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.

 

Interesting information on the "Christianity is a copy of Pagan Myths" Theory

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
These motifs are part of the collective unconcious. Like the mandala and the cross. Hercules, Krishna and Jesus. Blood of Christ and water of life. Blood drinking is popular in many religions as well as all out canibalism.
Herb smoking, sacraments, foreseen prophecies, great floods, annointments, etc. These all show up in other religions.




posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
These motifs are part of the collective unconcious. Like the mandala and the cross. Hercules, Krishna and Jesus. Blood of Christ and water of life. Blood drinking is popular in many religions as well as all out canibalism.
Herb smoking, sacraments, foreseen prophecies, great floods, annointments, etc. These all show up in other religions.


This is all quite true. The Romanised Christian religion (not the philosophy of Christ, nor the original apostolic church), more so than any other organised religon, is an amalgamation of the observations & ablutions of several different religions; all of them *pagan in nature (except as noted previously). Here is a partial list, although their relationship is often vigorously debated by many leading scholars:

Celtism
Mithraism (a mixture of both Roman & Middle Eastern)
Hinduism (ancient, not modern)
Assyrian/Babylonian (also a base for parts of Judaism)
Zoroastrianism
Pantheistic Greek, Roman & Nordic

*Pagan has so many definitions that it's not even amusing. I have used it here in the following context:

Chambers Dictionary: One who observes religious beliefs established prior to the Christian era, especially ones involving worship of more than one god.
American Heritage Dictionary: 1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.


Yours in Truth

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Lordling]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Exd 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I [am] the LORD.

There is no purpose in my mind to call God anything other than what is thought to be the highest name for him.

Why all the other names?
Zip



When mankind rejected God, the closeness that God desires between mankind and Himself was removed. Because of this distance, and the fact that there is an enemy whose goal is to draw people away from God and into false worship, incomplete info and false info led to false gods.

God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is complete in Himself, and all that is needed in all and any circumstance. You don't need to make up any other gods because the only one that there really is can supply all your needs.

People would knowingly, and probably ignorantly, make up other gods. They thought they needed a god of rain, a god of fertility, a god of the sun, a god of the moon, a god of whatever and on and on and on.

The God of the Bible is the only God there is and He is all in all. Besides the fact that there are no other gods(except impersonators pretending to be though) God stands alone.

God is God and because of that fact deserves reverence for who He is. If He hadn't made us, we wouldn't be here.

When God said He would execute judgement against all the gods of Egypt, that means He would show that He alone is God. These other "gods" would not be able to stand up against His power thus proving that they were not gods at all. Mankind was indoctrinated into believeing that there were other gods, this was a mental hold on the people. That is also what God was destroying, the belief in other gods deep in the heart and mind of men and women.

I believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and also as God. It would be impossible for me or anyone to be able to adequately impart to others His total attributes and describe Him fully, because we only have a glimpse of God right now. But I have said this before, and even I am guilty of this myself, we make God out to be too small, He is more awesome than we can imagine.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
hmmmmmmm. How did this world become so dominated by males?

Actually, scholars & historians point back to the time when humankind was starting to be cognizent...As humans began domesticating & herding animals, shepards watching over their flocks couldn't help but eventually notice a fact that women knew long before: Sex has something to do with procreation.

When men realized that they were actually siring children instead of just "having a good time", that's when he decided that the babies belonged to him too, not just spontaneously popping out of the women. With that came a more extreme reaction...Not only did babies belong to men as well as women, the males suddenly developed a very strong "sense of property". That's when men started "creating" male gods & in some cases even built temples to themselves instead of gods.

Basically, this "sense of property" & it's symptoms is what led to this...

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
The rise of Christianity had MUCH to do with that......The Pagan Midwives and Medicine woman were burned. The burnings continued on to the more recent witch hunts in Salem.

As near as I can tell, that extreme "sense of property" got out of hand & it's been that way ever since...As a side effect of this new "sense of property", humankind started getting greedy for accumulated wealth & just included their wives as part of their property too. Without having "ownership" over their wives, men could not be certain which of theri children were actually sired by him & therefore couldn't be certain of which children would receive inheiritance. Although I must admit that, in the more developed countries, modern times have improved over the "wife is property" attitude.


Originally posted by marg6043
Taking in consideration that the Hebrew was a nomad group they interacted with many nations taking a littler bit of the stories from each of the cultures they came across with.

One of the main reasons that Catholicism & Christianity "borrowed" so many ideas from other religions is a practical one: How much easier it is to convert new societies into your religion when your neighbors see so many parallels to their own religion. The indications are strongest during the Roman Catholic missionaries "invading" the Keltoi ("Celts" is a Roman designation). Since the Roman Catholic religion could "rationalize" & "explain" that the indigenous religion was "almost, but not quite right", conversions were made simpler. Catholics & Christians were not the only religions to do this as they tried to spread their own beliefs...After conquering a new area by force, the invaders always brought their own religions with them. It was common practice in ancient times. It was a symptom of the concept of "control of information" over what the general population was allowed to learn.


Originally posted by dbrandt
Christ came 2000 years ago and died for sins, but the beginning of this was back in the book of Genesis.

Do you have any idea how often & how pervasively the modern Bible has been changed, edited, written in different versions, translated & re-translated over & over through the centuries of it's existence? If you want a good idea of the content of the "Original & Unaltered Scriptures", you'll learn how to read the Dead Sea Scrolls...That's the original scripture of the Hebrew religion that was the direct parent of Catholicism & all branches & dominations of Christianity. This is not conjecture on my part...This is documented *history*.


Originally posted by Jehosephat
Since you have made it easy for me by seprating your post by carrige returns to make it seem you typed more then you did.

Which is common practice among writers...Or have you failed to notice that most textwork is divided into *paragraphs* nowadays?



Originally posted by Jehosephat
It is really unfair to blame society for being so sexist, and it wasn't until the invetion of modern conviniaces like refrigeration and food processers that women were able to easily leave the homemaker lifestyle. I suggest you educated yourself more on anceint economies, societies, and structure before passing judgemnet on how sexist they were.

In prehistoric times, before the formation of permanent settlements, society *was* very sexist.

Yet it was during those times that men handled the hunting & fighting of enemies but women had authority over nearly *everything else* in the tribe. Women determined where "base camp" was & where the men would come back to after the hunt. This is due to the fact that women were more restricted in movement due to child-care duties & they always picked an area that had good potential for gathering food. In fact, if modern day tribal societies are any indication, women actually provided roughly 60% of the food that the tribe acquired.

This is because men didn't really have the idea of what role they had in procreation at the time & so the babies were always cared for by the women. When children were "fostered" to other tribes, any inheiritance they gained was through matriarchal lines, not patriarchal. Sure, the most dominant male could "rule" the tribe, but any chief who didn't take very close counsel with the women wouldn't remain in power for very long.


Originally posted by marg6043
Did I hurt your male ego? with my post, we excused me I am a female after all and my gender will always make me bias to my self importance as a woman and the role of woman in history including ancient history the one that the bible omitted.
Just like your male ego will come first.

Well marg, here's one guy who doesn't let "male ego" stand in the way of truth & understanding....



Originally posted by Nygdan
The thrust of the arguemnt in the orignal link is that these pagan ideas are in fact not present in christianity in the first place.

Actually, that's not true...Just a good hard look at the list of "canonized saints" shows many direct correlations with old "pagan" deities of Keltoi origin: For one, Saint Bridget was actually Brigit, the goddess of fire. As I've said before, this is all documented history. Many of the Saints didn't show up in Catholicism until during & after the Roman Catholic invasions of the Keltoi. Another correlation is the concept of the Dying God Who is Reborn...In Keltoi religion, the dying god represented here was son of the Earth Mother & held sway over the natural change of seasons & of fertility of the harvest. This dying god was usually represented as a virgin birth...Due to the same reasons that I mentioned above, about men having no real concept of their role in procreation.

Before the advent of "organized religion", Animism was the first type of religion to leave archeological evidence of its existence. Since nomadic tribal societies are the oldest form of society, it makes sense that most geographical regions with any population in them would develop simular belief structures. Since most tribes worshipped the same general attributes that they had observed occuring in the natural world, it would mostly be the *names* of the deities that would differ, more than the actual worship itself.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by Nygdan
The thrust of the arguemnt in the orignal link is that these pagan ideas are in fact not present in christianity in the first place.

Actually, that's not true...Just a good hard look at the list of "canonized saints" shows many direct correlations with old "pagan" deities of Keltoi origin: For one, Saint Bridget was actually Brigit, the goddess of fire. As I've said before, this is all documented history. Many of the Saints didn't show up in Catholicism until during & after the Roman Catholic invasions of the Keltoi.


First off, no foul intended


I think, as referred, it meant earlier than the RCC. The original apostolic church wasn't "Christian"; it was simply referred to as The Church, and the apostles, and all other believers in the Messianic version of Judaism (vs the Pharisaic) considered themselves to be Jewish and nothing else. They did not refer to themselves as "Christians". The term (christianni) was, most likely, first utilised by the Roman government while trying to keep track of all the different religious sects in their empire, and as such, after time, became common in useage. This time period is actually the beginning of the schism which made the Messianic Jews a separate entity from Judaism itself, while still retaining some of the original Judaic philosophy & texts. All the "pagan" influence came after the Roman Empire adopted (took over) the religion.

This has some interesting information on this topic:
www.jcrelations.net...

Yours in Truth



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I need to know or have clarified some background about certain positions on this thread.

I am curious as to why so many in here often use the RCC as a defaut setting to represent all of Christianity ...as if it is a automatic given ..a default to play through and represent all of chrisitanity..carte blanche. I find this very strange. Especially considering RCC history.

Also...I am curious about the fascination with the concept of a matrarical society or societys. Concepts like the "sacred feminine seem to occupy much of some peoples minds. I am curious about the origins of this system of beliefs and why it is pertinent here.

Thanks in advance,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
That's a good point, orangetom...
But since that seems to diverge away from this particular topic, why not start a new thread?



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
That's a good point, orangetom...
But since that seems to diverge away from this particular topic, why not start a new thread?


His questions are at the heart of this topic.
What most see as 'pagan christianity' is really RCC doings, and not of the bible. So he wants to know what makes people attribute it to the bible and Christ.

It would solve alot of misconceptions about Jesus if you examined what He taught ..AWAY from the History and teachings of the RCC.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
That's a good point, orangetom...
But since that seems to diverge away from this particular topic, why not start a new thread?


His questions are at the heart of this topic.


I agree, and as such should be addressed. However your below statements are not.


What most see as 'pagan christianity' is really RCC doings, and not of the bible. So he wants to know what makes people attribute it to the bible and Christ.


I interpreted the question as, "Why quote the RCC as an example so frequently if they are not representative of all forms of Christianity?". Answer? See below.


It would solve alot of misconceptions about Jesus if you examined what He taught ..AWAY from the History and teachings of the RCC.


The title of this thread is:
Interesting information on the "Christianity is a copy of Pagan Myths"
Theory

This is not a discussion on what Jesus may or may not have taught. It is centered on the development of the organisational structure & foundational precepts of the Christian religion(church). This process, during various periods throughout history, alternately, has & has not been exclusive of what was taught by Jesus. If the history & teaching representing the full impact of the Roman Catholic Church on the Christian religion is to be ignored, then the point of this discussion is moot. I find it interesting (and inane) that whenever the word "Christanity" is used in this environment, certain individuals automatically define it as Protestantism. Christianity has the broadest scope of any organised religon in existence, and whether or not it may be distasteful to some, *almost every branch traces it's lineage back to the Roman Catholic Church.

*The exceptions to this would be:

1. Small independent groups from the initial apostolic era, which may or may not have survived the +Roman persecution. For example, the Nasara in Iraq.
2. Messianic Jews, originally thought to have been wiped out by the +Roman persecution, now experiencing a new renaissance after slow growth for many centuries. For example, Jews for Jesus, etc., etc.
3. Gnostic Christians, also originally thought to have been wiped out by the Roman Catholic persecutions, now experiencing a new renaissance after slow growth for many centuries. Cathars are one example.

+ Note that since these Roman persecutions were after Rome had adopted "Christianity" (it's own version) as it's official religion....these other sects had to go.

The major "meta-groups" which represent current forms of Christianity are:

(1.) Roman Catholic
(2.) Orthodox (eastern Orthodox, Nestorian, etc.)
(3.) Protestant
(4.) Anglican (sort of...debated)

Entries (2.), (3.) & (4.) are all descendants of (1.). The Eastern Orthodox group (with others, i.e Nestorians) was produced as the result of the schism begun in 451AD at the Council of Chalcedon (duality of Christ), and formalised by mutual excommunication between the Western Rite (RCC) and the Eastern (Orthodox) Church in 1054AD. The Protestant group, of course, has it's roots in Martin Luther's movement (originally intended as a reformation of the RCC) in 1517AD. The Anglican group was formed as a result of gradual movement, in England, away from the RCC, over a period from around 440AD to 1534AD; re: Henry the VIII's Act of Royal Supremacy.

Hopefully, someone else will address the question on matrilinear issues, as I have overposted...My apologies, everyone.


Yours in Truth

[edit on 17-7-2005 by Lordling]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   


This is not a discussion on what Jesus may or may not have taught.


If its not about the teachings of Jesus Christ, then its not about Christianity. Since its not about those, then ...'As you were.

You may now continue to compare pagan myths to your misconceptions.

If one day, you would like to know who CHrist was, or what a christian is, feel free to U2U me.



Good day

[edit on 17-7-2005 by jake1997]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997


This is not a discussion on what Jesus may or may not have taught.


If its not about the teachings of Jesus Christ, then its not about Christianity. Since its not about those, then ...'As you were.

You may now continue to compare pagan myths to your misconceptions.

If one day, you would like to know who CHrist was, or what a christian is, feel free to U2U me.



Good day

[edit on 17-7-2005 by jake1997]


Please help me understand how these two things must be mutually inclusive? Unless, of course, you are referring to Christianity (the philosophy of Jesus) rather than Christianity (the organised religious business). If that is the case, then, I agree with you; but I had perceived this thread to be about the latter. I honestly admire the tenacity of your conviction to your faith, but as far as I can tell, this thread doesn't threaten it, unless you equate Jesus' teachings with the actual composition of the religion's structure. If that is the case, then it's a scary thought. Believe me, the two are not synonymous (Thank God!).

Oh, and thanks for the offer, but God & I are doing just fine.


Yours in Truth



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The confusiion here is the use of the term christian/christianity/christ.

They, in the the biblical usage, are one.

The other stuff that you talk about as christian is really just religion. Corporations posing as churches..etc

A christian is someone who has submitted to Christ and now follows Him.

A phoney is someone who says they are submitted to Christ and SAYS they follow him...but if you watch them you will see them
Living in million dollar homes driving 100k$ cars and always serving the dollar
Conducting sermons focused on $
Conductning inquisitions
Conducting crusades
praying to someone other then God/Christ/Holy Spirit for protection, intervention, grace, etc
Doing other things that are opposite the Word ..such as the second commandment.
Changing or adding to the word... such as deifying a person

Regardless of what the media says...you know yourself that it is contra to Christ. It is not Christ-ian.
It is no more christian then islam or hinduism or humanism.

So when you say they are christian...and all of that evidence says otherwise so that even a non-believer can tell...then it causes confusion with christians



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lordling
First off, no foul intended

None taken.


Originally posted by Lordling
I think, as referred, it meant earlier than the RCC. The original apostolic church wasn't "Christian...

True; But to see how organized religion came to be, one must look at the roots of what doctrines came before & how they "evolved" into its current form...That's all I was doing.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
That's a good point, orangetom...
But since that seems to diverge away from this particular topic, why not start a new thread?


Originally posted by Lordling
His questions are at the heart of this topic.

I was referring to his interest in the patriarchal/matriarchal topic, not when orangetom mentioned RCC & all that...

The only reason I mentioned it at all is that other posters had brought up the topic & I was merely stating that the whole topic has its basis in how organized religion created that difference.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
From what I understand, the spread of the Roman Catholic Church was facilitated by cultural assimilation. For just one example, Saint Patrick was said to have tied in the idea and artwork of Ireland as it relates to Christ. This is why we have Celtic crosses, which is a fusion of the traditional Christian cross and the ornate knot-style practiced in the art and architecture of Ireland. This practice worked! The Word spread like wildfire and was more readily understood or accepted. The problem came when the distinction between culture and belief became tangled. It then became hard to separate the myth of the lands with the reality of God. Back-fire. Now there's suspicion that culture created the the reality of God and not God coming to those cultures. I wish I had some reference books here I could refer to but it's been some time since I did this research. If anyone as something to challenge or support, the education would be appreciated.


[edit on 18-7-2005 by saint4God]

[edit on 18-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I can only add that this very thing happened in anceint Israel too.

In 2 Kings 22 we see that it is time for repairs on the temple.
It has been quite some time since Solomon, and Israel has been doing evil in the sight of the Lord.

In 22:8 we see that the Book of the Law of Moses was found , covered with dust in a corner or something.

Now keep in mind that this is a 'godly' priest and there is a 'godly' king on the throne. They worship God in the way they have been taught. Everyone in Israel does.

2 King 22:10 shows us
And Shaphan read it before the king.

2Ki 22:11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.

Now hang on a second. Here is this king, going day by day with no problems...then all of a sudden he is in terror of God.

2Ki 22:12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying,
2Ki 22:13 Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.


The covenant had been disregarded in the past. Things like Easter were added to it. Post birth abortion too. The people didnt know any better.

Go and read the rest of 2 Kings 22 and
2 Kings 23

Its an eye opener.
Ask yourself... How could they not have known?

How could they not have known.

Now look at the things added to Christ by folks in the last 2000 years that are plainly contra-scriptural.

How could you not know?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lordling
His questions are at the heart of this topic.


Ummm...I believe there has been an editing error. I didn't post this. If you look back, it was Jake1997.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
In order to protect the recently aquired hills from the Pagans, some early christians grew misletow and evergreen on the hills as a way to protect them. Wonder what misletoe and evergreen trees mean in the Christian faith?


[edit on 19-7-2005 by Frosty]


D

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
In order to protect the recently aquired hills from the Pagans, some early christians grew misletow and evergreen on the hills as a way to protect them. Wonder what misletoe and evergreen trees mean in the Christian faith?


[edit on 19-7-2005 by Frosty]


Umm...nothing to my knowledge. And where did this info come from?

Anyway, here's an essay I came across arguing against the Pagan influence of Christianity:

It's got a lot of interesting stuff in it arguing the Mithriadatic influence and the other pagan religions.:

Was Christianity Influenced by Pagan Religions?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   
just like to add my 2 cents worth here. In islam, according to hadiths (which i believe anyway to be mostly fabrocated), we are told to pray 5 times a day. What is interesting is that in the Quran, it only mentions 3 times.
What is further interesting, is that the people who collected the main sets of hadith (bukhari, tirmidhi, muslim) were all born in areas where Zoroastrianism was the predominant religion. (iran, uzbekistan).....and if you look at that religion, they have....surprise, surprise....5 daily prayers...at the precise times muslims pray. There is also many other things in the hadith which appear to be taken from Zoroastrian faith.

Sorry if i hijacked a primarily Christian/pagan theme here, but have been coming to certain conclusions about hadith recently, and, well, this is as good a place as any to begin the long ardous task of pointing out the fact that most of them have nothing to do with islam, and maybe thats where we're going wrong



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
In order to protect the recently aquired hills from the Pagans, some early christians grew misletow and evergreen on the hills as a way to protect them. Wonder what misletoe and evergreen trees mean in the Christian faith?



Nothing officially. The mistletoe Christmas "kissing" tradition began in the 18th century in England.

Mistletoe is parasitic and grows on trees - it cannot survive without a host.

Mistletoe plays a large part in an old Norse legend. To the Celts, it was thought to have many magical properties, including that of being able to heal anything. It was considered sacred.



In fact, it was considered so sacred that even enemies who happened to meet beneath a Mistletoe in the forest would lay down their arms, exchange a friendly greeting, and keep a truce until the following day. From this old custom grew the practice of suspending Mistletoe over a doorway or in a room as a token of good will and peace to all comers.


When the Celts were converted to Christianity, mistletoe customs got the axe, and it was forbidden to display mistletoe at Christmas until the idea was revived/invented in Victorian times.

Zip

EDIT: Here is some interesting information on Christmas Holly.


The Celtic Origins of Holly
In addition to being associated with the Sun God (Saturn) in ancient Rome, holly was important in Pagan/Druidic religion and customs. Under many Pagan religions, it was customary to place holly leaves and branches around their dwellings during winter. This was intended as a kindly and hospitable gesture; they believed that the tiny fairies which inhabited the forests could come into their homes and use the holly as shelter against the cold. This may actually have had some basis in fact, as holly growing in the wild is often used as shelter by small animals, primarily insects.

To the Druids, it was holly's evergreen nature that made it special. They believed that it remained green to help keep the earth beautiful when the deciduous trees (such as the oak, which they also held sacred) shed their leaves. It was also their custom to wear it in their hair when they ventured into the forests to watch the priests collecting mistletoe. The holly berries were thought to represent the sacred menstrual blood of their Goddess.

In addition to these uses, some ancient religions used holly for protection. They would decorate doors and windows with it in the hopes that it would capture (or at least dissuade) any evil spirits before they could enter the house. In effect, it was used as flypaper for demons.

As the British Isles began to convert to Christianity, the early Christians adopted the tradition of decorating their home with holly. At first they displayed it to avoid persecution, but as Christianity began to gain dominance they started to incorporate it into their own religion. The significance of the berries changed so that they now symbolized the blood of Christ and holly gradually solidified its position as a Christmas tradition.


[edit on 7/19/2005 by Zipdot]




top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join