Catholicism, the Univeral church:what that means

a reply to: chr0naut
Easter is the english way of saying Ishtar, a pagan goddess.

You just deny anything huh?

You don't name a Christian holy day after a pagan goddess, in any language. How naive can you get?

Next you're probably going to say that Christmas isn't pagan even though it was around thousands of years before Christ, same holy day, different deity.

Neither are truly Christian holy days but they are both high holidays in every pagan religion ever.

What is it like living in the matrix?

a reply to: chr0naut

Debunk this:AbrahamisBrahma

That ought to occupy you for a while, trying to explain away the obvious and documented similarities between Abraham and Brahma/Saraisvati and Sarah.

You really didn't and can't debunk this because it is true. But, I am certain you will try!!!

originally posted by: Megacore
a reply to: chr0naut
Easter is the english way of saying Ishtar, a pagan goddess.

You just deny anything huh?

You don't name a Christian holy day after a pagan goddess, in any language. How naive can you get?

Next you're probably going to say that Christmas isn't pagan even though it was around thousands of years before Christ, same holy day, different deity.

Neither are truly Christian holy days but they are both high holidays in every pagan religion ever.

What is it like living in the matrix?

I never said that the word Easter has pagan roots.

But the death of Christ and its ceremonies (such as Holy Communion) were in existence well before the English name was adopted. The Christian ceremonies have nothing to do with rabbits, eggs or goddesses.

Are you seriously that naive that you think the two high holidays in paganism just happened to coincide with the birth of Jesus and the resurrection?

And that it's also a coincidence that Easter/Ishtar is a pagan goddess?

Yeah, I am sure it's just a coincidence that a so called christian holy day is named after a pagan goddess AND falls on the same day as a pagan holy day.

Wow you are just willing to tell yourself anything if it means you can keep alive your illusions, huh?

Again, wow! Can I sell you a bridge because apparently you will believe anything as long as it isn't actually true, and what is true you actually don't believe.

One more time wow.

originally posted by: Megacore
a reply to: chr0naut

Debunk this:AbrahamisBrahma

That ought to occupy you for a while, trying to explain away the obvious and documented similarities between Abraham and Brahma/Saraisvati and Sarah.

You really didn't and can't debunk this because it is true. But, I am certain you will try!!!

As I pointed out, Abraham's descendants were all Semitic. Similarly, Semitic genes seem conspicuously absent from the Indian continent. Perhaps because of their caste system and Jewish concepts of racial and tribal purity.

Abraham's father was Terah, his father was Nahor and Nahor's father was Serug. Serug's father was Arpachshad. Arpachshad's father was Shem. Shem's father was Noah... The whole genealogy goes back to Adam.

Genesis 10 describes the "table of nations" which explains how national groups all relate back to Adam.

According to the table of nations, the peoples of India are descendants of Madai, son of Japeth, son of Noah. The immediate descendants of Madai were the Iranian Medes who spread out into the Indian mainland.

This migration is largely theoretical but mainstream enough that it has a scientifically accredited Wikipedia article - Indo-Aryan migration theory.

So we have an issue that Abraham AND his ancestors were not directly related to anything Indian according to the Hebrew scripture. His offspring were also all Semitic.

The Hebrew scriptures are vastly different in historical account, content and context to the Vedas (from which descriptions of Brahma come). I cannot see how anyone could confuse the two?

The website you linked to makes great noise about a few apparent similarities. It has no actual links to any archaeological works and is in direct contradiction of traditional views and scriptures about Abraham. It is entirely based on suppositions and poor scholarship, ignoring the vast differences in beliefs, recorded acts, genealogies, cultures and locations.

The website you liked is worse than "The Davinci Code" and is just as fictional until 'proven' otherwise.

Alright your obviously happy in oblivion. The bible isnt a geography book and Abraham is old when introduced.

You have a weak argument for everything because you enjoy the illusion that "your" Abraham is unique to judeo Christianity and Islam.

You don't know where Abraham grew up and smarter people than us pieced together the similarities and you truly are in denial I feel sorry that you have a hard time accepting that Abraham was A Brahman and can't see the obvious. You probably didn't even read the link I gave you.

I don't have any urge to argue what I know is true because I don't ignore obvious ish like that.

Have fun, I am done with you because you think the sky is purple and Easter is a Christian holiday.

Enjoy the matrix dude. You are so wrong it's frightening

originally posted by: Megacore
Are you seriously that naive that you think the two high holidays in paganism just happened to coincide with the birth of Jesus and the resurrection?

And that it's also a coincidence that Easter/Ishtar is a pagan goddess?

Yeah, I am sure it's just a coincidence that a so called christian holy day is named after a pagan goddess AND falls on the same day as a pagan holy day.

Wow you are just willing to tell yourself anything if it means you can keep alive your illusions, huh?

Again, wow! Can I sell you a bridge because apparently you will believe anything as long as it isn't actually true, and what is true you actually don't believe.

One more time wow.

The Christian "event" existed a full 250 years before the "Sol Invictus" event was accepted by Rome and 300 years before the completion of Mithraistic legends.

I provided the specifics of this in a previous post with proper links to accepted authorities.

They could not have influenced Christianity, because Christianity came first. But they could have been influenced by Christianity, couldn't they?

Yes, in English, they used a word that appears to be the name of a pagan goddess. No other language uses that word for the Crucifixion & Resurrection.

Nowhere in the Easter celebrations do we invoke or praise a goddess. Easter is about the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

originally posted by: Megacore
Alright your obviously happy in oblivion. The bible isnt a geography book and Abraham is old when introduced.

You have a weak argument for everything because you enjoy the illusion that "your" Abraham is unique to judeo Christianity and Islam.

You don't know where Abraham grew up and smarter people than us pieced together the similarities and you truly are in denial I feel sorry that you have a hard time accepting that Abraham was A Brahman and can't see the obvious. You probably didn't even read the link I gave you.

I don't have any urge to argue what I know is true because I don't ignore obvious ish like that.

Have fun, I am done with you because you think the sky is purple and Easter is a Christian holiday.

Enjoy the matrix dude. You are so wrong it's frightening

Please, if I am wrong, refute the facts that I have provided, with similar hard fact.

originally posted by: Megacore
a reply to: chr0naut

Right, all the ancient historians, the Jesuits, all the evidence of etymology between Saraisvati and Brahma AND the Chaggar river obviously is Haggar.

On some real ish, your a moron.

You don't even know that a third of the ancient world was Semitic which doesn't mean Jewish exclusivly.

You are a serious moron. You are really, really stupid. No common sense and your blissfully ignorant I guess.

I know that I am not.

originally posted by: Megacore
a reply to: chr0naut
I did you're just too stupid to understand.

Let me see...

You are telling me that names are important and yet you seem to have logged on to ATS for the first time, literally yesterday, and carried on with a number of topic (like 10 of them) threads by other accounts that are now banned.

This leads me to believe that you are actually using just another name so you can log on again after your last account got banned.

We know you are masking your IP, but by the topic, the manner of your posts, the fact that you have occasionally slipped up and revealed that you are the same person who was just banned, by your repetition of the same grammatical errors, the fact that you never post links or references (it is always "off the top of your head") and when refuted, your response is to call everyone names, we know that you are the same person.

So far, I believe you have used the following names: Gnosisfaith, Essene616, 33Iam666, 369elyon, Areyousirius360, Gnosisrisen, Rasalghoul, Myrhh, Merari, Esephech, Asherahel, Megacore, Caligula, SerapisChrist, Bezelel, Ophite, Amraphiah, Azzezza, Stringsatt.

I have probably missed one or two or perhaps have even included some that weren't yours. I'm only human. I'm sure you must also be having trouble remembering what you've used before, too.

I suspect that even when you do post something online as 'yourself', you are still loose with names and titles. For example, you are obviously not a 'real' Reverend. One minute your middle name might be Michael, the next it might be Ariel. The next you might be using your adopted middle name as a first name (well it is more in line with your dress). Stop.

a reply to: Reverbs

I just joined but yeah this could be a great thread. Gnostic Jesus is way cooler than Gospel Jesus and the Gnostics have more than the measley 4 books of the New Testament featuring Jesus and the animosity between the Catholic Church and the Gnostics was high. I truly believe God had a hand in the findings of the Nag Hammadi and Qumran scriptures. They are both awesome.

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: Reverbs

I just joined but yeah this could be a great thread. Gnostic Jesus is way cooler than Gospel Jesus and the Gnostics have more than the measley 4 books of the New Testament featuring Jesus and the animosity between the Catholic Church and the Gnostics was high. I truly believe God had a hand in the findings of the Nag Hammadi and Qumran scriptures. They are both awesome.

Or perhaps if you bury documents in a jar, in a populated area, one day someone will dig it up.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: Reverbs

I just joined but yeah this could be a great thread. Gnostic Jesus is way cooler than Gospel Jesus and the Gnostics have more than the measley 4 books of the New Testament featuring Jesus and the animosity between the Catholic Church and the Gnostics was high. I truly believe God had a hand in the findings of the Nag Hammadi and Qumran scriptures. They are both awesome.

Or perhaps if you bury documents in a jar, in a populated area, one day someone will dig it up.

Actually, they were found in jars in caves. I get the sense your hostile to anything non canonical. That's basically just being the exact type of follower the church has always wanted everyone to be. Not because it's the truth, because it's what THEY want you to believe.

I would hate myself if I was the kind of person who actually believes what the churches say and do, they are corrupt fascists, always have been.

At least Gnostic beliefs don't ban reading material or destroy other people's books and religious beliefs with violence.

The church has a history of evil. The canon comes from those evil scumbags.

Long live the Gnosis.

a reply to: Mazzini


Also neither Qumran or Nag Hammadi are heavily populated. Actually, they have almost no inhabitants whatsoever.

And like I said, God had a hand in the discovery of the documents. God has a hand in everything. If God didn't want the documents found, translated and published, then they would be in the caves still. I would not have the ability to read them, but the whole world has that ability now and that makes it a part of God's plan.

God doesn't need yes men.

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: Mazzini


Also neither Qumran or Nag Hammadi are heavily populated. Actually, they have almost no inhabitants whatsoever.

And like I said, God had a hand in the discovery of the documents. God has a hand in everything. If God didn't want the documents found, translated and published, then they would be in the caves still. I would not have the ability to read them, but the whole world has that ability now and that makes it a part of God's plan.

God doesn't need yes men.

Qumran today is a state park, it has no official population. The nearby kibbutz of Kalya (that runs the state park) only has a permanent population of 409 (2015 figures) but is a beach-side resort and so has a fluctuating tourist population. Historically, the town of Khirbet Qumran was destroyed by the Romans about 68 AD. A local cemetery for the town contains over 1,000 bodies. A note by Jodi Magness in 2002 was that a pantry there contained 1,000 dining dishes. Estimates on population have ranged from 12 to 1,428 but the current consensus is 20 to 200 inhabitants. Josephus records that there were about 3,000 Essenes which, if Qumran was the epicenter of the Essene world, would argue for a larger population. Far more likely was that Qumran was a mixed community of Saduccees with some Essenes.

Nag Hamadi, however, has a population of 30,000. The Nag Hamadi 'library' consisted of 12 parchments in a single jar. I was referring to this single jar buried in a populated area in my previous post.

While the Nag Hamadi parchments are quite specifically Gnostic, The Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly early copies of very orthodox Hebrew scriptures and rites. Here's a link to commentary comparing the DSS & Gnostic Gospels.

Also, you made reference to God guiding the discovery of the Gnostic Gospels. Gnostics have replaced God with the Demiurge, who is, according to them, a false god. If you really were a true Gnostic, you would probably just already "know" that, right?

Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on Gnosticism. Deny ignorance.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: Mazzini


Also neither Qumran or Nag Hammadi are heavily populated. Actually, they have almost no inhabitants whatsoever.

And like I said, God had a hand in the discovery of the documents. God has a hand in everything. If God didn't want the documents found, translated and published, then they would be in the caves still. I would not have the ability to read them, but the whole world has that ability now and that makes it a part of God's plan.

God doesn't need yes men.

Qumran today is a state park, it has no official population. The nearby kibbutz of Kalya (that runs the state park) only has a permanent population of 409 (2015 figures) but is a beach-side resort and so has a fluctuating tourist population. Historically, the town of Khirbet Qumran was destroyed by the Romans about 68 AD. A local cemetery for the town contains over 1,000 bodies. A note by Jodi Magness in 2002 was that a pantry there contained 1,000 dining dishes. Estimates on population have ranged from 12 to 1,428 but the current consensus is 20 to 200 inhabitants. Josephus records that there were about 3,000 Essenes which, if Qumran was the epicenter of the Essene world, would argue for a larger population. Far more likely was that Qumran was a mixed community of Saduccees with some Essenes.

Nag Hamadi, however, has a population of 30,000. The Nag Hamadi 'library' consisted of 12 parchments in a single jar. I was referring to this single jar buried in a populated area in my previous post.

While the Nag Hamadi parchments are quite specifically Gnostic, The Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly early copies of very orthodox Hebrew scriptures and rites. Here's a link to commentary comparing the DSS & Gnostic Gospels.

Also, you made reference to God guiding the discovery of the Gnostic Gospels. Gnostics have replaced God with the Demiurge, who is, according to them, a false god, but if you really were a Gnostic, you would probably just already "know" that.

Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on Gnosticism.

I don't need to read Wikipedia, I own the actual Nag Hammadi texts. And I read it every day, as I do the Bible and the Qur'an.

You seem to have missed my point which was that you said that it's not a part of God's plan, that it was just a coincidence. I am paraphrasing but that is what you said.

Both were found within the same decade. Both have been invaluable in determining what early Christianity was about. The Essenes and the Gnostics both believed in the Messiah. Yeshua was an Essene as was James.

The Gnostics had a different view of the Savior than the Roman Catholic Church, but nothing deserving of the slanderous accusations made by so called church fathers. They were basically exterminated because of their beliefs and love for Wisdom and Knowledge that didn't fit the definition of orthodoxy that the Catholic church defined and hid their books so that someday they would be found and it took about 1600 years, but it happened.

Had it not been a part of God's plan it would not have happened. God doesn't fail. He could have made it so they never were found but he didn't. Logically speaking that makes it his doing that they were found.

So I say thanks God while others scoff at the idea. I don't really care if you are an official canon only person because I don't have to be that way. Feel free to believe as you wish and I will do the same, to each their own.

And the funniest thing about the Holy Catholic church today is it is the most (secretly) pagan religion in the world. I don't know if you have noticed or not, and if you would even believe anyway, but it is.

You just need to look at the imagery and symbolism they use. In its earliest days they were allowing pagan converts to keep certain traditions and in certain cases making them official church traditions. Mary is prayed to as well as the Saints, they did a pole in Rome to determine who most Catholics prayed to and Jesus came in 5th. Not saying most Catholics are pagans but they do a whole lot of pagan things. Christianity in it's most biblical form could not get rid of certain pagan traditions without re-writing certain sections of the New Testament. Virgin birth is not a concept that Judaism ever adopted and the Greek use of virgin in Isaiah is erroneous. Jews only translated 5 books of the Old Testament in Greek and technically the Septuagint only refers to those 5.

So I would never call someone a pagan that doesn't call themself one, but Catholicism has adopted from the pagans tradition on a number of occasions. You can't change that and many Christians are dropping Christmas and Easter now doing everything possible to de-paganize Christianity and I don't blame them. It is what God and Yehushua would/do want.
a reply to: chr0naut