Ray Hagins PhD - The Council That Created Jesus Christ (lecture)

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I just found this video of a lecture by Mr Ray Hagins PhD discussing the creation of Jesus and pointing out historical references that imply he was a fictional deity created by a group of people in order to control them through religious beliefs.




Before people start throwing stones at me For putting this out there, keep I'm mind that I'm not the man on the video.
I'm only sharing something I think some people on this site may find interesting wether they believe in the information/theories that is presented or not.

Please try not to make this into racial thing, it's about history, religion and the almighty Jesus Christ!
edit on 2/25/2014 by semperfortis because: Fixed Embedded Video




posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Not only are you not the man on the video, there is no man on the video. Maybe a mod can help you get it imbedded.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
To the OP: When the group sat around and created Jesus to control the masses, did they write the books as well?
edit on 24-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Is this the video you are trying to post?



+3 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Eniii
 


What is this guy's PhD in? 'Cause it sure isn't history, lol.

There is a reason that the existence of a person in the First Century named Jesus who began a new sect of Judaism, call Christianity, is almost universally accepted --and that is because there is something called historical evidence.

You can start with the Surviving Documents from the Council of Nicaea and work your way back from there.

ETA: Oh, here he is: Black Liberation Network


(Dr. Hagins) holds a doctorate (C.C.D.) in counseling and a Ph.D. with an emphasis in Cognitive Psychology

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer my history from historians, not counselors.

ETA2: Okay, I can get past him not knowing how to pronounce Ptolomy and for not knowing what the Greek word "Christus" means, but the "Son/Sun" argument? THE BIBLE WASN'T WRITTEN IN ENGLISH, YOU IDIOT!!!

lol

edit on 24-2-2014 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
You should perhaps read some of these academic translations of the First Council of Nicea. I have read the transcripts and it looks suspect, basically the early Roman Church making decisions about absorbing the non Christian traditions of places like Egypt. METROPOLITAN means non Christian in this text and PATRIARCH refers to Papal authority.

www.fordham.edu...


ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI.

The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya,
and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome.
So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under
them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan,
let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by
the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of
no force.

Many, probably most, commentators have considered this the most
important and most interesting of all the Nicene canons, and a whole
library of works has been written upon it, some of the works asserting
and some denying what are commonly called the Papal claims. If any
one wishes to see a list of the most famous of these works he will find
it in Phillips's Kirchenrecht (Bd. ii. S. 35). I shall reserve what I have
to say upon this subject to the notes on a canon which seems really to
deal with it, confining myself here to an elucidation of the words found
in the canon before us.

HAMMOND, W. A.
The object and intention of this canon seems clearly to have been, not
to introduce any new powers or regulations into the Church, but to
confirm and establish ancient customs already existing. This, indeed,
is evident from the very first words of it: "Let the ancient customs be
maintained." It appears to have been made with particular reference to
the case of the Church of Alexandria, which had been troubled by the
irregular proceedings of Miletius, and to confirm the ancient privileges
of that see which he had invaded. The latter part of it, however, applies
to all Metropolitans, and confirms all their ancient privileges.

FFOULKES.
(Dict. Christ. Antiq. voce Council of Nicaea).
The first half of the canon enacts merely that what had long been
customary with respect to such persons in every province should
become law, beginning with the province where this principle had
been infringed; while the second half declares what was in future to be
received as law on two points which custom had not as yet expressly
ruled. ... Nobody disputes the meaning of this last half; nor, in fact,
would the meaning of the first half have been questioned, had it not
included Rome. ... Nobody can maintain that the bishops of Antioch
and Alexandria were called patriarchs then, or that the jurisdiction
they had then was co-extensive with what they had afterward, when
they were so called. ... It is on this clause ["since the like is customary
for the Bishops of Rome also"] standing parenthetically between what
is decreed for the particular cases of Egypt and Antioch, and in
consequence of the interpretation given to it by Rufinus, more
particularly, that so much strife has been raised. Rufinus may rank low
as a translator, yet, being a native of Aquileia, he cannot have been
ignorant of Roman ways, nor, on the other hand, had he greatly
misrepresented them, would his version have waited till the
seventeenth century to be impeached.

HEFELE.
The sense of the first words of the canon is as follows: "This ancient
right is assigned to the Bishop of Alexandria which places under his
jurisdiction the whole diocese of Egypt." It is without any reason, then,
that the French Protestant Salmasius (Saumaise), the Anglican
Beveridge, and the Gallican Launoy, try to show that the Council of
Nice granted to the Bishop of Alexandria only the rights of ordinary
metropolitans.

BISHOP STILLINGFLEET.
I do confess there was something peculiar in the case of the Bishop of
Alexandria, for all the provinces of Egypt were under his immediate
care, which was Patriarchal as to extent, but Metropolical in the
administration.

[16]

JUSTELLUS.
This authority (exousia) is that of a Metropolitan
which the Nicene Fathers decreed to be his due over the three
provinces named in this canon, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, which
made up the whole diocese of Egypt, as well in matters civil as
ecclesiastical.

On this important question Hefele refers to the dissertation of Dupin,
in his work De Antiqua Ecclesoe Disciplina. Hefele says: "It seems to
me beyond a doubt that in this canon there is a question about that
which was afterward calm the patriarchate of the Bishop of
Alexandria; that is to say that he had a certain recognized
ecclesiastical authority, not only over several civil provinces, but also
over several ecclesiastical provinces (which had their own
metropolitans);" and further on (p. 392) he adds: "It is incontestable
that the civil provinces of Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis and Thebais, which
were all in subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria, were also
ecclesiastical provinces with their own metropolitans; and
consequently it is not the ordinary fights of metropolitans that the
Sixth Canon of Nice confers on the Bishop of Alexandria, but the
rights of a superior Metropolitan, that is, of a Patriarch."

There only remains to see what were the bounds of the jurisdiction of
the Bishop of Antioch. The civil diocese of Oriens is shown by the
Second Canon of Constantinople to be conterminous with what was
afterward called the Patriarchate of Antioch. The see of Antioch had,
as we know, several metropolitans subject to it, among them Caesarea,
under whose jurisdiction was Palestine. Justellus, however, is of
opinion that Pope Innocent I. was in error when he asserted that all the
Metropolitans of Oriens were to be ordained by him by any peculiar
authority, and goes so far as to stigmatize his words as "contrary to the
mind of the Nicene Synod."(1)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


Those are your "transcripts"?

You're quoting a book, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, by Phillip Schaff, which can be found here. The bit that you copied and pasted came from here.

To the OP: having listened to the whole lecture, I can honestly say that I feel dumber for having done so. That guy's arguments are SO far off base that it is truly laughable. Arius never denied the existence of Jesus -- the Council was ABOUT Jesus, so it is beyond idiotic to say that he didn't exist before the Council -- what Arius said was that Jesus was a creation of God, that there was once a time that Jesus did not exist, making the Son "less" than the Father. That's what all the "begotten, not made" stuff in the Nicene Creed was about.

Beyond that, it seems like a bunch of racist rantings against mainstream Christianity, in favour of whatever religion this guy claims to be.

edit on 24-2-2014 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Whats the only full anagram for JESUS CHRIST?
RICH JEST US
I figure its a case of controlled opposition
sandf

and historical evidence
if there was any there wouldn't be anything but christians
mainsteam ..?there is thirty three thousan kinds of christianity all claiming to be the one true faith..

while argueing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
say, why are ANgels named after a different god?
edit on 24-2-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Learn to READ before making presumptions.

Does it say TRANSCRIPTS on the link?

Here is how I described the text I just posted:




You should perhaps read some of these academic translations of the First Council of Nicea


I said ''I HAVE READ THE TRANSCRIPTS'' those are obviously not the transcripts.

As for the rest of your post, like I said in another thread, I won't answer your questions due to your lack of being able to read things that I have written without throwing back false accusations and demands based on your false accusations. I won't even read the rest of the post you just wrote. Stop wasting my time.
edit on 24-2-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



Whats the only full anagram for JESUS CHRIST?

Once again, I need to ask… do you think that the Bible was written in English?

Jesus comes from the Latin Jesu, which came from the Greek Iēsous, which came from the Hebrew Yeshua, the actual name of Jesus.

Christ comes from the Greek Christus, which means "anointed", and is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah" -- it is a title, not a name.

So, what's the full anagram for Yeshua Messiah, then?



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 



Here is how I described the text I just posted:

You should perhaps read some of these academic translations of the First Council of Nicea

What you should have posted is "you should read this page of footnotes from some guy's book."

I already posted a link to the surviving documents of the Council of Nicaea earlier in this thread -- anyone who wants to read them can, they don't need to wade through other peoples' opinions of what the texts say.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The text I posted is from Fordham University and is ACADEMIC research based on the transcripts that I have read.

www.fordham.edu...


CHURCH COUNCILS

For texts in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, see below


NOTE: The texts at this site here are public domain English translations from the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers series for the first Seven ecumenical councils and from H.J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937) [US Copyright expired - confirmed by TAN books, current owner of B. Herder's list]. These are not necessarily the best available sources for the various council texts, although they are quite serviceable, and the notes in the NPNF series are very useful. More recent editions and translations should be consulted for serious academic publication purposes. I have prepared a Guide to Documentary Sources for Catholic Teaching which lists, in some detail, what I take to be the current standard editions.

See also Ecumenical Councils - a useful, if denominationally partisan, article from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

First Ecumenical: Nicea I. 325. Canons and commentary on the First Council of Nicea from Volume XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Homoousion
Second Ecumenical: Constantinople I, 381. Canons and commentary on the First Council of Constantinople from Volume XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: First Council of Constantinople
Third Ecumenical: Ephesus, 431. Canons and commentary on the Council of Ephesus from Volume XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Council of Ephesus

NOTE: Only the first three councils would be accepted as ecumenical by the so-called "monophysite" churches, e.g. the Coptic and Armenian Orthodox Churches.
Fourth Ecumenical: Chalcedon, 451. Canons and commentary on the Council of Chalcedon from Volume XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers.
Council of Orange 529, or Version [At EWTN]
Fifth Ecumenical: Constantinople II, 553. canons and commentary on the Second Council of Constantinople from Volume XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers or text of canons alone. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Second Council of Constantinople
Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III, 680-681. Canons and commentary on the Second Council of Constantinople from Volume XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Third Council of Constantinople
The Quinisext Council: or Council in Trullo, 692. Canons and commentary on the Council in Trullo from Volume XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Council in Trullo
Seventh Ecumenical: Nicea II, 787. Canons and commentary on the Second Council of Nicea from Volume XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Nicaea, Second Council of

NOTE: The following councils, although some of them had the support and participation of Orthodox bishops at the time [e.g. Constantinople IV, Lyons II, Florence] are generally not regarded as "ecumenical" by Eastern Orthodox or Anglican churches.
Eighth Ecumenical: Constantinople IV, 869-870. Canons from Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Fourth Council of Constantinople
Ninth Ecumenical: Council: Lateran I, 1123. Canons from Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Lateran Council, First
Tenth Ecumenical: Council: Lateran II, 1139. Canons from Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Lateran Council, Second
Catholic Encyclopedia: Lateran Council, Third
Twelfth Ecumenical: Lateran IV, 1215. Canons from Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Lateran Council, Fourth
Council of Trent, 1545-63. [at Hanover College - public domain]
There are also online etexts of council decrees from Norman Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London: Sheed and Ward; Washington. D.C: Georgetown University Press. 1990).

I have made these off-site links (at www.ewtn.com...) available, but note that there is no indication that copy permission has been obtained. EWTN is a very conservative Catholic web site, but it does have a lot of files [over 9000].

Council of Nicaea I : 325 A.D., with Catholic Encyclopedia article
Council of Constantinople I : 381 A.D.
Council of Ephesus : 431 A.D.
Council of Chalcedon : 451 A.D.
Council of Constantinople II : 553 AD
Council of Constantinople III : 680-681 A.D.
Council of Nicaea II : 787 A.D. , - with Catholic Encylopedia article
Cf. Nicea II 753 (Iconcolast Synod)
Council of Constantinople IV : 869-870 A.D.
Lateran Council I : 1123 A.D.
Lateran Council II : 1139 A.D.
Lateran Council III : 1179 A.D.
Lateran Council IV : 1215 A.D.
Council of Lyons 1 : 1245 A.D.
Council of Lyons 2 : 1274 A.D.
Council of Vienne : 1311-12 A.D.
Council of Constance 1414-18 A.D.
Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence : 1431-1435 A.D. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Council of Basel
Lateran Council V : 1512-17 A.D. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Fifth Lateran Council
Council of Trent : 1545-63 A.D. [at Hanover College - this is public domain]. Also a Zipped version [At EWTN]
Vatican Council I : 1869 AD
Vatican Council 2: Index [Text version - at RCNET]
Vatican Council 2: Index [HTML versions - at EWTN]



Your link to some carefully worded catholic website is most likely fiction.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
First off I am not a believer of the standard way of thinking about religion.

That said, this guy is dangerous. He first of all is making a huge mistake by pretending that all that has been done has been done to keep the black man down. The concepts he references were meant to keep humanity down. Dangerous mischaracterization.

I could only watch 10 minutes of it because of the heavy amounts of indoctrination he is spraying on his audience. He is galvanizing their brainwashing by undermining their intelligences.

This guy reminds me of the old KKK members rise to power.

"I'm just saying I want you to feel proud when you wake up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror. That's all!"

He uses truth to disguise his hate.

Edit to add: iPad typing sooks.


AAC
edit on 24-2-2014 by AnAbsoluteCreation because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 



Your link to some carefully worded catholic website is most likely fiction.

lol.

You didn't even look at it.

The website is from the Wisconsin Lutheran College, not a "carefully worded catholic website".

Again, I'm encouraging people to read the original documents for themselves, not citing some 19th century footnotes on the subject.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

ADJ
jesus christ is spelt in english letters
do they look hebrew or aramaic or greek to you ?
LOL



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


I certainly agree that guy has an agenda, and yes he seems to be using the truth as a vehicle for his hatred.

That said, there is a lot to be learned about the true nature of Christianity and it's inception and creation from learning about the exact things discussed at the first Church meetings such as the First Council of Nicea and further meetings.

I read many of the transcripts when they were available from the Vatican's library online but have since not been so easily available and it was an eye opener for certain.

It is the truth that confirmed my suspicions.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


I also stated that I do not hold the same conventional beliefs about religion than most.

However, I refuse to discuss it online. There is never a victor. Both sides only consider points that support their own point of view and conveniently over look any direction they may become vulnerable in.

Spirit is a solo journey.

AAC



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



jesus christ is spelt in english letters

So, your theory is that someone in the First Century had a time machine and figured out that, hundreds of years after the fact, "Yeshua Messiah" would become "Jesus Christ" and fulfill your anagram claim?

When Jesus walked the Earth, the English language, that would eventually turn "Yeshua" into "Jesus", didn't even exist.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You're wasting your time



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I really can't understand why people try to debunk Jesus. I mean Jesus made it easier for people to reach transcendence - not harder. Nothing was asked of anyone that was more controlling than the Old Testament. It was all made more modern by Jesus - realizing that man just can't do it so let's make this easy - love each other, etc. If anything - Jesus was created to loosen the rules up a bit.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join