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.

 

Pre-Roman Christian's were New Ager's

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I ran across some interesting information that may or may not be known by many. It may have been discussed here before but I'm unable to find any threads specifically relating to this material. This information is not new necessarily but go to show the manipulation of organized religion, and you must ask yourself why those organizations would change the original meanings of text or exclude text from their teachings.

NAG HAMMADI texts were found in Egypt 1945. These texts were from Gnostic Christians prior to the period of Christian Orthodox.

Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947.

Both of these texts revealed information about Pre-Roman Christian's and to which Pre-Roman Christians viewed Christianity differently. In fact, these writings affirmed the existence of the doctrine of reincarnation being taught among the early Jews and Christians. Christian Gnostics were eliminated by the orthodox Church for being heretics. Their sacred writings were destroyed and hidden with the belief that they would be revealed at an appropriate time in the future.

www.near-death.com...
This website contains all the relevant information regarding the rest of this story. The correlations between Pre-Roman Christian beliefs and that of the New Age belief structure are so similar that it make one question why the church's in the present day refer to New Age beliefs as Satanic. I'll let you be the judge before I chime in any further.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
No such things as pre-roman christians, because the roman empire was already in existence when christ was suppose to have been born, so any beliefs christians have adopted that is from before his birth cannot be claimed as truly christian for the preceed jesus.
So that cover just about 99% of the bible for even a lot of pagan religious beliefs were adopted & adapted to suit the christian faith.

A lot of the beliefs may be pre-roman, but those people who held these beliefs from that time cannot be called christian.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by acrux]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 

Not true, Rome was the first gov't to really put together and spread what we would call the mainstream "bible"



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by acrux
 

Not true, Rome was the first gov't to really put together and spread what we would call the mainstream "bible"


I think you misunderstand him.

He's saying there is no such thing as "Pre-Roman Christianity" .. Because Christianity was formulated during the reign of the Roman Empire. Inside the Roman Empire to be exact. There is Pre-Roman Judaism .. but not Christianity.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 

I understand what he is saying but what I was trying to say is that what he made was a moot point because even though Christianity formed during that time there was a period before Rome was instrumental in its practices so I think the term "pre-Rome" still applies.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by Rockpuck
 

I understand what he is saying but what I was trying to say is that what he made was a moot point because even though Christianity formed during that time there was a period before Rome was instrumental in its practices so I think the term "pre-Rome" still applies.



The heading was pre-roman, since the the roman monarchy was before christ accepted date 0AD/CE. Since Rome was founded in traditionally accepted date of 753BC/BCE, how on earth can you claim pre-rome or pre-roman. Christianity formed after jesus. was born. No christians in 753BC/BCE.

en.wikipedia.org...
Christianity, originally a Jewish religious sect, emerged in Roman Judea in the first century AD.

Roman Kingdom:753 BC/BCE
en.wikipedia.org...
The Roman Kingdom (Latin: Regnum Romanum) was the monarchical government of the city of Rome and its territories. Little is certain about the history of the Roman Kingdom, as no written records from that time survive, and the histories about it were written during the Republic and Empire and are largely based on legend. However, the history of the Roman Kingdom began with the city's founding, traditionally dated to 753 BC, and ended with the overthrow of the kings and the establishment of the Republic in about 509 BC.

Roman Republic:509 BC/BCE
en.wikipedia.org...
The Roman Republic was the phase of the ancient Roman civilization characterized by a republican form of government; a period which began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, c. 509 BC, and lasted over 450 years until its subversion, through a series of civil wars, into the Principate form of government and the Imperial period.

Roman Empire:42BC/BCE
en.wikipedia.org...
The Roman Empire was the post-Republican phase of the ancient Roman civilization, characterised by an autocratic form of government and large territorial holdings in Europe and around the Mediterranean.[4] The term is used to describe the Roman state during and after the time of the first emperor, Augustus. The nearly 500-year-old Roman Republic, which preceded it, had been weakened by several civil wars.[nb 2] Several events are commonly proposed to mark the transition from Republic to Empire, including Julius Caesar's appointment as perpetual dictator (42 BC), the victory of Octavian at the Battle of Actium (2 September 31 BC), and the Roman Senate's granting to Octavian the honorific Augustus (4 January 27 BC).[nb 3]


[edit on 1-8-2009 by acrux]

[edit on 1-8-2009 by acrux]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 

We can get caught up in semantics all night....you know exactly what I mean.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Sorry to tell you this, but Gnosticism has nothing to do with Christianity. Gnosticism did creep into the Christian church from Greek Mysticism, in the early years, and some churches may have even followed it without knowing it was not part of Christianity (they didn't have good communication back then), but it was not the message of Christ nor of his Apostles. It is easily provable, through at least one existent writing, that the early church fathers were aware of Gnosticism, and were fighting to keep it from spreading within Christianity.

How do we know this? Because John the Apostle of Christ trained a fellow named Saint Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna. One of Polycarps disciples was Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lugdunum, who wrote a number to books, the most important was called “Adversus Haereses”, otherwise know as, “On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis”:




On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis (Greek: λεγχος και άνατροπή της ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως), commonly called Against Heresies (Latin: Adversus haereses, Greek: κατ αρέσεων), is a five-volume work written by St. Irenaeus in the second century. Due to his assertion that Eleutherus was the current bishop of Rome, the work is usually dated c. 180. In it Irenaeus identifies and describes several schools of gnosticism and contrasts their beliefs with what he describes as catholic, orthodox Christianity. Only fragments of the original Greek text exist, but a complete copy exists in a wooden Latin translation, made shortly after its publication in Greek, and Books IV and V are also present in a literal Armenian translation.

The purpose of Against Heresies was to refute the teachings of various Gnostic groups; apparently, several Greek merchants had begun an oratorial campaign praising the pursuit of "gnosis" in Irenaeus' bishopric. Another popular theory states that a group of Gnostics known as the Valentinians remained part of the early Christian church, taking part in regular church celebrations despite their radical differences. It is also said that Gnostics would secretly meet outside of regular church activity where they would discuss their "secret knowledge" and scripture that pertains to it. As bishop, Irenaeus felt obligated to keep a close eye on the Valentinians and to safeguard the church from them. In order to fulfil this duty, Irenaeus educated himself and became well informed of Gnostic doctrines and traditions. This eventually led to the compilation of his treatise.
It appears however, that the main reason Irenaeus took on this work was because he felt that Christians in Asia and Phrygia especially needed his protection from Gnostics, for they did not have as many bishops to oversee and help keep problems like this under control (probably only one bishop was assigned to a number of communities). Therefore, due to the issue of distance between Irenaeus (who was in the western Roman province of Gaul) and the orthodox Christian community of Asia, Irenaeus found that writing this treatise would be the best way to offer them guidance.
Until the discovery of the Library of Nag Hammadi in 1945, Against Heresies was the best surviving description of Gnosticism.

Needless to say, if Irenaeus felt that Gnosticism was not Christian doctrine, then it was not the message of Christ, and has no place in Christian worship or study.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
It is easily provable, through at least one existent writing, that the early church fathers were aware of Gnosticism, and were fighting to keep it from spreading within Christianity.


This is the question, why would this orthodox version of Christianity move to keep this information hidden from their church? And what was the differences between the information they were trying to keep away from the organized church.

The one thing that puzzles me about this stopping information is that many parts of the bible deal with events before Jesus was born. Yet, the church so blatantly picks and chooses which information to keep and which to discard. The question is why?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Pre-roman christian is referring to the time period before the Romans took it up, and then proceeded to kill anyone who didn't go along with their version.

Jesus was a gnostic. But it will always keep coming back in different forms. It is not resigned to any specific religion, because real knowledge is understanding, and understanding is available to all those who seek it. It is only how that understanding is expressed that changes with the cultures and times.


Google Video Link



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

This is the question, why would this orthodox version of Christianity move to keep this information hidden from their church?

Simply because it was a different religion, not Christianity as taught by Christ, and as witnessed by folks such as John. It was Greek Mysticism, not Christianity!


Originally posted by badmedia
Pre-roman christian is referring to the time period before the Romans took it up, and then proceeded to kill anyone who didn't go along with their version.

Jesus was a gnostic.

If Jesus was a Gnostic, then John would have supported Gnosticism, and so would have the folks he trained such as Polycarp. Polycarp and St. Irenaeus lived before Constintine I, and before the Great Schism, so they existed before the Roman Church that you accuse of covering up the Gnosticism in Christianity. Translation... Gnosticism is not what Christ taught...



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Gnostic means "with knowledge". Jesus was obviously gnostic. I think you are confusing knowledge and understanding with the expression of that understanding - which can vary and so forth.

The texts that feature the life and words of Jesus are the gnostic texts of the bible.



Proverbs 9

1Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

2She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.

3She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city,

4Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,

5Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.

6Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

7He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

8Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

9Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.


Why does Jesus speak in parables? To give understanding. Because real knowledge of such things(gnosis) is understanding.

Thus, Jesus was gnostic.

Doesn't mean he belonged to some group or whatever. Being gnostic is not in anyway confined to any set group etc. It is available to all those who seek it.



Proverbs 8

Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

2She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.

3She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

4Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.

5O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

6Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.

7For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.


What is it that guides the path for men? Wisdom and understanding. Gnosis.

continuing on:



10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.


12I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

13The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

14Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.

15By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.

16By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

17I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

18Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.

19My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.

20I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:

21That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.


How does the father reward those who find him? With knowledge and understanding, aka gnosis and the basis for gnosticism.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Hi defcon/

Indeed GNOSTICISM was not taught by ANY of Jesus Christ's Apostles or Deciples!
Again THESE people are PURPOSELY deforming the WORD of God.



1935 AD — Council of Sremsky-Karlovtsy,
convened and presided over by Metropolitan Anastasius, and attended by several bishops,
condemns the heretical Sophism or Sophiology preached in the Parisian school by Archimandrite Sergius Bulgakov (the belief that Sophia—God’s Wisdom—is a feminine personality,
the soul of the world,
thereby adding a fourth hypostasis to the Holy Trinity,
replacing God the Father with a “mother-goddess” and other false doctrines based on Plato’s pagan philosophy,
cabbalistic teachings,
and heretical Valentinian Gnosticism,
which had been condemned by the early Church).
This council declares the Parisians (under the Ecumenical Patriarchate) to be bereft of grace.


SOURCE

ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by acrux
 

We can get caught up in semantics all night....you know exactly what I mean.


Mistaking (or simply not knowing) dates for the establishment of empires does not fall under the category of semantics.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

This is the question, why would this orthodox version of Christianity move to keep this information hidden from their church?

Simply because it was a different religion, not Christianity as taught by Christ, and as witnessed by folks such as John. It was Greek Mysticism, not Christianity!


Originally posted by badmedia
Pre-roman christian is referring to the time period before the Romans took it up, and then proceeded to kill anyone who didn't go along with their version.

Jesus was a gnostic.

If Jesus was a Gnostic, then John would have supported Gnosticism, and so would have the folks he trained such as Polycarp. Polycarp and St. Irenaeus lived before Constintine I, and before the Great Schism, so they existed before the Roman Church that you accuse of covering up the Gnosticism in Christianity. Translation... Gnosticism is not what Christ taught...


Some of the Pauline and Johannine writings are extremely gnostic. And how do you know what Polycarp's and Irenaeus' motives were in promoting a certain kind of Christianity? If Polycarp was a bishop, wouldn't the most simple motivation be power?

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
So I guess the argument is that Christianity didn't come about until the Romans in all their wisdom pieced together a orthodox religion, and killed anyone, burned books of anyone that didn't agree with that religion? Therefore Christianity didn't exist pre-roman era.

While I see the logic in the argument, I think the logic is flawed unless one is of the belief that Jesus/GOD didn't show his face to anyone before that timeframe. There is evidence that GOD was very much a part of peoples lives before the Roman era.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
reply to post by defcon5
 


Hi defcon/

Indeed GNOSTICISM was not taught by ANY of Jesus Christ's Apostles or Deciples!
Again THESE people are PURPOSELY deforming the WORD of God.


Who's kingdom is this?

Tell, me why is that Jesus says those who truly believe will be persecuted to the end. Yet, at the same time, it was those who you get your version of things from which did the persecuting? All those who did not go along with the teachings you have now, were killed, tortured and murdered if they did not renounce their beliefs.

Why does Jesus say the people are the authority. But then Paul says that all authority is of it?

Why does Jesus say to not make yourself into positions of authority. But then Paul says that there are many positions of authority.

Why does Jesus say there is but 1 true teacher, but then Paul say there are many teachers?

Why does Jesus say call no man your father, and then Paul repeatedly tells people to call him their father?

Is it coincidence that Jesus speaks of a 2nd Shepard who will mislead, and of the prince of this world who has nothing of it, and then Paul comes along and writes half the NT while contradicting Jesus. Quoting him only a few times at best, praising him like a politician while making appeals to the power and authority of the time?

Is it just coincidence that the power and authority of the time takes up that version, and proceeds to kill and torture those who didn't go along? It almost seems to me like that was prophesied or something, hmmm let me think. Oh yeah it was, Christians just pretend like it hasn't happened yet.

While Jesus tried to give people understanding, and told people they were everything he was, and that all he could do they could do, instead this religion will tell us that in no way can you actually do those things. You are a sinner, and you had just better believe that Jesus died for you, because you can't do those things. That there is only a single son of god, and it's not you. Why? Because it's the only way someone can come in and fulfill that role for you, aka the "anti-christ".

Sorry, but your religion is Satanic. Built on death and destruction. Acceptance and blind faith over wisdom and understanding. Worshiping the sacrifice of truth, so that the lie may live.

You enter not, and you try to deny others of entry as well.

Matthew 7 is for you.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Maybe you can help me find the reference that stated when Jesus returns, "Christians" will not recognize him and will declare war against him. I heard this on some show with biblical scholars talking about the end times, and they were perplexed wondering why Christians wouldn't be able to identify Jesus.

What is your take on the Anti-Christ? The more I think about it the more it makes sense that the Anti-Christ is Jesus. The church wants us to believe to recognize Jesus as the one who will destroy the religion, and show the errors of it.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Hah, I'm reading the translated scrolls right now, I'm about mid way through, and I couldnt resist a reply. I agree that there are some striking differences, if not out right contradictions. Having been raised Catholic myself and then more an explorer or observor of religion in general, I actually find it interesting that I have found quite a few points that were later resurrected in Islam. From the Catholic point of view (and from Italian heritage to boot) for me it is easy to see why there texts were not included on multiple levels. On the most basic, some of the material was not written intially until late 200's through the mid to late 300s. Clearly these items were not original works. I do find it interesting though that other's were from around the year 50, as to why those were excluded I would suppose that would be based on content. The Christianity that developed was a strict monotheism, where much of the texts I've read so far, speak of a hierarchy of gods, with ultimately God the Creator of all at the top, which in not what the Church developed. On my original point, I have also recently read Holy Blood Holy Grail, and they spoke of a Syrian gentleman that possessed some sort of undisputable proof that Jesus was alive in 45 AD, being Syrian I would assume him to be either Christian or Muslim, and if his evidence were true it would "blow the lid" off of both religions. Which then got me to thinking maybe that is part of the reason why the Vatican made nice with the Muslims. What I think is the real tragedy is that many/most of these earlier works were simply destroyed, I held on to the idea for a long time that perhaps that were just hidden somewhere for later discovery, but I suppose I've had to abandon that dream.
Peace, Love, and Light

edit: guess I can't spell or use pronouns today


[edit on 3-8-2009 by searching4truth]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Yeah, have you all read Talmud of Jmmanuel (Jesus)?

Also this writing also agrees with a village in Japan claiming to be Jesus' last resting place Tomb of Jesus in Japan.

Check it out.

I beleive deeply that Jesus came to teach spiritual truth, but in the end, the romans twisted everything for their own use. "Christianity" does stem from the Catholic church anyway.

The new cannon of the bible was assembled like 300 some years AD? The books were voted in, and there were several different cannons at the time that different churches used. Gotta think about it... anything could of been written at the time.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join