Catholicism, the Univeral church:what that means

Catholic means Universal. What that doesn't mean is Christian, it means Universal for a reason.

Catholicism is a mixture of at least Jewish, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman Mithrasism religious beliefs syncretised into a universal faith for all. This is the church that gives us the New Testament in its current form regardless of how non Catholic you think it somehow becomes when you don't follow the Pope. Every bible is a product of the Catholic church because before the Catholic church there was only the Septuagint and Tanakh. The Old Testament.

All of the previously mentioned cultures are represented in the New Testament in one way or the other in varying degrees. The Word/Messiah come from Zoroastrianism and the Magi or Wise Men were Zoroastrian priests. Hades or Hell is a Hellenistic Greek concept. Mithras and Christ have a lot in common because Christ is somewhat based off Mithras who is a Romanized version of the Persian Mithra and his birthday was December 25. He was also called Sol Invictus and the Christmas tradition is pagan in origin as is the Trinity. And the Old Testament is Jewish.

So if appeasing everybody and not the truth was the foundation of the New Testament it can not be trusted as historical and must be corrupt. It's not like they had a New Testament prior to Catholicism that we can verify the story and inconsistencies exist in the retellings of the Jesus Myth. Also Apostolic books were left out in favor of the doctrine of Balaam teaching Saul. It's really his religion.

The new Testament is not the story of Messianic Judaism under the 12 Apostles and the Greeks Christ and the Jews Messiah are not truly the same thing.

Plus the name Yeshua is in English Joshua and Jesus is a made up Greek name from Ioesus
and that sounds odd to me that we don't call him by his real name.

And the Sabbath was moved to the pagan day of worship sun-day to appease the pagans who liked the Christ myth because it was so much like many of their myths.

So look beyond the bible for answers about the life of Yeshua because the New Testament is corrupted. Since day 1.

The sabbath should be Saturday if I follow you correctly...

I like the bible if for only clues as to more mythology. Meh it's all copied too many times and watered down but still some info there if you cross reference like a mad man.


reply to: Mryhh

a reply to: Reverbs
True that. I like the Gnostic scriptures better.

I think I do to but I havnt read them.. Funny thing is any time someone shows me a piece of the gnostic beliefs I agree so I don't look into it. Im on my own game. This has potential as a great thread if anyone sees it lol a reply to: Mryhh

a reply to: Mryhh

Mithraism arose about the time of Christ. Here's a Wikipedia link on the Mithraic Mysteries. It was a 1st Century Roman cult. There is reason to believe that many of the legends accumulated into Mithraism, did not surface until well after Christianity. Which begs the question, who was actually modeled upon whom?

If Christianity was based upon Mithraism, why wasn't it just left as Mithraism? Why base an offshoot religion on a Jew? Mithraism was tolerated by Rome while Christianity was persecuted.

The doctrine of Paul was not the doctrine of Balaam. Balaam is mentioned in Revelation 2: 14, where the church in Pergamum is being warned about false teachers. He is also mentioned in 2 Peter 2:15 and Jude 1:11. In other words, there was a specific false teacher called Balaam. Nothing in Revelation or the later non Pauline pastoral letters identify Paul as being a false teacher. They clearly identify someone else - by name.

Paul only wrote 20% of the New Testament. There is no Gospel according to Paul and the Church was well established before Paul was converted. In the initial meetings between Paul and the Church, there was tension because Paul had been persecuting Christians, but soon he was well accepted as noted in Acts. Paul was also a friend of James, the brother of Jesus and the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Both tradition and the book of Acts say so.

The Sabbath was never moved to Sunday. The Sabbath was observed by both Jews and Christians in the Temple in Jerusalem but growing tensions meant that Messianic Jews were under pressure on the Sabbath.

The solution was to use "the Lord's day" (Sunday, the day Jesus rose). In fact in Acts 20: 7,the Lords day is mentioned as the day they were "all together in one place". Here's a mandatory Wikipedia link.

The New Testament books are full of talk about unity, especially unity in the Holy Spirit. The way to say unified in Latin is the word "Catholic". Catholic in its earliest sense did not mean a specific church like the Roman Catholic Church, but meant ALL churches. It was inclusive, not exclusive.

Also, Magi were Babylonian/Persian group. There are those who suggest that the Prophet Daniel reformed the pagan Magi when he was granted viziership under the reign of Nebuchadrezer.

Catholic Church officially expects in a long un-foreseeable future the Second Coming of Jesus. Meanwhile in history, RCC cut and pasted the millenium period of Revelation into its own history (short of graceful one).

Unofficially, devote Catholic circles expect Chastisement of worldwide magnitude to result in an era of peace.

It is a time to know what follows after Petrus Romanus who is the last pope.

I discuss these and other topics in the thread linked below in the signature.

Manchild and the 144,000 youths are clearly mentioned in the Revelation, but they are NOT talked about on Sunday masses. Why, are the Catholic clergy afraid of someone or something they know is coming inevitably?

a reply to: chr0naut

Do you actually think that Magi are Babylonian? Because it's a well known fact that Zoroaster priests were called Magi. You will find hordes of proof of this on the internet so you are not going to be taken seriously for being the only person in the world who thinks otherwise. I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't a verified fact. I study Zoroastrianism and you are seriously flat wrong. Magi are specifically Persian Zoroastrian priests. Don't say things you don't know, it makes you look ignorant.

Everything I said in my OP is historically accurate, all those cultures influenced the Jesus myth in the bible and it's not secret information only available to the Elite. Anyone who studies religious history as a hobby as I do can find this out for themselves and anyone who wants to can too.

Mithra is originally a Zoroastrian Yazata or angel that was Romanized centuries later and Roman Mithraism was changed to Christianity and some of the traditions naturally followed. Mithra and Jesus had very compatible mythology so this was not a difficult transition for anyone.

But I really have to dismiss everything you say now because you came on my thread lying about the Magi which I cannot forgive. I don't like people decieving others about history and that was intellectually dishonest. If you want to comment please don't lie. Nobody anywhere has ever said the Zoroastrian priesthood were ever called anything BUT Magi and you either lied or are that uneducated and don't know ish about Zoroastrianism.

a reply to: Mryhh

Magi is 100 percent Zoroastrian and Babylon is a country, not a religion. Persia was the land of Zoroastrianism and the Magi were Zoroastrian priests SPECIFICALLY and not Babylonian, You can read the Greeks history of Persia or anyone on the internet. Google Magi and every site from Wikipedia to page 67 will say they were specific to Zoroastrianism.

I m gonna ride you on this because I hate people who tell lies about religion and saying that Magi are Babylonian is both ignorant and deceptive and I will not allow that on a thread dedicated to the truth.

The root of all religions is Advaita Vedanta. The modern label is 'Non duality' - which means not two.

Reality does not consist of 'you' seeing 'something' - that makes two. Reality is simply what is happening - 'happening' (being) is not made of any things.

a reply to: chr0naut

Here is an interesting fact for you about Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar's dream about four kingdoms was taken from the Zoroastrian holy books the Zend-Avesta which are far older than the book of Daniel, which never mentioned Magi once.

Daniel is a mythological character so he had zero influence on the Persian religion it was the Persian religion that influenced Judaism and not the other way around.

Dont come to my thread making false claims this area is for truth seekers not falsehoods told by the uneducated. Enlightened people who are aware of facts and don't tell lies about other religions that they neither study or follow.

a reply to: chr0naut

Your m.o. is clear, you will say anything to defend Christianity and truth means nothing to you when it comes to supporting the lies most people are aware of that the church has been telling for thousands of years now. Atleast 1700 years worth of lies that people will defend any way they can rather than admit that you are misinformed. You strike me as someone who would try to keep alive the Lucifer myth that has been corrected or the virgin birth prophecy that has been proven not to have existed because virgin was a mistranslation in Isaiah and that was not a Messianic prophecy. You probably have convinced yourself that everyone is wrong but you.

You probably can't see how even Jesus calls Saul a Fraud and how he even warned against him. You sound like you are under the sway of a preacher man or are just so naive that you take the official version as fact and don't mind worshipping a baby killer but even think you're righteous because of it.

But lying about the Magi hoping nobody would catch you is the worst thing you have done. I know Zoroastrianism is a small religion today but it is so well documented that their holy men were called Magi and they were from Persia because Zoroastrianism is alive and well known as Parsee and they are in Iran, India, Australia and the U.S. and they have the oldest monotheistic religion in the world today.

Just cut it out, stop saying things that aren't true and fod God's sake enlighten yourself and learn about something before you try appearing knowledgeable lest you get caught again.

a reply to: Mryhh

I used to study ancient religions quite a bit, but fell way from doing so (as I have all reading for the past 4 years, besides children's books lol.)

I really appreciate the information and your sharing of the knowledge you have. You've clearly "done your homework" for quite some time!

What's interesting to me, is I feel like I have 2 separate systems of "belief" - for lack of a better word. On one hand, I understand and believe in the veracity of good historical and true information such as this. On the other hand, I have my own set of religious/spiritual beliefs.

Meaning, if part of my personal beliefs and practices are based on copies or amalgams, I'm perfectly OK with that. It is the meaning held within which matters to me. Knowing the basis and origins of things clarifies, and sometimes changes or fine tunes my beliefs and understandings.

That is why I appreciate this kind of knowledge sharing. I think more people should be open to understanding things without feeling as though their beliefs are threatened by historical facts. You can actually find a more solid foundation of support for your beliefs, even when the names, origins, circumstances and even meanings differ from what you originally thought was true.

a reply to: Mryhh

Brilliant thread, Flag and Star.
Welcome to ATS!!!

Yeah, that Magi claim about Persia was way weird.

a reply to: Mryhh

The greek word Christos translates the Hebrew word mashiah, most familiar in its anglicized form of "messiah"..

Meaning " One who has been anointed "

Dont forget to use real fact in your fantasy =)

a reply to: Mryhh

Im a Theologian, without any philosophy skills..

Im a historian without any political correctness, so i will tell you when you are full of s***

originally posted by: Mryhh
a reply to: Mryhh

Magi is 100 percent Zoroastrian and Babylon is a country, not a religion. Persia was the land of Zoroastrianism and the Magi were Zoroastrian priests SPECIFICALLY and not Babylonian, You can read the Greeks history of Persia or anyone on the internet. Google Magi and every site from Wikipedia to page 67 will say they were specific to Zoroastrianism.

I m gonna ride you on this because I hate people who tell lies about religion and saying that Magi are Babylonian is both ignorant and deceptive and I will not allow that on a thread dedicated to the truth.

Yes, you are correct about Magi being Zoroastrian. Your assumption that Zoroaster was the source of the term is incorrect.

The Magi were actually a sacred Median caste existing prior to Zoroaster. The Avestas only refer to Magi by word 'magâunô, referring to the existing Median caste (Yasna 33.7:' ýâ sruyê parê magâunô ' = "so I can be heard beyond Magi"). This clearly shows that when this Avesta was written, the Magi already existed.

Biblically, the mention of the Magi is associated with Babylon (Jeremiah 39:3 and 39:13 describes Nergal Sharezar, one of Nebuchadrezars chiefs, as "rab-mag" or 'chief Magus').

Here's a little history for you:

Nebuchadrezar (the name Nebuchadnezzar is a mistranslation) was a Babylonian king whose wife was Median. Under him, the Babylonian Empire reached its maximum extent.

Babylon was then invaded and overrun by Cyrus, a Persian King. After the downfall of Assyrian and Babylonian power, the religion of the Magi held sway in Persia. Cyrus completely conquered the sacred caste; his son Cambyses severely repressed it. The Magians revolted and set up Gaumata, their chief, as King of Persia under the name of Smerdis. He was, however, murdered (521 B.C.), and Darius became king.

This downfall of the Magi was celebrated by a national Persian holiday called magophonia (Her., III, lxiii, lxxiii, lxxix).

Still the religious influence of this priestly caste continued throughout the rule of the Achaemenian dynasty in Persia (Ctesias, "Persica", X-XV); and is not unlikely that at the time of the birth of Christ it was still flourishing under the Parthian dominion.

Strabo (XI, ix, 3) says that the Magian priests formed one of the two councils of the Parthian Empire.

Ancient Media, Persia, Assyria, and Babylonia all had a Magian priesthood at various times.

The oldest description of the Magi is from the 6th century BCE Greek Heraclitus (apud Clemens Protrepticus 12), who curses the magi for their "impious" rites and rituals.

The next oldest reference we have is from the Behistun inscription of Darius the Great, and which can be dated to about 520 BCE. Darius was the king of the Persian Empire and ruled from Babylon for the greater part of his reign.

I was not wrong about the Magi being from Babylon. Nor was I lying. You seem to resort to calling people liars every time someone develops a strong argument against you. Cut it out gnosisfaith.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

No root, no religion, no being

beyond being and non being

no mind, no dwelling

a reply to: Tsuro

Im a Theologian, without any philosophy skills..

THat, friend, is an oxymoron.

A mind truly educated in the study of the humanities -- theology and philosophy being most pertinent here -- cannot separate the two.

An online ministerial certificate approving my cousin's brother to perform 'clerical marriage' does not a theologian make.
No "Bible Study" group in the basement of a radical religious group's meeting place makes a philosopher.

Liberal Arts, man. Humanities, Liberal Arts & Sciences.....a broad-based background that teaches Western Civ, literature and linguistics, anthropology, maths, science, and a variety of enriching electives like arts and music, foreign studies, etc.

THAT is what makes a 'theologian'/'philosopher'.

Of course there are self-learners who know how to use a library and/or the internet, and can indeed become both philosophers and theologians. Some of us here are already engaged in such thinking. Just so you know.

Dont forget the Egyptian magi. One magi called Djed or Djedi.
The Egyptian magi was were George Lucus got his Jedi idea.

Also the Jews had magi as well.

Mryhh, you need to calm down and stop calling people liers when they say something you disagree with. If someone says something they truly believe than that is not a lie to them. If you disagree then educate them with links to back up you opinion.
People can also be wrong due to the knowledge buried under mundane day to day bs, and just needs reminding.

Take a chill pill digger.