The Mistakes of Christianity

reply to post by adjensen


Are you familiar with this material?

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:

"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story. Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art" (ibid.). "These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36). They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

Are you familiar with this material?

Yes. It's a known fraud.

As I said, we have historical proof that the majority of canon (including the critical selection of Gospels) happened a century or more before Constantine was even born. See the writings of Irenaeus, Origen and The Muratorian Fragment.

Originally posted by Revolution9
reply to post by allenidaho

 

There are NO mistakes in Christianity. It is perfect as Christ was perfect. The only mistakes are those of theology by the hands of men who don't read their Bibles properly.

This, class, is what is referred to as indoctrination. With any cult, the purpose of indoctrination is to instill a belief system in such a way that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. To be a blind follower, you might say.

There have been many examples of this indoctrination throughout the thread. And now you should be able to see a glimpse of what the average Christian mindset is. The Christian doctrine seems to be that they do not question what they are told to believe. They just do so and pretend that everything is perfect.

You point out flaws or inconsistencies and they get angry because you are questioning the doctrine.

For example, have you heard of a Catechism?
en.wikipedia.org...

Just one of many indoctrination techniques used over the years.

reply to post by allenidaho

This, class, is what is referred to as indoctrination.

And what is it called when the OP's obvious errors are pointed out, and ignored by him?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Karma is a reincarnation fallacy.



According to the judeo-christian God, even one sin is enough to cause you to be subject to his judgement. Sin for a gentile like you or me is defined by Jesus and Apostle James as doing something that you know is wrong. Now if you've ever come to that thing you know was wrong and you did it anyway then you are under penalty of his judgement. He is a very much "reap-what-you-sew" God, but he has given us all a way out. Not just for jews but for all mankind.

Originally posted by jiggerj

You see where I'm going with this.

reply to post by Snsoc

 

I could offer so many counterarguments to your post, but what's the point? You'll just keep on defending an invisible being that you've never seen, and only heard of because somebody read a book and told you about it. Or, maybe you read it. Either way, the religious texts are contradictory, with some, if not most, of the claims impossible.

So, I will say this. I met my father once, for five minutes when I was four years old. Fifty-four years later, I still believe he existed.

Well, then we are at an impasse. You claimed two contradictions, both of which I have answered, and all you can respond is that the Bible is impossible and contradictory, but that you can't be bothered to show how. You say that I will go on defending an invisible being that I've never seen, and I offered a logical explanation for why such an arrangement must take place, but you haven't even acknowledged my premise.

At the end of the day, I don't care. It's not about me winning or losing an argument with you. By far, the most interesting statement you made was:

So, I will say this. I met my father once, for five minutes when I was four years old. Fifty-four years later, I still believe he existed.

And that, to me, speaks volumes about your antagonism towards the idea of a Father God who seems to be absent. It's my earnest prayer that you find peace and happiness, if you don't already have it.

reply to post by allenidaho


I must be gods son then. My parents never slaughtered a lamb and i was the first born. According to this, it means I belong to god... Cool... I love christians they make so much sense.

The Ten Commandments derive from the much older Egyptian Book of the Dead, as does Judaism itself derive from the Egyptian religion. Since Christianity has as its root Judaism, we can say with some certainty that these two religions at least are based upon the ancient Egyptian religion.

edward.de.leau.net...

dwij.org...

Apologies if this was already mentioned in the thread.

reply to post by allenidaho

Or a Seraphim which was a birdlike creature with six wings, used to cover it's entire body because looking at it's body would blind or incinerate you.

It wasn't until the Renaissance that the human shaped angel that we know today came into popular culture.

Pretty Much Popular in !
Sumarian Culture


Hmm are those look lik horns ! on his helm !>? Angel or a Demon ! Lucifer !


Angels !

Take a Cherubim, for example. A type of angel which is described in Ezekiel 10:14 as a multi-headed monster with the face of a man, a lion and an eagle.

Or a Demon take your Pic

The Demon Pazuzu
Near Eastern (Assyrian)

I say a Cherubim of what Pazuzu is ( Yes the Historical PaZUZU )

Pazuzu was depicted as a man with the head of a lion or dog, talons instead of feet, two pairs of wings, and the tail of a scorpion. His right hand is raised and his left hand is extended downwards: this position represents life/death and creation/destruction.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by noxvita83

 

Exodus 34. If you read the whole Bible, and not just the recommended portions, you'd see a lot of discrepancies and contradictions.

Exodus 34 is the second set of stone tablets Moses brought down to the Israelites. Discrepancies and Contradictions is why I do not follow Christianity because it has been too influenced by men to their own ends.

The problem of using the old testament pro or against Christianity is the fact that it is incomplete, it is only a hand selected few verses taken from the Judeo roots and is meant more for the histories that lead up to Christ, not the actual belief structure. Christ had only one commandment: "Love your neighbor". As well as the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself". Now, this doesn't override my personal moral of allowing people to believe as they will, but it is my reasons alone. Let's take the hypothetical that the Christian god is in fact omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent as the religion claims. Wouldn't it go against that to assume that he would not lay down said rules because at the time of him laying down said rules, it is in the best interest of his chosen people? Let's consider the fact that the Israelites have yet to grab land that is of their own at this point in time and are relatively few in number. At the time, the anti-homosexuality rule would make sense as it would be in their best interest to increase their numbers for when they have to take the land. Another rule about the anti-pork/seafood thing. The high salt content would be detrimental to their health in a harsh desert, which is what they're traveling through. The not having Cheese and Meat on the same plate is also logical. The pottery they have was made of a clay that absorbed the greases, making a sanitary issue to mix the 2. The do not kill, steal, covet, etc is all ideas to maintain unity and prevent infighting. Jealousy can cause many people to turn against one another, and stealing and killing would do the same. The sabbath would also be a morale thing too. If you are constantly moving, not having a day to sit back, worship and/or rest, your morale would be pretty low. People need things to look forward to in the short term. Honoring thy parents thing was a way to ensure that the elderly would also make the trip. Even down to the worship only one god, the same god (no other gods before me) is for unification. And the whole graven image is a conservation issue. Conserve your materials, do not waste them type thing. Now let's end the assumption that this is god's word. If a human, non-deity leader spoke of these things, it still would make sense during that time. And playing devil's advocate, someone with such insight and foresight would surely make legends, and thus molded into the spirituality of the people, thus he becomes a profit who was divinely inspired. So either direction you want to go with it, it all makes sense.

The discrepancies and contradictions that occur is due to writings at different times. Let's get out of the realm of metaphysics and look at recent history. The U.S. policies change with times. I'm sure the same can be said of any country really. I'm from the U.S., so that's where my knowledge is stronger. Prior to World War 2, we had an isolationist policy, as times change, we changed that view of ourselves. At one time we even questioned which should hold the sovereignty, the states, or the federal government. The debate is still going as to who should have more control, even after we've decided that the union should hold sovereignty. Popular opinion and societal needs change with the times, would it not be logical that as time progressed that the different things changed as well? What is said during, say Leviticus or even Kings was a different time and place than what was said during Exodus or Genesis. I question the relevancy of many Christian customs and dogma due to the fact that they do not make sense in modern times when they did during medieval or even the end of the Roman empire. But who are we to tell people that they shouldn't live by rules that make sense to them, regardless if it is contradiction, within their own scripture or contradicting or causing a discrepancy between their beliefs and their scripture?

In short, faith is not science, it is morality at best, emotion at worst. It does not hold up, nor should it to the same scrutiny of science. To do so, you are being no better than those religious folk who try to get creationism taught in science class instead of evolution.

Originally posted by TheComte
The Ten Commandments derive from the much older Egyptian Book of the Dead, as does Judaism itself derive from the Egyptian religion. Since Christianity has as its root Judaism, we can say with some certainty that these two religions at least are based upon the ancient Egyptian religion.

Um, no.

What we can say is that there is some degree of commonality between world religions. Judaism is monotheistic and does not have a nature-derived god, as the Egyptians did -- two significant deviations between the two which clearly indicate that one is not predicated on the other.

There are sayings in the "42 questions" asked of the dead, as described in the Book of the Dead, which have absolutely nothing to do with the Ten Commandments, some that are ascribed as being the same but which are significant stretches, and others are simply rational laws that any civilization should have.

Saying that Judaism is derived from Egyptian religion simply because both oppose theft or murder is not reasonable.

reply to post by adjensen


Can you show me the sources declaring the material I showed you to be fraudulent?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

Can you show me the sources declaring the material I showed you to be fraudulent?

You must have missed this in my response:

See the writings of Irenaeus, Origen and The Muratorian Fragment.

Link to the fragment above, Irenaeus and Origen may be found here.

reply to post by adjensen


So where did the Constantine material I posted come from? Or more specifically, what do you say regarding God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31? Is it a lie?

reply to post by adjensen


Actually, yes. Don't forget that Egypt had a brief flirtation with monotheism beginning with the Pharoah Akhenaten. The one god, called the Aten, was a Sun God. This didn't last however, and the old polytheistic religion was restored following his death. Coincidentally or not, this was just around the time of Moses and the Exodus.

en.wikipedia.org...

Who is to say that this monotheistic religion didn't gain favour among some groups like the Israelites? It seems likely.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

So where did the Constantine material I posted come from?

I have no idea where it came from, sometimes people just make stuff up to further their case.

Or more specifically, what do you say regarding God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31? Is it a lie?

If it's claiming that Constantine determined Biblical Canon, yes, I guess it is. The canon and texts existed long before Constantine was born, so he couldn't possibly have done it... I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by adjensen

 

Actually, yes. Don't forget that Egypt had a brief flirtation with monotheism beginning with the Pharoah Akhenaten. The one god, called the Aten, was a Sun God.

Again, a nature god. The God of the Israelites wasn't a nature God, he was presented as an abstract force that had no material counterpart or representation.

Who is to say that this monotheistic religion didn't gain favour among some groups like the Israelites? It seems likely.

Well, if one simply rejects the whole of the Hebrew Bible as a fiction, I suppose one can take that approach, but I do not reject the text in whole. And it still seems like a stretch to say that Moses was briefly exposed to a monotheistic religion based on a nature god, and came up with the God of the Israelites as a derivation, and no one thought anything of it.

reply to post by adjensen


Apparently, "God's Book of Eskra" is part of something called the Oahspe, a collection of works published in 1882 by American dentist John Ballou Newbrough, who produced the texts via automatic writing. Yeah, I can see where something like that might be considered unreliable.

Good thread, the first thing people will notice is how complicated it was for the Jews to "earn" their Salvation through works. How much easier is it through Jesus' commandments; Mark 12: 28-33

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

As for the name of Jesus, God hears what is on our heart, not the proper name for Jesus, how very human of you to get caught up with that.

reply to post by adjensen


Nope. The Aten was depicted as the rays of the sun. This is as abstract a force as what you claim to be the Israelite God. The Aten was the creator, the sole source of life on Earth, just as the Israelite God. Not sure what you mean by "nature" god. The Egyptian monotheism is definitely a precursor to Judaism. It's easy to see the similarities.

Key features of Atenism included a ban on idols and other images of the Aten, with the exception of a rayed solar disc, in which the rays (commonly depicted ending in hands) appear to represent the unseen spirit of Aten. New temples were constructed, in which the Aten was worshipped in the open sunlight, rather than in dark temple enclosures, as the old gods had been.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly, I don't think I agree that the Israelite God was abstract. He was definitely given form and function. He could talk and He even buried Moses in an unknown location when he died. This implies that He moved the body, which of course an abstract idea couldn't do.

God Himself buried him in an unknown grave in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor (Deut. 34:6)

en.wikipedia.org...

MIT Paper on the Link between Egyptian Religion and Monothestic Religion of Moses