It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plagiarism In The Bible

page: 21
28
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: TzarChasm
calling someone the progeny of a deity and the savior of 7 billion people strikes me as pretty wild. especially if you yourself are not willing to stand up on a stage with a microphone and say the same thing in front of 10,000 people.


I'm also not willing to stand on stage and say I'm the queen of England, but that doesn't mean it isn't true of the Queen of England.


go ahead, keep missing the point.


Hmm, I must be incredibly dense tonight. Can you explain?




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

Yeah. I'm not buying that. The more you look into that claim, the more it doesn't make sense. The Jews were the pain in the Roman's butt. The Jews refused to honor the Roman Gods and deities and were offended by Roman taxes. Jesus told his followers to pay taxes gladly. Biblical Christianity teaches its adherents to honor the laws and government leaders, who are put there by God.


Right, but the Romans, as I understand this, had developed a misunderstanding that the Christians were cannibals, among other things. (Also, I think that the Christians had this annoying habit of bucking the imperial cult when that happened to be in vogue, though that might not have been such a big deal at the time.)



It seems hard to imagine that Roman leaders would be aware of the differences between Jews and Christians and the subtle differences in their messianic beliefs. It seems hard to believe that followers of Paul's Jesus would behave as badly as historians claim they did.


Um, firstly, the Jewish religion was, as I understand it, largely made up of ethnic Jews, whereas the Christians aggressively proselytized. Also, I don't recall historians claiming the Christians really behaving badly...just being unpopular, slightly weird, and definitely not onboard with traditional religious practices. What are you referring to?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent



Right, but the Romans, as I understand this, had developed a misunderstanding that the Christians were cannibals, among other things.


I don't know anything about those rumors. I do, however, know about Josephus' account of "Bloody Mary", during the Seige of Jerusalem.


Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a by-word to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews." As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed.

-------------------------

Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her throat immediately if she did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them, and withal uncovered what was left of her son.

-------------------------

Come, eat of this food; for I have eaten of it myself! Do not you pretend to be either more tender than a woman, or more compassionate than a mother; but if you be so scrupulous, and do abominate this my sacrifice, as I have eaten the one half, let the rest be reserved for me also."
www.ccel.org...





Um, firstly, the Jewish religion was, as I understand it, largely made up of ethnic Jews, whereas the Christians aggressively proselytized.


It was the Jews who were that were causing disturbances. It was the Jews who were punished by having to pay taxes. strangeside.com...


A brief statement from Suestonius, in Divus Claudius 25 mentions agitations by the "Jews" which led Claudius (Roman Emperor from AD 41 to 54) to expel them from Rome:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [the Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome."



The historian Cassius Dio gives a more convincing account of the same Claudian "expulsion":

"As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings." – Roman History, 60.6.

SOURCE

Who were the followers of Chrestus?


Also, I don't recall historians claiming the Christians really behaving badly...just being unpopular, slightly weird, and definitely not on board with traditional religious practices. What are you referring to?



"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.


– Tacitus (Book 15, chapter 44):



In his Life of Nero, Suetonius refers to "Christiani," whom he calls "a race of men of a new and villainous, wicked or magical superstition," who "were visited with punishment."


They sound hideous!





edit on 23-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword



Um, firstly, the Jewish religion was, as I understand it, largely made up of ethnic Jews, whereas the Christians aggressively proselytized.


It was the Jews who were that were causing disturbances. It was the Jews who were punished by having to pay taxes. strangeside.com...


A brief statement from Suestonius, in Divus Claudius 25 mentions agitations by the "Jews" which led Claudius (Roman Emperor from AD 41 to 54) to expel them from Rome:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [the Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome."



The historian Cassius Dio gives a more convincing account of the same Claudian "expulsion":

"As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings." – Roman History, 60.6.

SOURCE


I'd prolly have to dig to see if these were Jews, or Christians that, as you said, the Romans recognized as a Jewish "sect."







"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.


– Tacitus (Book 15, chapter 44):



In his Life of Nero, Suetonius refers to "Christiani," whom he calls "a race of men of a new and villainous, wicked or magical superstition," who "were visited with punishment."


They sound hideous!


Sorry! I was thinking of *recent* historians. The Romans thought the Christians were cannibals because they were "partaking of flesh and blood" (communion) and incestuous, as well. Little, heh, misunderstanding there. Plus, like I said, they were weirdoes, and weirdoes get persecuted.
(I'd also like to point out that Tacitus *was* TPTB, which is a good reason to believe that Christians were *not* a creation of Rome. (I'd also like to point out that Tacitus appears to believe that Christ was real, not celestial, so, yeah...)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Now we're going around in circles. Tacitus, in no way proves that Jesus of Nazareth existed, or that he was the one who was referred to as "Chrestus".

As I was saying, it's hard to believe that followers of what Jesus was teaching would be known for filthy, depraved crimes. There were lots of cults that made claims. Even the Bible has Jesus warning of false "Christs".


According to Flavius Josephus, there were many people during the governorship of Festus

who deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were in fact for procuring innovations and changes of the government. These men prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.



He continues with the following story.
There was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives. He was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to rule them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him.
www.livius.org...


Sounds familiar.

Also, the Mithradic cults were practicing a form Eucharist with blood and bread of Life, before the "Last Supper".


Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite.
mtc.org...


I doubt Romans would be too taken aback by a ritual feast of wine and bread, representing a deity's flesh and blood.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

As I was saying, it's hard to believe that followers of what Jesus was teaching would be known for filthy, depraved crimes. There were lots of cults that made claims. Even the Bible has Jesus warning of false "Christs".


Jesus also told his followers that they would be persecuted for his sake.
You might consider checking out this nifty letter that details the Roman empire's attitude towards Christians at the time (this *is* contemporaneous stuff, by the by.) You'll note that their concern with Christianity in this particular letter is largely political; they aren't accused of serious crimes.

As far as celebrating communion goes, you might be right. But *something* was making the Romans upset, and that's one of the currently going theories.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: windword

As I was saying, it's hard to believe that followers of what Jesus was teaching would be known for filthy, depraved crimes. There were lots of cults that made claims. Even the Bible has Jesus warning of false "Christs".


Jesus also told his followers that they would be persecuted for his sake.
You might consider checking out this nifty letter that details the Roman empire's attitude towards Christians at the time (this *is* contemporaneous stuff, by the by.) You'll note that their concern with Christianity in this particular letter is largely political; they aren't accused of serious crimes.


"Contemporaneous stuff"? Contemporaneous to what? it certainly isn't contemporaneous to the life of Jesus of Nazareth, it was written in 112 AD! It was written, supposedly, 33 years after the destruction of Pompeii and 43 years after the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the Siege of Jerusalem, which was around 35 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth..

While it's obvious that Tacitus was confusing/grouping Christians with Jews, Pliny also readily admits that he is unfamiliar with Christian beliefs and customs. My point is, Christianity was in no way mainstream, nor was it unified in its name, expression, practices or doctrines during this time.

The article you linked cites another early Christian apologist, Athenagoras of Athens, whose works are sadly missing, but who was cited by other church fathers, such as Eusebius, as having successfully defended Christians against the charge of cannibalism, among others. He did this, it is explained, by comparing Christianity with the Pagan mysteries.

Justin Martyr is also known for this apologetic comparison of early Christian beliefs to contemporary Pagan beliefs.


And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from WHAT YOU BELIEVE regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. (Justin Martyrs First Apology: www.newadvent.org...)


According to a writing from Emperor Hadrian, 134AD, the followers of Serapis were called "The Bishops of Christ".


A correspondence of Emperor Hadrian refers to Alexandrian worshippers of Serapis calling themselves Bishops of Christ:
'Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ.'

Hadrian to Servianus, 134A.D. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)
Read more: www.touregypt.net...


The day that the Nicaean Council announced the official doctrine of Christianity, the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity and outlawed all other cults, some 600 Serapis Temples were sacked and usurped or burned by "Christians".



edit on 24-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

"Contemporaneous stuff"? Contemporaneous to what? it certainly isn't contemporaneous to the life of Jesus of Nazareth, it was written in 112 AD! It was written, supposedly, 33 years after the destruction of Pompeii and 43 years after the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the Siege of Jerusalem, which was around 35 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth..


Sorry: contemporaneous to the time. (i.e. we don't just have copies of the letter.)



While it's obvious that Tacitus was confusing/grouping Christians with Jews, Pliny also readily admits that he is unfamiliar with Christian beliefs and customs. My point is, Christianity was in no way mainstream, nor was it unified in its name, expression, practices or doctrines during this time.


Not sure it's obvious Tacitus was confused (although he might have been blurry on the details) I don't particularly have an issue with the idea that Christianity was marginalized and obscure. My main point is that I doubt it was manufactured by TPTB, since we don't seem to have good evidence to that effect, and because it was generally disliked and sometimes persecuted.

Don't think I have substantive issues with the rest of your post



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Probably because any conspiracy plans put on paper would be made sure to find their way to a swift and permanent end. and any witnesses too. But what i find most curious is that the son of god didn't keep his own records. if you want something done right, do it yourself. and yet no gospel of yeshua. kind of a foolish oversight.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Probably because any conspiracy plans put on paper would be made sure to find their way to a swift and permanent end. and any witnesses too. But what i find most curious is that the son of god didn't keep his own records. if you want something done right, do it yourself. and yet no gospel of yeshua. kind of a foolish oversight.


That's like saying the government today would destroy all records for any of the various unethical things they did. Generally, they don't.

As far as the Gospel of Yeshua, anything Jesus wrote would miss the most important bit (the crucifixion), so there's no reason to do that if you're really the Son of God and know that other people will do it.
I suppose He could author that last bit after He died, or but if you read the Gospels, He was running around visiting folks which, if you think about it, helped inspire them to write the Gospels...four of them, in fact. So in a way, that is what He did if you buy the Son of God bit.

If you don't, lots of important people (think Socrates) didn't write their own stuff, and if He had, I doubt you'd believe it because Yeshua was a carpenter



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


As far as the Gospel of Yeshua, anything Jesus wrote would miss the most important bit (the crucifixion),


being the son of god, i doubt theres anything he cant do if its really necessary. and given his formidable powers of foresight i find it curious he didnt realize his words would be hijacked. it would have been a cinch to maybe raise a mountain with all of his instructions carved on it in giant flaming words that are understandable to anyone no matter their language. but that would be too easy right? whats the point of being omniscient and omnipotent if you actually have to use it for something other than parlor tricks?



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




As far as the Gospel of Yeshua, anything Jesus wrote would miss the most important bit (the crucifixion), so there's no reason to do that if you're really


In my opinion this is most misguided part of the "made up religion" of Christianity, the belief that the life of a man called Jesus of Nazareth meant nothing in comparison to his death.

IF one believes that GOD himself decided to incarnate into a human being's body and experience a sin free life as an example of how it is done, and if one believes that everything that lives dies, how can his inevitable death be more important than the fact he lived among us?

And what do we have to show for GOD having supposedly walked among us, teaching, feeding and healing the people in his midst? An idolic statue of dead man's vacant corpse nailed to a torture device, on display at every place of his worship, in memory of and a tribute to death!

His "life" was unimportant to Christians, as they have always worship the celestial being who they believe always existed in the celestial realm.




edit on 25-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
being the son of god, i doubt theres anything he cant do if its really necessary. and given his formidable powers of foresight i find it curious he didnt realize his words would be hijacked.


Hijacked? Who are you accusing of doing that? (There are *so* many options!)


it would have been a cinch to maybe raise a mountain with all of his instructions carved on it in giant flaming words that are understandable to anyone no matter their language. but that would be too easy right? whats the point of being omniscient and omnipotent if you actually have to use it for something other than parlor tricks?


I suppose He could do that...but unless we had contemporary secondary evidence, I doubt anyone'd believe it

What are you getting at?



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz
It is not that they are copying each other - it is the same message that is pointing to the same 'thing'. The message written in scriptures is basically non duality, which was originally called Adviata Vedanta - which means 'not two'.
This message has always been around, appearing in various forms, the root of all religions is non duality.
The Father and Son are One.

Here is the same message spoken in the most modern form I have heard.





posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

In my opinion this is most misguided part of the "made up religion" of Christianity, the belief that the life of a man called Jesus of Nazareth meant nothing in comparison to his death.


Um, *I* don't think Jesus' life meant nothing. And the Bible certainly doesn't treat it that way




IF one believes that GOD himself decided to incarnate into a human being's body and experience a sin free life as an example of how it is done, and if one believes that everything that lives dies, how can his inevitable death be more important than the fact he lived among us?


Welp, in Christian theology, the death-and-resurrection bit is important because Christ was the sacrifice for our sin. But you were a Christian, IIRC, so you probably know that already.
*However,* I agree with you that the (very) important aspect of Christ's *life* is often overlooked




And what do we have to show for GOD having supposedly walked among us, teaching, feeding and healing the people in his midst? An idolic statue of dead man's vacant corpse nailed to a torture device, on display at every place of his worship, in memory of and a tribute to death!


A lot of "progress," if you believe in that sort of thing. Christianity in one form or another has been a great encouragement to science, art, and culture, in a way today that most people are big fans of.
Obviously Christianity has not been the only factor in this progress, but science, for example, relies on the presupposition that the world is ordered and can be understood, which may be part of why the Islamic and later Christian worlds made such great strides in science. Or, for instance, the worldwide campaigns against slavery rose out of Christian cultural thought.




His "life" was unimportant to Christians, as they have always worship the celestial being who they believe always existed in the celestial realm.


I think you're painting Christians with a broad brush



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




Um, *I* don't think Jesus' life meant nothing. And the Bible certainly doesn't treat it that way


But you just did! You said that IF Jesus HAD written anything down, it would exclude the most important part of his ministry, his crucifixion.

The idea of human sacrifice as a appeasement to angry god is neither new nor unique to Christianity. The idea that a loving god requires a human sacrifice goes against all that is reasonable.



Welp, in Christian theology, the death-and-resurrection bit is important because Christ was the sacrifice for our sin. But you were a Christian, IIRC, so you probably know that already.


Right, the biblical Jesus never taught that he was a human sacrifice for the sins of the world. At any rate, according to the myth, the battle was won in celestial/spiritual realm, where his kingdom apparently is, when Jesus went to Hell and conquered death.

Death and resurrection are not new nor are they unique to Christianity. The Egyptian mysteries are all about the mystery of death and resurrection. The pagan (Eleusian) rituals of baptism were representative of death and resurrection/rebirth and were often performed at funerals so that the grieving could join the dead in the resurrection ritual.

The Eucharist is an ancient celebration of the transmutation of earthly nourishment for the body, the temple of God.



A lot of "progress," if you believe in that sort of thing. Christianity in one form or another has been a great encouragement to science, art, and culture, in a way today that most people are big fans of.


I couldn't disagree more. We have proof of the deliberate suppression of information by the "Church". If the scientific research that was known during the age of Ptolemy about mathematics, physics, astronomy, engineering, medicine, etc. that was left to us by the Egyptians, Plato, Pythagoras, etal, had been allowed to continue, without religious persecution, who knows where we may be today.

Who knows what riches we may have discovered and enhanced from the libraries that were burned by religious zealots. Who knows what poetic wisdom and spiritual riches were destroyed by Catholics on a campaign against heresy!

Who knows what medical cures we may have available to us if right wing religious fear hadn't prevented stem cell research?



His "life" was unimportant to Christians, as they have always worship the celestial being who they believe always existed in the celestial realm.

I think you're painting Christians with a broad brush


All Christians believe in a theorized being, that predated Christianity, called the LOGOS, who has supposedly existed with GOD, in the celestial realm, since the beginning of creation. They believe that this being, also known as "God's first fruits", incarnated into the body of a man called Jesus, 2000 years ago, for a period of time that lasted 33 years. Nothing compared to the eternal time the LOGOS persists as the "WORD of GOD".

This ^^ is the modern, refined version of the LOGOS and the Trinity. Early Christians couldn't decide if Jesus was possessed by the Holy Spirit at the time of his supposed Baptism, or if he was always the embodiment of the Holy Spirit, or Angel of the Lord.


edit on 25-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent



I suppose He could do that...but unless we had contemporary secondary evidence, I doubt anyone'd believe it
What are you getting at?


what i am saying here is that a dusty old book is pretty anticlimactic for the king of kings. a giant mountain with fire letters carved into it seems like one of those opportunities to say "hey you down there, im being serious. who is going to question a man who can literally raise a mountain with a word? and if there ever was any question he could just raise another one. or maybe put a second moon in the sky with his name written on it. there is merit to abstaining from displays of power but there is also merit in not letting it go to waste. 6 million innocent jews and two world wars are what i would call a waste. 911 is what i would call a waste. all the rapes and murders happening on the streets every day. from start to finish, i see a lot of hot air and dawdling. hitler and saddam and rasputin were all one little chemical reaction away from being magically aborted. or one small navigational error away from the titanic making a safe trip. one lightning strike away from stopping a hijacked plane. no? guess not.
edit on 25-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

But you just did! You said that IF Jesus HAD written anything down, it would exclude the most important part of his ministry, his crucifixion.


Yes...there is a difference of degree between saying the rest of it is meaningless and saying that one part was more important.



The idea of human sacrifice as a appeasement to angry god is neither new nor unique to Christianity. The idea that a loving god requires a human sacrifice goes against all that is reasonable.


You're making a dichotomy between love and anger that does not exist. I can love my roommate and still be angry at him if he steals my car (for example.)



Right, the biblical Jesus never taught that he was a human sacrifice for the sins of the world.


That's...untrue.
"...this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins..."
"if you believe not that I am he, you will die in your sins..."



Death and resurrection are not new nor are they unique to Christianity. The Egyptian mysteries are all about the mystery of death and resurrection. The pagan (Eleusian) rituals of baptism were representative of death and resurrection/rebirth and were often performed at funerals so that the grieving could join the dead in the resurrection ritual.


Funny how all religions have similar ideas about life, death, and resurrection, isn't it?



The Eucharist is an ancient celebration of the transmutation of earthly nourishment for the body, the temple of God.


Ummm...Eucharist




I couldn't disagree more. We have proof of the deliberate suppression of information by the "Church". If the scientific research that was known during the age of Ptolemy about mathematics, physics, astronomy, engineering, medicine, etc. that was left to us by the Egyptians, Plato, Pythagoras, etal, had been allowed to continue, without religious persecution, who knows where we may be today.

Who knows what riches we may have discovered and enhanced from the libraries that were burned by religious zealots. Who knows what poetic wisdom and spiritual riches were destroyed by Catholics on a campaign against heresy!

Who knows what medical cures we may have available to us if right wing religious fear hadn't prevented stem cell research?


Oh, sure, I never said it was all gravy and peaches, you know. You left out the crusades, the religious wars, etc. etc. But (to use an example) America as we know it today (that is to say, free of England) would not exist without Christianity. In all likelihood, the Civil War and freedom of slaves would not have taken place (at the time, the North was viewed as sorta fanatically religious; the whole "don't legislate morality" would have been a phrase the South would have picked up in a heartbeat back in the day.)
And those examples are just in American history in the past 200 years. Christianity has had its ups and its downs and a whole lot of infighting, but to deny that it has been a force of good in the world–at least what we generally consider good today–is sheer lunacy. (Same can be said for other religious groups, ideas, etc...)




All Christians believe in a theorized being, that predated Christianity, called the LOGOS, who has supposedly existed with GOD, in the celestial realm, since the beginning of creation. They believe that this being, also known as "God's first fruits", incarnated into the body of a man called Jesus, 2000 years ago, for a period of time that lasted 33 years. Nothing compared to the eternal time the LOGOS persists as the "WORD of GOD".
This ^^ is the modern, refined version of the LOGOS and the Trinity. Early Christians couldn't decide if Jesus was possessed by the Holy Spirit at the time of his supposed Baptism, or if he was always the embodiment of the Holy Spirit, or Angel of the Lord.


They also spent a lot of time wrangling over circumcision. Sometimes, it takes a while to get stuff straightened out. The Doctrine of the Trinity has been around for a while, though.



edit on 25-11-2014 by StalkerSolent because: "/" is important!

edit on 25-11-2014 by StalkerSolent because: "/" is STILL important...

edit on 25-11-2014 by StalkerSolent because: More words...



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
interesting that there are similar stories to connect all religions,
on one hand I think that there must be some truth to these stories if so many different religions and cultures share similar stories that were passed down from generation to generation,there might have been a common source for the stories.
On the other hand it could just be that the founders of these religions had studied older religions and plagiarized the parts that they liked the most and then added their own interpretations and examples to reinforce the stories.

I would be very surprised if the stories didn`t have a common source.The chances that all these different cultures and religions,who had little or no contact or knowledge of each other, could just randomly make up stories that closely resemble each other is very remote.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

temple of god huh? is that all i am? a reminder of someone else? just a reflection. thats quaint.




top topics



 
28
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join