-
Clips4Sale is having a Black Friday Sale On All Clips -
Unlock UP TO 20% OFF ON YOUR PURCHASES -
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
A Must Read
- Thread starter ReturntoGod
- Start date
omega said:
Matthew Mark Luke and John are not creditable historians.None of them are ever mentioned by any record of time outside of the gospels, and the gospels are a religious document.Not a canoniacal source of information. All four of them were facades for the real writers of the gospels, who were the priestly classes and the aristocracy of the Levites about 80 years after Christ was supposed to have died.
Until then, no-one had heard of Christ, and then out of nowhere these gospels appear teaching about the most famous healer,leader and rabbi who ever existed.
BigJim said:
So, who were the credible historians of that time? What were their names? Where did they get their education? And, in a time when everyone was religious and had a religious bias, what was their religious bias?
Once again you make claims with no supporting evidence. You write what you write as if it is absolute fact. You do not even mention the fact that what you put forth is a theory, simply one of many theories concerning the origin of the Bible.
If you want to check out my claims one place to start is to read "Evidence That Demands a Verdict", in two parts, by Josh McDowell.
To help you out with my first questions to you, here is a list of secular historians from that time period.
Cornelius Tacitus
Lucian of Samosata
Suetonius
Pliny the Younger
Thallus
Phlegon
Mara Bar-Serapion
All of these historians write of Jesus Christ and the early church, and I point out, they were not Christians.
Omega, dude...........
This is an extract I read in a paper. Take it or leave it. Omega I know you for one will leave it, because it will seem like herecy to you. I'll list the sources the piece was written on at the end.
-------------------------
To understand the background to all religions, we need to appreciate the basis of all ancient religions going back to the Phoenicians, the Babylonians and beyond. It was the Sun. The priesthood focused on the Sun because, as I outlined earlier, they understood it's true power as an amazing generator of electromagnetic energy which is affecting our lives and behaviour every second of every day. The Sun contains 99% of all mass in our solar system. Just think about that. The Sun IS the solar system and when it changes, we change. Understanding these Sun cycles, and the changing nature of the energy it projects, allows you to anticipate how human beings are most likely to react to various events at different times. As with the texts that form the basis of the religions, there are two levels of knowledge in Sun worship. In the ancient world, the hierarchy focused on the Sun because they knew of it's effects at a deep level, while the masses worshipped the Sun because it's heat and light had an obvious and crucial role in ensuring an abundant harvest. In the same way, an initiate of the esoteric knowledge will read the bible differently to a Christian or Jewish believer. The initiate will recognise the symbolism, the numerology and the esoteric codes, while the believer takes the text literally. So the same text acts as a means of passing on esoteric knowledge to the intiated and creats a prison-religion for the ignorant masses. Great scam!
To understand the ancient Sun symbolism is to understand the major religions. In the ancient world they used one particular symbol for the Sun's journey throughout the year. As we will see later, this is still a fundemental symbol used today. It symbolised both the Phoenician depictions of Barati and was on the shield of her British equivalent, Brittania. The ancients took the circle of the zodiac (a Greek word meaning "animal circle") and inserted a cross to mark the four seasons. At the centre of this cross they placed the Sun.So many of the pre-Christian deities were said to have been born on the 25th of December because of this symbolism. On December 21st-22nd, you have the winter solstice when in the northern hemisphere, the Sun was at it's lowest point of power in the annual cycle. The sun,the ancients said, had symbolically "died". By December 25th, the Sun had demonstrably begun it's journey back to summer and the peak of it's power.Therefore, the ancients sais that the Sun was "born" on December 25th. The Christian Christmas is merely a renamed pagan festival, as indeed are all Christian festivals. Easter is another.at about March 25th ( the old fashioned fixed date for Easter) the sun enters the astrological sign of Aries the Ram, or the lamb. At this time the ancients would saxcrifice lambs because they believed this would appease the gods and in particular, the Sun god, and ensure abundant harvests. In other words, they believed that at Easter, the blood of the lamb would mean that their sins would be forgiven. Sound familiar?
In ancient Babylon, Tammuz the son of Queen Semiramis (by a miraculaous conception) was said to have been nailed to a tree with a lamb at his feet, and placed in a cave when he eventually died. When the rock was rolled away from the cave entrance three days later, he had disappeared. I've definatley heard that somewhere before. The ancients also depicted the Sun as a baby in December, a youth at Easter, a strapping immensley strong man in the summer, an ageing man losuing his power in the autumn and an old man by the winter solstice. The modern depiction of old father time is a version of this. They also depicted the Sun as having long golden hair (sun rays) which got shorter as he lost his power in the months of autumn. Now look again at the Old Testament story of Samson/Sam-sun. He was incredibly strong and had long hair, but he lost his power when his hair was cut. The problems started when he entered the House of Delilah- the astrological house of Virgo, through which the Sun passes as autumn approaches. Summoning his last burst of power,Sam-the-sun, pushes down the two pillars, which are classic Freemasonic symbols going back at least to ancient Egypt. Samson is Sam-the-Sun, a sybolic story of the Sun's annual cycle. There wasn't any such person. In Hebrew, Samson translates as "The God of the Sun."
To the orthodox Christian, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who dies so our sins could be forgiven. But you will exactly the same claim from a long string of "gods" in the ancient world, long before Jesus was even thought of. The term "Sun of the Sun God" would seem to date back as far as the Gothic Kings of Cilicia who took the title "Sun of the Sun God", a tradition that was adopted by the Pharoes of ancient Egypt. To many in the new age movement, Jesus is Sananda, a high initiate of some spiritual hierarchy who incarnated to infuse the Earth with the "Christ" energy. To others, he was claiming to be the King of the Jews by virtue of his King David bloodline. But did Jesus actually exist? Did Moses, Solomon and King David exist? I would say catagorically, no. There is no credible evidence for the existence of any of them outside of the biblical texts and they are certainly not credible. So where did they come from? ---skiiping forwards in the text---
OK, a little quiz. Who am I talking about? He was born to a virgin by an immaculate conception through the intervention of a holy spirit. This fulfilled an ancient prophecy.When he was born, the ruling tyrant wanted to kill him. His parents had to flee to safety.All male children under the age of two were slain by the tyrant as he sought to kill the child. Angels and shepherds were at his birth and he was given gifts of gold, frankinsense and myrrh. He was worshipped as the savior of men and led a moral, humble life. He performed miracles which included healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, casting out demons and raising the dead. He was put to death on a cross between two thieves. He descended to hell and rose from the dead to ascend back to heaven.
Sounds exactly like Jesus doesn't it? But it's not.This is how they described the Eastern saviour god figure known as Virishna 1,200 years before Jesus is claimed to have been born. If you want a savior demi god who died so our sins could be forgiven then take your pick from the ancient world because there are a stream of them, all originating with the "advanced" race that came out of the Near East and the Caucasus Mountains. Here are just some of the "Sons of God" heroes who play the lead role in stories which mirror those attributed to Jesus and almost all were worshipped long before Jesus was even thought of:
Khrishna of Hindostan;Buddha Sakia of India;Salivahana of Bermuda; Osiris and Horus of Egypt; Odin of Scandinavia; Crite of Chaldea; Zoroaster of Persia; Baal and Taut of Phoenicia; Indra of Tibet; Bali of Afghanistan; Jao of Nepal; Wittoba of Bilongonese; Tammuz of Syria and Babylon; Attis of Phrygia; Xamolxis of Thrace; Zoar of the Bonzes; Adad of Assyria; Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam; Alcides of Thebes; Mikado of the Sintoos; Beddru of Japan; Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillahm of the Druids; Thor son of Odin, of the Gauls; Cadmus of Greece; (and Hercules) Hil and Feta of Mandaites; Gentaut and Quetzalcoatl of Mexico; Universal Monarch of the Sybils; Ischy of Formosa; Divine Teacher of Plato; Holy One of Xaca; Fohi and Tien of China; Adonis, son of the virgin Io, of Greece; Ixion and Quirinus of Rome; Prometheus of the Caucasus and Mohammed or Mahomet of Arabia.
All but a few of those "sons of gods" or "prophets" and the mind prison religion founded in their names, come from the very lands occupied or influenced by peoples emerging from the Near East and the Caucasus.---------------------
Well I'm going to end it there. I could go on waffling forever, but my fingers are bloody tired now.
Sources:
The Phoenician Origin of Britons, P47
Arthur Dynnot Thompson, "On mankind, their origin and destiny". Kessinger Publishing
Ibid P9
Michael Dronsin The Bible Code -- Wedenfel and Nicholson
The secret Teachings of all Ages P. L
Three examples are quoted by Israel Shahak in "Jewish History" ---Pluto Press
I hope you all managed to get through that lot. Controversial stuff I know, but most of this information is not denied. Just not widely circulated.
This is an extract I read in a paper. Take it or leave it. Omega I know you for one will leave it, because it will seem like herecy to you. I'll list the sources the piece was written on at the end.
-------------------------
To understand the background to all religions, we need to appreciate the basis of all ancient religions going back to the Phoenicians, the Babylonians and beyond. It was the Sun. The priesthood focused on the Sun because, as I outlined earlier, they understood it's true power as an amazing generator of electromagnetic energy which is affecting our lives and behaviour every second of every day. The Sun contains 99% of all mass in our solar system. Just think about that. The Sun IS the solar system and when it changes, we change. Understanding these Sun cycles, and the changing nature of the energy it projects, allows you to anticipate how human beings are most likely to react to various events at different times. As with the texts that form the basis of the religions, there are two levels of knowledge in Sun worship. In the ancient world, the hierarchy focused on the Sun because they knew of it's effects at a deep level, while the masses worshipped the Sun because it's heat and light had an obvious and crucial role in ensuring an abundant harvest. In the same way, an initiate of the esoteric knowledge will read the bible differently to a Christian or Jewish believer. The initiate will recognise the symbolism, the numerology and the esoteric codes, while the believer takes the text literally. So the same text acts as a means of passing on esoteric knowledge to the intiated and creats a prison-religion for the ignorant masses. Great scam!
To understand the ancient Sun symbolism is to understand the major religions. In the ancient world they used one particular symbol for the Sun's journey throughout the year. As we will see later, this is still a fundemental symbol used today. It symbolised both the Phoenician depictions of Barati and was on the shield of her British equivalent, Brittania. The ancients took the circle of the zodiac (a Greek word meaning "animal circle") and inserted a cross to mark the four seasons. At the centre of this cross they placed the Sun.So many of the pre-Christian deities were said to have been born on the 25th of December because of this symbolism. On December 21st-22nd, you have the winter solstice when in the northern hemisphere, the Sun was at it's lowest point of power in the annual cycle. The sun,the ancients said, had symbolically "died". By December 25th, the Sun had demonstrably begun it's journey back to summer and the peak of it's power.Therefore, the ancients sais that the Sun was "born" on December 25th. The Christian Christmas is merely a renamed pagan festival, as indeed are all Christian festivals. Easter is another.at about March 25th ( the old fashioned fixed date for Easter) the sun enters the astrological sign of Aries the Ram, or the lamb. At this time the ancients would saxcrifice lambs because they believed this would appease the gods and in particular, the Sun god, and ensure abundant harvests. In other words, they believed that at Easter, the blood of the lamb would mean that their sins would be forgiven. Sound familiar?
In ancient Babylon, Tammuz the son of Queen Semiramis (by a miraculaous conception) was said to have been nailed to a tree with a lamb at his feet, and placed in a cave when he eventually died. When the rock was rolled away from the cave entrance three days later, he had disappeared. I've definatley heard that somewhere before. The ancients also depicted the Sun as a baby in December, a youth at Easter, a strapping immensley strong man in the summer, an ageing man losuing his power in the autumn and an old man by the winter solstice. The modern depiction of old father time is a version of this. They also depicted the Sun as having long golden hair (sun rays) which got shorter as he lost his power in the months of autumn. Now look again at the Old Testament story of Samson/Sam-sun. He was incredibly strong and had long hair, but he lost his power when his hair was cut. The problems started when he entered the House of Delilah- the astrological house of Virgo, through which the Sun passes as autumn approaches. Summoning his last burst of power,Sam-the-sun, pushes down the two pillars, which are classic Freemasonic symbols going back at least to ancient Egypt. Samson is Sam-the-Sun, a sybolic story of the Sun's annual cycle. There wasn't any such person. In Hebrew, Samson translates as "The God of the Sun."
To the orthodox Christian, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who dies so our sins could be forgiven. But you will exactly the same claim from a long string of "gods" in the ancient world, long before Jesus was even thought of. The term "Sun of the Sun God" would seem to date back as far as the Gothic Kings of Cilicia who took the title "Sun of the Sun God", a tradition that was adopted by the Pharoes of ancient Egypt. To many in the new age movement, Jesus is Sananda, a high initiate of some spiritual hierarchy who incarnated to infuse the Earth with the "Christ" energy. To others, he was claiming to be the King of the Jews by virtue of his King David bloodline. But did Jesus actually exist? Did Moses, Solomon and King David exist? I would say catagorically, no. There is no credible evidence for the existence of any of them outside of the biblical texts and they are certainly not credible. So where did they come from? ---skiiping forwards in the text---
OK, a little quiz. Who am I talking about? He was born to a virgin by an immaculate conception through the intervention of a holy spirit. This fulfilled an ancient prophecy.When he was born, the ruling tyrant wanted to kill him. His parents had to flee to safety.All male children under the age of two were slain by the tyrant as he sought to kill the child. Angels and shepherds were at his birth and he was given gifts of gold, frankinsense and myrrh. He was worshipped as the savior of men and led a moral, humble life. He performed miracles which included healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, casting out demons and raising the dead. He was put to death on a cross between two thieves. He descended to hell and rose from the dead to ascend back to heaven.
Sounds exactly like Jesus doesn't it? But it's not.This is how they described the Eastern saviour god figure known as Virishna 1,200 years before Jesus is claimed to have been born. If you want a savior demi god who died so our sins could be forgiven then take your pick from the ancient world because there are a stream of them, all originating with the "advanced" race that came out of the Near East and the Caucasus Mountains. Here are just some of the "Sons of God" heroes who play the lead role in stories which mirror those attributed to Jesus and almost all were worshipped long before Jesus was even thought of:
Khrishna of Hindostan;Buddha Sakia of India;Salivahana of Bermuda; Osiris and Horus of Egypt; Odin of Scandinavia; Crite of Chaldea; Zoroaster of Persia; Baal and Taut of Phoenicia; Indra of Tibet; Bali of Afghanistan; Jao of Nepal; Wittoba of Bilongonese; Tammuz of Syria and Babylon; Attis of Phrygia; Xamolxis of Thrace; Zoar of the Bonzes; Adad of Assyria; Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam; Alcides of Thebes; Mikado of the Sintoos; Beddru of Japan; Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillahm of the Druids; Thor son of Odin, of the Gauls; Cadmus of Greece; (and Hercules) Hil and Feta of Mandaites; Gentaut and Quetzalcoatl of Mexico; Universal Monarch of the Sybils; Ischy of Formosa; Divine Teacher of Plato; Holy One of Xaca; Fohi and Tien of China; Adonis, son of the virgin Io, of Greece; Ixion and Quirinus of Rome; Prometheus of the Caucasus and Mohammed or Mahomet of Arabia.
All but a few of those "sons of gods" or "prophets" and the mind prison religion founded in their names, come from the very lands occupied or influenced by peoples emerging from the Near East and the Caucasus.---------------------
Well I'm going to end it there. I could go on waffling forever, but my fingers are bloody tired now.
Sources:
The Phoenician Origin of Britons, P47
Arthur Dynnot Thompson, "On mankind, their origin and destiny". Kessinger Publishing
Ibid P9
Michael Dronsin The Bible Code -- Wedenfel and Nicholson
The secret Teachings of all Ages P. L
Three examples are quoted by Israel Shahak in "Jewish History" ---Pluto Press
I hope you all managed to get through that lot. Controversial stuff I know, but most of this information is not denied. Just not widely circulated.
Interesting stuff.
I would not consider it heresy, I would consider it amazing evidence of how God, from the beginning of the world, was preparing people for the birth of Messiah, Yeshua ben Yosef of Israel.
Now that I have read thru some of your stuff. When are you going to read "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell?
I would not consider it heresy, I would consider it amazing evidence of how God, from the beginning of the world, was preparing people for the birth of Messiah, Yeshua ben Yosef of Israel.
Now that I have read thru some of your stuff. When are you going to read "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell?
dig dug dog
3rd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2001
- Messages
- 1,678
- Points
- 38
Dear Omega,
And were my questions and ideas above not worthy of your learned attention?
dig dug dog
And were my questions and ideas above not worthy of your learned attention?
dig dug dog
maverick83
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 583
- Points
- 0
Ah, yes. Another religious debate.
I always find these debates so much fun. However, I'd prefer not to risk becoming repetative. I'm relatively sure I've stated my opinions on religion in this forum somewhere before. So, if any of you care what I think,
1)I feel sorry for you.
2)Just check some of the other religious posts in this forum. I'm pretty sure you'll come across one of my replies.
Also, I'd like to commend red indian. "Must Read"? Aren't we being a little arrogant? Not to mention the fact that it fails to convey the topic of the post.
I always find these debates so much fun. However, I'd prefer not to risk becoming repetative. I'm relatively sure I've stated my opinions on religion in this forum somewhere before. So, if any of you care what I think,
1)I feel sorry for you.
2)Just check some of the other religious posts in this forum. I'm pretty sure you'll come across one of my replies.
Also, I'd like to commend red indian. "Must Read"? Aren't we being a little arrogant? Not to mention the fact that it fails to convey the topic of the post.
omega said:
So you would'nt for a second consider it evidence that'd you been conned into believing in someone who was an allegory? Interesting logic. What I related to you was not a series of legends that foretold his coming. It was a series of reports that different civillisations down the ages had been fed the same load of bull***t to keep them in order. Those names wer'nt of "demi gods" to come". They were names of demi gods who'd already come (allegedly) thousand of years before Jesus and had been worshipped for eons. Christianity was not new in the year 1 AD. It was the same recycled stuff that had been thrown around since the dawn of recorded human history.
I would be happy to read the material by Josh McDowell if you furnish it to me free of charge as I did to you.
Peace brother...
Re: Ah, yes. Another religious debate.
I feel sorry for us too Mav. As for the title of this post being arrogant, yes, possibly it is. I was drawn to read it because I recognised Psycho4048's new TMF name and being fully aware that he'd been nobbled by the God squad, wanted to hear what he had to say. Personally I think that anything that "official" religion tells us to take for granted is a pile of old pants and not worth listening to, because the people who invented it have got their own agenda to push. I am a spiritual person and am only too grateful that I'm not trapped in some restricive church that makes me feel guilty about my natural feelings and trys to tell me what to think.
The TMF is owed some thanks from me for that........
maverick83 said:
I feel sorry for us too Mav. As for the title of this post being arrogant, yes, possibly it is. I was drawn to read it because I recognised Psycho4048's new TMF name and being fully aware that he'd been nobbled by the God squad, wanted to hear what he had to say. Personally I think that anything that "official" religion tells us to take for granted is a pile of old pants and not worth listening to, because the people who invented it have got their own agenda to push. I am a spiritual person and am only too grateful that I'm not trapped in some restricive church that makes me feel guilty about my natural feelings and trys to tell me what to think.
The TMF is owed some thanks from me for that........
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
the right name please
jesus was born and given the name emmanuel ben joseph. not yeshua...
i'd like to add another book to big jims list. "the source" by james michener.
jesus was born and given the name emmanuel ben joseph. not yeshua...
i'd like to add another book to big jims list. "the source" by james michener.
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
the source
a history of religions of the middle east, based on facts found at an archiological dig in isreal. michener "hollywoods" it to make it entertaining, but all the things he writes in the book are facts.
steve
a history of religions of the middle east, based on facts found at an archiological dig in isreal. michener "hollywoods" it to make it entertaining, but all the things he writes in the book are facts.
steve
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
isbn # for the source
hey jim. my copy is from "random house" 1965.
the library of congess catalog card# is 65-11255.
hope that helps.
steve
hey jim. my copy is from "random house" 1965.
the library of congess catalog card# is 65-11255.
hope that helps.
steve
Re: the right name please
Matthew 1:25 "she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
Which in Hebrew would be Yeshua (which in English we usually translate as Joshua except that for Joshua son of Mary we use the Greek name Jesus)
Big Jim: I can undertand how you consider organized religion as "prison religions" Unfortunately they often become prisons. In my church I strongly encourage people to not turn off their thinking minds. Search for the truth, anywhere and everywhere. I have absolutely no desire to control people with my own beliefs. I have no desire to get money from anyone. Which is more than I can say for McDonald's. Everytime I want a hamburger and fries they want me to give them money. Perhaps we should call it "prison fast food" or "prison economics". Our church services are free of charge. If you don't want to give money that's just fine with us.
Also, it is interesting how you are willing to buy anti Christian books but not pro Christian books. Must be you are a prisoner of that so called free enterprise system. Not to mention the prison of one sided religious views, since you cannot consider any evidence from archeology which points to the authenticity of the Bible.
Mr. Dog: I'm sorry, I wasn't ignoring you. Sometimes my feeble brain cannot handle more than one subject at a time.
Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us."
So the author of the Gospel of Matthew connects the prophecy from Isaiah's time with the birth of Jesus. Whether it was correct for him to do so is matter for another debate.
areenactor said:
Matthew 1:25 "she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
Which in Hebrew would be Yeshua (which in English we usually translate as Joshua except that for Joshua son of Mary we use the Greek name Jesus)
Big Jim: I can undertand how you consider organized religion as "prison religions" Unfortunately they often become prisons. In my church I strongly encourage people to not turn off their thinking minds. Search for the truth, anywhere and everywhere. I have absolutely no desire to control people with my own beliefs. I have no desire to get money from anyone. Which is more than I can say for McDonald's. Everytime I want a hamburger and fries they want me to give them money. Perhaps we should call it "prison fast food" or "prison economics". Our church services are free of charge. If you don't want to give money that's just fine with us.
Also, it is interesting how you are willing to buy anti Christian books but not pro Christian books. Must be you are a prisoner of that so called free enterprise system. Not to mention the prison of one sided religious views, since you cannot consider any evidence from archeology which points to the authenticity of the Bible.
Mr. Dog: I'm sorry, I wasn't ignoring you. Sometimes my feeble brain cannot handle more than one subject at a time.
Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us."
So the author of the Gospel of Matthew connects the prophecy from Isaiah's time with the birth of Jesus. Whether it was correct for him to do so is matter for another debate.
maverick83
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 583
- Points
- 0
Umm, omega....
Prison fast food, huh? But you ignore something important. We all know that the main concern of businesses is money. That's just how it is. To me, it doesn't seem logical to compare any business to a church. You mentioned that if people don't want to give money, that's okay. I don't go to church, being a semi-atheist, so I'm not all that clear on it, but isn't it more that they feel obligated to contribute? I mean, if your god (or church which supposedly represents your god) "invites" you to make a contribution, how do you say no? However, I admire the fact that you support the search for truth, whatever it may be, and do not wish to control others. That is a quality that most forms of organized religion have done away with. They tend to force beliefs on people, insisting that they are truths, while lacking evidence.
Prison fast food, huh? But you ignore something important. We all know that the main concern of businesses is money. That's just how it is. To me, it doesn't seem logical to compare any business to a church. You mentioned that if people don't want to give money, that's okay. I don't go to church, being a semi-atheist, so I'm not all that clear on it, but isn't it more that they feel obligated to contribute? I mean, if your god (or church which supposedly represents your god) "invites" you to make a contribution, how do you say no? However, I admire the fact that you support the search for truth, whatever it may be, and do not wish to control others. That is a quality that most forms of organized religion have done away with. They tend to force beliefs on people, insisting that they are truths, while lacking evidence.
ReturntoGod
Registered User
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2001
- Messages
- 43
- Points
- 0
<b>Scott, old friend..Might I suggest that you read and study the Bible in it's entirety before believing what you read in articles written by modern man</b>
I'm sorry old friend, but what I have stated has representation in scripture. In what would be the end times vision, Revelation, God gave to St. John the Evangalist a glimpse of what was to come:
You say that what I have claimed is not biblical. I say you have not studied the bible or you misunderstand it:
"The Church teaches and has always taught that Mary is an integral part of God's salvation plan. She was conceived in the mind of God before the worlds were formed. She was God's masterpiece. One Protestant theologian has translated Gabriel's greetings to Mary in Luke 1:28, "Hail, favorite of heaven!" Nothing less than perfection sufficed for the one who would become the Mother of God. It was her DNA that enfleshed the second person of the Trinity. She alone provided Christ's humanity. Without her, there is not incarnation.
This, however, does not make Mary divine. She is and will always remain, "the handmaiden of the Lord." There is no goddess worship here. Mary is completely human. Unlike Jesus, who is both fully God and fully man, Mary is simply fully human. She, however, provides the logical counterpart to a God who has no form. The human woman and the Holy Spirit unite to give us Jesus, the physical, visible and audible expression of an invisible God-Emmanuel, God with us. Mary is the essential human component in the perfect symmetry of the incarnation - Father, Mother and Son.
The $ 64,000 question is, "How does this beautiful, loving, Christ-like creature engender such fear and animosity in the hearts of millions of Christians?" The answer, at least in part, can be found in two parallel passages of Scripture: Genesis 3 and Revelation 12. In the Genesis story, Satan comes to "the woman" and succeeds in convincing her to disobey God. The text indicates that Satan appealed to the woman's egocentric disposition. The woman was so self-absorbed that she didn't believe God really meant what He said. It is evident her pride go the better of her in Genesis 3:6, "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was...desirable for gaining wisdom ('you will be like God' verse 5), she took some and ate it." The woman's disobedience highlights the three sins that have plagued humankind since the fall: 1.) Self-centeredness 2.)unbelief, and 3.) Pride.
This part of the story ends with the woman and man leaving the garden completely stripped of their majesty. Entering paradise, they were clothed with the radiance of God's presence; leaving paradise, they were covered with the skins of dead animals. Once robed in light, not draped in death.
This is in stark contrast to "the Woman" in Revelation, Chapter 12. This woman was clothed with the sun. This is the word (helios) that is used to describe the radiance of God's presence that "clothed" Jesus, Moses and Elijah on the Mount of the Transfiguration and illuminated St. Paul's Damascus meeting with the glorified Christ.
This is no ordinary woman. Her glorified state was so evident that St. John used the phrase, "A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven," to set the scene for what he was about to describe. His vision had four central characters: 1.) A woman 2.) A child 3.) A dragon/serpent 4.) An angel. The dragon and angel are named in the text as Satan and Michael respectively. The child and the woman, however, are not identified, but the description of their function makes their identity obvious - the child is Jesus and the woman is Jesus' mother, Mary.
Most Protestants bristle at the suggestion that the woman is Mary. They will state, emphatically, that the woman is "Israel" and on one level of interpretation, that is true. Her crown of 12 stars identifies her as symbolizing Israel, just as the child represents the messianic promise, the dragon the forces of evil and the angel the forces of good. However, the woman is first and foremost the mother of Jesus. One can see the weakness of the argument of the woman being Israel and not Mary when you examine the four central figures. If the angel is a person, Michael, and the dragon is a person, Satan, and the child is a person, Jesus, then the woman is a person, Mary.
In the early fifth century, the heretic, Nestorius, claimed that Jesus was two persons, one divine and the other human. Mary, he contended, was the mother of the human person and should be called Chrisotokos, " Mother of Christ." In 430, at a synod in Rome, in 431, at the ecumenical Council of Ephesus, and again in 451, at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, the universal Church proclaimed that Jesus Christ was not two persons but one person with two natures. He was, at the same time, fully human and fully divine. Thus, the Church declared that Mary was Theotokos, "Mother of God," Today, Protestants who insist that Mary is the Mother of Jesus but not the Mother of God, continue to propagate this heresy.
Since Mary is, indeed, the Mother of God, it should come as no surprise that St. John saw the woman in Revelation, Chapter 12 as the Queen Mother. He saw her crowned with glory and robe din majesty, not as a goddess but as the sign and promise of our inheritance as children of God.
The words of St. John bring this into sharper focus: "To all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God - children born of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God (John 1:12-13)." St. Paul puts in this way: "God sent His Son, born of a woman....that we might receive the full rights of sons....and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir (Galatians 4:4-7)"
Through faith in the Son of God, we have become the King's kids. "How great," St. John declares, "is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are (1 John 3:1)" Years later, St. John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, referred to us as a "royal family."
But what is the connection between Mary, the exalted woman in Revelation 12:1 and those who, by faith, are "children of God?" The answer is found in verse 17: "Then the dragon (Satan) was enraged at the woman(Mary) and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring -0 those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." According to Revelation 12:17, all Christians, whether Catholics or Protestants, are children of Mary. The writer of Hebrews puts it this way: "Both the one who makes men holy (Father God) and those who are made holy (us) are of the same family. So, Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers (Hebrews 2:10)" Since God is our Father and Jesus is our Brother, then Mary is our mother!
If Jesus is proud to call us His brothers, and God is pleased to call us His sons, why are we ashamed to call Mary, mother? How blessed we are to have the Mother of God as our mother"
Mary is biblical, in fact what is happening now in our world is the literal battle of Satan versus the "woman clothed with the sun" Mary, and the battleground is our souls. This lustful forum is in alignment with evil. This place is signature of acceptance with Satan. The serpent beneath Our Mother's foot will claim many, but in the end Her Immaculate Heart will triumph. Do not give up Heaven for these short lived earthly pleasures. That is why Mary's statues weep. Her children are giving up eternal happiness in Heaven because they do not see the shortness of their lives nor how severe their sins offend God. Repent! The time for conversion is drawing near it's end! The Hour of Great Mercy is ending. You all know me. I won't decieve you. Get out of here! There's not much time left. I'm praying for all of you.
Scott
I'm sorry old friend, but what I have stated has representation in scripture. In what would be the end times vision, Revelation, God gave to St. John the Evangalist a glimpse of what was to come:
You say that what I have claimed is not biblical. I say you have not studied the bible or you misunderstand it:
"The Church teaches and has always taught that Mary is an integral part of God's salvation plan. She was conceived in the mind of God before the worlds were formed. She was God's masterpiece. One Protestant theologian has translated Gabriel's greetings to Mary in Luke 1:28, "Hail, favorite of heaven!" Nothing less than perfection sufficed for the one who would become the Mother of God. It was her DNA that enfleshed the second person of the Trinity. She alone provided Christ's humanity. Without her, there is not incarnation.
This, however, does not make Mary divine. She is and will always remain, "the handmaiden of the Lord." There is no goddess worship here. Mary is completely human. Unlike Jesus, who is both fully God and fully man, Mary is simply fully human. She, however, provides the logical counterpart to a God who has no form. The human woman and the Holy Spirit unite to give us Jesus, the physical, visible and audible expression of an invisible God-Emmanuel, God with us. Mary is the essential human component in the perfect symmetry of the incarnation - Father, Mother and Son.
The $ 64,000 question is, "How does this beautiful, loving, Christ-like creature engender such fear and animosity in the hearts of millions of Christians?" The answer, at least in part, can be found in two parallel passages of Scripture: Genesis 3 and Revelation 12. In the Genesis story, Satan comes to "the woman" and succeeds in convincing her to disobey God. The text indicates that Satan appealed to the woman's egocentric disposition. The woman was so self-absorbed that she didn't believe God really meant what He said. It is evident her pride go the better of her in Genesis 3:6, "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was...desirable for gaining wisdom ('you will be like God' verse 5), she took some and ate it." The woman's disobedience highlights the three sins that have plagued humankind since the fall: 1.) Self-centeredness 2.)unbelief, and 3.) Pride.
This part of the story ends with the woman and man leaving the garden completely stripped of their majesty. Entering paradise, they were clothed with the radiance of God's presence; leaving paradise, they were covered with the skins of dead animals. Once robed in light, not draped in death.
This is in stark contrast to "the Woman" in Revelation, Chapter 12. This woman was clothed with the sun. This is the word (helios) that is used to describe the radiance of God's presence that "clothed" Jesus, Moses and Elijah on the Mount of the Transfiguration and illuminated St. Paul's Damascus meeting with the glorified Christ.
This is no ordinary woman. Her glorified state was so evident that St. John used the phrase, "A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven," to set the scene for what he was about to describe. His vision had four central characters: 1.) A woman 2.) A child 3.) A dragon/serpent 4.) An angel. The dragon and angel are named in the text as Satan and Michael respectively. The child and the woman, however, are not identified, but the description of their function makes their identity obvious - the child is Jesus and the woman is Jesus' mother, Mary.
Most Protestants bristle at the suggestion that the woman is Mary. They will state, emphatically, that the woman is "Israel" and on one level of interpretation, that is true. Her crown of 12 stars identifies her as symbolizing Israel, just as the child represents the messianic promise, the dragon the forces of evil and the angel the forces of good. However, the woman is first and foremost the mother of Jesus. One can see the weakness of the argument of the woman being Israel and not Mary when you examine the four central figures. If the angel is a person, Michael, and the dragon is a person, Satan, and the child is a person, Jesus, then the woman is a person, Mary.
In the early fifth century, the heretic, Nestorius, claimed that Jesus was two persons, one divine and the other human. Mary, he contended, was the mother of the human person and should be called Chrisotokos, " Mother of Christ." In 430, at a synod in Rome, in 431, at the ecumenical Council of Ephesus, and again in 451, at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, the universal Church proclaimed that Jesus Christ was not two persons but one person with two natures. He was, at the same time, fully human and fully divine. Thus, the Church declared that Mary was Theotokos, "Mother of God," Today, Protestants who insist that Mary is the Mother of Jesus but not the Mother of God, continue to propagate this heresy.
Since Mary is, indeed, the Mother of God, it should come as no surprise that St. John saw the woman in Revelation, Chapter 12 as the Queen Mother. He saw her crowned with glory and robe din majesty, not as a goddess but as the sign and promise of our inheritance as children of God.
The words of St. John bring this into sharper focus: "To all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God - children born of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God (John 1:12-13)." St. Paul puts in this way: "God sent His Son, born of a woman....that we might receive the full rights of sons....and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir (Galatians 4:4-7)"
Through faith in the Son of God, we have become the King's kids. "How great," St. John declares, "is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are (1 John 3:1)" Years later, St. John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, referred to us as a "royal family."
But what is the connection between Mary, the exalted woman in Revelation 12:1 and those who, by faith, are "children of God?" The answer is found in verse 17: "Then the dragon (Satan) was enraged at the woman(Mary) and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring -0 those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." According to Revelation 12:17, all Christians, whether Catholics or Protestants, are children of Mary. The writer of Hebrews puts it this way: "Both the one who makes men holy (Father God) and those who are made holy (us) are of the same family. So, Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers (Hebrews 2:10)" Since God is our Father and Jesus is our Brother, then Mary is our mother!
If Jesus is proud to call us His brothers, and God is pleased to call us His sons, why are we ashamed to call Mary, mother? How blessed we are to have the Mother of God as our mother"
Mary is biblical, in fact what is happening now in our world is the literal battle of Satan versus the "woman clothed with the sun" Mary, and the battleground is our souls. This lustful forum is in alignment with evil. This place is signature of acceptance with Satan. The serpent beneath Our Mother's foot will claim many, but in the end Her Immaculate Heart will triumph. Do not give up Heaven for these short lived earthly pleasures. That is why Mary's statues weep. Her children are giving up eternal happiness in Heaven because they do not see the shortness of their lives nor how severe their sins offend God. Repent! The time for conversion is drawing near it's end! The Hour of Great Mercy is ending. You all know me. I won't decieve you. Get out of here! There's not much time left. I'm praying for all of you.
Scott
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
omaga, you contradicted your self
sir, you posted two quotes, one stating jesus name as yashua, and one stating his name as emmanuel.
yesterday i asked three catholics what jesus' real name was. one said jesus, one said emanual, one said huh?
all three said no way when asked if it was yeshua.
i also asked 2 jews what his name was(jesus') both said right away emmanuel. see, you have to remember, jesus was a hebrew, he was quite religious, and kept kosher.
lastely, you have to remember that the christians that followed jesus a couple hundred years after his death, and really started the religion, changed a lot of his life story, to seperate him from his hebrew back ground. one of the things they did was to change his name, it appears.
omega, get better sources than scriptures, they were writen by people with an agenda, an who felt the out come justifies the means.
steve
sir, you posted two quotes, one stating jesus name as yashua, and one stating his name as emmanuel.
yesterday i asked three catholics what jesus' real name was. one said jesus, one said emanual, one said huh?
all three said no way when asked if it was yeshua.
i also asked 2 jews what his name was(jesus') both said right away emmanuel. see, you have to remember, jesus was a hebrew, he was quite religious, and kept kosher.
lastely, you have to remember that the christians that followed jesus a couple hundred years after his death, and really started the religion, changed a lot of his life story, to seperate him from his hebrew back ground. one of the things they did was to change his name, it appears.
omega, get better sources than scriptures, they were writen by people with an agenda, an who felt the out come justifies the means.
steve
Re: omaga, you contradicted your self
All right, let's continue this even further.
Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God.
So now which is the real name of Jesus, Emmanuel, Immanuel, Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, Alpha or Omega?
Why wouldn't his name be Yeshua or Joshua. It is a perfectly good Hebrew name. And it means, "God's salvation". If Christians wanted to seperate him from Hebrew roots why did they choose such a Jewish name? Why not call him Winston or Elmer?
Please provide the evidence that Christians a couple of hundred years after his death changed the life story of Jesus to seperate him from his Hebrew back ground.
And tell me, what writer always writes with no personal agenda? What you wrote in your post. Did you have absoulutly no personal agenda?
Maverick: You are right, I should not compare business to a church. As far as people feeling obligated to give. I will admit, some do, especially the older Christians. The younger Christians seem to have no problems with letting the offering plate go by and putting in nothing.
areenactor said:
All right, let's continue this even further.
Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God.
So now which is the real name of Jesus, Emmanuel, Immanuel, Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, Alpha or Omega?
Why wouldn't his name be Yeshua or Joshua. It is a perfectly good Hebrew name. And it means, "God's salvation". If Christians wanted to seperate him from Hebrew roots why did they choose such a Jewish name? Why not call him Winston or Elmer?
Please provide the evidence that Christians a couple of hundred years after his death changed the life story of Jesus to seperate him from his Hebrew back ground.
And tell me, what writer always writes with no personal agenda? What you wrote in your post. Did you have absoulutly no personal agenda?
Maverick: You are right, I should not compare business to a church. As far as people feeling obligated to give. I will admit, some do, especially the older Christians. The younger Christians seem to have no problems with letting the offering plate go by and putting in nothing.
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
alpha, and omega means begining and end
so i hardly think either would have been a suitable name.
jesus was not his name, and i know of no religion that says so!
no hebrew would have named his child yeshua. it would have been concidered an affrontry to god to presume so much!
as far as other names; the people of that time never heard of names like winston and elmer. but to name him something like yashua would greatly serve the purpose of claiming him for a new religious way, and to distance him from his "real" roots.
yes i too have an agenda, as do you. but mine is to point out the truth. i'm not the one trying to spread my faith, or scare the crap out of people as the original post was met to do!
steve
so i hardly think either would have been a suitable name.
jesus was not his name, and i know of no religion that says so!
no hebrew would have named his child yeshua. it would have been concidered an affrontry to god to presume so much!
as far as other names; the people of that time never heard of names like winston and elmer. but to name him something like yashua would greatly serve the purpose of claiming him for a new religious way, and to distance him from his "real" roots.
yes i too have an agenda, as do you. but mine is to point out the truth. i'm not the one trying to spread my faith, or scare the crap out of people as the original post was met to do!
steve
Re: Re: the right name please
"Lord you gave them eyes, yet they cannot see. You gave them ears, but they cannot hear."
Omega, if that is your attitude towards your spirituality, then you have my respect. However to be totally exact, I never critiscised you, or any one individual. I was critiscising institutions, and not just Christian ones either. If you'd remember, there is a line or two near the beginning of that text I quoted that says something to the effect of, "This is not to condemn all those who call themselves Christian. Some people express a loving spirituality through their Christian beliefs." However please don't presume to criticscise my blinkeredness of literature when you don't know anything about what books I own. You might remember that I asked you in an earlier post if you were religious yourself, or just a religious scholar. I own a copy of the Bible and I also study the Koran and the Tollah. I consider myself a religious scholar and am never narrow minded when it comes to discussing or contemplating alternate theories.
For me, the most interesting parts of the Bible are the parts where the "loving Father" is enciting his "chosen" people to massacre and slaughter not only their enemies, but their wives and infant children too. This sort of thing is the sort they usually choose to omit from Sunday school, because they don't want new recruits (whatever their age) to be too appauled before they are permanantly reeled in. This is not to condemn God, because I don't believe for a second that the Source of all good is capable of issuing such a murderous, bloodthirsty command.It's purely the work of "secular or organised" religion. This sort of Bibular passage was specifically designed to ensure that people became enamoured of the idea of hating other races. It's a tenique popularly known as "divide and conquer" and religiously inspired tactics like this are 99% responsible for the people of the world being so divided today.
I also find your reference to "Prison Fast Food" to be utterly nonsensical. The last time I went to McDonalds instead of my regular trip to Burger King, I wasn't threatened with excommunication from my family or eternal damnation in the hellfire unless I repented, and humbly begged forgiveness of the almighty Whopper.
Thankfully for the people of the world, this is not going to last forever. More and more people are hearing the ticking of the spiritual alarm clock and waking up to it. Love is the biggest enemy that bastards like Osama Bin Ladin and Gerry Adams have, and despite what CNN would like you to believe, there is more of it in the world, than ever before. The TMF is living proof of that.
"By many names is He known." God, the Oversoul,the Source,Allah.....whatever. It doesn't matter what his name is. (The Rock eat yer' heart out!) Whenever people are gathered with peace in their hearts and love for each other, then God or whoever is there. Even if it is in the church or temple of a "prison religion." The power of the individual soul, is too strong to be held captive for ever.
omega said:
"Lord you gave them eyes, yet they cannot see. You gave them ears, but they cannot hear."
Omega, if that is your attitude towards your spirituality, then you have my respect. However to be totally exact, I never critiscised you, or any one individual. I was critiscising institutions, and not just Christian ones either. If you'd remember, there is a line or two near the beginning of that text I quoted that says something to the effect of, "This is not to condemn all those who call themselves Christian. Some people express a loving spirituality through their Christian beliefs." However please don't presume to criticscise my blinkeredness of literature when you don't know anything about what books I own. You might remember that I asked you in an earlier post if you were religious yourself, or just a religious scholar. I own a copy of the Bible and I also study the Koran and the Tollah. I consider myself a religious scholar and am never narrow minded when it comes to discussing or contemplating alternate theories.
For me, the most interesting parts of the Bible are the parts where the "loving Father" is enciting his "chosen" people to massacre and slaughter not only their enemies, but their wives and infant children too. This sort of thing is the sort they usually choose to omit from Sunday school, because they don't want new recruits (whatever their age) to be too appauled before they are permanantly reeled in. This is not to condemn God, because I don't believe for a second that the Source of all good is capable of issuing such a murderous, bloodthirsty command.It's purely the work of "secular or organised" religion. This sort of Bibular passage was specifically designed to ensure that people became enamoured of the idea of hating other races. It's a tenique popularly known as "divide and conquer" and religiously inspired tactics like this are 99% responsible for the people of the world being so divided today.
I also find your reference to "Prison Fast Food" to be utterly nonsensical. The last time I went to McDonalds instead of my regular trip to Burger King, I wasn't threatened with excommunication from my family or eternal damnation in the hellfire unless I repented, and humbly begged forgiveness of the almighty Whopper.
Thankfully for the people of the world, this is not going to last forever. More and more people are hearing the ticking of the spiritual alarm clock and waking up to it. Love is the biggest enemy that bastards like Osama Bin Ladin and Gerry Adams have, and despite what CNN would like you to believe, there is more of it in the world, than ever before. The TMF is living proof of that.
"By many names is He known." God, the Oversoul,the Source,Allah.....whatever. It doesn't matter what his name is. (The Rock eat yer' heart out!) Whenever people are gathered with peace in their hearts and love for each other, then God or whoever is there. Even if it is in the church or temple of a "prison religion." The power of the individual soul, is too strong to be held captive for ever.
Haltickling
2nd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 4,353
- Points
- 0
The original name, the Name of the Rose, and Shakespeare
Sorry folks, this discussion reminds me of the highly esoteric debate in "The Name of the Rose", where several learned clerics struggled for days on the topic whether Jesus had in fact owned the clothes he was wearing.
And it reminds me of the man who spent his entire life trying to prove that "Hamlet" wasn't written by William Shakespeare himself, but by a fellow Englishman who happened to bear the same name...
Sorry folks, this discussion reminds me of the highly esoteric debate in "The Name of the Rose", where several learned clerics struggled for days on the topic whether Jesus had in fact owned the clothes he was wearing.
And it reminds me of the man who spent his entire life trying to prove that "Hamlet" wasn't written by William Shakespeare himself, but by a fellow Englishman who happened to bear the same name...
