 1 are stated as B.C.E. or "Before Common, Christian, or Current Era"
Both the BCE/CE and BC/AD notations are based on a sixth century estimate for the year in which Jesus was conceived or born, with "common era" designation originating among Christians in Europe at least as early as 1615 (at first in Latin).

message 8: by [deleted user] (new)

Yes, but my point was that you aren't necessarily "agreeing with Christianity" every time you write the date. Changing the entire calendar and dating system would be extremely impractical so nowadays non-Christians/athiests are able to use the "BCE/CE" system which is considered neutral and has less religious connotations.

Shannon And my point is that it is all the same thing and the BCE/CE was originated among Christians. So, though it may have less religious connotations to non-Christians, it is still based on the birth of Jesus. My point being...not Mithras, or Buddah, or Krishna...but Jesus Christ.

But, like I've said in the past, I do not debate my Lord, I only declare Him.

Have a blessed day.

Raven Changing it from BC to BCE is just another way to take God out of life. It never fails.

message 11: by [deleted user] (new)

Shannon wrote: "Speaking of dates...Did you know that everytime you write a date on a piece of paper or say a date out loud, or look at your calendar to find the date, you are agreeing with Christianity? After all..."
Ridiculous, just because I lift the toilet seat when I pee, doesn't mean I agree with it. That's common sense. We had to choose a date, a recent reference point, and there is also something called Democracy, doesn't mean anybody agree with anything you say. If most people want to use the date of the biggest hoax in history, some have to follow. But if you want us to splash the toilet seat, we can arrange that.

message 12: by Em (new)

Em Dionysus also has many similarities with Jesus.

Shannon "If most people want to use the date of the biggest hoax in history, some have to follow."

Funny how we as humans consider ourselves so intellectual, yet we would choose the a dateof a "hoax" to base our whole time and existence from....Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

And I don't lift the toilet seat when I pee, so it doesn't bother me either way.

message 14: by Melissa (new)

Melissa I love this book but your review I love more! Great! I love a critic when it is reasonable like yours. Did you read "a crossing or the drop's history" by Anatoliy Obraztsov?

message 15: by Rob (new) - rated it 5 stars

Rob Smith Many a man and woman gave their lives to bring forward this text, regardless of the false churches and corrupt leaders, Christ gave his time to the poor and the dying, without his contributions, there would be no hospitals for the less fortunate, or schools for the ignorant. Jesus, single handed, blessed the world with literacy and compassion. Merry Christmas!

message 16: by Giulia (new)

Giulia B Except our calendars start to count years on the alleged birth of Jesus, who was born between March and May, not the 25th of December. Do you know why that date was chosen? Because the 21st of December is the solstice and the people celebrated that day. When Christianity became the State Religion under Constantine he chose the 25th of December to make the passage between religion less difficult for the ignorant people.
Beside how we calculate time isn't a proof of the truth of the Bible, it is just the proof of the historical importance of this religion through the century, in fact more of the historically importance of Church (Vaticane and Popes) as a secular, more than a spiritual, institution.
The Bible was edited by men who decided what should be thrown out and what could became part of it and how to modify it in order to have it saying what they wanted it to say. In the Council of Nicea they DECIDED if Jesus should be considered God or human.
They put it to votes!
You can't know if Mithras mith was copied from Jesus or if it's the other way around, such as you can't know if it was Hosiride or Dionisus the first God to be sliced in pieces and then reassmbled, because in that times it was pretty common to have cross-reference between religions (the mith of Europa explains the contact between Greek and Egyptian cultures).
And the process of editing the Bible is not different from Alexander the Great's effort to introduce Serapis as the new God of Alexandria in order to conciliate the Egyptian religion, the Greek religion and the Judaic religion.

back to top