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.

 

Jesus is NOT a copy from Pagan religions! Those are lies! Do research and do not believe!

page: 18
74
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
Mythra was known as "the living spirit", "the way", "the truth", "the light", "son of god", "the good sheapard".

Mythra was born Dec. 25 to the virgin Anahita and is believed to be the mediator between god and man, often represented carrying a lamb on his shoulder.

He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger watched over by sheapards.

He had 12 deciples, emphasised baptism, performed "the lords supper", and ascended into heaven.
(sound familiar christians?)

That is just one of the indivuals brought up by the OP, I can keep going with the others if you'd like!

Unlike the OP, I have sources to back my statements (but I'm sure this is all just the devil talking right?):

en.wikipedia.org...

www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm



The wikipedia article may (who really knows?) correct, but your version is not. At least there sure is no credible evidence. I know you read it on a "tripod site".

I doubt you meant Mythra.




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

That is not right. How could they translate a word like that wrong and translate all the other words?



That wasn't the only word they got wrong. They also got the word "Stauros" wrong, believing it meant cross, when it actually meant pole or stake. There are loads of mistranslations in the bible, which is why the debate has become so heated, because many believe this somehow voids their religion, when in fact it only strengthens it.
If you uphold something that is wrong as gospel, it makes you seem crazy, but if you can amend your religion, take into account that some of it was handed down by older religions, and that at the end of the day it's all just a story of morality, then you seem legitimately spiritual and open minded enough to understand what it is you're reading.

Here are some other misunderstood words from the bible.

- Apostle - (apostolos)
Literal meaning: ambassador, emissary, envoy, diplomat
Word breakdown: from “apo” (away) + “stello” (dispatch, send) = one who is sent away or dispatched
This word commonly referred to foreign ambassadors.

- Church - (eklesia, pronounced “Eh-kleh-SEE-ah)
Literal meaning: assembly
Word breakdown: from “ek” (out of/out from) + kaleo (to call/summon) = one who is called or summoned out to a public assembly.
Originally, this was a political term referring to the public assembly of all eligible voters (that is, all adult, male citizens who had completed military training) in the Athenian democratic system. In such an assembly, each person could have their say, and all of their votes counted. Each person contributed directly towards important national decisions and legislation.

- Devil - (diabolos, pronounced dee-AH-bo-los)
Literal meaning: accuser, prosecutor, slanderer, false accuser
Word breakdown: from “diabalo” (to backbite/slander, accuse, or give hostile information)

- Desciple - (mathetes, pronounced mah-theh-TES)
Literal meaning: student, pupil.
Word breakdown: from “math-” (aorist root of a verb meaning “to learn/perceive/comprehend”) + suffix “-tes” (“one who”) = one who learns.

- Eternal - (aionios, pronounced ai-OE-nee-os)
Literal meaning: pertaining to an age/eon, lasting for an age. Not forever like many would believe.
Word breakdown: an adjective formed from the noun “aion” (an age/era/period/span/epoch/eon)

- Fornication - (porneia, pronounced por-NAY-ah)
Literal meaning: prostitution.
Word breakdown: from “porne” (prostitute)

- Hell - (geena, pronounced GEH-eh-nah)
(hades, pronounced HAH-des)
(tartaros, pronounced TAR-tar-os) (sheol)
In the Old Testament in the King James version (which has massively impacted English speakers for centuries), the Hebrew word (sheol), is translated “hell” many, many times. However, sheol meant merely “the grave”. It did not in any way imply an afterlife or punishment or suffering. So when someone says that Christ died and went to Hell before ascension, it just means he was buried.

- Preach - (kerusso, pronounced keh-ROO-soe)
Literal meaning: to announce, to make a public broadcast, to proclaim, to be a town-crier, to be a herald.

- Repent - (metanoeo, pronounced meh-tah-no-EH-oe)
Literal meaning: to have an after-thought, to change one’s mind.
Word breakdown: from “meta” (after) + “noeo” (to think/consider) = to have the benefit of afterthought, to rethink, to think twice, to reconsider, to change one’s mind.

- Sin - (hamartia, pronounced hah-mar-TEE-ah)
Literal meaning: missing of a target, error, mistake, failure.
The word originally referred to occasions when one missed a target that one was aiming at. In English, “sin” is almost inconceivable outside of a religious context. In Greek, it meant any kind of mistake, error, failure, or shortcoming.

- Scipture - (graphe, pronounced grah-PHEH)
Literal meaning: a writing, something written
Word breakdown: from “grapho” (to write)

Just these words alone paint a very different picture of the bible as a canon of lessons. They alone change the very context of a lot of the writings, but do they take anything away from the moral teachings of Christ or God? No. However, knowing these words and the etymology of them does give the holy scriptures a new weight, doesn't it?

With our newly learned vocabulary, let's see what we can discern from the following statement.

"John was going to sleep with his neighbor's wife, but realizing it was a sin, he decided to repent for the sake of avoiding hell, as his neighbor was a very big man."

Now apply the proper meanings to those words.




edit on 3-12-2011 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


Now, why would you assume such a thing?


reply to post by Malcher
 


And that isn't the only mistranslation. There are many others...


Those are not mistranslations. I dont know what you are referring to though. My whole point is that i is not really hard to translate a word and the writers knew the languages.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


Now, why would you assume such a thing?




That seems to be the modus operandi of those who follow the Abrahamic religions. Judaism, Christianity and Islam seem to think that the only rightful place for those who do not believe as they do is "hell."



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


I dont think you understand the point i am making.

If we call a nail something you hammer into a wall sometime in history the word for nail may have been "hook" or "fastener" or something entirely different. Thats called evolution.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mutatismutandis

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 


Mary was called a almah which means "young woman" but only a virgin can be a young woman because the only women who were NOT virgins were married women.


Hate to break it to you, but nothing in the bible says she was faithfull to joseph...and adultry was even in the bible, so you cannot say it wasn't happening. I'm not trying to offened, just stating the facts.



Mary was temple virgin before she married Joseph.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.


To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.


However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

www.catholic.com...

Now, to me, that was written as a kind of apologetics to explain away the mystery of the Immaculate Conception of Jesus, but let's look at the Immaculate Conception.

Few doctrines of the Catholic Church are as misunderstood as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Many people, including many Catholics, think that it refers to the conception of Christ through the action of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That event, though, is celebrated at the feast of the Annunciation of the Lord (March 25, nine months before Christmas). What is the Immaculate Conception?



The Immaculate Conception refers to the condition that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from Original Sin from the very moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne. We celebrate the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary on September 8; nine months before is December 8, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.


Fr. John Hardon, S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, notes that "Neither the Greek nor Latin Fathers explicitly taught the Immaculate Conception, but they professed it implicitly." It would take many centuries, though, for the Catholic Church to recognize the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine, and many more before Pope Pius IX, on December 8, 1854, would declare it a dogma.


In the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX wrote that "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

catholicism.about.com...
So, now we see that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was evolved as Church Fathers needed to reconcile the concept of Original Sin stemming from Adam, and the concept that Jesus was Divine and therefore must be born of a virgin.

The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists mostly dealt with topics other than original sin.[2] The doctrine of original sin was first developed in 2nd-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus's struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[11] Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt


It was in the West that precise definition of the doctrine arose.[2] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that mankind shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation.[2] Augustine of Hippo taught that Adam's sin[19] is transmitted by concupiscence, resulting in mankind becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2

en.wikipedia.org...


Maybe the real error in any of this is to view sex as being sinful, and therefore have an obsession with the idea that Jesus must have been born of someone who never had sex. Perhaps this is really the travesty that mankind is forever doomed to view sex as being sinful, when it is the natural pro-creative force.
Hindus understand the energy as Kundalini and as the Cosmic creation, and as wholly natural.
Maybe one day, people will come to appreciate and revere the creative process instead of the reviling degradations we see everywhere in films and in literature.
edit on 3-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Well I guess I'll chime in, because the war and rumors of wars motif on ATS is getting kind of stagnant. The belief in Christ is a matter of faith, and that is all it is. There is no concrete evidence to spell out divinity, godliness, or even his actual existence some 2,000 years ago. None of us from the cleric on down can tell a skeptic beyond a shadow of a doubt all the things mentioned in the Bible actually happened and are true. It boils down to faith plane and simple. None of us were around when Christ was traveling around Israel.

All of that is merely from the authors of the Bible's interpretation of what happened. Now, don't get me wrong there is plenty of circumstantial evidence laying around from the accounts of Jewish historian Josephus, early church scholars, and some artifacts, but they are a bunch of loose ends. As for the OP, it brought up some good points, and a counter balance to views of others.

However, they are the OP's interpretation of others' interpretation of Christ and how he may or may not have had an origin from Pagan religions. All any of us have to go on is blind faith in the matter. No sense berating each other, ridiculing, or condemning those who believe in the story and those who do not. No one knows for certain, but what if?
edit on 3-12-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Personally, I do believe Jesus was real. The thing is, when Pontius Pilate said, "So you are the Son of God?" It is imperative that one remember what Christ's reply was. "So you say that I am." Jesus basically implied that he did not claim that he was, others did.
edit on 3-12-2011 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Except that we are certain there were Christians starting from around the exact time all this was supposed to have gone down.

Like you said, believing is another matter, but to doubt this person existed is like denying anyone existed. You can deny anyone existed but that is a bit delusional.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


Words may carry different meanings now, but in the context of when the books were written (and this is where the etymology comes in), they should be seen and interpreted as they were written in that time. Not to mention, many of the words that "evolved" did so because of the original mistranslations.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 





Also, JESUS is the one who came up with "Treat others as yourself"... One thing that almost all people can agree on today. That to me is divine, and even if it isn't. It is very important so Jesus has importance.


Sadly, Confucius came up with that one.
edit on 3-12-2011 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by autowrench
 


Guess what? Jesus was real. I know firsthand.

Since I know that, and since He claimed to be the only way, the rest are nullified.
edit on 3-12-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


Jesus must have a great press corp. Are you another of his official spokesmen?
Or by this statement do you really mean, "I know him personally, he lives next door," or "I saw him standing on the street a few days ago, so I know he is real."

Do you hear yourself here?

Anyone can make a claim... (and many do) Jesus claimed if one had the faith of a mustard seed, he would move a mountain too, but no one ever saw this done in the name of Jesus, or anyone else. We move mountains with machinery. Jesus claimed he was coming back within a generation, he didn't.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
Mythra was known as "the living spirit", "the way", "the truth", "the light", "son of god", "the good sheapard".

Mythra was born Dec. 25 to the virgin Anahita and is believed to be the mediator between god and man, often represented carrying a lamb on his shoulder.

He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger watched over by sheapards.

He had 12 deciples, emphasised baptism, performed "the lords supper", and ascended into heaven.
(sound familiar christians?)

That is just one of the indivuals brought up by the OP, I can keep going with the others if you'd like!

Unlike the OP, I have sources to back my statements (but I'm sure this is all just the devil talking right?):

en.wikipedia.org...

www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm



The wikipedia article may (who really knows?) correct, but your version is not. At least there sure is no credible evidence. I know you read it on a "tripod site".

I doubt you meant Mythra.


The sources are there on the site, it was just the first to come to mind that had them all listed rather than posting 30 links but feel free to look into it.

I beg everyone to please don't just take my word as a deterent for your faith...the lessons to be learned from all religions are invaluable. Every religion has beliefs that every man of every faith can embrace, or they wouldn't have been religions in the first place. It doesn't matter who was first, who was right...its a way of life regardless of your beliefs. I just personally believe we need to get over the "fact vs fiction" hump before faith is once again embraced by all.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 



What about the ten commandments? Weren't they supposedly written by God himself?


Well, I would say, from the stories, that some kind, and sort of being did land his spacecraft upon the mountain, thousands saw it happen. As for this being taking 40 days and 40 nights to think up and write 10 "thou shalt nots" is a stretch of imagination, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


I am sure they knew exactly what they were writing. These people were far from stupid and were very good writers.

Did you think someone figured out in 1978 that they mistranslated a word? I seriously doubt it.




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


Um, no... Analects (the Confucian scripture) was written in the 4th century, that is AFTER Christ...


reply to post by Malcher
 



Why won't you learn a bit of Greek and Hebrew and test it out for yourself since you don't believe there are mistranslations? Heck, you don't even have to learn the language, learn the grammar and get a dictionary and you'll still be able to see what we are talking about... any biblical scholar can...
edit on 3-12-2011 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mutatismutandis

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
Mythra was known as "the living spirit", "the way", "the truth", "the light", "son of god", "the good sheapard".

Mythra was born Dec. 25 to the virgin Anahita and is believed to be the mediator between god and man, often represented carrying a lamb on his shoulder.

He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger watched over by sheapards.

He had 12 deciples, emphasised baptism, performed "the lords supper", and ascended into heaven.
(sound familiar christians?)

That is just one of the indivuals brought up by the OP, I can keep going with the others if you'd like!

Unlike the OP, I have sources to back my statements (but I'm sure this is all just the devil talking right?):

en.wikipedia.org...

www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm



The wikipedia article may (who really knows?) correct, but your version is not. At least there sure is no credible evidence. I know you read it on a "tripod site".

I doubt you meant Mythra.


The sources are there on the site, it was just the first to come to mind that had them all listed rather than posting 30 links but feel free to look into it.

I beg everyone to please don't just take my word as a deterent for your faith...the lessons to be learned from all religions are invaluable. Every religion has beliefs that every man of every faith can embrace, or they wouldn't have been religions in the first place. It doesn't matter who was first, who was right...its a way of life regardless of your beliefs. I just personally believe we need to get over the "fact vs fiction" hump before faith is once again embraced by all.


The wiki article does not mention the things you cut and pasted. That is known as intellectual dishonesty.

Based on the title of the second link i didnt bother to even click on it. "truthbeknown.com"...Come on...

After you persisted i clicked on it and i have seen that site before. If i set up a web site would you just believe everything i write on it? I hope not. Mithra is a dead issue, reason is because there is zero proof of those things you mentioned.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


My point exactly. Scholars would know the difference. You're average Joe would not. If you want to paint someone as divine, the time to do it is during the translation from ancient Greek to modern languages. Take into account when those books were originally written, then take a look at the percentage of illiteracy in the world during that time, and then factor in those who could read greek, which was a ubiquitous language at that time, but wasn't read or written as widely as it was spoken. The education of the masses back then was in short supply, but it was the masses who were out spreading the teachings of the bible (that they had learned from people who read the bible to them) to their neighoring communities and family members who were equally uneducated. These people took what they were being taught as literal gospel as they had no reason not to believe their trusted religious leaders.
edit on 3-12-2011 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


I assumed 4th century BC was before Christ. Am I wrong in this?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


Ah, you are right. I admit I was wrong in this case...

For some reason I assumed that all of the centuries were after Christ...



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join