LOL! There is exactly as much "evidence" for Horus's as there is for Jesus's aqueous stroll, i.e. none: the entire point being that the Horus myth is surprisingly very similar to the Jesus myth and also vastly predates it. Intelligent, objective, clear-thinking people can draw their own conclusions from the evidence. LOL!
You miss the point. There is no evidence for Jesus walking on water, obviously. There is only the claim in the Bible. There is not even a claim that Horus walked on water in the egyptian mythology. The fact that the Horus myth is NOTHING like the Jesus "myth" completely invalidates whether one predates the other(even if they were similar, this would mean precisely nothing). I trust you read my links, which are links to translations of the actual ancient texts about Horus, and some glyphs depicting his birth, and so forth. As I said, only one thing you said appears to be true based on the actual evidence about the Horus myth.
Nope. Your incorrect insinuation that my post claims Jesus was decapitated is perhaps evidence you need to read more carefully and not flail quite so much.
I did misread this. I apologize. But Horus was never "baptized" by anyone as per the above.I assume you're talking about Alvin Kuhn, Gerald Massey and Geoffrey Higgins,Kuhn was a high school language teacher, having earned his degree by writing a dissertation on THEOSOPHY.Higgins was a real scholar, but he died in 1834, as I understand, and is thus heavily outdated. Few egyptian texts had been translated at that time, and interpretations were not agreed upon. He's completely irrelevant.Massey had no degrees whatsoever, wrote in the early 20th century, and was not respected by egyptologists then any more than he is now(not at all).In other words, your sources are about as credible as you think the Bible is.Jesus may never have performed miracles, may never have been resurrected, I think you can deny both of those rationally. But it's simply not within reason to suppose he never existed. Supposing everything you said was true, they would not count as reasons to believe he never existed.I would never proposed to offer proofs of God's existence. Only good arguments which support belief in God. What Massey, Kuhn and Higgins have to say on the arguments for God's existence would be outdated as well. This is the area of philosophy, and unlike other centuries, there has been great progress in philosophy in the last 100 years.I have no desire to argue God's existence with you because, for example, I notice you completely avoided answering anything I referenced. This is a great debate move, but I'm not here to debate. I am not a dialectician, I am a philosopher, concerned with arguments. Arguments being a matter of formal logics. It is not a matter of persuasive speaking, which you are obviously talented in.