Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christianity is a Sophist Front.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Atheists frequently note perceived parallels between Christ and pagan deities as an indication that Christ is in some way derived from earlier false gods. If it is fair to accept these parallels as evidence to the real origins of Christian beliefs, then the below parallel seems also to be worth some consideration in regards to Christianity’s origin:

From Mark 14:10-12:

10 When he (Christ) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

From Plato’s Theaetetus:

Socrates: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.”

(Coincidence or intentional allusion? It is a simple decision like deciding between the red and blue pill.)
Protagoras was supposedly the first professional Sophist making his living by teaching for money. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines Sophist as:

1: PHILOSOPHER
2capitalized: any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the fifth century B.C. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning
3: a captious or fallacious reasoner

In Plato’s Sophist, Socrates and his companions struggle to define a Sophist. As they gradually work toward a definition, something occurs to the “Stranger”:

“Stranger: By heaven, they are cousins! It never occurred to us.
THEAETETUS: Who are cousins?
Stranger: The angler and the Sophist.
THEAETETUS: In what way are they related?
Stranger: They both appear to me to be hunters.”

As the dialogue progresses, it becomes clear that the object of the hunt for the Sophist is man and therefore one should then naturally view the idea of “fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19) to be a reference to Sophists. It strikes me as incredible that atheists seem to have missed this. Don’t they read Plato? Does the term “angler” instead of “fisherman” throw them? I am sure that some nitpickers will attempt to argue that there is a significant difference between fishing with a hook and fishing with nets, but the motive is the same and given Christ’s parallel with Protagoras, it seems that there is a good reason to view this connection as deliberate.

In Plato’s Protagoras we find this comment regarding the Sophists:

“Now the art of the Sophist is, as I believe, of great antiquity; but in ancient times those who practiced it, fearing this odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names, some under that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides, some, of hierophants and prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus, and some, as I observe, even under the name of gymnastic-masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the odium which they would incur.”

This idea that the Sophists employed “veils” to hide their true nature has a couple of implications in regards to Christ. First of all there is the “Messianic Secret” which involves Christ asking others to keep silent about who he really was. If the character of Christ was the veil of a Sophist, then it is no longer any mystery as to what was really going on. (Christian apologists offer no less than four explanations for the Messianic Secret which means that they really don’t know themselves or they are pretending not to know.)

Secondly, there is the story of St. Veronica. As if the Bible did not offer enough clues as to what was going on, “tradition” provides an additional clue. Tradition tells us that a woman named Veronica supposedly wiped the face of Christ with her veil as he was carrying his cross to Golgotha and as a result the image of Christ’s face miraculously appeared on the veil. The name “Veronica” is understood by many to mean “true image”, so what are we to think when the “true image” of Christ is connected to a veil? This tradition seems so blatant in the message that it sends, that one has to wonder why critics of Christianity have not picked up on it.

Furthermore it should be noted that the identification of Orpheus as a Sophist also helps to explain the parallels between Christ and Dionysus, while the identification of Homer and Hesiod as Sophists indicates that Sophism played a major role in Greek religions as a whole, so why not Christianity? It also seems obvious that the veils employed by the Sophists relied on their words having hidden meanings and this helps to explain the role that parables played in Christ’s “ministry”. Could it be that the seemingly “fallacious” reasoning of the Sophists and Christians is the result of their words having hidden meanings? Could the parallels between Christ and other deities simply be due to the fact that messages are being repeated using the same metaphors or they are deliberate allusions inserted to provide context? Could the “errors” and “contradictions” which so many critics have observed and which have been so carefully preserved in the Bible really have a hidden purpose or meaning which requires their preservation?

By failing to take the clues Plato offered in regards to Sophism seriously, we have failed to form a clear understanding of what Sophism is. How and when Sophism began is difficult to determine, but it is clear that by the time Plato came onto the scene, they had already been responsible for greatly altering people’s perceptions of the world by describing nearly everything in metaphor. It is the world created by the Sophists that was the true subject of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Through their numerous covers and disguises the Sophists have had a major impact on the world as we see it and until we recognize this fact, we are destined to be their slaves. It is the Sophists that have created the Matrix (a.k.a. “egg in a basket”) in which we live.

It is up to the amateurs to expose the Sophists, because too much is at stake for the “experts”. Much of our educational system is based on the literal and semi-literal understanding of their allegoric works and if they are exposed for what they really are, advanced degrees in philosophy, history, religion, and other areas will become virtually worthless, because they are based on a false contexts and false understandings.




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
This is very interesting. I've heard this referenced somewhere before in passing, but never really gave it a lot of thought. Now I'm going to have to do a little reading on Sophists. This has much broader implications than Christianity. S&F.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by swordwords
 


What aspect of Greek philosophical rhetoric is hundreds of first hand testimonies of Jesus stopping the phenomena of alien abductions part way through. CE4 research witness accounts

Your position of Christianity being a front and its worth as nothing more than an allegory comes into question when it is in fact the people in the UFO community suppressing this info about abductions and how they can be stopped. What is the worth of hundreds of witness accounts that testify against the assumptions of your thread. Please look into the info much more than I have provided here as it should provide a wealth of thoughts to ponder over.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 



What aspect of Greek philosophical rhetoric is hundreds of first hand testimonies of Jesus stopping the phenomena of alien abductions part way through.

I would say it wasn't Jesus who stopped those "abductions". It was the individuals belief in Jesus that stopped them. If they had the faith in themselves, they placed in the name and/or person of Jesus. STOP! would have been sufficient.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
In the history of philosophy, much has been said against the Sophists, (Plato, Aristotle, were both against them) who were nothing more than teachers who were paid to share their wisdom. The most obvious objection to them was that "wisdom is free", and to accept payment for wisdom was insidious.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 



JesuitGarlic
reply to post by swordwords
 


What aspect of Greek philosophical rhetoric is hundreds of first hand testimonies of Jesus stopping the phenomena of alien abductions part way through. CE4 research witness accounts

Your position of Christianity being a front and its worth as nothing more than an allegory comes into question when it is in fact the people in the UFO community suppressing this info about abductions and how they can be stopped. What is the worth of hundreds of witness accounts that testify against the assumptions of your thread. Please look into the info much more than I have provided here as it should provide a wealth of thoughts to ponder over.


It is interesting that you bring up "aliens" since Plato identifies the subject of his Sophist as a "Stranger" and what is an alien but a type of stranger? The effort to hide alien influences is an allegory for efforts to hide Sophist influences. Oh, there may be some truth in regards to UFO's, but for the most part the subject is another Sophist cover. You just need to see the "Signs".

Now the question is: Did you make your seemingly non-sequitur association by chance or did you perhaps make the association on a subconscious level? Or did you make the connection based on someone else's remarks or are you just a Sophist in disguise?



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Incorrect. It is an area you will need to do more research in. People commonly believe that nothing can stop an abduction experience. People are generally paralyzed and can't even talk. The only instances of people being able to stop the experience occurring in a sustained way is through Jesus (even just thinking of him to help you). If you read more into it you will hear of people calling on gods of other religions and they were ineffective. I would like to see you reference people who have stopped the experience in a sustained way, if at all by saying stop. I think you will find no evidence for your position.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by swordwords
 


You are making parallels when none exist.


a "Stranger" and what is an alien but a type of stranger
A multi-dimensional fallen angel disguising itself as an advanced race E.T when they are I.D (inter-dimensional) are not some word play on stranger. They have been present from the beginning.


The effort to hide alien influences is an allegory for efforts to hide Sophist influences

The effort to hide the alien influence is because the UFO community are heavily associated with evolutionary theory (it is what the IDs promote in their messages to people) and have people looking for an alternative to Christianity generally. The information on Jesus having power above the alien intruders destroys the communities whole paradigm, so the info is buried.


Did you make your seemingly non-sequitur association by chance or did you perhaps make the association on a subconscious level?

I made the association from the evidence. Eyewitness testimonies. Books such as Gary Bates' 'Alien Intrusion' and Nick Redfern's book which investigates the history of the phenomena and tracks what the conclusions of the CIAs multiple decade long investigation was. Plus I have looked a great deal into the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and miracle accounts performed through his name that have been documented. One of the most scholarly books for this empirical evidence is 'Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts'. A good reference to look up from the kindle version is Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of New Testament Accounts, 1 & 2. Kindle Locations 8352-90, 8876-950, which documents supernatural healing performed in front of modern medical doctors after a person has prayed and upon doctors themselves after they have prayed. When you put the pieces of evidence together you form a strong mosaic attesting to Jesus' power still working.

Sure I could pick holes through many errors various denominations of Christianity hold, or some of their disgusting practices. Fundamentally though you are still dealing with a religion which has their deity as documented as supernatural. Thus the premise of this thread becomes false.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by swordwords
 




Atheists frequently note perceived parallels between Christ and pagan deities as an indication that Christ is in some way derived from earlier false gods.


Don't atheists believe that all gods are false? I'm not an atheist, and I wouldn't say that the gods that the ancients worshiped were false. In my opinion they are products of nature, spiritual experience and imagination, just like the gods of the Old Testament and the Christian God.

"Wisdom" always has to be explained in parable. There is no empirical definition or description of wisdom until it's compared or presented in a story or allegory. (In my humble opinion, of course
)

reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Nonsense! I've repelled "them" by laughing at them and telling them to leave me alone. No hocus pocus!



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 



NiNjABackflip
In the history of philosophy, much has been said against the Sophists, (Plato, Aristotle, were both against them) who were nothing more than teachers who were paid to share their wisdom. The most obvious objection to them was that "wisdom is free", and to accept payment for wisdom was insidious.


Again, we have been given a false perception of Sophists by relying only on literal statements and ignoring the numerous clues that indicate that they were involved in something far more devious than exchanging wisdom for “money”. The men that Plato identifies as Sophists don’t fit the view that Sophists were simply mercenary in their motives. If they were only selling wisdom, why did they employ so many “veils”?

Although Plato and Aristotle appeared to be anti-Sophist, this can be viewed as simply an effort to take suspicion away from themselves, however, it must also be remembered that Sophist words carry different meanings so literal criticism may simply disguise a boast. Think about it. Plato is considered a great philosopher, but we should logically consider him nothing more than a scribe since he only claimed to record the conversations of other philosophers. Why have scholars insisted on giving so much credit to Plato? Where are the Neo-Socratists? Is it possible that they saw through Plato’s Socratic cover? (It is my contention that the “Stranger” in Plato’s Sophist was intended to represent Plato himself.)

As for Aristotle, have you ever tried to make sense out of his writings on your own? If he is so great a philosopher, why couldn’t he make himself better understood? Why is he so highly regarded when all his logic could not even place the "Sun" in its proper position? Aristotle’s real, but hidden, greatness is based on the fact that he attempted to create what is basically a thesaurus (from the Greek word for “treasure”) of metaphors associated with their corresponding metaphors and as a result the literal reader struggles to make sense of him. His contribution to the world of the uninitiated is manufactured to justify his status among the Sophists.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Calling on Jesus does not stop anything. I know by first hand experience, however calling on myself did work. Jesus apparently had no power over the entity in my room that night.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 

The whole debate is fruitless JG. Of all those who say they have stopped abductions in the name of Jesus, the percentage of cases that have witnesses other than the "victim", are next to nil. In other words. Anecdotal evidence.

Add to that, the vast majority of alien abductions are likely not abductions at all, and you are left with little evidence that testifies to the reality of the phenomenon. I won't say alien abduction isn't real, because I can't. The possibility is there, and no one can prove otherwise. But the evidence points to alien abduction being a psychological(spiritual?) event.

Therefore, it is no surprise that the name of Jesus, or any other deity one has faith in, might stop it.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
well if you follow the clues, jesus was the last pharaoh. his mom would've been cleopatra (who faked her own death and went to israel with jesus (more to the story but this will suffice for now)). she was of greek-jewish ancestory via her ptolemy line to king david. that made jesus, greek, egyptian and jewish. this is why there are so many alternative views on who he was, as he had connections to several schools of thought and these schools of thought had both esoteric and publically known equivalents in society. when you teach an audience that you know contains people of various backgrounds, do you use their language and metaphors, or do you speak the language of some other planet or dimension, so that none of your audience can understand you?



edit on 6-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



windword
reply to post by swordwords
 




Atheists frequently note perceived parallels between Christ and pagan deities as an indication that Christ is in some way derived from earlier false gods.


Don't atheists believe that all gods are false? I'm not an atheist, and I wouldn't say that the gods that the ancients worshiped were false. In my opinion they are products of nature, spiritual experience and imagination, just like the gods of the Old Testament and the Christian God.

"Wisdom" always has to be explained in parable. There is no empirical definition or description of wisdom until it's compared or presented in a story or allegory. (In my humble opinion, of course
)



I would not presume to speak for all atheists, but yes, I would expect that they would believe all gods are false. If you interpreted my wording as suggesting that atheists might not consider Christ a false god, then you are mistaken.

Unfortunately the concept of "wisdom" is entirely of Sophist origin and thus it is naturally difficult to remove from parable and allegory.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
swordwords

i'm interested in your response to my post above



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


quote] undo
well if you follow the clues, jesus was the last pharaoh. his mom would've been cleopatra (who faked her own death and went to israel with jesus (more to the story but this will suffice for now)). she was of greek-jewish ancestory via her ptolemy line to king david. that made jesus, greek, egyptian and jewish. this is why there are so many alternative views on who he was, as he had connections to several schools of thought and these schools of thought had both esoteric and publically known equivalents in society. when you teach an audience that you know contains people of various backgrounds, do you use their language and metaphors, or do you speak the language of some other planet or dimension, where none of your audience can understand you?



But the clues have to fit together and make sense. In murder mysteries, individual clues usually point to multiple suspects, but there usually is only one killer to which all the clues point. I follow the clues that allow everything to fit together like a vast puzzle. If a piece does not seem to fit, I have to re-evaluate the whole puzzle until it does fit.

The Sophists naturally adopted disguises that would fit into the societies that they wished to control, but they also had to make their allegory agree to the allegory they had employed elsewhere. This naturally allows the literal reader or listener to sense connections but they are unable to see the true meaning.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by swordwords
 


outline where my references in the post, don't fit the evidence available?
i think even zeitgeist (which is full of mistakes but still manages to pick up clues, generally speaking) is compiling a nice record of evidence (that they don't understand the evidence, is irrelevant).
edit on 6-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
biblical patriarchs were pharaohs of the hyksos shepherd kings, who ruled egypt via a city in egypt known as avaris. they were eventually "chased" out of egypt by pharaoh ahmose, who mose (moses) as the pharaoh's son, was named after. the big secret of the bible is that all the biblical kings and even the king of kings (jesus), were pharaohs.
edit on 6-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by swordwords
 





Again, we have been given a false perception of Sophists by relying only on literal statements and ignoring the numerous clues that indicate that they were involved in something far more devious than exchanging wisdom for “money”. The men that Plato identifies as Sophists don’t fit the view that Sophists were simply mercenary in their motives. If they were only selling wisdom, why did they employ so many “veils”?

Although Plato and Aristotle appeared to be anti-Sophist, this can be viewed as simply an effort to take suspicion away from themselves, however, it must also be remembered that Sophist words carry different meanings so literal criticism may simply disguise a boast. Think about it. Plato is considered a great philosopher, but we should logically consider him nothing more than a scribe since he only claimed to record the conversations of other philosophers. Why have scholars insisted on giving so much credit to Plato? Where are the Neo-Socratists? Is it possible that they saw through Plato’s Socratic cover? (It is my contention that the “Stranger” in Plato’s Sophist was intended to represent Plato himself.)

As for Aristotle, have you ever tried to make sense out of his writings on your own? If he is so great a philosopher, why couldn’t he make himself better understood? Why is he so highly regarded when all his logic could not even place the "Sun" in its proper position? Aristotle’s real, but hidden, greatness is based on the fact that he attempted to create what is basically a thesaurus (from the Greek word for “treasure”) of metaphors associated with their corresponding metaphors and as a result the literal reader struggles to make sense of him. His contribution to the world of the uninitiated is manufactured to justify his status among the Sophists.


I am not in disagreement. In fact I think you make a good argument. Platonism, neoplatonism and Aristotelianism are deeply influential to Christianity. The fact that Aristotle's works were considered a firm foundation for scholasticism, although being completely wrong on many points, proves that the reverence for Aristotle came before reason. This isn't Aristotle's fault of course, but that of his schoolmen.

Yes I've read much of Aristotle. Much of it was an unnecessary read, despite being a great window into a great mind; and I agree with Bertrand Russell that any student of logic can even skip Aristotle works.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



undo
reply to post by swordwords
 


outline where my references in the post, don't fit the evidence available?
i think even zeitgeist (which is full of mistakes but still manages to pick up clues, generally speaking) is compiling a nice record of evidence (that they don't understand the evidence, is irrelevant).
edit on 6-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)


Gee, where would I begin? You are relying more on literal meanings than I do. The literal clues can support your conclusion, but that is not the real message. Christ was a metaphor for the "Word" and any identification of him as real person is simply more allegory. You are connecting metaphors to metaphors.






top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join