Who was Jesus talking to when he said...

Note: "(as recorded by contemporary Christians)"

I know that the stated stance against paganism had little to do with the actual behavior presented by the church regarding the adoption of non-christian rituals in order to swell the ranks with less resistance. I know of the altering of existing pagan rituals so that people could later claim that the rituals were, like, totally different 'n stuff.

Congratulations on being awesome, however, I have gone there. Why is Christmas celebrated on Dec 25? While you're at it, please provide us the Christian sources for the decoration of pine trees inside homes with lights and other trinkets.

No, I don't know that. If you could point out where the Mithra/Mithras connection falls apart, I'd be very interested. I do enjoy learning new things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The truth is always surrounded by lies. But every good lie is full of truth.
That's what makes it so deceiving. The trick is to discern the difference.

Much of what you said above is true. In part. God is typed with the sun, the source of all life.
Elohim means the "self existing one", yet the Elohim as attributes of this self existing one do qualify as gods.
The Bible uses many plurals for expression of Elohim. "We, our, us"...Why is this? Sons of God translates "Bene Elohim"
Jesus said of the prophets; "You called those to whom the word came gods, and they were". They were manifested attributes.
Who was Jesus speaking to? "My Father, my Father, why has thou forsaken me?" Jesus the man received this Spirit at 30 years old.
This also happened to be the age of a son's placement called "adoption" in the eastern cultures when a son takes over his fathers business.
It spoke out "This is my beloved son in whom I am pleased to dwell". Until this Spirit left him on the cross he could not die.
Now as for the topic of the last couple of pages, "how could other mother-child, virgin birth, saviour based religions have appeared centuries before Christ in places like Babylon, Rome, India and China, along with the worship of nature like the sun and the moon"?
I covered that here about two years ago....http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1987622&postcount=33
Moderators liked it so much they stamped it with a red letter warning. Check it out!

You have discovered Christianity is full of lies and false traditions. Any religion 2000 years old is bound to be.
The Nicene council of 325 combined Pagan and Christian beliefs and symbolism. Some great minds put a lot of thought into doing so.
So you can't just interpret all events back to "Old World" pagan religions and throw out the Christian truth that did exist before they mixed.
Or visa versa. It's not going to be that simple. This just takes you "out of the pot and into the fire".
There are elements of truth in all of the major religions. Sure there are.
The "Bible" was written in the stars long ago. The constellations of Virgo and Leo for example...
Jesus came first born of a virgin, and returns as the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

The meaning of "true" is not the the opposite of false. It means complete or whole as compared to partial.
We don't want to stop at just part of the truth do we? So keep looking... The truth is out there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I note that the substance of my post has been edited out. What, I wonder, is left?

"Argument lost -- start a fight". Hum. But since my post received no real reply, I think we are done.

To other readers of this forum: Please be aware that "river-wind" has been dishonest with you all. Unless you WANT to be deceived, you need to reevaluate stuff you may have accepted from that source.

You need to know that he has lied to you, about antiquity and about his own knowledge of it; about academia and his own familiarity with it. You cannot rely on what he says, however he says it. I advise you to check EVERYTHING he asserts.

One of the reasons I wander around the web is to prevent the drip-drip of material which is *factually* crap (I say nothing of opinion) into the hive mind. I just don't see how it does anyone any good; and since antiquity is my hobby, I know what I am talking about. Most people repost nonsense in good faith, of course; and everyone is entitled to be mistaken. But please be aware of those who do not. I never knew that such people existed, until -- as here -- I encountered them.

One further evil: I notice that in the thread he has bullied others with lies about "academic opinion" to get his way. That destroys honest discussion. Now bullying is a very nasty piece of behaviour. To do it in service to a lie, knowing that he is doing so... that makes him a pretty low form of life, in my humble opinion. I don't say this to offer insult -- such people are beneath your concern or mine -- but to point out what has happened, so that you can resist it in future.

Best wishes to you all, and be very sceptical about stuff about antiquity which is not referenced or serves some polemical goal. And watch out for the haters.

Roger Pearse

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you could document this claim from the primary sources? All of the primary sources about the First Council of Nicaea are online, apart from Gelasius of Cyzicus.

I know you read this off the web. But it is bunk - sorry.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

"Primary sources"...is that like the primary colors? I must be confused!

I'm sure you can find it, your online searching just needs a little more effort.
If you don't trust the internet, try these books for starters...
"Foxes Book of Martyrs", and "The Two Babylons".
Also read one called "An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages".
When you're done with those try one called "Fifty Years in the Church of Rome".
These are all classified as "non-fiction."
You might not trust the reliabily of these sources, but you can't prove your "primary sources" are immune to censorship either can you?

 

Oops! My mistake. I'm so used to using that bit of jargon that I forget that sensible people don't know it.

What I meant was, "document from ancient sources".

I know. These things used to circulate in book format, or pamphlet. But when they're online, they become very easy to check.

Oh dear. The rules of debate everywhere are pretty simple: if we make the claim, we get to produce evidence for it. If we can't, don't make the claim. No other approach is rationally possible, if we think about it. After all, is there's any good reason why anyone -- not you, nor me -- is entitled to have their claims accepted unless someone else can prove them wrong?

Do a search. See if you can find any evidence for this, evidently fondly treasured, belief. You'll find online all the ancient testimony about what went on at 1 Nicaea without too much effort.

I'd offer more assistance, were it not for the manner in which you continued, evidently attempting to run me around.

Not really interested in being sent on a wild-goose chase for some link somewhere. If you can back up your claims -- what are you claiming, specifically? --, you should do so right here. Or are you merely believing something someone else told you?

The same to you. Be sceptical about what you find convenient. The alternative is to believe twaddle.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

No one made any wild claims that need debated or links provided for.
Please remember this is not a debate forum, it's more a sacred venue of higher learning.
Don't lose sight of the forest in the trees...

 

um..there is also the seekers of truth who do not have the time to fully research any given topic..it is these people who put forth their opinion formed from other ppl telling them this is the way it is(be it book or direct)

in a perfect world these opinions should be placed for disscusion as to whether it is true or not,maybe someone reading it has the time to check the research,this will either validate it or not..

research is not just put up for someone to prove them wrong..but also for someone else to prove them right..(isnt this how science today is set up?)

unfortunatly..there are those that screw it up and distract from the original topic by insulting,degrading, hating any opinion that doesnt line up with their own.

i have my own opinion as to why this is, but then again,others may know what im talking about and back up my opinion with their own..

 

Ok, you want the truth?
It's not that I'm too lazy to post the links...
It was in 325 a.d. the Nicene creed was adopted.
Common knowledge anyone can look it up.
It's on wikipedia for crying out loud...

The truth is...
I'm typing with a wii remote on my t.v. and you can't cut and paste links with a wii remote.
Anyone knows how, feel free to enlighten me.
There it is...the truth at last.
Are you happy now?

Now we've gotten way off the path, see how easy it is to lose sight of the "forest in the trees"?
I made a statement that it was at Nicaea, Rome combined elements of Pagan idolatry and Christianity.
But some want to debate every little issue, like that's all they're here to do.
It isn't called debateforums, or sci-bateums...it's sciforums.
Debaters, antagonists, flamers...need to get a life.

 

Agree entirely. That's why I tried not to bite the poster!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

The Nicene Creed was certainly adopted in 325 AD at the council of Nicaea.

Indeed you did. It isn't true, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

OK, we'll play by your rules then.
I believe you are wrong... but feel free to prove your claim.

I mean prove specifically your claim that the Son of God's birthday wasn't changed to coincide with the Dec. 21 winter solstice that was already the established Pagan celebration of the Sun God in Rome, to negotiate a compromise between the Pagans and Christians.
That is what you have denied.

You are free to scour the entire 325 Nicene creed and bring us the evidence this didn't happen...as you claim.
But remember, using Snopes or pasting Spam from any other "de-bunk" site isn't proof of anything.

Have fun.

(P.S.) The hills of Judea are full of snow in late December.
The Romans would never have demanded all citizens report to the cities of their birth for tax purposes at that time.
The story in the Bible of the birth of Jesus did not take place in the winter.

 

*************
M*W: You are a complete idiot!

 

get laptop..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry: not really interested in a fight.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

Ouch. What did I do to you?

 

and you wonder why no one will listen to you...

 

*************
M*W: I'm not concerned with people who won't listen to me. These people won't listen to anybody. I won't waste my time with them. There is enough knowledge out there, and plenty of knowledgeable people who spend their time trying to get this information to the uninformed. Yet, these are the same people day in day out who refuse to listen. I'm not patient with these people who claim to be intelligent and informed, when all they do is spew the same garbage all over Internet forums.

 

Some never will. Others perhaps aren't ready to have the blinders ripped off. It probably has to happen a little at a time.
Time goes by and if your lucky you start to realize just how little you really know.
Seems to me resistance can be a good thing. It sometimes spurs us to dig down and make new discoveries.
Even if it's just to spite someone else. I know I'm guilty...

I knew the Romans set Christmas to compromise with the Pagan's "sun god" day around the winter solstice.
But I didn't know just how many "sun gods" from different religions all over the world had their birthday on Dec 25. It's quite a few.
Finding out how much our history has been rewritten is interesting stuff to me. We've been lied to alright.

That's what I meant about this being something of a "sacred venue of higher learning".
Getting someone else to believe me might not be the point today.
Sometimes we're the one who needs changing first, even if it has to happen a little at a time.

 

This is my experience too.

Some years ago I started to wonder about the Mithras stuff, for instance. I then researched it, since history is my hobby. Once I knew the facts, I started to post when I saw the fairy-stories going around, as unconfrontationally as possible (since most people post in good faith). But it is remarkable how cross some people have got (I don't mean in this thread) when you tell them that all this "Mithras=Jesus" stuff is not found in the ancient sources. It's as if I insulted their religion or something. And yet ... do people really need to believe that? Really need, need, need to? I don't get it, myself.

Yet we ought to ask ourselves: do we know which Romans, specifically, are alleged to have done this or say this? If not... is it true?

I don't think anyone knows this for sure. And I can't imagine any 4th century bishop "compromising" like this. By 380 they're behaving like daleks -- "exterminate, exterminate" towards paganism. All very dodgy, I suspect.

I don't claim to know. But I have some doubts that most people claiming this would do more than read it somewhere; and I know much of this sort of stuff is bunk.

We all need to be more sceptical, particularly those who pride themselves on being "sceptics", in my experience. The more convenient it is, and the fewer people know about it, and the more it smears someone or something, the more likely it is to be a lie. Sad but true.

I'd say we are being lied to, today, every day. And worse, it isn't what we are told -- much of which is "edited" -- but what is suppressed.

For instance, here the establishment has decided to get rid of inches and miles etc. How do I know? I don't. No announcement has been made. But suddenly all the news programs, all the weather programs, all the science programs, at the same time, on all channels, in unanimity, have started giving all measurements in centimetres and kilometres, as if no-one used anything else. Yet no-one I have met even is that sure how long those measurements are! We all use inches and miles. So ... someone has arranged both a conspiracy against the people, and media silence for it. Who knew that people *could* do that? You only have to see something like that a couple of times to realise how much goes on that we never know about.

Not that this helps much on specific issues, of course.

Before we can form opinions on anything -- and my opinions are no better than anyone else's -- I think we need to get the raw facts right. It's actually impossible to make sure we always do, because life is too short! But I think the answer is to be tentative about stuff that is controversial if all we have done is read it somewhere. I no longer believe *anything* I read about Christian origins on the web unless I have checked it, for instance. So much of it, asserted with the utmost certainty, is wrong.

All the best,

Roger Pearse