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.

 

Catholicism, the Univeral church:what that means

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mryhh
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.


Daniel 2:48 "Then the king promoted Daniel and gave him many great gifts, and he made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon". The Hebrew word used for 'wise men' is "chakkiym". The Strongs definition of "chakkiym" is a Chaldean term for a "Magian: - wise".

We have no reason to believe that Daniel (Belteshatstsar) was mythological. He was one of four Hebrew royals who served in Nebuchadrezer's court. The other three were named Hananiah (Shadrack), Mishael (Meshach) and Azaryah (Abed-Nego) - I have included the Babylonian given names in brackets for all four.

According to the Book of Daniel, all four rose to positions of power under the king.

All four were assumed to be mythological but a five sided clay prism (ES7834), now housed in the Istanbul Museum mentions a list of Nebuchadrezer's officials including Ardi-Nabu, 'Official of the royal prince' (This name is the equivalent to the Aramaic name Abednego). Also mentioned is Hanunu, 'Commander of the king's merchants' (The name Hanunu is likely to be the Babylonian equivalent for the Hebrew name Hananiah). The prism also mentions Meshallim-Marduk Official of Nebuchadrezer' (Marduk was the name of a Babylonian god. If Marduk is left out of the name we wind up with Meshallim which may refer to Mishael).

The time is right, the ranks are right and the names are not pure Babylonian so this identifies the fact that that the suggestion that they are mythical, is baseless.

Zoroaster is traditionally dated (from the Zoroastrian Bundahishn, "258 years before Alexander") from 628 to 551 BCE, but Zoroastrianism is not attested to historically until the 5th century BCE. Nebuchadrezzer reigned c. 605 BC – 562 BC and so is at least contemporary with Zoroaster or may even have existed before him.

edit on 12/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Theology with philosophy becomes insanity, with history it becomes clarity..

One of them tells you what you want to hear, the other, well, it doesnt really care cause its called human nature..

Theology of the west teaches you the importance of self-control, freedom of will, but foremost that an Institution needs to lay the foundation of the simple rules, not a single minded person of nature.. The very basic of religion is to feed people ..

John 6:35; Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst..

Ive seen God, Jesus and all the others, ive read the true story of Moses, ive watched the snake crawl and seen a dragon arise and ive seen curses lifted..



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Mryhh
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.


Daniel 2:48 "Then the king promoted Daniel and gave him many great gifts, and he made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon". The Hebrew word used for 'wise men' is "chakkiym". The Strongs definition of "chakkiym" is a Chaldean term for a "Magian: - wise".

We have no reason to believe that Daniel (Belteshatstsar) was mythological. He was one of four Hebrew royals who served in Nebuchadrezer's court. The other three were named Hananiah (Shadrack), Mishael (Meshach) and Azaryah (Abed-Nego) - I have included the Babylonian given names in brackets for all four.

According to the Book of Daniel, all four rose to positions of power under the king.

All four were assumed to be mythological but a five sided clay prism (ES7834), now housed in the Istanbul Museum mentions a list of Nebuchadrezer's officials including Ardi-Nabu, 'Official of the royal prince' (This name is the equivalent to the Aramaic name Abednego). Also mentioned is Hanunu, 'Commander of the king's merchants' (The name Hanunu is likely to be the Babylonian equivalent for the Hebrew name Hananiah). The prism also mentions Meshallim-Marduk Official of Nebuchadrezer' (Marduk was the name of a Babylonian god. If Marduk is left out of the name we wind up with Meshallim which may refer to Mishael).

The time is right, the ranks are right and the names are not pure Babylonian so this identifies the fact that that the suggestion that they are mythical, is baseless.

Zoroaster is traditionally dated (from the Zoroastrian Bundahishn, "258 years before Alexander") from 628 to 551 BCE, but Zoroastrianism is not attested to historically until the 5th century BCE. Nebuchadrezzer reigned c. 605 BC – 562 BC and so is at least contemporary with Zoroaster or may even have existed before him.



Are you really going to keep trying to keep alive your lie that Magi were Babylonian? There is not a single person in the world of this opinion other than you. Daniel was written after the Persians freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity, not BY Daniel. A few of the Magi were from a town in Persia known as Fars or Pars and were known as Parsees which became the Jewish word Pharisee. Parsee is what the Zoroastrians today call themselves even. And their holy men have been known since Plato as Magi. Chaldean priesthood had nothing to do with Magi and I would assume that if the writer of the book of Daniel was so uneducated that he didn't know the difference between a Magi and a Chaldean priest he would not have been writing. You are trying to fight the truth with one word in a mythical book.

YOU have no reason to believe that Daniel was mythical becauseyou are ccurrently trying to save face from having told a hideous falsehood out of ignorance and the only reason you don't know what a Magi is vs a Chaldean is your not that educated about even your own religion so you don't care to educate yourself about the rest. But Chaldean before it was a nation was a priesthood. Descendants of India. Nobody with education has ever confusedthe Chaldeans with tthe Persian Zoroastrian Magi.

Chaldean was a priest on its own before Chaldea was a nation.

Magi were specific to the Persian Zoroastrians.

So any use of the word Magi to describe a Chaldean is in error and if this is the extent of your knowledge and the crux of your ignorance regarding the Persian Magi, I don't want to discuss religion with you. You don't have the education but want to sound like you do, and I don't respect people who do that. You are so misinformed about ancient history and religion that I will not lower myself and converse with fools so we are finished until you stop faking knowledge. It's disgusting to watch you try and pass for knowledgeable when you aren't.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh


Note to self, chronot think he knows Chaldean and that the term Wise man automatically means Magi when Wise men is actually a term for a skilled sorcerer. Lolol.

He also doesn't realize that Magi just means Zoroastrian priests, and refers to no other religions.

A wise man could be from any place and of any religion if he was skilled in sorcery, the Magi were astrologers and astrology being mistaken for sorcery the term Magi became the root of the word Magician. But it's use by the Greeks in the New Testament is proof that the Magi or Wise men of the Jesus story were Persian because Plato and other Greek historians wrote about the Magi after the conquest of Persia.

Chronot, nobody in the religious scholar community thinks the Magi were from any religion except Zoroastrianism from Persia. I have never heard any person in my life say or write that. You are so wrong it's sad and at first I thought you were lying thinking you wouldn't get caught, but if you really think this then you are a serious amateur of all religious beliefs, Christianity included. Just stop what you're doing, ignorance is not cool, saying things that are false because you are not educated is no less honorable than lying.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Zoroaster is NOT traditionally dated but dates range from 6000 years before Plato (by Plato) to the time of Abraham. Come on dude, you did a Google search, stop fronting like you know things.

Legends of an Ibrahim Zeradust have Zoroaster as a disciple of Abraham, some Abraham himself. The legend of Zoroaster is old, that is all anybody really knows.

That's off the top of my head, not from a Google search. But we know that it is older than the book of Daniel because Daniel gets the four kingdoms prophecy from the Zend Avesta, I have read it with my own eyes as it sits in front of me on my book shelf. Zoroastrianism didn't copy Judaism, Jews copied Zoroastrianism after coming under Persian dominion. They don't even deny it, Pharisee is just a word derived from Parsee so it's not even debatable.

You are not knowledgeable. Get off this website and read something other than a Google search if you want to be wise. Wanting to be wise doesn't make you wise, learning does. You are too willing to post false information to be wise. You are just a wannabe.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

Well actually they werent "persians" but they did however practice the "universal laws under freedom of will" It means obligation to society.. And they did use astrology or the five celestial bodies visible to the eye and made a farmers almanac, some of you call it a rose, some a wheel, some the swastika..

The old testament is very strict book on how to build a working society its like having only a Court, the greeks practiced
" philosophy " to explain how instincts and the ideals of human/ity could work together, or domestication of primates as i call it..

Pharisee comes from the Parsi or Parsee, and they even were numbered as the "144.000" anointed ones, they arrived from India to Iran and then moved back again from Iran to India.. I think they failed to the religious cause,

I can do this all day long if you want to?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

They name Abraham or Ibrahim, comes from the hindu indian philosophy of Brahman...

Im just waiting for you to go afrocentric to explain the world..



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsuro

Do you think you are telling me something new? Abraham/Brahma and Sarah/Saraisvati being the same was first discovered by the Jesuits and in lesser fashion by Mohammed. But thanks.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

Dont make things complex, they really arent.. That is if you are raised properly and correct to your cultural dogma..



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   
The Real Magia reply to: Tsuro

They were Persian as Zoroastrianism was the religion of the Persians and Magi their priests. I don't know how much clearer I could make it that Magi were Persian.

But I gave you a link, and everyone else who needs proof of what a Magi was. Also, I do believe I covered the Parsee Pharisee connection so thank you for backing me up.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   
The Real Magia reply to: Mryhh



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsuro

I am not afraid of complexity, I am trying to get that link to work but am having trouble. It's not really for you because you know what a Magi is, but let me figure it out anyway so everyone has a reference.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

no,no ,no, no... Magic only works when you believe it, its called evolution of a solar system over 4.5 billion years...

If i can do "black magic" I can actually really isnt that hard when you understand the core, see it like this.. I can make new things, not old by a book..

And the link didnt work..



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

Now go into the land of magic and find out who they really are


FYI, It got you killed a 150 years ago..



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:28 AM
link   
I already told you I was having trouble with that link so I will just provide the Wikipedia link.

CHRONOT: Pay special attention to the section that explains how the Greeks confused Chaldean and Magi which would explain why you think this. It's just another error that has been corrected that hasn't reached your brain yet. And proves how little you know.

Edit: Ur of the Chaldees in the bible is erroneous as in Abrahams days Chaldean was a priestly caste and wouldn't become a nation for a long time. Zoroaster was a prophet who made the Hindu Daevas into demons and the Chaldeans were supposedly from India and most likely the religion of Abraham's ancestors.

We know so little about the real Zoroaster that everything known about him is speculation.

We do know that Magi were not Babylonian or Chaldean because Zoroastrianism was almost exclusively in Persia. It was never a Babylonian religion, that much we do know. Sorry chronut, you are going to have to stop making up things and restating known historical fallacies. Smarten up.

Magi
edit on 13-3-2016 by Mryhh because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

Use the periodic round table, not the modern, and the old greek elements, its simple practice of chemistry.. and the basic elements..
Or in mathematics you just use your own body as a universal measure reference, its 9,82G..



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

And you dont use black magic, ever..



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

First practice was in Persia, however they are not Persians.. Dont mix that together..



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsuro


I am not even slightly interested in practicing magic in any form other than prayer and even that is rare for me. But my life is going the way I want it to so I just thank God and continue on.

I actually don't believe in the existence of sorcery the way you define it. Black magic or magic is a superstitious belief of people. It isn't real.

Try casting spells, they will not work.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsuro

I said almost exclusively in Persia, not completely. It spread to very few non Persian areas and if it started as Persian then it is Persian in origin. Name one non Persian territory pre Islam that practiced Zoroastrianism. Roman Mithras worship was so far from the Persian Mithra that it was not Zoroastrianism. Zurvanism was even Persian. And when it(zoroastrianism) resurfaced in the Pahlavi era, it was still Persian.
edit on 13-3-2016 by Mryhh because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join