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.

 

The Mystery Religion – Jesus (The Sun of God)

page: 21
19
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

wildtimes

But - the message was delivered before, and after, his recorded existence, by other 'spiritual leaders'. So, would it not have surfaced anyway?



That depends entirely on what one believes "the message" to have been, but I see you got around to that below.





What do you consider to be "the message" that might or might not have been delivered?



Salvation via the Messiah.




I don't get what you mean.

But, you know I love ya, neno!




I believe there are forces around - I don't know or care what one calls them, whether "Satan", "Shaitan", "Shadow People" or "mental Illness", "spiritual forces"... or something else.... but those forces "seek" to influence people (and DO, it seems, in many cases), and that "want" - whether consciously or not (hence the quotes) - to take humanity down a very dark road, individually and collectively. Part of that influence is to "lead them astray", or prod them away from the good and towards that dark road. Now, for the most part, we never see these Whatevers, but we DO see the results of their activity, brought out in people.

I believe Jesus came to lead some of us down a different road, and those Whatevers would do anything they could to dissuade humanity from following it, up to and including convincing them that Jesus never was. Such attempts, as brought out in the actions of people, are what I'm talking about.

In the interests of fair play, they also seem to try to convince people that the Whatevers don't exist, either, in spite of what we can see brought out in people to the contrary.

It can be conceptualized anyway you like - whether the "forces" are "entities" or just "actions of people" is immaterial - the results are the same, and generally manifest in the same way - through human activity.




(MORE SNOW!?? AYFKM??? Gha.)
LOL!!!



Yup, but not too bad. I went out a little bit ago and what stuck was barely noticeable on top of what already was. Lucky me, I don't have to slog across the frozen wasteland to get to work tomorrow - just the end of the block, and that's doable and usually a much more pleasant walk. Still walking about 4" or so above the sidewalk on the ice, but you know the cleanup crews aren't the best right in my li'l neighborhood!




posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   

windword

www.nbufront.org...

So who do you think invented Christianity?


edit on 9-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


I dunno - maybe your source, the National Black United Front?

I give up - gimme another hint...



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1

Read Revelation 12 again, it starts off by saying a sign appeared in "the heavens". What do "the heavens" represent in the bible? The sky. Genesis 1 says that god created "the heavens" and the Earth, you seem to be ignoring that fact, the heavens mean the sky, that is a fact and John said that in his vision he saw a sign in the sky.

It is allegory, but the allegory is represented by the stars in "the heavens". You're being very dense right now.



Common mistake - taking verses in Isolation. Reading the part I quoted previously, from the introductory chapter of Revelations, we can clearly see it was a "vision", and as such had nothing appearing in actuality - nothing appeared "in the sky", nor did a man appear with fire in his eyes and a sword sticking out of his mouth.

However, if we want to take it in that direction, it specifies, very concretely, a woman, not an asterism. The only stars mentioned in the account at all are the ones in her crown, which could equally be descriptive of jewels which are said to "sparkle like stars" in descriptions of what jewels are like, or they could represent something else - like the stars mentioned which represent individual churches, or they might represent the disciples as a "crowning glory", or any number of things.

What I am fairly sure of is that they did NOT represent an addition to an existing constellation.

So, again, either literal or allegorical - your choice. Did the vision of the woman represent an asterism, which has no effect on Earth, or did it represent something else, which would have an effect?

I leave it to you to figure out on your own. I don't do interpretation of "prophecy".




Kindly point me toward where I said astrology and astronomy are the same thing. It seems like you're confusing me with another poster(s) because I never said such a thing. Astrology and astronomy are closely related but only because they deal with "the heavens" or sky.



I stand corrected - unless I run across such reference later. Not going hunting for it right now.




If a sign in "the heavens" comes "from god" then it is astrology, what don't you get about that? A sign appeared in the sky from god, that is the definition of astrology! Stop being so dense.



That's a very simplistic definition of astrology, and erroneous. There are many more things in the heavens than merely the strip of sky housing the zodiac.




If god doesn't dabble in astronomy then why did he send John a vision which dealt with a sign in the heavens? Why did Jesus say signs would appear in the sun, moon, and stars before his second coming? If signs signify god coming back this signs are directly related to ASTROLOGY.



You seem to be stuck in an inability to tell visions from reality. A "sign in the sun" is not the same thing as the sun in a sign, which is astrology. I didn't see any mention in the passage you quoted of "God coming back" - it seemed rather explicit that it was speaking of "The Son of Man", and not God. I'm not sure that God ever left.




No, what it's actually like is if a Christian believes god created a sign in the sky on which to base a prophecy or that they believe signs will appear in the sky before Jesus comes back, that means they believe god uses astrology to mark when he will come again.



Well, I guess I need to get firmed up just what you think astrology IS, then. When Sirius rises a dawn, I can prophecy that the growing season is coming. Am I then dabbling in astrology? If not, then what is it you think astrology IS? What precisely does it deal with? If so, then perhaps you have a much broader definition of astrology, and everything I've said previously concerning Sirius stands... and I guess I'd have to go to confession(over my dabbling in astrology) if I believed in that sort of thing, which I don't.




Like I said, depending on what version you read it says the stars will mark either "sacred times" or will be used as "signs". What are the signs for? To mark sacred times such as the second coming of Jesus. Jesus says so himself.



Let's lay this nonsense to rest, shall we? Here is the passage you claimed specified that the stars were set to mark "sacred times", from 21 different translations of the bible - all that I have at my fingertipps att the moment:




14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, to divide between day and night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years. Genesis 1:14 (The Apostle's Bible)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. Genesis 1:14 (A Conservative Version)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Genesis 1:14 (American King James Version)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: Genesis 1:14 (American Standard Version (1901))

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the arch of heaven, for a division between the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for marking the changes of the year, and for days and for years: Genesis 1:14 (1949/1964 Bible in Basic English)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens, to divide between the day and the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; Genesis 1:14 (Darby Bible (1889))

14 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: Genesis 1:14 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Challoner Revision)

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, Genesis 1:14 (English Standard Version)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heauen, to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signes, and for seasons, and for dayes and yeeres. Genesis 1:14 (Geneva Bible (1599))

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs and will mark religious festivals, days, and years. Genesis 1:14 (GOD'S WORD to the Nations)

14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; Genesis 1:14 (Hebrew Names Version of the World English Bible)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Genesis 1:14 (King James Version (1769) with Strongs Numbers and Morphology)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Genesis 1:14 (King James Version: Pure Cambridge Edition)

14 And God said, Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years. Genesis 1:14 (Green's Literal Translation)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, Genesis 1:14 (Green's Modern King James Version)

14 God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, Genesis 1:14 (Free version of New English Translation with limited notes)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [the day...: Heb. between the day and between the night] Genesis 1:14 (Revised Webster Version (1833))

14 Than sayd God: let there be lyghtes in ye firmament of heaven to devyde the daye fro the nyghte that they may be vnto sygnes seasons days and yeares. Genesis 1:14 (William Tyndale Bible (1525/1530))

14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; Genesis 1:14 (World English Bible)

14 Forsothe God seide, Liytis be maad in the firmament of heuene, and departe tho the dai and niyt; and be tho in to signes, and tymes, and daies, and yeeris; Genesis 1:14 (John Wycliffe Bible (1395))

14 And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, Genesis 1:14 (Young's Literal Translation (1898))



So which version are you reading that makes that claim? "Signs" doesn't cut it - unless you are willing to admit the rising of Sirius as a "sign", and that has already been addressed if you do - all of my points still stand in that regard.




You can quote it again if you'd like, it won't change the meaning though. The only reason it would change is if you don't want to see it in your own mind.



You're right - it won't change the meaning. My mind is not so different from yours, with the exception that it doesn't tend towards seeing things that aren't there, or reading things in that are not stated. Now you have it from 21 different versions, all of which agree. What outlying version are you reading that says it? The closest to your claim that I could find substitutes "religious festivals" for "seasons", in the "GOD'S WORD to the Nations" Version included above, which is again a time keeping function, not a miraculous sign from a god or gods. All in all, it's pretty clear the passage refers to time keeping as the function of the stars which is specified, and nothing more.




Every depiction of Leo is different, as are the other depictions of the other constellations. Just because the stars seem to be part of the hind leg of Leo in this depiction doesn't mean it will in others. Besides, the 12 stars are just as close to Virgo as they are to Leo and the stars are not part of the main grouping of stars that constitute Leo, they are their own grouping.



Baloney. I have nothing further to say in the matter to those who have eyes to look at it, and still yet refuse to see it. It's very clear to even the most casual observer - we can look at ANY star chart, astronomical, astrological, or a child's drawing and see clearly where those stars are, in the hindquarters of Leo, even if we didn't know they were named "Leonis". They are most definitely not "their own grouping" - most are barely even visible, and to many are not visible at all. I checked the magnitudes for every single one.

Here you go - it's a picture of the star field in question. Pick out your "crown stars" without the lines drawn in to lead the eye and emphasize them, and get back to me on it. I'll post the star field with the constellation graphics overlaid to check and see if you're right, for all to see:



If it's a "crown", you ought to be able to pick it out with no problem. Crowns are pretty noticeable.




Revelation doesn't mention a lion taking a dump, so I don't see how it would be as legitimate when talking about the prophecy in Revelation. You seem to forget that this grouping of stars is directly related to Revelation in this theory (fact). I wonder why?



Here's why: because Revelations doesn't mention anything about a "virgin" in that passage, either. That IS the point - it's as likely to be Leo - or Libra or Aquarius, for that matter - as it is to be Virgo. Your "facts" are pretty free and loose, as "facts" go. "As likely to be one or the other" doesn't mean that is even IS one or the other - just that the likelihood is the same, which is nil.




So why are they not part of the stars that are connected together to mark Leo? They're only in the area of those stars, NOT connected to them. One of the stars within this grouping of 12 is the top-most star of the constellation Virgo. Why do you keep ignoring that important detail?



well, I guess we can go with that - nor are they part of the stars that are connected together to form Virgo. The star you mention, Zavijava (from the Arabic, "the corner of the barking one") is only connected in ONE rendition that I know of, a modern alternate by H.A. Rey, which has Virgo laying down, rather than standing up. It's still only ONE star out of your 12, the majority of which are in Leo.




So now you're moving back to literal, I thought it was allegorical? So you like to Chang it from literal to allegorical to suit your case? Typical.



No, it's neither literal nor allegorical - it's not Virgo at all. still, I go with the flow, and if you want to give literal, then expect to get literal. In that way, I'm "typical" - I give what I get.



A crown is most certainly "connected" to the head by the fact it is touching the head. The circle of stars is literally connected to the head of Virgo by the head being a part of the circle. I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over here. The connection is so obviously there that it's ridiculous.


You ARE repeating yourself - and it's still not any more true, the more you repeat it. Crowns do not balance on heads, nor do they connect to them, nor do they float above them - they encircle them, like a hat.




No I don't see your point. The woman in Revelation 12 is commonly associated with the Virgin (Virgo) Mary. You're acting like people on the other side of this debate have to agree with that association when they don't. The fact that it exists apart from this debate is all that matters.



"Commonly"? By whom? with what justification? I've already specified several justifications for it NOT being Mary, nor Hagar, although it is definitely closer to Hagar with the whole wandering in the wilderness thing.




Well since the prophecy is dealing with Jesus and it is part of the NT, it is only logical to see the woman giving birth to a boy who would be taken up to god as a representation of Mary and Jesus. The clear and obvious connection to Virgo is a dead giveaway, I can't help that you refuse to see it.



Well, if we have to go with predictive prophecy, the whole "will be" as opposed to "already has been" pretty much rules out Jesus and Mary, since that was long before John's vacation on Patmos. There is no "clear and obvious connection" to Virgo, other than the fact that both are supposed to be female - which connection covers roughly half off the world's population at any given instant. Put any one of those women in an airplane and bingo - you've got the whole sky connection, too. Make her a queen of somewhere, and we get even closer... no Virgo necessary.




Why would he leave any of it up to interpretation by using allegory for that matter? If you think it is allegory as you stated earlier then it is meant to be left up for interpretation. Stop moving the goalposts back and forth.



No goalpost moving required. It's every bit as allegorical of Hagar as it would be Mary, and even more so, but more to the point, it's not allegorical of either.




Probably because you're not thinking logically but illogically. It's hard to see logic when you're not thinking with it.



logic makes use of facts presented, not wishes to be fulfilled. Logic does not make leaps of fantasy by filling in blanks that have no data to support them. Logic does not make connections where no connections can be made. You are supplying data that is not in the account in order to force a connection that does not exist in it. Which of us is not using logic again?




Where are you getting this information from? First you said it happens once every 18 years now you're saying it happens once every month. Why are you contradicting yourself? Either it's once every month or once every 18 years, which is it?



read more closely then. I said that the closest approach of the moon to Virgo's feet occurs every 18 years, and is still to the side of them, not beneath them. This approach is not even close - it's on the wrong side of the ecliptic. The moon travels the ecliptic EVERY month, and passes Virgo's feet in doing so - sometimes closer, sometimes farther away, but always passing, and always to the side. I got the information by rolling Stellarium back to 11 Sept, 3 BC, and just taking a look. The actual date in Stellarium was 2 BC, because for some odd reason it includes a "year 0", which doesn't exist, and so is actually 1 BC. When I used 3 BC, the moon was not even near Virgo on that date - it was in Gemini.




Again, where are you getting this information from? Did he specifically say that the conjunction happened on September 11? Or was he speaking of all the astronomical alignments that happened around that date?

It's not superficial just because you want it to be.



Correct - it's not superficial because I want it to be, it's superficial because it simply IS. yes, he specifically said the conjunction was on 11 Sept, and that it was a conjunction of the "king planet" Jupiter and the "king star" Regulus. He specifically state that the Magi left Herod and followed th conjunction on the night of 11 Sept, arriving at the birth of Jesus on 11 Sept 3 BC by following the conjunction. I got the information again from Stellarium, by running the clock and watching the conjunction. It was on 13 Sept, not 11 Sept. He was attempting to force a fit, just as you are.




Now you're going off on a different tangent. I never said the Babylonians orchestrated 9/11, but I can see how you'd think that if you're thinking illogically.



So... for YOU to connect 11 Sept 2001 with Babylonian astrology is logical, but for ME to do so is illogical? That was what is known as "sarcasm" by the way. You may not be familiar with it, and it sometimes doesn't translate well in print. The point I was attempting to make is that it's not entirely sane to connect ancient Babylonians with 9/11. You seem to have gotten the "not entirely sane" part, but the "connecting it to Babylonians" part sailed right over your head it seems.




What I'm saying is that those in power, no matter the time period, orchestrate events around astrology and set them up in a way that makes them correlate with astrology. It has always happened and always will, that's how they work.



I don't think I ever said the towers looked like fish, where are you getting this stuff from? Are you sure you're in the right thread?



You equated the event with the Age of Pisces. What was "Fish like" about the twin towers? There must be a logical connection to fish - review the whole "fisher of men because of the age of Pisces" argument you made.




Again, where are you getting this information from? You can't just put these things out there without giving some kind of reference or anything.



Science. Astronomy. Education. Software (specifically in this case Stellarium). You don't have to take my word for it - put on a jacket and go watch Virgo rise. Her feet just cleared the horizon about an hour ago where I am, and she was standing upright when she did so. The moon will next be beside her feet the 21st of this month (perhaps interestingly, there is an ATS thread about Ragnarok, the Viking Apocalypse, occurring about that date). Mars is right this instant exactly in her birth canal, and will be for some time. Do you reckon she's giving birth to another war?
edit on 2014/2/10 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by nenothtu
 


No need to feel bad, I'm smart enough on my own my friend.


The gradient or gray area is a combination of both houses on the zodiac wheel. It is an overlap. You went from overlap then to gray area and now to gradient. Keep the goalposts moving though, I like moving targets.


No goalpost moving required - they are all the same thing. What they are NOT is the "sign" itself. When we mix charcoal, potassium nitrate, and sulfur, we no longer have charcoal, potassium nitrate, and sulfur - we have gunpowder.

I'm not entirely sure what is difficult to grasp about that.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1

I pick comparative religion, I am comparing the Babylonian, Greek, Roman, and Christian religions. I've stated that multiple times already, you sure do have a short memory.



Ah, I see. You are stocking the pond with the fish you like, then. The problem with that is that when we stock the pond with only the fish we like, we can only catch those fish. In court, they call that "leading the witness", and it's grounds for objection, because it is designed to arrive at a predetermined point that the arguer wants, not arrive at the truth, that the court wants.

I'm not playing that game with you. Imagine that I've just yelled "objection, Your Honor" into the courtroom.

You seem to have left Mithraism out of the list, which is Persian. Excuse me while I stretch my memory some more.




I think the discussion is about the Babylonians and their religion compared to the zodiac they created, not anything before that. Written history began about 5,200 years ago meaning the modern form of religion being in written form (Bible, Quran, Torah, etc.) could not have existed before. Astrology has been found as far back as 25,000 years ago with cave paintings by cavemen.

With that in mind, astrology has existed far longer than written religion.



Ah, I see. we are only talking about written[/] religion, then. Written with characters and letters only? Are we to admit no other evidence? If not, then your astrological evidence in cave paintings is rejected. If so, then my evidence for the existence of religion and ritual prior to 25,000 years ago must also be admitted.

Who confirmed the cave paintings as astrological, and what "signs" did they have in their zodiac?

My evidence, if admissible, will start with the Venus figurines, and go backwards from there. if inadmissible, then there goes your cave paintings as well.




Early religions were based on the movement of the sun, moon, and stars in the sky, that much is clear with paganism and sun worship cults such as the Babylonians. Religion and its myths were based on those movements, not the other way around.



What you are saying here is "sky religions involve the sky", which is circular, self-confirming, but allows for no other religions. Christianity is not a sky religion.




People looked up into the sky saw these movements and had pareidolia within the formations of the stars and created constellations out of these groupings then created characters and gods based on this pareidolia and movement. As I said, astrology and the study of the sky predates written history by thousands of years so myths couldn't have been written down until after these constellations were named and personified.



"Written down" does not confirm that the myths did not exist before writing. You are building a box to fit your thesis, rather than forming a thesis to fit whatever comes out of the box. In other words, you are starting with a conclusion, and propping it up from there, rejecting information which fails to confirm it. Confirmation bias. Conclusions are what you are supposed to arrive at, not what you are supposed to start out with.




So why are you bringing in religions from entirely different areas and time periods that came after Christianity? I'm using comparative religion with religions that came BEFORE Christianity, you're using religions that came AFTER Christianity. The topic of this thread is about what Christianity is based on, a.k.a. what came BEFORE it.



Actually, no. What religions have I used that came after Christianity? As far as the regional differences go, are your astrological cave paintings from Israel? Is Jerusalem in Babylon or Rome? Are we setting parameters here solely to prop up your thesis?




Hopefully you will see how your stance is wrong. The Shawnee came long after Christianity, sun worship cults and paganism came before. Your use of comparative religion is not conducive to this discussion nor does it keep it on the right track which is comparing Christianity to religions that came BEFORE.



How did the Shawnee come after Christianity? Did they just pop into existence when Christians found them, or were they a separate and later creation? Why didn't they assimilate Christianity if your thesis is correct? Just so you'll know, Shawnee religion is ALSO "pagan". Are we only to allow certain pagans into the fold, so as to support your thesis, and reject the other pagans?

Just trying to find the sides of the box here.




Not according to the bible or god. Revelation talks of a sign appearing in "the heavens" (sky) I in John's vision that correlated to Virgo in more than one way, Jesus says that "signs" will appear in the sun, moon, and stars to mark the end and his second coming. Signs in the stars associated with god is the definition of astrology. You are mistaken to believe astrology is looked down upon in the bible.



I might be "mistaken", but I believe it says what it says,and what is has to say about astrology has already been quoted by another poster, from Isaiah, I believe. Not going to go into VIrgo again, fr the reasons I've already stated - it is nowhere mentioned in John, none of the elements fit. Your definition of "astrology" is broad when you want it to be 9"all signs in the heavens") and narrow when you want it to be ("Sirius rising is not astrology, even though it is a sign in the heavens"). Hard to argue with that if I let YOU set the parameters as you wish to fit your argument at hand.




Okay, I've seemed to have forgotten what this is even about? How is this even relevant to the topic? Astrologers use the same zodiac and houses invented by the Babylonians 5,000 years ago.



No, they don't. Better check it again. If they did, your "sign" from John would be a furrow, and your entire premise would fall apart.




Okay, this is beside the point and not relevant to the discussion. Romans have records of the I use of the zodiac. If you want to know their reasoning behind it then read the records they left behind.



They are not the ones making the argument. You are.




You're ignoring the overlap of the houses. Each house takes up a total of 33 degrees on the zodiac wheel with 1.5 on either side being shared with another house, meaning the zodiac is still 360 degrees but with a total of 36 degrees of the circle constituting areas of overlap where houses share the same space. It does not add or subtract to the total at all, you only see it that way because you're not understanding the concept of the overlaps.

Look up "astrological cusp". If someone is born "on the cusp" of two zodiacal houses are considered to share signs of both the zodiac houses, hence "overlap".



A circle is only 360 degrees, and has been for ages, not 360. A "cusp", by it's nature, is not one or the other. It's just as legitimate to subtract the value as it is to add it, since it's not one or the other. Furthermore, no one can agree on the size to be added or subtracted. What you have done is picked a value to support your thesis, then had fun with math to get 'er done.




It was a typo, it was meant to say water. But thanks for blowing it out of proportion, I would think that would have been obvious, or maybe you never make mistakes.



Ok. Then point me to a Roman story about Jesus walking on water.




"The Romans" is not just my thesis, it is a thesis that came before me and will exist after me. Also, walking on water is a reference to the sun rising and setting over the ocean. It "walks on water" over the horizon. It is pagan symbolism. Orion, the son of the pagan god Poseidon, is said to have walked on water, so Jesus isn't exactly unique when it comes to the miracles he supposedly performed.



Haven't been to a beach lately, I see. Refresh my memory - when the sun is "walking on the ocean" in Israel, is it coming or going? As I recall, the story has it that Jesus was coming towards the disciples. Which ocean was Jesus walking on in that story again?




Maybe in your mind I haven't proven in it, but I have a feeling that that's because you have a belief in the Abrahamic god which Christianity is based around.



No, it's because none of the data fits. I wouldn't think a god would have anything to fear from your thesis,regardless of whose god it was.




Orion is said to have walked on water, Dionysus and Bacchus are said to have risen from the dead, Dionysus and Bacchus are said to have turned water into wine, Mithra was said to have healed the sick and given sight to the blind, Mithra had a last supper with 12 apostles and had a ritual very similar to the Eucharist. As we know, these were all pagan gods and as we know paganism is based on astrology and the natural world.



Well, to be honest here, we haven't proven that paganism was based upon astrology, either. I have only our word for the rest, as I've not seen those claims in any of the primary sources.




We're talking about comparative religion with religions that came during and before Christianity. Gnosticism formed alongside Christianity and deals with the same figure as in Christianity: Jesus, so yes we can use Gnostic writings to make these connections. Or are you now against comparative religion all of a sudden?



Okay. So we now have a single source from a single religion that admittedly formed at the same time as Christianity and counter to it, making that connection, yet against all the Christian sources. How does that apply to the formation of Christianity again?




Debunked according to who? You? Are you the end all be all on the subject? If that's the case I have debunked Christianity being original. Looks as if we're at a stalemate.



According to logic - but I suppose we can really let the readers determine for themselves.




They don't stand individually according to who? You? I guess you're of the mindset that a part is greater than the whole? Once you start looking at the connections as a whole, you begin to see a pattern, that pattern is that Christianity mirrors paganism and astrology in many many different ways. You blocking it out doesn't change the fact that Christianity is based on earlier paganism.



According to logic. They don't stand. A spider's web will not stay up "as a whole" if none of the strands do individually.




You've never seen pictures of the Vatican or the early churches apparently, you know, the ones built at the formation of Christianity? Windward and other posters have posted pictures detailing them, but I guess you don't want to remember them so you don't.



Nope. I didn't see any pictures of churches built at the time of Christianity's formation. I saw some from a couple centuries later, however.




The winter solstice will point you in the right direction as far as Jesus being in a cave and popping out for a woman to see him after 3 days.



What does the winter solstice have to do with caves or women - or 3 days, for that matter... and the woman DIDN'T see him - that was the cause of the whole uproar.





So you consider your opinion as "evidence" now? Great! That means my opinion counts as evidence for me as well. Thanks for making it easy on me.



No, facts are evidence, but I DID mis-speak. There is no evidence to support your theory, and so it is properly said to be a lack of evidence. I've pointed out that supreme lack of evidence.




But you associate your god with the Abrahamic god, which explains why you're defending an Abrahamic religion. You have a bias toward Abrahamic religions, I don't. I'd call that a conflict of interest.



I guess you aren't familiar with my posting history at ATS to make a statement like that. I detest Christians, but support their right to believe as they will. They are some of the most annoying people I've ever ran across with their jargon and insistence that I look after my soul their way.

Ask a Muslim about some of their run-ins with me here - yet I support THEIR right to believe a they will, too. Haven't had a chance to cross words with a Jew here, but I have definite problems with Judaism as well.

Nope, trying to make it personal just doesn't work - you have no concept of my God. I deny your thesis on the basis of it being nonsensical and "putting words into the mouths" of those religions that are not there. It has nothing to do with a god - gods can defend themselves.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


This is pretty inflammatory, and would probably fall into the same line of thought which I have previously stated i.e.: hatred of a sect of people who separated themselves intentionally from normal society. Any society that does this generally has outlandish claims laid upon them(Leo Taxil anyone, probably hits close to home considering this thread).

Also, regarding your link: As far as the "forgery" that is claimed, it is generally understood that this is false. Despite finding the one or two people who seem to think the big bad money loving christians of the day snuck in and changed the wording, the facts are this did not happen. Once again, any cursory examination of the topic would have shown you this. Also, I can find many things on the internet to support the world is filled with shape shifting lizard men just waiting to eat our children. That does not make it true. This is just one of many writings of the time referencing Jesus/Yeshua as a real person. This is overwhelmingly excepted by everyone who ever decided to look into these things. He existed. He was a man. Therefore ipso facto, is not some sun creation meant to trick the lay people. In fact, Yeshua himself said he hated the way of the Nicolation. If you break down the word, it basically refers to conqueror of the layman. If you would be so kind, maybe look at this:
www.biblestudy.org...

It describes clearly what you are referring to; the perversion of the meaning and intent to serve ones own purposes. It Still Goes On Today.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   

nenothtu

A circle is only 360 degrees, and has been for ages, not 360. A "cusp", by it's nature, is not one or the other. It's just as legitimate to subtract the value as it is to add it, since it's not one or the other. Furthermore, no one can agree on the size to be added or subtracted. What you have done is picked a value to support your thesis, then had fun with math to get 'er done.



I underlined what I am correcting. You meant, I am certain, to say a circle is 360 degrees, not 396 degrees.


I didn't want to let this sit til you woke up!






Sorry for asking you off the computer before you proof read! My bad....

edit on 10-2-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by pleasethink
 


You have missed my point. I was in NO way trying to slander Christians today. I am questioning "Who invented Christianity?"

Historically, the term "christian" was used before, during and after the advent of Jesus the Nazarene, if he existed. The term Christian was a pagan reference that the early followers of Jesus, and yea, even Jesus himself would NEVER had accepted. Even the 3 times that the term "Christian" is mentioned in the NT, it's in a insulting and slanderous way.

The Serapis cult people of Egypt, and beyond, were known as to be extreme fanatics, and reveled in all kinds of debauchery.


Simply put, Serapis (Sarapis, Zaparrus) was an invented god. He was a composite of several Egyptian and Hellenistic deities who was introduced to the world at the beginning of the Ptolemaic (Greek) Period in Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy I, though his legacy lasted well into the Roman period. Thus, he was meant to form a bridge between the Greek and Egyptian religion in a new age in which their respective gods were bought face to face with each other, so that both Egyptians and Greeks could find union in a specific supreme entity.

Read more: www.touregypt.net...


"Christ" is a greek word meaning "anointed" or "messiah", (often confused with ""Chrestus" meaning "good", as in Jesus Chrestus = Jesus the Good.)

Serapis was the Greek/Egyptian "Christ" figure in that long lasting and expansive cult. There is no getting around that.

Do you really think that Jesus the Nazarene would accept or try to usurp a pagan title that was given to a "false" god? I don't.




edit on 10-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



It can be conceptualized anyway you like - whether the "forces" are "entities" or just "actions of people" is immaterial - the results are the same, and generally manifest in the same way - through human activity.

Ah, I see.

Okay, I can agree with that. Yes, human activity does indicate 'nefarious' impulses/motives.

I'm very conflicted on all of this right now...
I guess my life has been pretty 'easy' compared to some people's; but I, too, have made huge mistakes that I regret.

I'm becoming as confused as Charles1952 now!!
Guess I made my bed, though - so, I'll have to lie in it.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 






Okay. So we now have a single source from a single religion that admittedly formed at the same time as Christianity and counter to it, making that connection, yet against all the Christian sources. How does that apply to the formation of Christianity again?



Gnosticism existed long before the advent of Jesus. It was NOT created as a counter to it. On the contrary, it the other way around. Christianity was created to counter gnosticism.


John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God.…


Where does that come from? I'll let Plutarch explain it to ya!

THE PROPER REASON ACCORDING TO PLUTARCH


LIII. 1. For Isis is the feminine [principle] of Nature and that which is capable of receiving the whole of genesis; in virtue of which she has been called “Nurse” and “All-receiving” by Plato, 1 and, by the multitude, “She of ten-thousand names,” through her being transformed by Reason (Logos) and receiving all forms and ideas [or shapes].

2. And she hath an innate love of the First and Most Holy of all things (which is identical with the Good), and longs after and pursues it. But she flees from and repels the domain of the Bad, and though she is the field and matter of them both, yet doth she ever incline to the Better of herself, and offers [herself] for him to beget and sow into herself emanations and likenesses, with which she joys and delights that she is pregnant and big with their generations.

3. For Generation is image of Essence in Matter and Becoming copy of Being.

LIV. 1. Hence not unreasonably do they say in the myth that [while] the Soul of Osiris is eternal and indestructible, Typhon often tears his Body in pieces and makes it disappear, and that Isis seeks it wandering and puts it together again.

2. For the Real and Conceivable-by-the-mind-alone and Good is superior to destruction and change; but the images which the sensible and corporeal imitates

p. 334

from it, and the reasons (logoi) and forms and likenesses which it receives, just as seal-impressions in wax, do not last for ever, but are seized upon by the disorderly and turbulent [elements], expelled hither from the field above, and fighting against the Horus whom Isis brings forth as the sensible image of that cosmos which mind alone can conceive.

3. Wherefore also [Horus] is said to have a charge of bastardy brought against him by Typhon—of not being pure and unalloyed like his sire, Reason (Logos), itself by itself, unmixed and impassible, but bastardized with matter on account of the corporeal [element]. 1

4. Nevertheless, Horus gets the best of it and wins, through Hermes—that is, the Reason (Logos) 2—bearing witness and showing that Nature reflects the [true] Cosmos by changing her forms according to That-which-mind-alone-can-conceive. 3

5. For the genesis of Apollo 4 from Isis and Osiris 5 that took place while the Gods were still in the womb of Rhea, is an enigmatical way of stating that before this [sensible] cosmos became manifest, and Matter was perfected by Reason (Logos), Nature, proving herself imperfect, of herself brought forth her first birth.

6. Wherefore also they say that that God was lame 6 in the dark, and call him Elder Horus; for he was not cosmos, but a sort of image and phantasm of the world which was to be. 7

p. 335

LV. 1. But this Horus [of ours] is their Son, 1 horizoned 2 and perfect, who has not destroyed Typhon utterly, but has brought over to his side his efficacy and strength; hence they say it is that the statue of Horus at Coptos grasps in one hand Typhon’s virilia.

2. Moreover, they have a myth that Hermes cut out the sinews of Typhon and used them for lyre strings,—[thus] teaching [us] how Reason (Logos) brought the universe into harmony, and made it concordant out of discordant elements. He did not destroy the destructive power but lamed it.

3. Hence while weak and ineffective up there, down here, by being blinded and interwoven with the passible and changeable elements, it is cause of shakings and tremors in earth, of droughts and tempests in air, and again of lightnings and thunderings.

4. Moreover, it infects waters and winds with pestilences, and shoots up and rears itself as far as the moon, frequently blurring and blackening its light, as Egyptians think.

p. 336

5. And they say that Typhon at one time strikes the Eye of Horus, and at another takes it out and swallows it. By “striking” they refer enigmatically to the monthly diminution of the moon, and by “blinding” to its eclipse, which the sun remedies by immediately shining on it after it has passed out of the shadow of the earth. 1

LVI. 1. Now the better and diviner Nature is from these:—[to wit] the Intelligible and Matter, and that from them which Greeks call Cosmos.

2. Plato, 2 indeed, was wont to call the Intelligible Idea and Model and Father; and Matter Mother and Nurse—both place and ground of Genesis; and the offspring of both Genesis.

3. And one might conjecture that Egyptians [also revered 3] the fairest of the triangles, likening the nature of the universe especially to this; for Plato also, in his Republic, 4 seems to have made additional use of this in drawing up his marriage scheme. 5

4. And this triangle has its perpendicular [side] of “three,” its base of “four,” and its hypotenuse of “five”; its square being equal to the [sum of the] squares on the containing sides. 6

5. We must, accordingly, compare its perpendicular to male, its base to female, and its hypotenuse to the offspring of both; and [conjecture] Osiris as source, Isis as receptacle, and Horus as result.

p. 337

6. For the “three” is the first “odd” 1 and perfect; 2 while the “four” [is] square from side “even” two; 3 and the “five” resembles partly its father and partly its mother, being composed of “three” and “two.”

7. And panta [all] is only a slight variant of pente [five]; and they call counting pempasasthai [reckoning by fives].

8. And five makes a square equal to the number of letters among Egyptians, 4 and a period of as many years as the Apis lives.

9. Thus they usually call Horus also Min 5—that is, “being seen”; for cosmos is a sensible and see-able thing.

10. And Isis is sometimes called Muth, 6 and again Athyri 7 and Methyer. And by the first of the names they mean “Mother”; by the second, “Cosmic House” of Horus,—as also Plato [calls her] “Ground of Genesis” and “She who receives”; and the third is compounded from “Full” and “Cause,”—for Matter is full of

p. 338

[paragraph continues] Cosmos, and consorts with the Good and Pure and Ordered.

LVII. 1. And Hesiod 1 also, when he makes all the first [elements to be] Chaos and Earth and Tartarus and Love, might be thought to assume no other principles than these,—if at anyrate in substituting the names we assign to Isis that of Earth, to Osiris that of Love, and to Typhon that of Tartarus; for his Chaos seems to be subsumed as ground and place of the universe.

2. Our data also in a way invite as witness Plato’s myth which Socrates details in the Symposium 2 about the Birth of Love,—telling [us how] that Poverty wanting children lay down by the side of sleeping Means, and conceiving by him brought forth Love of a mixed nature and capable of assuming every shape, in as much, indeed, as he is the offspring of a good and wise father and one sufficient for all, but of an incapable mother and one without means, 3 who on account of her need is ever clinging to some one else and importuning some one else. 4

3. For his Means is no other than the First Beloved and Desirable and Perfect and Sufficient; and he calls Matter Poverty,—who is herself of herself deficient of the Good, but is ever being filled by Him and longing for and sharing in [Him].

4. And the Cosmos, that is Horus, is born from these; and Horus, though neither eternal nor impassible nor indestructible, but ever-generable, continues by means of the changes and periods of his passions to remain ever young and ever to escape destruction.

LVIII. 1. Now, we should make use of the myths not

p. 339

as though they were altogether sacred sermons (logoi), but taking the serviceable [element] of each according to its similitude [to reason].

2. When, then, we say Matter, we should not be swept into the opinions of some philosophers, and suppose some body or other of itself soul-less and quality-less, and inert and inefficient; for we call oil the “matter” of a perfume, [and] gold that of a statue, though they are not destitute of every quality.

3. [Nay,] we submit the soul itself and [even] the thought of man as the “matter” of knowledge and virtue to the reason (logos) to order and bring into rhythm.

4. Moreover, some have declared the mind [to be] “region of ideas,” and, as it were, the “impressionable substance 1 of the intelligibles.”

5. And some think that the substance of the woman 2 is neither power nor source, but matter and nutriment of birth.

6. If, then, we attach ourselves to these, we ought thus also to think of this Goddess as having eternally her share in the First God, and consorting [with Him] for love of the goodness and beauty that surround Him, never opposed to Him, but, just as we say that a lawful and righteous husband loves [his wife] righteously, and a good wife though she has her husband and consorts with him, still desires [him], so [should we] think of Her as clinging to Him, and importuning Him, 3 though [ever] filled full with His supremest and purest parts.

LIX. 1. But where Typhon steals in, laying hold of the last [parts, we should think of Her as] then seeming to wear a melancholy countenance, and being said to

p. 340

mourn, and to be seeking after certain relics and fragments of Osiris, and enfolding them in her robes, receiving them when destroyed into herself, and hiding them away, just as She also produces them again when they are born, and sends them forth from herself.

2. For while the reasons (logoi) and ideas and emanations of the God in heaven and stars remain [for ever], those that are disseminated into things passible—in earth and sea and plants and animals—being dissolved and destroyed and buried, come to light over and over again and reappear in their births.

3. For which cause the myth says that Typhon lived with Nephthys, but that Osiris had knowledge of her secretly.

4. For the last parts of Matter, which they call Nephthys and End, are mainly in possession of the destructive power; nevertheless the Generative and Saving One distributes into them weak and faint seed which is destroyed by Typhon, except so much as Isis by adoption saves and nourishes and compacts together.

LX. 1. But He is on the whole the Better one, as both Plato and Aristotle suppose; and the generative and moving [power] of Nature moves to Him and towards being, while the annihilating and destructive [moves] from Him and towards non-being.

2. Wherefore they derive the name Isis from hastening (ἵεσθαι) and coursing with knowledge, since she is ensouled and prudent motion.

3. For her name is not foreign; 1 but just as all the Gods have a common name from two elements—“that which can be seen” and “that which runs” 2—so we

p. 341

call this Goddess “Isis” from “knowledge,” 1 and Egyptians [also] call her Isis. 2

4. And thus Plato also says the ancients signified the “Holy 3 [Lady]” by calling her “Isia,”—and so also “Mental Perception” and “Prudence,” in as much as she is [the very] course and motion of Mind hastening 4 and coursing, and that they placed Understanding—in short, the Good and Virtue—in things that flow 5 and run.

5. Just as [he says] again, the Bad is railed at with corresponding names, when they call that which hinders nature and binds it up and holds it and prevents it from hastening and going, “badness,” 6 “difficulty,” 7 “cowardice” 8 [and] “distress.”

LXI. 1. And Osiris has had his name from a combination of ὅσιος (holy) and ἱερός (sacred); for there is a common Reason (Logos) of things in Heaven and of things in Hades,—the former of which the ancients were accustomed to call sacred, and the latter holy.

2. And the Reason that [both] brings [down] to light the heavenly things and is [also] of things that are

p. 342

mounting upwards, 1 is called Anubis, and sometimes also Hermanubis, 2 belonging in his former capacity to things above and in his latter to things below [them].

3. Wherefore also they offer him in his former capacity a white cock, 3 and in his latter a saffron-coloured one,—thinking that the former things are pure and the latter mixed and manifold.

4. Nor ought we to be surprised at the manipulation of the names back into Greek. 4 For tens of thousands of others that disappeared with those who emigrated from Greece, continue unto this day and sojourn with foreigners; for recalling some of which they blame the poets’ art as “barbarising,”—I mean those who call such words “glosses.” 5

5. Further, they relate that in what are called the “Books of Hermes,” it is written that they call the Power that rules the ordained revolution of the Sun, Horus, while the Greeks [call it] Apollo; and the Power that rules the Breath [or Spirit], some [call] Osiris, others Sarapis, and others Sōthis in Egyptian.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by nenothtu
 


In what way have I moved the goalposts? Me pointing out another correlation to Christianity and astrology does not mean I'm moving the goalposts.

I don't recall ever saying I saw Virgo in a furrow or any of those other things. It would help if you stopped inserting your own illogical argument into mine. I know logic is hard to grasp for an illogical mind, but you'll get the hang of it eventually.



You cite Babylonian astrology, yet use a constellation not found in it. There is no Virgo in Babylonian astrology. There is a "Furrow" constellation roughly correspondent with that area. A "Furrow" is not a "Woman", and a "Woman" is not necessarily a "Virgin".




You're not sure how Rome factors into Christianity? How about them slaughtering Christians then forming the Catholic church on top of their corpses? Yeah, Rome played a huge part in Christianity's formation, the biggest actually. I'd hope you'd know that by now.



Assuming your assertion is correct for the sake of argument, how is "slaughtering" adherents of a religion, then replacing it with another, "formation" of that slaughtered religion? Wouldn't it already have to be formed to be slaughtered?




The time period of the 4th century and before. You know, since this thread is about what Christianity is based upon, that means what came before Christianity and preferably in the same area.

Stick to the 4th century and earlier and within the same area, that would be amazing if you could do that instead of claiming Rome stole something from a culture that didn't even exist yet.



How long before? only to 5200 BC? Which area? the area Christianity formed in, or should we widen it a bit so as to be able to include cultures that you believe support your thesis, but not wide enough to include those that you think won't?




Gnosticism served as a leverage for the Catholic church, they used it as an "opposing" force and labeled it as heretical to the "true" teachings of the Catholic church. Instead of the Catholics perverting Gnostic teachings, Catholics claimed that Gnostic perverted their teachings. The former is actually the truth, you attain "salvation" through attainment of knowledge and understanding, not believing in a scapegoat sacrifice that has no real world evidence to support it.



That may be YOUR truth, and you are welcome to it. Out of curiosity, why would you adhere to a religion that you say was "perverted by the Catholic Church merely for the sake of having an opponent"? Would that not make it "formed by Rome" as well?

I don't adhere to Gnosis because of what I have been reading in Gnostic writings. It's pulling yourself up to Heaven by your own bootstraps. I don't believe you can lift yourself by your own bootstraps any more than I believe Jesus could have raised himself from the dead. That doesn't mean that I don't support your right to be as Gnostic as you like - I'm only curious as to the why, if you believe it to have been an invention of Rome.




Except for what's in the gospels and Revelation then sure I guess you could say they chose poorly.



No, it's because of what IS in the bible, and perhaps more importantly what ISN'T, that I say that. It's pretty harsh to crate religious tenets that outlaw your own religion, and then utterly fail to support it. That's hard core.




Yes, Gnosticism, you pointed that out already. You seem to be under the impression that this post was directed toward you when it wasn't. I never claimed you said they did or that you're Catholic, in fact you've already stated that numerous times already, so why are you implying that I did? I think you're seeing ghosts.


Nor did I imply that you said I'm Catholic. I think we've already pretty well established that I'm not. I said that there are writings that predate Catholicism, and even Rome, which support my thesis, and that those writings do not have the same form as Catholicism - they don't include the same rituals, observances and tenets, they don't arrive at the same conclusions. If I believed Catholicism were correct, I'd be a Catholic - but I'm not, and I don't.

There are other early writings, even Christian writings, that are not Gnostic, and are decidedly not Catholic - although the Catholics do appear to have attempted to appropriate them and spin them into Catholicism - sort of in the same way that you are attempting to spin Christianity into Astrology.

Anything can mean anything when you get to decide what it means, and read things into the texts that aren't there to support you thesis, rejecting things that ARE there that deny it.

The Catholics did it, and you do it. Same same.

At least they claimed "traditions" support their thesis when the writings don't - you have to reach into ancient Babylon to support yours, an entirely different culture, and the reformat their constellations to conform to what you want to see..




edit on 2014/2/10 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yet you still associate your god with the Abrahamic god in some way, otherwise there wouldn't even be a "perhaps" in the equation.



I might associate it with An or Vishnu or Wishemoneto. The point is, you don't really know who or what I associate it with, and so the point is moot - my religion doesn't enter the discussion, no matter how badly you wish it did. It's not personal to me.




How is it any more illogical than a man rising from the dead after 3 days of rotting in a cave? How is it any more illogical than thst same man floating into the sky never to be seen again? How is it more illogical than a virgin giving birth to a baby? You do realize a man is required in that process right?



You ask me to support Catholic dogma, the very thing you are attempting to support?

How cute.

Just because I refute yours doesn't mean that I support your interpretation of theirs.




You seem to be turning a blind eye to the sheer illogic of the proposition of the biblical Jesus and how he is represented. You seem to have no problem with the sheer illogical propositions set forth by the bible. Why is that? Oh yeah, you associate your god with the Abrahamic one.



The biblical Jesus is not the topic of discussion - your reformation of him to conform to your thesis is.




There was nothing to clear up, I never said that astronomy was astrology. You're seeing ghosts again.



You have no concept of how close you are there.




If the block is circular then it'll fit in a circular hole. Revelation is the circular block, Virgo is the circular hole. I've put my case forward, you are the one seeing it as a square block when it isn't. It's pretty obvious to anyone without an inclination toward the Abrahamic god such as yourself.



Freud would have a field day with that. I'll let it slide, though. You can keep trying to slap me upside the head with an Abrahamic god all day long, to no effect. I'm not defending an Abrahamic god just because I am refuting your thesis. It's not personal to me, and a god can look after itself.




When did I ever say a man who taught Jesus' message never existed? The Bible's portrayal of that man is what is in question, not the existence of the message and therefore the man. My point is Rome got a hold of this message and then molded the identity and story of the speaker into astrology.



The bible's portrayal is not in question in this thread - the Roman portrayal is. The entire point of the exercise states that the man was "created by Rome based upon astrology", which makes the biblical portrayal a side-issue at best, because it cannot admit even to such an existence. Something or someone cannot have existed at one point if it was "created" centuries later.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Have fun with that, I'm tired of going back and forth, I'd rather save my breath because obviously neither one of us is going to change our minds so it's pointless. If you were looking for a war of attrition then you just won it. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over.

Thanks for the debate, I enjoyed it while it was actually interesting but it grew stale a couple of pages ago. I respect your opinion but I still think you're wrong. Good day!



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


A section of this post towards the bottom got mucked up when I had a power flicker and the computer went dark. I only noticed it in review this morning. Here it is, fixed:


3NL1GHT3N3D1

What I'm saying is that those in power, no matter the time period, orchestrate events around astrology and set them up in a way that makes them correlate with astrology. It has always happened and always will, that's how they work.



Ummm... okaaaay... is this my cue to roll my eyes?




I don't think I ever said the towers looked like fish, where are you getting this stuff from? Are you sure you're in the right thread?



You equated the event with the Age of Pisces. What was "Fish like" about the twin towers? There must be a logical connection to fish - review the whole "fisher of men because of the age of Pisces" argument you made.

Sorry about the glitch. Stuff happens. Maybe the gods are angry with me. Maybe it was foretold in the zodiac and I ignored it because I don't do prophecy. I dunno, it just zapped out when the power blinked.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

OpinionatedB

nenothtu

A circle is only 360 degrees, and has been for ages, not 360. A "cusp", by it's nature, is not one or the other. It's just as legitimate to subtract the value as it is to add it, since it's not one or the other. Furthermore, no one can agree on the size to be added or subtracted. What you have done is picked a value to support your thesis, then had fun with math to get 'er done.



I underlined what I am correcting. You meant, I am certain, to say a circle is 360 degrees, not 396 degrees.


I didn't want to let this sit til you woke up!






Sorry for asking you off the computer before you proof read! My bad....

edit on 10-2-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


Eh, I shouldn't be posting in my sleep anyhow. That's the 3rd muckup I've found. One I corrected with a subsequent corrected post, and one (of a vast expanse of italics) I didn't. This stuff is so off in the dark that even a sleeping man can see through it - but he sometimes doesn't get his fingers right on the keyboard in the wee hours of the night.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

windword

Historically, the term "christian" was used before, during and after the advent of Jesus the Nazarene, if he existed. The term Christian was a pagan reference that the early followers of Jesus, and yea, even Jesus himself would NEVER had accepted. Even the 3 times that the term "Christian" is mentioned in the NT, it's in a insulting and slanderous way.



How odd that I agree with the spirit of your thought here, if not the letter. Those calling themselves "Christians" these days, for the most part, seem to have lost the plot of what their own claimed master was teaching in the bible, and go off into all manner of oddities and unbiblical practices.

Of course, they are not the only ones claiming that the bible says something it doesn't...



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Those calling themselves "Christians" these days, for the most part, seem to have lost the plot of what their own claimed master was teaching in the bible, and go off into all manner of oddities and unbiblical practices.


These days???? Have you looked into the history of the Catholic Church? The Protestant/Catholic wars?????



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Gnosticism existed long before the advent of Jesus. It was NOT created as a counter to it. On the contrary, it the other way around. Christianity was created to counter gnosticism.



I know nearly nothing of Gnosticism, but I'm trying to catch up. If it predates Christianity, then I suppose we can agree they are not the same religion. How is it that Jesus figures so prominently in a religion that came before him?

The quote from Plutarch was difficult to muddle through, but it appears to be a mishmash of Egyptian deities and thought and Hellenistic ones, an attempt to draw correlations between the two where none exist.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong.






edit on 2014/2/10 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Have fun with that, I'm tired of going back and forth, I'd rather save my breath because obviously neither one of us is going to change our minds so it's pointless. If you were looking for a war of attrition then you just won it. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over.

Thanks for the debate, I enjoyed it while it was actually interesting but it grew stale a couple of pages ago. I respect your opinion but I still think you're wrong. Good day!


Yeah, I've got a pretty full week ahead, and so can't devote the time I did last week, either. I have to go earn my daily bread in just a few minutes, and the fun begins for the week.

You're not alone - the mega posts were wearing on me as well.

Thank you for the debate too. It was fun, really, and we keep our wits sharpened by sparring with others, same as we do the body. Thank you for that opportunity. I respect your opinion as well, and whether it is right or wrong is a matter for you to take up with your deitie(s) in the due course of time, not for me to determine.

Have a good 'un!



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





The quote from Plutarch was difficult to muddle through, but it appears to be a mishmash of Egyptian deities and thought and Hellenistic ones, an attempt to draw correlations between the two where none exist.


Are you criticizing Plutarch's logic? Admittedly, you know nothing of this philosophical viewpoint, yet you mock him in the same vein as any old ATS poster that you either disagree with, or fail to understand? Arrogant much?

Simply put, Johns "Logos" in the Christian Bible is a dumbed down version Platonic Gnosis and Egyptian Therapeutic Gnosis as explained in Plutarch's Logos (Reasoning).

Platonic Gnosis and Egyptian Therapeutic Gnosis are the basic ingredients of the ancient Serapis cult. Christianity countered Serapis using the same ingredients with different names. Both "cults" were contrived inventions meant to unite the masses in a "UNIVERSAL" agreement of a supreme being.

Immediately after the Council of Niceae, Christians mobs set out and destroyed all 24(?) Serapis Temples, and the religion was outlawed by decree of the Emperor. Competition defeated!



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join