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.

 

Sun worship or Son worship?

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheInfamousOne
 


It did take couage didn't it? THANKS MAN!




posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
This refutation will only be from the first three minutes of actual material from Zeitgeist (after the introduction that lasted what felt like 30 minutes). We starting at the 13:00 mark as this where it actually begins with its first supposed tie in to Christianity. Everything else before that was jibber jabber and introductions. Here we go:

ZEITGEIST CLAIM: Horus was born on December 25th.
CORRECTION: Horus' birth was celebrated in the Egyptian month of Kohiak which corresponds to our October/November. But this is still worthless as we don't believe Jesus was actually born on December 25th anyways.

ZEITGIEST CLAIM: Horus was born of a virgin.
CORRECTION: Horus was born after his mother Isis inseminated herself with her husband's semen from his severed phallus. No virgin birth.

ZEITGEIST CLAIM: Horus became a teacher in the temple at the age of 12, was baptized by Anup at the age of 30, had twelve disciples, etc.
CORRECTION (from an external source): "...my research in the academic literature does not surface this fact. I can find references to FOUR "disciples"--variously called the semi-divine HERU-SHEMSU ("Followers of Horus") [GOE:1.491]. I can find references to SIXTEEN human followers (GOE:1.196). And I can find reference to an UNNUMBERED group of followers called mesniu/mesnitu ("blacksmiths") who accompanied Horus in some of his battles [GOE:1.475f; although these might be identified with the HERU-SHEMSU in GOE:1.84]. But I cannot find TWELVE anywhere... Horus is NOT the sun-god (that's Re), so we cannot use the 'all solar gods have twelve disciples--in the Zodiac' routine here."

ZEITGEIST CLAIM: After being betrayed, Horus was crucified, remained dead for three days, then resurrected.
CORRECTION: Horus was never believed to have died whatsoever nevertheless by the method of crucifixion that might not even existed at the time in the first place. When there is no death, there is no resurrection from death.

ZEITGEIST CLAIM: Attis with all the same things (virgin birth, born on December 25th, buried in a tomb, dead for three days, etc.).
CORRECTION: Attis bled to death after having his penis cut off. He then became symbolic of springtime where he would be 'reborn' (thus not December) after the death of winter. Spring vs. winter was his 'resurrection.'

ZEITGEIST CLAIM: Krishna was born of a virgin, resurrected, etc.
CORRECTION: Krishna was his mother's eighth son, thus no virgin. He was shot by a hunter's arrow after being mistaken for a deer then brought back to life by the hunter’s tears.

ZEITGEIST CLAIM: Dionysus born of a virgin, on December 25th, claimed to be God’s only begotten son, resurrected, etc.
CORRECTION: Dionysus, like Attis, was associated with the annual return of spring- not December. The claim that he was God's only begotten son is bogus as Zeus was the proverbial dead beat dad who supposedly had many sons. He was not necessarily born of a virgin unless you consider Zeus' thigh a virgin. Dionysus was born after being sewn into Zeus's thigh after being attacked by the Titans.

ZEITGEIST CLAIM: Mithra was born of a virgin, in December, had twelve disciples, etc.
CORRECTION: Mithra emerged from solid rock (so I guess you can say a rock would be a virgin since they can't have sex!), his disciples were the zodiac and not real people, and this is the first one whose birth was actually celebrated in December. Again, Christians don’t believe Jesus was even born on this date. But Zeitgeist gets this horribly wrong as they confused the Mithra of Persia with the Mithras of Rome.

And will that I will stop. If they have that much wrong information in the first three minutes of actual material, I don't know how anyone can take the rest at face value.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
got into the gnostic media... very interesting

they bring up some good points, but nothing i haven't heard from clifford pickover, hopefully you know who he is



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by indigothefish
 



aren't we all partially right? if so put all the right parts together and you have truth? maybe maybe not,....

Indigo is also leaving all us a clue to the truth..... in the post and signature.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I am glad I made no reference to that movie, I did however ask questions that look like they could have arisen from that movie.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Here's my belief. Jesus was God as man. Just like Budda, Krishna, Meher Baba, and several others. I believe God walks among us every once in a while to help us along; to guide us in the right direction.
Meher Baba explains this much better than me. en.wikipedia.org...
I grew up in a Christian (Catholic) world. The answers they gave weren't complete to me. It was part of the puzzle. When we look at God from with in instead of above, then he can truly be found. God is waiting within each of us to be realized. IMO.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by corusso
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Here's my belief. Jesus was God as man. Just like Budda, Krishna, Meher Baba, and several others. I believe God walks among us every once in a while to help us along; to guide us in the right direction.
Meher Baba explains this much better than me. en.wikipedia.org...
I grew up in a Christian (Catholic) world. The answers they gave weren't complete to me. It was part of the puzzle. When we look at God from with in instead of above, then he can truly be found. God is waiting within each of us to be realized. IMO.


I agree with your opinion 100%



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Thank you so much for taking your judgment and your vast knowledge and your free thinking and for working hard in your altruistic flurry to help us see the light, and understand the true corrections that you putteth forth for us baby lambs who otherwise might not understandeth the truth. Us poor lambs would surely perrish in the flames of hell's fire...but thanks to you're continuous bible quotes, many of us will be saved and thus able to debate you in heaven for all eternity.

***Note to moderator: you have to understand this woman replies to every single possible post with bible verses and innuendo...she is not pushing the conversation forward, she is simply prostelitising, insulting people, and more or less, trying to convince "herself" that she is right by putting forth subjective conjecture and it's all one circular argument after the other...so if your getting tired of it, I can tell you, so are we!!!*********
[edit on 2-2-2008 by skyshow]

[edit on 2-2-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Please lets try to keep this thread on topic. If you have a problem with any members or threads please use the Alert tab below the offending post.

Now back to our originally scheduled thread "Sun worship or Son worship?"


If you have any questions regarding this or any other matter, feel free to U2U myself or any other Staff Member, or use the ATS Complain/Suggestion feature located in the Member Center and get the full attention of the entire Staff.


edit- text

[edit on 2/2/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 


Skyshow, I'm sorry my posts offend you so greatly as I hate to be a source of frustration for any member here. ATS has been gracious enough to supply all members with an ignore button. I rarely see you rebut my arguments but instead attack me as a person 90% of the time. The only one who seems to not be contributing to the topic and making off topic personal insults is you. I've only quoted the Bible in one post on this thread and that was in reply to another poster. There's no reason for you to be agitated by my comments any longer. Perhaps it's time you put me on ignore.

reply to post by KanehBosm
 


I know you didn't.
It was in response to other posters who brought up the Zeitgeist video and even posted the video a few times. As I told you when you U2Ued me, I'm enjoying our discussion in this thread immensely. It is a very interesting topic and if you look into Catholicism it certainly appears they often use images of the sun in their religious objects. It must be noted, though, that a couple of the early church fathers even spoke out against their use of such things in order to appease the pagans. Sadly, their chastisement was ignored which created the big mess we see today. And that is, that all of Christianity is based on sun worship.

reply to post by corusso
 


That is an interesting outlook. There are a few on ATS who believe Jesus was simply an "Acharya" like Buddha or Zoroaster. I can't say I agree, obviously, but it is interesting nonetheless to hear about the beliefs of others on the subject.

[edit on 2/2/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by skyshow
 




reply to post by KanehBosm
 


and if you look into Catholicism it certainly appears they often use images of the sun in their religious objects. It must be noted, though, that a couple of the early church fathers even spoke out against their use of such things in order to appease the pagans. Sadly, their chastisement was ignored which created the big mess we see today. And that is, that all of Christianity is based on sun worship.

reply to post by corusso
 




[edit on 2/2/2008 by AshleyD]



It has been a couple years since I did my research on the foundation of the Catholic Church, but if I recall they declered "they" had the right to "found" this church because of a disciple who talked with Jesus first? Who they say was the first to talk with Christ and was given permission.

I know for a fact, as well as you do this claim about is NOT true according to the Bible they follow and enforce, he was not the first or even second person to talk with Christ if I recall.

So "that" church you refer to was based on a lie, and nothing from them holds any truth in my eyes.... my 2 cents on what "that" church says what was, is, or should be. Look into who, how, when, and what justified and or inspired the founding... all lies when you listen to what they say.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by KanehBosm
 


Are you talking about Peter? Jesus said He would build His church upon this "rock" in reference to Peter. The Catholic church claims Peter as the first pope in retrospect although the office did not exist at that point.

And it might sound like I criticize the Catholic church often but I do still consider Catholics my brothers and sisters in Christ. But no one can deny they merged a lot of their rites, rituals, and symbolism with paganism under Constantine in their own little "ecumenical movement." That and their man made dogma that is never mentioned in the Bible. It also bothers me they often teach salvation is only available for members of the Catholic church. Also never mentioned in scripture. Sadly, many don't see Catholicism as a branch of Christianity. They see it as the source and absolute base of Christianity.

If you talk to ex Christians, the majority of them were raised in the Catholic church and left the faith after it left a bad taste in their mouth. Very sad, IMO. It's a deception to say someone needs other humans or a church to serve as links to God. We are told there is only one link and it is a private link that no man can come between. That link is Jesus Christ.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by KanehBosm
 


Are you talking about Peter? Jesus said He would build His church upon this "rock" in reference to Peter.


HOLY COW!! I missed the part when Jesus said,"and when I mean "rock" I mean "peter". I see how one could interpret it that way, but he didnt actually say that.

The "church" we are talking about now actually say Peter was the first to speak with christ and was given this permission directly from the mouth of christ not from allegorical speaking or interpretation,...
they say,... Peter was the first to speak with christ, first lie,
and that christ directly from his (jesus') mouth authorized peter, second lie, the church goes on to be built, and never stopped lying. Oh not to mention hording secret knowledge, lying about the knowledge they have, and control the world through money and fear.... but they do so much good for the world too

This "rock" in which Christ refers to couldn't be truth, reason, knowledge and understanding? thats not what he (jesus) meant? when he said rock he meant Peter? interesting, and unique perspective.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by KanehBosm
 


The actual verse is Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Some believe it was somewhat of a pun as Peter's name means "rock."

So I suppose that is why the papacy claims Peter as the first pope and sole church founder but it sounds like a stretch.


In these words Christ promises to build his church on the truth of Peter's and the other disciples' confession that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus uses a play on words here. He calls his disciple "Peter," Petros in Greek, meaning a small stone, but goes on to say on this rock I will build my church. meaning, He will build his church on Peter's solid confession [see the context of Peter's affirmation of Jesus as the Christ]. It is Jesus who is the Rock, the first and great foundation of the church [I Corinthians 3:11]. Peter in his first letter states that Jesus is the "living stone... a cornerstone..." Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that Peter would be the supreme and infallible authority above all other disciples. Nor is it stated that Peter would have infallible successors who would represent Christ and function as the official head of a church.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
So when Jesus says you are Peter? who is the you?


is he pointing at Peter while saying this, while having the other arm outstretch pointing at a rock, a solid foundation, meaning truth and or logic.... saying You are Peter, and on this rock you will build... so again you are saying the church declares authority through speculation? interesting..... We should all try that... oh wait we are doing it now, here.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
oh and you didnt address the lies used to found the church.

They say.... Peter was the first to speak with Jesus .LIE. and that this authority was not given through text but verbalized to Peter from Jesus before he left back to heaven. LIE. This is what the Catholic church claims, and how the justify and say they get authority and how the church was founded. lies.

We weren't talking about what Jesus meant about Peter, we were talking about what the catholic church says happened between the 2 that day. And what they say happened is not written anywhere in Biblical text but they say it happened and get authority to found a church from it... they tell a story of their reason and authorty that is usually colaborated and interpreted by allegory in text, hmm.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by KanehBosm
 


To be honest, I don't deal a whole lot with the Catholic church. Just pick up a few things here and there during reading.

THIS is the entire context of the passage.

"The church" is not an exclusive reference to the Catholic system. "The church" is mentioned constantly throughout the New Testament (dozens if not over one hundred times) and is used to describe the spiritual body of believers in Christ. Not a specific denomination or physical church.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by KanehBosm
we were talking about what the catholic church says happened between the 2 that day. And what they say happened is not written anywhere in Biblical text but they say it happened and get authority to found a church from it... they tell a story of their reason and authorty that is usually colaborated and interpreted by allegory in text, hmm.


Then you will have to ask a Catholic who can explain this. I'm not a Catholic and really have no interest in defending or explaining their system and dogma. There are over two dozen specific, literal, physical churches mentioned in the New Testament that preceded the Catholic church as a physical establishment. I don't know what else to tell you. The Catholic church is not the only church nor was it the first. They can claim it all day long but this is obviously incorrect if you examine the New Testament.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Well back to the subject of christians, or any other son from god, son of god religion. Are you and they mistakingly, unknowingly, because of lack of understanding the real root of what they do, because of what you have been told these hebrew words mean have been misled and are still practing sun worship under the a new form?

If you understand that the Hebrews (Abraham making a choice for all future people) were approached by Yahweh (a god among a host of gods at that time, according to jewish tradition and belief, text) after appraoching others and being declined by them. Abraham accpeted the offer from YHWH and have served him ever since... Christianity is an outgrowth and transformation, do to the son of god, of the jewish tradition of serving yahweh....an EQUAL god among a host of gods, not the ONLY god.


If this god (yhwh) is one of the "sun" gods ,personified gods, universe gods, gods from UP there, isnt worshiping YHWH in fact worshiping one of the ancient "dieties" he is in fact and ancient diety among a host of dieties that the hebrews choose. Change the name and its different? We worship Jesus now? The son from god, the son god gave us, without this son there is no light? Everyone will see the light some day, and only through the son can we do this... yeah thats right,... without the sun we wouldn't have the light. It's not the son of god, its the sun from god, its not HIS son, it's his SUN, he gave to us, so that we may live,.... live in the light, grow, and be kept warm by his love and outstretched arms of SUNSHINE! I am the light of the world, the SUN of god, through me there is no life,... only through me is there life. What am I describing... the Son of God or the SUN of God?

BOTH MAYBE? yes.....

[edit on 2-2-2008 by KanehBosm]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
This refutation will only be from the first three minutes of actual material from Zeitgeist (after the introduction that lasted what felt like 30 minutes). We starting at the 13:00 mark as this where it actually begins with its first supposed tie in to Christianity. Everything else before that was jibber jabber and introductions. Here we go:


Good research! Saving this info. Thank you.

It shows that it pays to look at the whole context and background of the story, rather than picking up similar words or sentences, distort it to fit one's distorted ideas. What underhanded ways to really discredit Christianity.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join