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: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
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?


Because in Polycarp's time, you did not gain power for being a Bishop, instead you were put to death by the Roman Empire:


In the Martyrdom, Polycarp indicates on the day of his death: "Eighty and six years I have served him", which "probably means he was then eighty-six years old" (reference to baptism an extrapolation by author), though he may have been older. Polycarp goes on to say, "How then can I blaspheme my King and Savior? Bring forth what thou will." Polycarp was burned at the stake for refusing to burn incense to the Roman Emperor.


You see, your trying to equate these men to the later more politically corrupted Roman Catholic Church, when the historical fact is that these men lived well before that. These were the Early Church Fathers, and as I stated above, were trained by the original Apostles. If these men say that Gnosticism was an intrusion by a Greek Mystery Cult into the original message of Christ, then you can bet that is exactly what Gnosticism is.




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Gnosticism is much older then Christianity, and comes from Greek Mystery Cults dating back to the Time of Alexander the Great:

Platonic and Pythagorian modes of thinking spread Greek ideas and culture throughout the Hellenic world, introducing the mideastern peoples conquered by Alexander the Great to many of the concepts that were unique to Greek thinkers of the time (and vice versa). It should also be noted that Alexander made efforts to unite all conquered peoples under a common language and a common culture, which led to many cultures adopting Koine Greek as a language for common communication in commerce between different ethnic and cultural groups.
One of the most important events of this era was the translation of the many Hebrew texts of what is now known as the Old Testament into a single language (Koine Greek) in a single work (the Seventy or Septuagint). In addition, many of the Greek ideas of existence (hypostasis) and uniqueness or essence (ousia) and most importantly rational mind (nous) were introduced into Babylonian, Egyptian, Libyan, Roman, Hebrew, and other Mediterranian cultures, as was the concept that we exist within the mind of God, Noetic or Nous. This caused many of the educated and informed people of these cultures to incorporate these ideas and concepts into their own philosophical and religious belief systems. Gnosticism among those individuals who are called Gnostics, was one such example. Many of the first Gnostics may have been pagan and Hebrew (Egyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew), predating Christianity.

You know what the Bible said about Alexander the Great?

Daniel 8:20-27
The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Me'di-a and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of Gre'cia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Interesting the video you posted gave a date of July 22, 1209 as the date of slaughtering gnostics. We are exactly 800 years later just as a few days ago.


The character Enoch in the Holy Bible used a 364-day-calendar-year. Numerical matching modified the Mayan 104-year Venus Round for the Biblical primary 105-year age of Seth. Twenty multiples of 20-year Katun lunar/solar cycles amount to the Mayan 400-year Baktun cycle. The Mesoamerican Calendar doubles 400-years for 800-years. An 800-year Generation Cycle describes the secondary age of Adam.


www.faithwriters.com...

Apparently, there is a correlation between biblical events and solar events. I haven't researched this but it sounds interesting.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
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.


I'm not sure on that reference, but I'd have to agree with it. Christians would dismiss Jesus so quick it wouldn't be funny at all.

"Jesus" is not the anti-christ per say. However, the warped view of Jesus and what he was about, that would. And I would say that yes he would destroy all religion, because all religion is in itself false.

It all comes down to acceptance vs understanding. Religion teaches acceptance, which keeps people from understanding. As they do not understand they are unable to enter and go within.

They teach acceptance from a position of authority. A position which is false, because there is but 1 true teacher and master/authority on such a thing. The pharisees sit in the seat of Moses as Jesus would say.

I really don't know about the Anti-Christ. I mostly see it as a position, rather than a single thing. However, the last one to hold the position would I suppose be "the" anti-christ. Honestly, it's mostly a figurehead of a system of false authorities. To me, it's more like the actions that I look at, rather than it being any specific person. The actions are bad anti-christ or not, and it will be by the actions that one would be able to know anyway.

The "church" Jesus speaks about isn't physical. A place of worship was a synagogue. Churches are called churches to decieve. The real church is within, it is built out of wisdom and understanding, those things which are truly rich in the eyes of the father. As it is present within, it is present on both heaven and earth, and no man can touch it. They can kill your body and such, they can enslave you and maybe even make your tongue speak ill through pain. They may even dumb you down to where you can no longer express it. But they can't really touch that which is within.

Jesus likens a rock to wisdom(matthew 7), so he is founding that church within Peter with a foundation of wisdom. And give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. What are those keys? Wisdom and understanding. The kingdom of heaven is within, and it was within that those things were done.

He is a carpenter after all, what kind of houses do you think he builds? Check out proverbs 9. Notice the understanding, wisdom, house, the bread and the wine?

He did not establish a church or religion. And those things will fall away when the real deal is known(revelation). But it's not going to be like getting rid of religion and everyone is atheist. It would be like a getting rid of religion and all those false authorities so people can start to rebuild with the real church inside.

Remember in Samuel 10, it is those who ask for kings and worldly authorities as the nations had who rejected god.

If religion had it right and was legit, the world wouldn't be as it is now.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Okay here is a reference to those scholars talking about when Jesus comes again he will be rejected. Watch video at about 4:00.



[edit on 3-8-2009 by ExPostFacto]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
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.


Jesus Christ was born under Roman rule, and there was not an official Christian religion until the 40s AD at the earliest. Hence, there could be no such thing as a pre-Roman Christianity. Pure and simple.

Now, if you're speaking of what the Bible refers to as "God-fearers," then of course there were worshipers before the Roman empire. I think words are important, though, and I refuse to acknowledge any sense being made of a pre-Roman Christianity. Such an idea is religiously and historically absurd.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


You are both right. Because jesus was not a Christian. So, Christianity did not exist at the time of Jesus. It is in fact a new religion which came after it.

If you followed Jesus, you were a Jew.

You are both actually talking about the same thing, just in a different way is all it seems to me. I can see how such a thing could be called either, and both are right in meaning.

You say tomatoe, I say tomato etc.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
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?


Because in Polycarp's time, you did not gain power for being a Bishop, instead you were put to death by the Roman Empire:


In the Martyrdom, Polycarp indicates on the day of his death: "Eighty and six years I have served him", which "probably means he was then eighty-six years old" (reference to baptism an extrapolation by author), though he may have been older. Polycarp goes on to say, "How then can I blaspheme my King and Savior? Bring forth what thou will." Polycarp was burned at the stake for refusing to burn incense to the Roman Emperor.


You see, your trying to equate these men to the later more politically corrupted Roman Catholic Church, when the historical fact is that these men lived well before that. These were the Early Church Fathers, and as I stated above, were trained by the original Apostles. If these men say that Gnosticism was an intrusion by a Greek Mystery Cult into the original message of Christ, then you can bet that is exactly what Gnosticism is.


You're making an assumption that I was equating Polycarp's possible motivation of power as similar to what you term "the later more politically corrupted Roman Catholic Church." First of all, I pass no judgments on any kind of church hierarchy, Protestant or Catholic. Churches are organizations, and have been since Paul had it out with Peter concerning Gentile inclusion. Politics is simply the name of the game. Religion has always been political (not is a state-controlled sense necessarily) in one way or another.

It is only from insider writings that we hear anything of Polycarp being trained by the original apostles. Even if we are to believe the tenuous claim that the apostle John wrote the Johannine epistles and/or Revelation, and that Polycarp knew him (and let's just assume both of these for the sake of argument), John's writings are extremely gnostic as I said before. So at the very least, Polycarp was supporting one kind of gnosticism while decrying others.

By the way, Polycarp's only extant writing is his Letter to the Philippians. Nearly everything we know of Polycarp is found in the writings of Irenaeus, so is secondary testimony at best.

Peace,
Daniel

[edit on 3-8-2009 by pdpayne0418]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Sorry, but I have little interest in arguing over groups and such. Gnostic means knowledge and that is what Jesus and the bible is all about.

I don't belong to any such groups, don't know their teachings or anything. However, I generally find myself more in agreement with them, than the dogmatic things to be accepted by your religion, and I think there is a reason for that.

Paraphrasing the chapters for space, recommend them in full context as well.



Proverbs 8

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.

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

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

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Psalm 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Interesting but I probably wouldn't put my stock into. Numbers are just so easy to manipulate it's hard to say for sure etc. But right and wrong and real understanding - it stays the same throughout.

Very possible there could be somekind of connection, things tend to repeat in cycles. But I wouldn't consider it to be valid evidence in either direction.

Gonna check out the movie now.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


You are correct we are talking about the same thing.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by badmedia
 


You are correct we are talking about the same thing.


No, we're not. I really do not want to be rude, but to state that we have been talking about the same thing is intellectual laziness.

Just to be clear: you equated pre-Christian, pre-Roman worship of God (I'm assuming of the Hebrew type) with Christianity. That's utter nonsense, and I'm not going to sit by why such nonsense is being glossed over. If it seems like a small thing to you, that just speaks to the sad state of thinking overwhelmingly in vogue here at ATS.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


I'll state it for you like this, since you are still disputing a simple usage of words. If there is only one god, and that one god is Christ then prior to the Roman era and establishment of Christianity the teachings of Christ were different. Unless you are assuming that god left humanity to struggle and only about 2000 years ago decided to send Jesus to establish a church in his name, apparently disregarding everyone that had sinned before his coming to set the record straight. I tend to look at it that, if Jesus, is the ONE, then he showed himself in various ways since the beginning of his creation. But it changed drastically during the Roman era, to a teaching that was physical and external, rather than spiritual and internal.

If you are so upset that I described it as Pre-Roman just because Jesus hadn't been born is to say that Jesus never taught anyone about his understandings and philosophy prior to his birth, which would just make him a man and not a god.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


That you would even focus on such a different as being important is utter ignorance. A rose by any other name still smells the same, and you should be able to recognize the meanings. Not being able to recognize the meanings and being a stickler for the literal is the only intellectual laziness I see.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 

which would just make him a man and not a god.


Exactly. I think that is where we differ. You are making assumptions about the pre-incarnate Christ. Since you think Christ had revealed himself in certain ways before the birth and ministry of Jesus, your use of language makes sense to you alone and those who hold your theological views. Just do not assume it should make sense to everyone, and do not pretend your use of language in this case carries any weight when speaking of historical events (such as the timeline of the Roman Empire).

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


That you would even focus on such a different as being important is utter ignorance. A rose by any other name still smells the same, and you should be able to recognize the meanings. Not being able to recognize the meanings and being a stickler for the literal is the only intellectual laziness I see.


Check out these two statements:

(1) Christianity (i.e. the worship of Jesus Christ as the Messiah) existed in pre-Roman times.

(2) Christianity was birthed within the Roman Empire.

Is the difference between these two statements important? Are they basically the same statement? Does recognizing the fact that each statement is contradictory to the other make one a "stickler for the literal?"

I'll let other readers decide since either the immensity of difference between the statements escapes you or you just have a problem admitting it since you've already taken a stand.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


Possibly true. My beliefs are that Jesus came to teach about spirituality, not to be a god. You are saying then that Jesus came to be worshiped as a god?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 


Gnosticism from what I've read, existed prior to Christianity. But Christianity and Gnosticism both influenced each other. Many Christians adopted a gnostic attitude and many gnostics saw Jesus as being a redeeming figure.


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.


There was no separation between Christianity and Gnosticism until the council of Nicea. Early Christianity was full of gnostic Christians, and gnostic Christians are Christians. Many of the gnostic teachers were said to be decendants from the original apostles. Nothing in Jesus's teachings are antignostic.

The whole " may have even followed it without knowing is was not a part of Christianity" is a joke. It was a message of Christ. The only reason you can say it isn't is because of orthodoxy that developed centuries after Jesus died. Christianity did exist before 370 AD or whatever the Council of Nicea was. To say that a group of priests numbering around 10 almost 400 years after Jesus died get to set the standard for what is or isn't Christianity is ridiculous. Orthodoxy is a joke, Orthodox Christianity has killed many many more people than the "gnostics" did. I hope that's not Jesus's Christianity. Crusades...some how I think that is about as far as you can get. Christianity was turned into a political invention at the Council of Nicea.

Christianity really regressed as time went on. Look at indulgences, people whole heartedly placed their own personal salvation in the hands of greedy, corrupt humans. They basically handed their brains over like they were taught to. These people looked to others instead of looking within, the blind leading the blind.




[edit on 4-8-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
Check out these two statements:

(1) Christianity (i.e. the worship of Jesus Christ as the Messiah) existed in pre-Roman times.

(2) Christianity was birthed within the Roman Empire.

Is the difference between these two statements important? Are they basically the same statement? Does recognizing the fact that each statement is contradictory to the other make one a "stickler for the literal?"

I'll let other readers decide since either the immensity of difference between the statements escapes you or you just have a problem admitting it since you've already taken a stand.

Peace,
Daniel


It's just a matter of perspective. When I read his post, in no way did I read it as meaning what you are presenting as it meaning. I even said that in my first post on this thread. When I read someone says Pre-Roman Christianity, I am reading that as meaning before the Roman Catholic Church. Before Christianity became the official religion of Rome.

At the same time, I can see your argument as well. Yes the Romans were the authority when Jesus was there, so in that context it is not pre-roman.

So at best if there is question I would think clarification would just be asked on what is meant.

Just isn't that big of a deal. Your both right in your own way, and you both realize and understand the same events happened. Is this really something worthy of this much attention and debate? I don't think so.

Seems silly to me and like saying the mustard seed isn't the smallest seed in the world. Yeah, technically that would be right, but it is what was meant that mattered.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


The new testament was writen by the greeks. The story of jesus is similar to a couple of stories that predate the bible krishna is one. There is also an egyptian god his name slips my mind right now but I'm sure u can find it. Also if u look at pictures of angels and compare them to budda and the hindu god, they all have "halos" or there kundalini snakes are not shut off. Look it up. The tree of life is portrayed in egyptian hylogryphics. In the bible god forbids adam and eve from eating of the fruit of the tree of life. The angels are a representation of a block in our energy flow and the tree of life is a representation of the body. The branches of the tree map out ur "chakras" and the snake is not "satan" it is a representation of the kundalini snake.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join