It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


One myth leads to another

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:18 AM
Myth 3: All Good People Go to Heaven

What is the origin of the myth?

After the death of Jesus’ apostles, by the beginning of the second century C.E., the early Church Fathers gained prominence. Describing their teachings, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003), Volume 6, page 687, says: “The general stream of teaching was that heavenly bliss is granted to the disembodied soul immediately after whatever necessary purification follows death.”

What does the Bible say?

“Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.”—Matthew 5:5.

Although Jesus promised his disciples that he would “prepare a place” for them in heaven, he indicated that the righteous do not automatically go there. (John 3:13; 14:2, 3) Did he not pray that God’s will take place “as in heaven, also upon earth”? (Matthew 6:9, 10) In reality, one of two destinies awaits the righteous. A minority will rule in heaven with Christ, but the majority will live forever on earth.—Revelation 5:10.

Over time, the early church changed its view of its own role on the earth. With what result? “The institutional church increasingly replaced the expected Kingdom of God,” states The New Encyclopædia Britannica. The church began solidifying its power by becoming mixed up in politics, ignoring Jesus’ explicit statements that his followers were to be “no part of the world.” (John 15:19; 17:14-16; 18:36) Under the influence of the Roman Emperor Constantine, the church compromised some of its beliefs, one of which involved the very nature of God.

Compare these Bible verses: Psalm 37:10, 11, 29; John 17:3; 2 Timothy 2:11, 12


The majority of good people will live forever on earth—not in heaven

Myth 4: God Is a Trinity

What is the origin of the myth?

“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.

“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.

What does the Bible say?

“Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look! I can see heaven thrown open,’ he said, ‘and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’”—Acts 7:55, 56, The New Jerusalem Bible.

What did this vision reveal? Filled with God’s active force, Stephen saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Clearly, then, Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection to heaven but, rather, a distinct spiritual being. There is no mention of a third person next to God in this account. Despite attempts to find passages of Scripture to support the Trinity dogma, Dominican priest Marie-Émile Boismard wrote in his book À l’aube du christianisme—La naissance des dogmes (At the Dawn of Christianity—The Birth of Dogmas): “The statement that there are three persons in the one God . . . cannot be read anywhere in the New Testament.”

The dogma that Constantine championed was intended to put an end to dissensions within the fourth-century Church. However, it actually raised another issue: Was Mary, the woman who bore Jesus, “the Mother of God”?

Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 26:39; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28; Colossians 1:15, 16


The Trinitarian dogma is a late fourth-century invention

edit on 12-10-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 10:41 PM

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic
Let us start with the myth that Paul wrote Colossians 2:8...

Thanks btw for demonstrating what I said about you supposedly 'defending' Paul (and Christianity, seeing that you said "I call myself a Christian" and "In defense of Paul....Nazarene sect"). You only want to discredit Paul's writings (and thus the bible as well) and Christianity by referring to Christianity as a sect/cult (which I explained is often used as a propagandistic derogatory term, especially in this case cause true Christianity is not a sect like you claimed), just like the opposers of Christianity (often Jewish) did in Paul's time (1st century).

For those who want to know what this is about, start with my comments on page 3.
edit on 4-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 06:48 AM

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: dollukka

Well, not exclusively. I wanted to also point to another article about some myths that would be more suited to the "Origins and Creationism" subforum, so assuming the moderator is now OK with it (don't remember the rules very well, but now this directly relates to your comment, so thanks), I'll go ahead with it now:

Evolution—Myths and Facts

If you study that subject a bit more, you may realize some of the same Greek Pagan philosophers being involved and named, allthough not in that article. You can find that information on youtube but I'm reluctant to share those links cause I don't agree with the way it is presented (some of those videos I'd like to use have propagandistic overtones or misleading information, or are just too long and boring for something that could be done much simpler). For those interested I'd suggest search terms such as:

pagan darwinism
greek theory of evolution

Note that it's not a "scientific theory" as that term is defined by those proposing what they refer to as the "theory of evolution", one of the reasons I wasn't sure whether or not to link any videos that show up if you search youtube with those terms, they don't make that clear, and getting into that does seem better suited for another subforum even though we're talking about religious Mother Nature (Gaia)-worshippers here and their modified philosophies/ideas, or myths ('Nature did it', 'Nature found a way to evolve a ...', 'It evolved...', 'Humans evolved from an apelike ancestor which was a common ancestor to chimpanzees', etc.) now being sold as "science"/knowledge, "scientific theory", "fact" or "factual/true"/certain/conclusive/definitive/definite/absolute (adjective: correct, without error). Where I'm using a / I'm using synonyms and where I'm leaving out " " I'm indicating that the people selling these myths to the general public in accordance to the way it's described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (and other verses using the phrase "falsely called knowledge/science") are avoiding using those words as synonyms for the other words and actively trying to warp people's understanding of that word as they sell their religious myths under the marketing banner of "science" in general. And again there is overlap with the same religions at the heart of spreading (or selling if we're talking about people making money of this) the other 6 myths used as examples in the article of my OP (note the Vatican or Pope's position on what he also refers to as "the theory of evolution" as if it's a scientific theory, or that of the Dalai Lama, Buddhism, or that of prominent Hindu and New Age teachers and gurus. Note that in my examples I'm staying relatively close to the historical location of Babylon geographically, even though these myths have spread across the globe, hoping you might notice something as you research this further).

The rest is here:

The Church Fathers—Advocates of Bible Truth?
The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers
The Paradox of Tertullian
The Baptism of Clovis—1,500 Years of Catholicism in France
The Manipulation of Information

All related to 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and similar verses, 1 Timothy 6:20 ("...falsely called knowledge/science") and Colossians 2:8.

1 Timothy 6:20 (NW):

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”

1 Timothy 6:20 (KJB):

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Btw, synonyms for "paradox" are:

absurdity, inconsistency, mystery, error, mistake, nonsense (noun: contradiction)

Examples are:

"Nothing something" (Richard Dawkins), "Nothing isn't nothing physics" (Lawrence Krauss), "...the universe can ...create itself from nothing" (Stephen Hawking), i.e. nothing = something, or nothing ≠ nothng or mathematically expressed as: 0 ≠ 0.

Forgive me, I have to do this quote from memory...

"Within the one being...there exists 3 (divine) persons..." (not entirely sure about the "divine", James White, an evangelical Reformed Christian apologetic), i.e. within 1 being/person there are 3 persons/beings (exist/be/is, can all be used synonymously, "is" obviously being a grammatical form of "be"), semi-mathematically expressed as: within 1b = 3b (where b = one/1 being/person), or without the "within" which doesn't negate that it's still a paradox: 1b = 3b (applying algebra leads to the paradoxal statement that 1=3). Therefore James White and others who go along with this philosophy are in essence saying that 1=3 ( to sum up their carefully hidden paradox by the misusage of synonymous words and "capitalizing on the ambiguity of language" described in the article about the manipulation of information).

More information about evolutionary myths and the paradoxes/nonsense proposed by prominent and influential evolutionary philosophers such as the ones I mentioned from Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking, as compared to 'real science', or synonymously phrased as 'knowledge about realities' (pardon the redundancy in that statement if you notice it regarding the meaning and definition of the word "knowledge" which can include the phrase "a familiarity with facts"), that which is true, facts vs fiction and myths (also for practice):

Real science, knowledge about realities compared to philosophies and stories

Wish I could add a video to that playlist at the end about Babylon the Great that shows the connections between evolutionary philosophies and myths, philosophical naturalism, pantheism and Mother Nature (Gaia)-worship in and out of the closet ('Nature found a way to evolve a ...', 'Nature designed it', 'Nature did it'), Plato and Aristotle, the doctrine of the Trinity, the myth of the immortal soul and the myth of literal hellfire and myths of underworlds to Babylon.

So far all I've been able to find is this presentation that mentions Plato and Aristotle, Babylon (and the Chaldean and Persian priests for which Babylon functioned as a religious propaganda center as it did before them) and some of the same Church figures mentioned in the articles linked above (at the end of part 2) as well as the concept of the Trinity, a Triune God, called a Trimurti (but without mentioning that the religious triad, or trinity, was a prominent feature of worship in Babylon. One Babylonian triad was composed of Sin (a moon-god), Shamash (a sun-god), and Ishtar (a goddess of fertility and war). In ancient Egypt, a god was often viewed as being married to a goddess who bore him a son, “forming a divine triad or trinity in which the father, moreover, was not always the chief, contenting himself on occasion with the role of prince consort, while the principal deity of the locality remained the goddess.” New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology
The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1
The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 2

posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 12:14 AM

Myth 5: Mary Is the Mother of God

What is the origin of the myth?

“Veneration of the mother of God received its impetus when . . . the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . Their piety and religious consciousness [that of pagans converted to Christianity] had been formed for millennia through the cult of the ‘great mother’ goddess and the ‘divine virgin.’”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1988), Volume 16, pages 326 and 327.

What does the Bible say?

“You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. . . . And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.”—Italics ours; Luke 1:31-35, The New Jerusalem Bible.

That passage of Scripture clearly states that Mary was the mother of the “Son of God,” not of God himself. Could she have carried within her the One whom ‘the heavens themselves cannot contain’? (1 Kings 8:27) She never made such a claim. It is the teaching about the Trinity that has sown confusion over the identity of Mary. By proclaiming her Theotokos (a Greek word meaning “God-bearer”), or “Mother of God,” the Council of Ephesus, in 431 C.E., set the stage for Mary worship. The city of Ephesus where this church council was held had for centuries been at the heart of idol worship celebrating the fertility goddess Artemis.

So it was that many aspects of the worship of the image of Artemis that “fell from heaven,” such as processions, were integrated into Mary worship. (Acts 19:35) Another practice that crept into Christian teaching was the use of images of Mary and others in worship.

Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 13:53-56; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 11:27, 28


Mary was the mother of the Son of God, not of God himself. The Trinity myth gave birth to the worship of Mary as the Mother of God

edit on 3-2-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:08 AM

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: whereislogic

Calling something a myth because it was "popularized" by some other culture or a person prior to Christianity doesn't mean there isn't truth to it.

I didn't call it a myth because it was popularized by some other culture or a person prior to Christianity, that was not my motive for calling it a myth. My research into the subject (some of which is discussed in this thread), my conclusions based on reasoning on the facts/realities using my "thinking abilities" and my "powers of discernment/perceptive powers" "to distinguish both right and wrong", what is true and what is false (Hebrews 5:14) and my desire to be honest about the subject are some of my main motives for doing so. I find the evidence to be quite substantial that I'm correct about this and can safely conclude that it is a myth and share that information for those who are unaware of how they've been tricked regarding something significant that leads to other myths and deceptions from the same source and origin (which again is not the only or main reason for calling it a myth, there's a lot more to it than just tracing the source and origin of these types of religious philosophies and myths that have a specific pattern and motive to them in relation to what is really true about God and the bible). And keeps people in figurative darkness and ignorance regarding what's really true and important to know and act on.
Religion is a Snare and a Racket

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 02:10 PM
Myth 6: God Approves of the Use of Images and Icons in Worship

What is the origin of the myth?

“Images were unknown in the worship of the primitive Christians . . . The admission of images into the church in the 4th and 5th centuries was justified on the theory that the ignorant people could learn the facts of Christianity from them better than from sermons or books.”— Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by McClintock and Strong, Volume 4, pages 503 and 504.

What does the Bible say?

“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.” (Exodus 20:4, 5, The Holy Bible—New International Version) The apostle John wrote to first-century Christians: “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.”—1 John 5:21.

Are images, as the churches claim, simply a means of approaching and honoring what they represent? “At first,” states The Encyclopedia of Religion, “images may have served primarily didactic [teaching] and decorative purposes; at least, they were defended on such grounds. But soon they came to fill admittedly devotional functions. This was especially true of the icons that became a prominent feature of Eastern Orthodoxy.” However, the prophet Isaiah rightly asked: “To whom can you compare God? What image can you contrive of him?”—Isaiah 40:18, The New Jerusalem Bible.

Compare these Bible verses: Isaiah 44:13-19; Acts 10:25, 26; 17:29; 2 Corinthians 5:7


God does not approve of the use of images and icons


What can we conclude from this brief review of myths that are still taught by many churches? These “tales [Greek, myʹthos] artfully spun” cannot rival the simple and comforting truths of the Bible.—2 Peter 1:16, The New English Bible.

Therefore, with an open mind, do not hesitate to compare with God’s Word—the source of truth—what you have been taught. (John 17:17) Then, this promise will prove true in your case: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”—John 8:32.

The End. least of this article discussing 6 connected myths. Here's something that is related to this last myth:

Why Christians don't use the Cross and why Christendom and others do - part 1 of 2
edit on 27-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:14 AM

originally posted by: whereislogic
So summing it all up and giving the definitions for each of the 3 words mentioned by the Blackwell dictionary that Seede brought up (for easy reference for anyone who's going to read this thread or anyone who has taken their information from similar sources)...

Hebrew: nesha·mahʹ
English: breath

More limited in range of meaning than ruʹach.

Hebrew: ruʹach
English: spirit

Basically means “breath” but has extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) It can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit. All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion.

Hebrew: neʹphesh
English: soul

Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. Neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refers to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

So hopefully I have highlighted the difference sufficiently now.

And all 3 Hebrew words are conflated into the definition of the English word "soul" by the Blackwell Dictionary that Seede used to argue for his Platonic views/philosophies about what "soul" means and what it is. Only 1 of the 3 applies and not in the manner described by Plato, Seede, Samuel Kohn and his Blackwell Dictionary or Babylon the Great (immortal, immaterial, invisible, etc., conflating it with "spirit"), see also preceding commentary on page 3 and 4. It's a dark or black well indeed.

Light in a Darkened World
edit on 5-8-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 11:32 AM

originally posted by: whereislogic
Evolution—Myths and Facts

If you study that subject a bit more, you may realize some of the same Greek Pagan philosophers being involved and named, allthough not in that article.

A bit more about that connection:

Evolution is an old idea that has been dusted off and doctored up for modern consumption. Though unprovable by the scientific method, it is assumed to be true. Even the clergy embrace it, saying God created by means of evolution. But the Bible disagrees.

THE Bible tells Christians to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, but today the religious fad is to trail off after the scientists who copy Greek philosophers. In the fifth century before Christ the Greek philosopher Empedocles believed in spontaneous generation of life, gradual evolution of organisms and survival of the fittest. In the following century Aristotle taught that “man is the highest point of one long and continuous ascent.” Greek philosophers in general preached the evolution idea.
Any who do not agree with them because of the Bible record of creation are gullible ignoramuses. The proud clergy do not want to be classed as gullible ignoramuses. So they fall prey to evolution.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the idea that God used evolution to produce man’s body “was propounded by St. Augustine.”
The Roman Catholic Church boasts that she has absorbed much that is related to paganism and demon worship, and she will not choke when swallowing this godless philosophy of the ancient Greeks, as shown on page 172 of the volume Catholic Cabinet: “As Rome absorbed Platonism and Aristotelianism, so will she absorb evolutionary philosophy.”

Source: Evolution Warps Religious Thinking (1957)

posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 03:04 PM
Myth: this stuff matters.

Truth: According to scriptures, Jesus gave(from my count) 38 imperative commands. Do those and everything else is child's play.


top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in