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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

Abrahamic religions are all the same, if it has a functioning system of feeding people, well it really becomes religion, ideals is the foundation.. Democracy, laws.. The foundation of building a working society was really a farmers calendar, and a little basic chemistry or actually quite advanced.. ( Elixir ) clean water, ( Fire water ) moonshine .. People forget we are primates taught cultural dogmas within borders that is reality for most people..




posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsuro


Yes, essentially the same. It's too bad how few people realize that Abraham was A Brahman,it's rather obvious and we have historians from ancient times insisting that the Jews originated in India and were called Calani. I don't know how much of Judaism is based off Brahmanism because information on Brahma in Hinduism has been impossible for me to find in Hindu scripture and it was so long ago.

Modern Judaism has prettymuch carried on the Pharasaic tradition in the Kabbalah. Gnosticism is the most slandered and misunderstood philosophical movement/religion and is also Zoroastrian based with a Christian element. Christianity owes its existence to so many traditions and people deny any influence from any faith except Judaism as they understood it at the time, which is very little.

The Jerusalem church of James was the true Messianic church and was wiped out by Rome except the Ebionites. The Zaddikkim or Essenes were forced underground and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls proves that they were the church of James, who was called the Zaddik (righteous). His followers were the Zaddikim. His brother was the Teacher of Righteousness, Yeshua, who was executed for sedition.

It's way more complicated than Abraham, and Abrahamic faiths are not really Abrahamic at all. Judaism is now Parsee based, Catholicism/Christianity is a combination of just about every major religion ever and Islam is just a de-paganized (almost) form of Catholicism. Abraham has nominal connections to the 3 but what did Abraham actually teach? Not much, other than how to fail at pimping out your old sister-wife twice and a willingness to kill his son at the instigation of a demon.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

You go into stories, there is where you get lost..
If you understand what the bible teaches, it becomes clear as daylight..
The only ones who does teach, are the Freemasons to some extent.. They dont teach the history, and they actually left out major parts in why and just focus on how..

Its a way of life, you want to read the scripture? Its everywhere in nature, you want a book? The Origin of the Species; Charles Darwin, you want a reference, we mimic nature..

Do you want to see what we really are? Dont place the stories in something simple its for primates who cant handle that life really offers nothing..



this is what you are trained to be


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



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsuro

Alright you have lost my interest. I will not be reading your nonsensical ramblings anymore because I thought you could intelligently discuss the thread topic but I was clearly mistaken.

Your agenda seems geared towards convincing yourself that you are smart. But you don't make sense so I am dismissing you from my mind as if you don't exist. You are only interested in your own perceived superiority probably because you don't have much going on. Google a few things, repeat some things you heard and you think people will be impressed. I am not, and will not be reading anything you have to say because I am not interested in irrelevant ramblings of a wannabe scholar. Nothing personal, I just don't have time for fools.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

My own superiority, sure.. Or i make logical claims, by using the ground foundation of what the Scripture tells, always use natural science as a first..

And that difficult, keep the stories going, it makes a lovely world..



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mryhh
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.

Listening to the voices in your head?



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.


And 'nobody' is such an authoritative reference?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

And my reply was merely a quotation from a Strong's concordance entry for the word "chakkiym".

In the Strong's concordance, the term "Chaldean" is referring to a language. Not to some alleged woo-woo practitioners who existed prior to the Chaldean nation.

In reference to the academic pedigree of the Strong's concordance, it is highly regarded.

Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on the Strong's concordance.

edit on 13/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mryhh
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.


Firstly, Plato was a Greek, how would he know of the birth date of Zoroaster, especially if it was 6,000 years in the past? It is obvious that Plato was only repeating Greek legends of what Plato was calling Zoroaster (the classical Greeks had several "Zoroasters").

However, Zoroastrian scholars were vitally interested in the birth date of their founder and calculated his birth date to be 258 years before Alexander. This is recorded in the Bundahishn (Wikipedia link).

So, I chose the date range compliant with the one Zoroastrian's record, rather than an obviously mythical one.

Also, the main thing that suggests an earlier date for Zoroaster, apart from legend, is the archaic language used. That's it, nothing else.

In regard to using an old language: if someone wanted to write something that seemed to have an ancient past, one could easily emulate earlier language. For instance I could probably write something in Koine Greek (which hasn't really been used for about 700 years) and could try and pass it off as a genuine relic. In truth, I don't want to, and I am sure it would be "found out" pretty quickly these days. But back then they didn't have the tools to authenticate sources properly.

edit on 13/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You are too obsessed with proving me wrong about ANYTHING that you forget Greece conquered Persia. Interaction with the Persian people would be the answer to your question.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Like I said, nobody knows when Zoroaster lived. Moot point.

Your so intent on proving me wrong about something I never claimed to know. I know the legends, the fact that many people could have assumed the name other than the actual Zarathustra, and a good deal about Zoroastrianism. I know how it influenced Judaism and Christianity and how not many people do(know). I know that your information is freshly googled where as I have spent years studying the history of religion. You are no expert in any religion with just a beginner's knowledge of Christianity. You have proven this again and again by making untrue statements like "the magi were Babylonian" and "Halal was a Canaanite deity" two utterly false statements that make it impossible for anyone educated to take you seriously. I have witnessed you argue that Lucifer was not a false myth and a translation error. But every biblical scholar knows that it was.

And you asked how a Greek would have knowledge of Zoroaster which means you didn't know that Greece had contact with the Persians and many cultures whose knowledge they devoured every time, such as the Jews.

So all of this nonsense coming from you is going to have to end. I am trying to teach people about the syncretic Catholic church which most educated people know incorporated all the faiths of the Empires past and present that were compatible.

Heaven and Hell didn't exist in Judaism until the Persians freed them from Babylonian captivity. They had almost no Angelology, no judgement of souls, no Satan just The Adversary who Christianity made into a Zoroastrian Ahriman type of enemy of God.

You would do yourself a favor if you lost the fear of learning that you have regarding the truth about the source of Catholicism and Pharasaic Judaism's and the Essenes source of new doctrines, which is the Persians.

You could also learn the difference between the Jerusalem church of James vs the Roman church of the Hellenized Christ, and how Messiah in Judaism hadnnothing to do with a supernatural figure born of a virgin. Virgin was a mistranslation in the OT Isaiah.

You just plain need to learn if you want to be wise. You don't Google a rebuttal to an answer you don't agree with. You learn ahead of time and contribute what you ACTUALLY know, not what you just got off the internet.

I comment from memory usually, and if I don't know something I don't pretend. If I happen to be wrong and someone corrects me, I thank them for not letting me remain in error.

You don't have anything to add to the thread topic, your goal seems to be to refute. But I don't make threads if I don't know the subject very well unless I am seeking an answer.

You are trying to impede my mission of spreading knowledge, and knowledge is good so your goal is reprehensible.

I welcome any attempt you can muster up to refute my claim that the Catholic/Universal church is a syncretic religion designed to appease everyone. Hence the name Universal. Rather obvious.

But you will not succeed. Maybe you can find something irrelevant to the point that I am not 100% correct on, I am not perfect.

But my premise is solid and historically accurate.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Plato did study abroad in Alexandria i think, but if i recall it was about, Architecture, Astronomy, farming, medicine, law. Well the institutional foundation for society, then they took philosophy and intertwined it with the old scripture.. The foundation for the New testament is greek philosophy, thats why the three wise men are always portrayed... Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, even though i dont believe Socrates ever lived..



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

The bible is a fantastic book if you know how to read it correctly..



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

Well the church is divided into 5 patriarchs, I think if i recall right; Rome, Jerusalem, Athen, Alexandria and Constantinopel.. The biggest one of these is the Roman, or the Catholic one.. In 1962 they made a flat organization ( 2nd vatican council 1962-65 )

I told you before the meaning of the word Messiah, but im sorry your the scholar, right?



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Mryhh

No discussion when i use logic?

Yeah usually aint fun with logic, but its the way im raised... You gather s*** load of information, then you go to actual scholars and ask them within their respective fields.. Does this work? They usually love when people listen to their research, cause its their life, then you start deducting.. And all of a sudden you find pieces of a puzzle, and you leave the puzzle that is made out of human imagination, those are called stories/fiction/fantasy.. And you put why instead of how, and voila you start making out a puzzle, and the world suddenly becomes a gigantic playground.. And you start to realize what magic really is.. And then you walk into the halls, and they always greet you.. Well that is if you are human..



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mryhh
a reply to: chr0naut

...

You have proven this again and again by making untrue statements like "the magi were Babylonian" and "Halal was a Canaanite deity" two utterly false statements that make it impossible for anyone educated to take you seriously. I have witnessed you argue that Lucifer was not a false myth and a translation error. But every biblical scholar knows that it was.

...

So all of this nonsense coming from you is going to have to end. I am trying to teach people about the syncretic Catholic church which most educated people know incorporated all the faiths of the Empires past and present that were compatible.

...

You just plain need to learn if you want to be wise. You don't Google a rebuttal to an answer you don't agree with. You learn ahead of time and contribute what you ACTUALLY know, not what you just got off the internet.

I comment from memory usually, and if I don't know something I don't pretend. If I happen to be wrong and someone corrects me, I thank them for not letting me remain in error.

You don't have anything to add to the thread topic, your goal seems to be to refute. But I don't make threads if I don't know the subject very well unless I am seeking an answer.

You are trying to impede my mission of spreading knowledge, and knowledge is good so your goal is reprehensible.

...



Then post some reliable supportive links or data. You, know, actual references to archaeological finds or textual references in ancient works.

I have done so, in support of a fairly traditional Christian view, it shouldn't be too hard if you are correct and I am wrong.

I confess, I do use Google, Wikipedia and a number of online sources. This is a technological age and my memory is imperfect. Live with it!

I also wasn't born yesterday, I have been studying God's word for more than 40 years. In that time, I have come up against those, like yourself, who have views in disagreement with my own. In no case have I ever found a contrary argument that truly holds water (although there are issues unresolved, like the 'problem of evil'). Perhaps that is why after 38 centuries of deep study and analysis, the traditional views persist and are still regarded highly by the majority.

I never said that "Baal Halal" was a Canaanite deity. I referred to Baal Hadad (Wikipedia link). (If I did make reference to Baal Halal at some stage - and I don't think I did - it is probably that I may have been quoting someone else and they had made a typo). The Baal Cycle of stories is mentioned in clay tablets found in Tell Ugarit (Modern day Ras Shamra, Syria).

You do also realize that your reference to comments made in a thread prior to the date you joined ATS, and to which you never participated using this ID (despite your apparent zeal to evangelize your heresy), indicates that you are using multiple logons, which is against ATS policy and which has caused you to be banned numerous times before.

edit on 14/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mryhh
a reply to: chr0naut
...

You have proven this again and again by making untrue statements like "the magi were Babylonian"

...

But my premise is solid and historically accurate.


Your premise is NOT historically accurate.

After Cyrus the Great captured Babylon, the Achaemenid kings ruled their empire from Babylon, principally from their royal palace in Susa.

Here's a quote from the Encyclopædia Iranica on the Magi:

"Important information on the activities of Magi is preserved also in Mesopotamian documents of the Achaemenid period. These Magi probably came to Babylonia to perform religious rituals for the Persians and Medes who stayed in that country as royal officials and soldiers. The names of these Magi, when they are mentioned, are Iranian. But Babylonian texts mention Magi only in connection with their administrative tasks, as well as witnesses in legal and economic documents along with Babylonians. For instance, a letter from the archives of the Eanna temple in Uruk records that a Magus was to check on the flour storage which apparently belonged to this temple (Clay, no. 66). In one case a Magus and a scribe of the same temple were assigned to supervise some workmen (Keiser, ed., Babylonian Inscriptions, no. 40). In one document from Babylon drafted in 496 BCE, provisions are mentioned, which were destined for certain Magi as well as for the workmen for the royal household (gardu-, an Iranian word) and some palace officials (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler, no. 138/139). During the reign of Darius I, a Magus named Zattumēšu owned a field located near the city of Kiš (McEwan, ed., Late Babylonian Texts, no. 163). This field was adjacent to lands belonging to the temple of Marduk, the supreme state god of Babylonia, and to a private man from the same city. The etymology of the name Zattumēšu is “a servant of the tribe” (*Zantuvaisa-; see Dandamayev and Liv#s, p. 458). In a promissory note from the same city drafted in 469 BCE, a Magus, whose name is lost, is listed among the witnesses of a business deal (McEwan, ed., Late Babylonian Texts, no. 182). Several documents from the archive of the Murašû business firm mention a place named “Settlement of reed huts of the Magus,” which was located in the Nippur region near some fiefs belonging to “Cimmerians,” that is, Scythians (Hilprecht and Clay, eds., The Babylonian Expedition, nos. 88, etc.)."

The Magi were very clearly recorded, in multiple texts, as Babylonian officials.

That the Magi also existed before Zoroastrianism is shown in this quote from the Encyclopædia Iranica:

"Contradictory opinions have been expressed in modern scholarly works concerning the religion of the Magi. But almost nothing is known about the western Iranian Magi during the pre-Zoroastrian period".

Your assumption that the Magi were of Zoroastrian origin, is incorrect.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tsuro
a reply to: chr0naut

Plato did study abroad in Alexandria i think, but if i recall it was about, Architecture, Astronomy, farming, medicine, law. Well the institutional foundation for society, then they took philosophy and intertwined it with the old scripture.. The foundation for the New testament is greek philosophy, thats why the three wise men are always portrayed... Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, even though i dont believe Socrates ever lived..


Didn't Plato also talk about Atlantis (in Critias) as existing 9,000 years before Solon went to Egypt? Perhaps this indicates that the 'multi-thousand years ago' is more likely a figure of speech used by Plato than an actual empirical date. Especially when most scholars think that Plato's description references the Minoan eruption of the Thera volcano about 1540 BC (closer to one millennia earlier).

As for Socrates, well, Plato wasn't the only one to talk about him, so did Xenophon and Aristophanes, so he may have existed, but perhaps Plato embellished the story a bit, too?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Cant get my fingers around Socrates the complexity in society but simple to the truth with nature, it feels like Socrates is the Immoral cultural behavior of nature in Society.. Plato is an amazing philosopher, his work contributed to foundation of our western society today..




Didn't Plato also talk about Atlantis (in Critias) as existing 9,000 years before Solon went to Egypt? Perhaps this indicates that the 'multi-thousand years ago' is more likely a figure of speech used by Plato than an actual empirical date


In every society we have the story of "the origins" i see this story as the same.. But its just my thoughts, it seems as soon as Plato wants to " get out of the real world " he uses Socrates as an escape goat..



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tsuro
a reply to: chr0naut

Cant get my fingers around Socrates the complexity in society but simple to the truth with nature, it feels like Socrates is the Immoral cultural behavior of nature in Society.. Plato is an amazing philosopher, his work contributed to foundation of our western society today..



Didn't Plato also talk about Atlantis (in Critias) as existing 9,000 years before Solon went to Egypt? Perhaps this indicates that the 'multi-thousand years ago' is more likely a figure of speech used by Plato than an actual empirical date


In every society we have the story of "the origins" i see this story as the same.. But its just my thoughts, it seems as soon as Plato wants to " get out of the real world " he uses Socrates as an escape goat..


Got to admit that I really haven't studied greatly into the Greek classics. I never studied Philosophy per se, but my fathers interest in oratory and all things classically Roman, led me to Cicero, which led to Plato, which led to reading The Republic and a couple of the dialogues.

In regard to Socrates philosophy, although I appreciate the forms, I am probably more of a scientific pragmatist (perhaps an expression of my Aspergers), with just a touch of appreciation for the "divine madness" that afflicts us all.

I do get your suggestion that Plato seems to escape and live vicariously through the life and actions of Socrates. Perhaps there was more happening than a tutor student thing (Plato being one of the youths that Socrates was charged with "corrupting")?

edit on 15/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Philosophy is just another word for politically correct, its the modern aesthetics that has made philosophy into a narcissistic field of self indulgence.. Ancient cultures they are referenced as philosophers and in modern cultures they are referenced as a mysticist. Its just to make a distinct line between people who really understand the real world and those who doesnt.. If you have asperger you should be able to read the message between all the horse s***..




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join