Something BIG happened

[BuGzBuNNy]

yup

[kNIOKAS]

Stop this this bang bullshit.


Big Bang happened when your pops shagged your momma.

[DonDadda59]

The good book starts, "In the beginning God created.."

Who wrote that line in the 'good book' and when? Where were they getting their information from? Why should they be believed?

[Honk Honk]

http://i.imgur.com/aBu8O.png (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc7EDxs76sw)

[kNIOKAS]

explain
Science is based on experiments. Trying to explain the creation of what we call the Universe is merely a speculation. Stop trying to pin it against explanation of Genesis in Christianity.

[BuGzBuNNy]

http://i.imgur.com/aBu8O.png (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc7EDxs76sw)
I love you

[Nick Young]

Exactly. The old testament and other similar era texts describe the big bang thousands of years before scientists finally figured it out. And people like Plato and Siddhartha Guathama explain things that science still can't figure out.

[DonDadda59]

History credits Moses as the author of Genesis.

There is debate as to whether or not Moses even existed, so you have to be more specific when you say 'History' credits him as the author.


The entire Bible was written by man BUT inspired by God. So, he got his information from God.

Which again goes back to my first post here. What proof do you have that the words in the bible were inspired by God as opposed to being inspired by a need to control the masses, a retelling of older mythic traditions, schizophrenia, etc. If a homeless guy on the street comes up to you and tells you God is speaking through him and inspiring his words, would you take him on his word and believe everything he says to be the word of God?



Why they should be believed? Well I guess the answer to that is the same as why would anyone believe. You can find that answer anywhere just like I can

Proof is always a good reason to believe someone I think.

[DonDadda59]

If a homeless man came to me spewing bs about being fed the word of God, it wouldn't last from the moment he told me until I walked away, let alone spread across the world for years to come. It takes much more than that, something real. Taking my personal reason for believing is petty when theres such a large mass of those who do, overwhelming majority of the US. We all have our reasons, don't take mine and generalize it.

No it doesn't. It just takes a message capable of reaching ignorant (note I did not say stupid) masses. There were many belief systems that predated the Abrahamic religions that countless people believed with all of their heart to be 'something real'. Virtually everyone in ancient Greece believed that thunder and lightning were caused by the fury of the God Zeus (apparently not much has changed since every time a big storm/hurricane comes along nowadays, some reason it is caused by God's wrath over enter reason here :oldlol: ). The only reason your particular belief system stood out among the hundreds that were around during the period before the Dark Ages in Europe is because a Roman emperor adopted it as the official religion of a vast and varied empire. If it weren't the perfect tool to control the diverse masses because of its syncretic value- the fusion of the more popular, established Pagan practices with the more esoteric monotheistic foundation- then it would've faded into obscurity like the countless other cults of the era. Belief =/= Truth.

[outbreak]

No it doesn't. It just takes a message capable of reaching ignorant (note I did not say stupid) masses. There were many belief systems that predated the Abrahamic religions that countless people believed with all of their heart to be 'something real'. Virtually everyone in ancient Greece believed that thunder and lightning were caused by the fury of the God Zeus (apparently not much has changed since every time a big storm/hurricane comes along nowadays, some reason it is caused by God's wrath over enter reason here :oldlol: ). The only reason your particular belief system stood out among the hundreds that were around during the period before the Dark Ages in Europe is because a Roman emperor adopted it as the official religion of a vast and varied empire. If it weren't the perfect tool to control the diverse masses because of its syncretic value- the fusion of the more popular, established Pagan practices with the more esoteric monotheistic foundation- then it would've faded into obscurity like the countless other cults of the era. Belief =/= Truth.

Good factual comment. Once it was adopted they banned all other religions and refused to teach believers how to actually read a bible for themselves, thus making them rely on the church who then got to pretty much become the dominant power in their day. People need to look more closely at Christianity historical issues and not just brush over them. They've done enough horrible things that if another religion had of become dominant and wiped them out back in the day we'd look back on them as being evil and wondering how any one went along with it. Inquisitions, crusades, genocide they've taken part in many bad acts.

[MetsPackers]

I remember I wrote a paper on the Big Bang back in like senior year of hs and at the time I was convinced that it was the most reasonable explanation for the universes existence. But as I got older I started to think that it had to be a combination of something similar to the scientific big bang and some form of creationism. However, i'm sure that's also wrong and we just don't have the knowledge within humanity right now to perfect the big bang theory. Either way, if there's one thing philosophy has taught me, it's that the universe is more than meets the eye, and a divine being is not completely out of the question

[miller-time]

History credits Moses as the author of Genesis. The entire Bible was written by man BUT inspired by God. So, he got his information from God.

no. no it doesn't. in fact genesis didn't even come from a single source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible


Why they should be believed? Well I guess the answer to that is the same as why would anyone believe. You can find that answer anywhere just like I can

that is such a non point.

[DonDadda59]

I'd think that you'd recognize the irony here. So you mean the empire of rome eventually converted to Christianity?

It was adopted because it was seen as something that would save a failing empire. I'm thinking he saw the truth, or if you prefer the other side, he knew it was good for political reasons. Christianity was already growing among people in the empire prior to the "official" conversion. It didn't fade into obscurity, and do you know why I believe that is?

Constantine's Roman Empire wasn't 'failing' at all, he made the decision to make Christianity the official religion of the Empire to consolidate his power, to more easily control the masses. He ran into the same issue that Ptolemy Soter did when he inherited Egypt after Alexander the Great's death. He (Ptolemy) became the head of a Kingdom that had varied religious beliefs- basically the indigenous practices of the Egyptians and the Hellenistic mythology of the Greeks. A ruler then (and still to this day) can more easily exert power if he is seen as having a connection to dieties and having the belief system of his state being homogeneous obviously makes it easier for him to maintain control. Ptolemy's strategy was to create a new deity that was a synthesis of the Egyptian and Hellenistic Gods into one new deity- Serapis (sometimes called Christus). Constantine followed his lead with Jesus.

The pagan influence on Christianity is undeniable and there's a historical reason for it- Christianity as we know it was nothing more than a Roman creation, the product of the syncretism of Pagan and Jewish religions. Constantine and his minions edited, redacted, and suppressed the Gospels, keeping what they saw as fit, tossing out what they didn't. They attached the dates of Pagan holidays and the life stories and abilities of Pagan diety to a failed human Jewish messianic figure. You can tell yourself that the reason the religion survived was because of 'something real' but if you actually study the history, the real reason is a despot rehashing a tried and tested method of consolidating power and attempting to control his subjects.

[DonDadda59]

If it weren't failing then he would've already had control

We obviously have different definitions for what a failing state looks like. It was a move for consolidation.


link me, not denying this is true, I just want to read more on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils

BBC Doc about the 'Lost Gospels' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_9MfFewdTo)

There's a whole lot more info about the banned, suppressed, hidden, edited, etc Gospels out there, but those are two good launching points.


It changed the treatment of christians at the time who were persecuted. If anything Christianity interfered with his control over the population which is why they were persecuted in the first place

Which is why he created a one size fits all religion. He probably figured he could cut down on the persecutions, civil strife, rebellions, etc if everyone was worshiping the same deity (deities) with him at the top of the religious organization as Pontifex Maximus (a term still used by the Pope till this day).

[DonDadda59]

If I haven't replied to your post I just haven't gotten around to it. I haven't watch that video, but it's of my understanding that those classes sought out to remove anything of questionable origin. This can be verified with a quick google search I'm sure, could be wrong but i'll check later

No, they sought to weed out any writings or ideas that didn't vibe with their vision of the movement or would've lessened their power/control over it. The Ebionites questioning Jesus' divinity, the Gnostics claiming no formal church structure was necessary to be connected to God/Jesus, the lost Gospels claiming that Mary Magdalene was the most important disciple and more or less the first pope. These are very threatening ideas that would've undermined what they were trying to accomplish.


Edit: Seems to be a debate on whether or not he had anything to do with it from a few quicksearches. These guys say he had nothing to do with it.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090106214346AAAMokT

That was rife with a ton of misinformation, by both the OP and the respondents :oldlol:

The fact of the matter is the ecumenical councils voted on such things as the divinity of Jesus and what percentage human or God he was, whether or not he was his own father or a separate entity. There were many different schools of thought floating around at the time regarding this issues, including the notion propagated by the original Jewish-Christians (broadly called 'Ebionites') that Jesus wasn't divine at all, he was just a human... which makes sense to rational people, especially considering they would know best. Of course they were deemed heretics and their writings suppressed, outlawed, etc by those who wanted Pauline Christianity and its pagan influences to guide their movement. Read up on the Ecumenical councils, the early Church fathers writings, the original Jewish-Christians and their beliefs, the banned/lost Gospels, the Qumran documents, and study the Pagan connections to modern Christianity and you'll see there's a whole lot more to the story than the Roman creation most of the world knows today.

[DonDadda59]

What makes your sources that make this claim more credible than the ones that say the exact opposite?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Constantine-Bible.html

The fact that any sect or individuals who adhered to any school of thought that wasn't considered Orthodox was deemed a heretic and these groups/individuals felt the need to hide their writings.

Also, seeing as how the question of the trinity vs Arianism was the main debate at the first council (with the trinitarians obviously winning out), let's ask one of the key parties involved:

[INDENT]"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."

[DonDadda59]

On the 'Heretical Judaizers' who claim Jesus was just a man:

Note about Cerinthus: Cerinthus (Greek: Κήρινθος) — (c. 100 CE) was a gnostic and to some, an early Christian, who was prominent as a "heresiarch" in the view of the early Church Fathers.[1] Contrary to proto-orthodox Christianity, Cerinthus's school followed the Jewish law,[citation needed] used the Gospel according to the Hebrews,[citation needed] denied that the Supreme God had made the physical world,[citation needed] and denied the divinity of Jesus.[citation needed] In Cerinthus' interpretation, the Christ came to Jesus at baptism,[citation needed] guided him in his ministry,[citation needed] but left him at the crucifixion.[citation needed]

He taught that Jesus would establish a thousand-year reign of sensuous pleasure after the Second Coming but before the General Resurrection, a view that was declared heretical by the Council of Nicaea. Cerinthus used a version of the gospel of Matthew as scripture.[citation needed]


Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

—Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.2

As to these translators it should be stated that Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this history. Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, who, he says, received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself.

—Nicene Fathers, The Translator Symmachus, Chp. 17

Ebionites are very like the Cerinthians and Nazoraeans; the sect of the Sampsaeans and Elkasaites was associated with them to a degree.

—Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 30

More (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ebionites_according_to_the_Church_Fathers)

So there you have it- Constantine himself calling for the burning of Arian 'heresy' and condemning to death those who are found harboring or hiding his writings, after he had already exiled the man himself. The early church leaders telling us that A) there is no difference between Pagan dieties and the Jesus in the bible B) There were sects of Jewish Christians (including the Nazorene... now where have I heard that word before?) who didn't believe in any of the regurgitated Pagan mythology of Paul, who they considered an apostate to the law. They believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, but that he was just a man, the most righteous of men, God's chosen... but just a man.

But the latter belief, along with many sects that didn't vibe with the Pauline Orthodoxy just up and vanished because 'something real' happened :lol

Study your history. I'm just scratching the surface here.

[DonDadda59]

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for institution in righteousness

Is this one of the illegal additions?

Again, you run into the issue of who wrote that and when. Let's ask a biblical scholar what he thinks.


FORGERIES IN THE BIBLE'S NEW TESTAMENT?

http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef014e88840edc970d-300wi

Nearly half of the New Testament is a forgery, according to a provocative new book that charges the Apostle Paul authored only a fraction of the letters attributed to him and the Apostle Peter wrote nothing.

Written by Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical Christian and now agnostic professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, the book claims to unveil "one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition": the use of deception to promote the truth.

"The Bible not only contains untruths of accidental mistakes. It also contains what almost anyone today would call lies," Ehrman writes in "Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are."

According to the biblical scholar, at least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries, while only seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul were probably written by him.

"Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon," says Ehrman.

Individuals claiming to be Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians, he adds.

Contradictory views, discrepancies in the language and the choice of words among the books attributed to Paul are all evidence of this forgery, the author asserts.

For example, Ehrman’s analysis of the book of Ephesians shows that the text, filled with long Greek sentences, doesn’t match with Paul’s peculiar Greek writing style, made of short sentences.

Moreover, the content of what the author says "stands at odds with Paul’s own thought, but is in line with the Ephesians," writes Ehrman.

The biblical scholar, who also challenges the authenticity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, disputes the assumption that the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistles of Peter or anything else.


Unlike Paul, Peter, a fisherman raised in rural Palestine, was most certainly illiterate. So was the Apostle John, who could have not written the Gospel bearing his name, says Ehrman.


But why would an author claim to be an Apostle when he wasn’t? The answer is pretty obvious, according to the scholar.

In the early centuries of the church, Christians felt under attack from all sides. "They were in conflict with Jews and pagans over the validity of their religion ... but the hottest debates were with other Christians, as they argued over the right thing to believe and the rights ways to live," said Ehrman.

Thus Christians aiming to authorize views they wanted others to accept wrote in the name of the Apostles, "fabricating, falsifying and forging documents," says Ehrman.

"If your name was Jehoshaphat and no one had any idea who you were, you could not very well sign your own name to the book," explains Ehrman.

"No one would take the Gospel of Jehoshaphat seriously. If you wanted someone to read it, you called yourself Peter. Or Thomas. Or James. In other words, you lied about who you really were," Ehrman concludes.

According to the scholar, the idea that "writing in the name of another" was a common, accepted practice in antiquity is wrong. Forgery was considered just as deceitful, inappropriate and wrong as it is today.

As expected, the book has raised a heated debate.

"The book is more provocative than insightful," writes the Catholic Herald.

Conceding that "some New Testament books probably were not written by the people traditionally assigned as authors," the Catholic website remarks that Ehrman "barely mentions the concept of oral tradition."

"So even if a specific letter was not done by Peter or Paul, it could well have been written by someone drawing from the oral tradition passed down by one or the other," according to the Herald.

http://news.discovery.com/history/bible-new-testament-forgery-110518.html

Just to drive home the point...


Brown: "when we come to the Pastoral epistles, there is greater scholarly unanimity. These three letters are widely regarded by scholars as non-Pauline."

-A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press. 2003. p. 393

Several of the letters are thought by most modern scholars to be pseudepigraphic, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves, or, arguably, even forgeries intended to justify certain later beliefs. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

The name "undisputed" epistles represents the traditional scholarly consensus asserting that Paul authored each letter. However, even the least disputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics.[11] Moreover, the unity of the letters is questioned by some scholars. First and Second Corinthians have garnered particular suspicion, with some scholars, among them Edgar Goodspeed and Norman Perrin, supposing one or both texts as we have them today are actually amalgamations of multiple individual letters. There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations. However, such textual corruption is difficult to detect and even more so to verify, leaving little agreement as to the extent of the epistles' integrity. See also Radical Criticism, which maintains that the external evidence for attributing any of the letters to Paul is so weak, that it should be considered that all the letters appearing in the Marcion canon were written in Paul's name by members of the Marcionite Church and were afterwards edited and adopted by the Catholic Church.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

So there you have it. The question isn't whether it was 'illegal' (whatever that means it this context), but whether it was authentic. Modern scholarship says no.

Hope that clears the issue up for you :cheers:

[miller-time]

The only the I'd change about the post you quoted is instead of writing what I wrote I would just quote the sources.

we're not writing for academia, the wiki article sums up the point nicely. if you read it you could either agree or disagree with its contents and then we can move forward in the discussion.

[DonDadda59]

Without giving me some sources your basically telling me to take their words on it..still reading through your compilation here, will say more. And who is Arius that we know his writings is something that should've been in the book?

Okay i see, your just trying to disprove the statement that nothing was burned. But still, make these guys credible to me

You're trying to get me to do your homework for you, after all I've already provided you with :oldlol:

If you want to know who Arius was or what he believed, look him up, there's a wealth of knowledge out there. I didn't come here to try to convince you that Arius' writings should have been made canon, because frankly- his beliefs were just as much bullshit as the Pauline Christians. I was just trying to show you that a ton of writings, beliefs, sects, etc were excluded, banned, and even suppressed by the Ecumenical Councils and the Roman power structure. I feel I've adequately shown that.

There were many varying and unique incarnations of Christianity before the move towards Orthodoxy. I think if you're going to study something, learn the whole story, not just one skewed point of view with a questionable History.

[DonDadda59]

How is any of that even found? Seriously, a quote from 337AD?

So you question the official edicts of the most powerful man of his era in 337 AD, but you don't do the same for nameless authors of fantastical stories allegedly written hundreds of years before that? I'm pretty sure there's a word for that.


You expect me to put my trust in the hands of those who don't want to believe?

Who says they don't want to 'believe'? Furthermore why would it even matter? As long as they can back up their claims with tangible evidence, their personal beliefs or lack thereof are irrelevant. The one guy I linked you to in that Discovery article about the forgeries in the biblical canon was an Evangelical minister and is still a religious professor at UNC. Does he have a belief bias? And again, you have no problem believing outlandish (yet recycled) stories without questioning their foundation in fact and History. Do you just go with whatever blind faith


Why the hell would i go to theevilbible.com to read their claims?

You are free to go to whatever website you like :cheers:

[DonDadda59]

People have been trying to disprove the bible since forever and yet it reigns as the book that none other comes close. No other book, ancient or modern. It won't be surpassed.

Yeah, that's not at all biased. I'm sure plenty would say the same about the Quran.


My faith has and will never be a building of which research in the hands of those that don't want to believe are at the foundation :bowdown: (I don't talk like this, I laugh at how nerdy i sound through text)

So if someone doesn't believe in the bible, that negates anything factual they present? Sounds logical.


Not that anything you present me will automatically be dismissed. I'll read, I'll consider, i'll even muster up what I can just out of respect for you. Its just..there are those on the other side of the fence refuting everything you say and presenting facts of their own that support the opposite, what they want to believe.

Hopefully they have better 'fact' than that guy you linked me to that denied Constantine's suppression of Arianism :oldlol:


Why them over you? Because I've been on this earth for 20 years (More important than anything else) and though I'm far from the perfect christian, my experience tells me that they are fighting the good fight and you the bad.


And there's your issue right there- you equate your personal experience and belief with universal truth. They are mutually exclusive.


God has quite frankly done all but show me his face. I've asked...I've received. Prayers have been answered under unlikely circumstances. I've been witness to things I just laughed about because it was so obviously him (Nothing you'd hear about on CNN or in the news). So when I say I'd be an idiot not to believe I mean it.

Try doing what George Carlin did- pray to Joe Pesci for a while and see how the odds play out. I guarantee you'll bat the same average you do now more or less.


Research can only strengthen or try to break my faith. A building of faith at which research is at the foundation isn't stable :eek: Thats not how its meant to be, otherwise it wouldn't be called faith and there wouldn't be a debate. My blessings are at the foundation of my building of faith. If my faith is a building, all that i've ever researched (the bible excluded) are only the windows. Go grab a mirror, you were created

Through a biological process, starting at the molecular level. My parents didn't pray to Zeus and then I magically popped out of thin air fully formed.

You are free to believe whatever you want without double checking any of the ridiculous information presented to you. If you want to play the 'see no evil, hear no evil' game with any information that contradicts said ridiculous information, hey that's your prerogative. I was just making you aware to some facts you may or may not have been previously privy to. Whatever you do with it is up to you :cheers:

[DonDadda59]

I can't and won't speak on behalf of any other faith but after looking for the last two or so minutes i've yet to see the Quran listed ahead of the bible as far as sells

So the one true religion issue will be settled once and for all- by book sales :oldlol:




The fake-ness of the bible is a universal truth now?

If by 'fake-ness' you mean full of interpolations, forgeries, pseudepigraphic writings, historical inaccuracies, contradictions, etc... then yes.


If people thought they had facts enough to disprove the existence of blue pens, my experience with using blue pens yesterday would override their facts

So now blue pens are comparable to imagined deities? Talk about a leap of logic.



I imagine if you (you personally) one night decided, just out of curiosity, that you'd pray (again, just out of curiosity) to see what happened you'd bat around the same average. Get what i'm saying?

Prayer is a placebo? :confusedshrug:

I also noticed you never bothered to address my posts about an early church father likening the Pauline messiah to established Pagan deities, or my post pointing out that questions the authenticity of 'Paul's' writings. No rush though.

[DonDadda59]

What in the world dude :oldlol: How come every time you post i have to grab a dictionary? (I'm exaggerating so you can't pull what you would've pulled if I didn't write this disclaimer)

I've been known to drop knowledge from time to time :D


I consider universal truth to be fact. I don't consider any of that facts. A thorough and accurate understanding of the Bible understands that it does not contradict itself


Doesn't matter what you consider. There's fact and then there's opinion. They are not the same thing.


I can try and muster up a response for all you've presented if you really want. You've clearly spent more time trying to disprove the good book than i've spent defending it

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdk06sFKX91r9src8o1_400.gif

[DonDadda59]

Alright.... So about Justin... I've personally never heard of dude. Not denying his status just saying.

You never heard of him because you never bothered to investigate the History of what you blindly believe. If you had, you'd know that he was one of the Church's first major figures (his dialogues and apologies are from c. 140-160 CE, so Christianity's infancy), one of the first apologists, and as his name suggests- one of it's most famous martyrs (he was beheaded). You earlier said you couldn't take the word of anyone who didn't want to believe... Saint Justin died for his beliefs. He makes it clear that the Pauline Jesus is pretty much an amalgam of 'Gentile' (read Pagan) deities.




Births:

Perseus

:confusedshrug: Am I missing something?


Yeah, the fact that like the Pagan Gods, Pauline Jesus is the product of a God and mortal woman. Perseus' mother was a virgin who was locked in a tower at the time that Zeus came upon her.

It may come as a shock to anyone in this day and age who believes blindly whatever they are told without ever questioning or researching anything, but syncretism and borrowed religions was a common practice in those days. The Romans straight hijacked the Greek Gods and just slapped new name tags on them. And as I mentioned before...


Serapis (Σέραπις) or Sarapis (Σάραπις) is a Graeco-Egyptian god. Serapis was devised during the 3rd century BC on the orders of Ptolemy I of Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm. The god was depicted as Greek in appearance, but with Egyptian trappings, and combined iconography from a great many cults, signifying both abundance and resurrection. His cultus was spread as a matter of deliberate policy by the Ptolemaic kings, who also built a splendid Serapeum in Alexandria. Serapis continued to increase in popularity during the Roman period, often replacing Osiris as the consort of Isis in non-Egyptian temples. The destruction of the Serapeum by a mob led by the Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria in 389 is one of the key events in the downfall of ancient paganism, and the cult ceased to exist with the abolition of paganism in 391.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Kopf_des_Serapis.jpg/220px-Kopf_des_Serapis.jpg

The Egyptians, whom you are pleased to commend to me, I know thoroughly from a close observation, to be a light, fickle, and inconstant people, changing with every turn of fortune. The Christians among them are worshippers of Serapis, and those calling themselves bishops of Christ scruple not to act as the votaries of that God. The truth is, there is no one, whether Ruler of a synagogue, or Samaritan, or Presbyter of the Christians, or mathematician, or astrologer, or magician, that does not do homage to Serapis. The Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is by some compelled to worship Serapis, and by others, Christ.

-The Emperor Hadrian (134 CE)

This is the same strategy that Constantine and his successors employed (The Paulines started the process centuries before, Constantine began the process of making it Orthodox). The syncretism of various religious ideas and figures in order unify and control the diverse populace of an Empire. Serapis, sometimes called Christus, was nothing more than a creation of a Pharoah who combined Hellenistic and Egyptian religions. The worship of this imaginary creation was fanatic and widespread, even by those who called themselves worshippers of Christ according to the Emperor Hadrian. Christianity, notably after the Nicene Councils, is no different than what Ptolemy I did centuries earlier in Egypt.

There is nothing about the Pauline Jesus that is unique and new. I've already shown you the beginnings of the connection to Paganism, but even in monotheism (that predates Judaism) you see the borrowed ideas:

[INDENT]Zoroastrianism /ˌzɒroʊˈ

[DonDadda59]

:roll:

Mary is considered a virgin mother because even after she gave birth...she was still a virgin. I doubt you didn't know this, just testing your backpedal i'm sure

Zeus had an affair with this woman, as he did many :oldlol:


Yet Jesus had siblings that weren't the product of Yahweh :confusedshrug:

And I think having sex with a God is the same thing as Catholic school girls doing ****... it doesn't count as losing your virginity :oldlol:

But seriously though. Are you really discussing the intricacies and specifics of God-human virgin relations? How do you know Jehovah and Mary weren't knocking boots? Can you at least admit that Jesus being the product of a God somehow impregnating a virgin mortal is similar to Perseus and other Pagan dieties being the product of a God impregnating a virgin mortal?

Your blind faith hasn't completely destroyed your common sense, right?

[DonDadda59]

Lets kill your notion that Jesus and Christianity are nothing but a Roman creation at the hands of Constantinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianityhttp://www.astrologygetalong.com/?tag=jesus

His mother was a Christian before he was even born(or at least while he was still in his youth), yet you're telling me he was the lead man in its creation, that he created Jesus? :confusedshrug:

I never said that Christians/Christianity didn't exist before Constantine, so his mother, uncle, third cousin or whoever being Christian is completely and utterly irrelevant. My contention was that Constantine and his minions made the move to create an orthodoxy within the religion and suppressed any schools of belief that did not fit into their agenda. This is historical fact.




Not sure why I didn't call you on this before. Guy in the article acknowledged that Arius' writings were abandoned, "torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council". Reason being that his writings denied the divinity of Christ. Him saying that no manuscripts were burned were referring to books of the bible, which is correct

Yeah... I provided you with a direct quote from Constantine himself where he calls for Arius' writings to be 'put to the flame' while calling for anyone hiding said writings to be executed. Again, this is documented historical fact.


In short, Constantine's main involvement with the Bible was instructing copies of it be made for the use of another church. Eusebius is the guy Constantine ordered to make the 50 copies

In short, Constantine called for the suppression of Christian beliefs that he personally did not agree with and the persecution of followers of said schools of thought. Eusebius himself acknowledges more 'heretical' Christian beliefs that existed during his time:



1 The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.

2 For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

3 There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.

4 These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.

5 The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.

6 Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.

-Eusebius, Chapter XXVII. The Heresy of the Ebionites

Ebionites was a broad term for Jewish-Christians aka the original Jewish followers of the Jewish Jesus, including the Nazarene. Eusebius makes it clear that these groups believed Jesus was just a natural born man and that Paul was an apostate from the law who turned their dead leader into an amalgamation of pagan demigods. What makes the Pauline story more real than the Ebionite story in your mind?




I have no idea what this statement means, but the fact remains that 5-600 years before Jesus supposedly lived, there was a religion that believed in one true God, a trinity, ressurection, a messiah who was to come at the end times to pass judgment on the world, etc.

In addition, the syncretism of Hellenistic and Egyptian religious beliefs into Serapis by Ptolemy Soter mirrors what the Paulines did with Pagan and Judeo-Christian religious beliefs in the creation of Jesus, made Orthodox by the ecumenical councils and Roman power structure. In Egypt it was to the point that followers of Serapis Christus and Jesus Christ were indistinguishable.

[QUOTE] You tried to make a false point, I called bs

What false point? That Perseus was the product of Zeus and a mortal virgin woman like Jesus was the product of Yahweh and a mortal virgin woman? :confusedshrug:



They have in common the fact that a mortal woman was made pregnant at the will of God, or a God in Zeus's case. But let the distinction be made clear

Mary became pregnant, basically, magically, at the will of God
Danae was one of many victims

And Zeus impregnating Danae by appearing to her as a shower of gold isn't 'magical' like whatever Yahweh did? You're over here grasping at straws so you don't have to admit the painfully obvious- the story of Jesus' conception is the same as the conception stories of several pagan deities. Like one is true and the other fantastical because divine dick might have been involved :oldlol:

The stories are all virtually the same recycled fantasy tale.

[DonDadda59]

So which Pagan God can be said to have been crucified? The main rumored crucifixion among atheists seems to be of Bacchus and they have far from solid evidence hinting that, so much that its not even mentioned on his wikipedia. All they have that has ever hinted that a son of Jupiter was crucified is what is found in Justin's apology...


Hilarious that you can get away with believing clear bullshit by invoking the 'faith' cop out whenever you can't answer a question, but solid evidence is needed when rational people make a claim. Whatever:


[INDENT]Zeus wanted to destroy humanity and spared them because of Prometheus

[DonDadda59]

:oldlol: Broham, there's nothing miraculous or even noteworthy about a woman becoming pregnant after the first time of having sex. I wonder how many children were born today from a woman who was beforehand a virgin. A friend of mine claims she was. Stop spamming that ish

There's nothing miraculous about a virgin woman being impregnated by a God? Good to know. :lol

But you are correct, seeing as how that is a recycled story that was told about Pagan demigods for centuries.


Well than wtf is this? :facepalm ---------It wasn't a contention b/c nobody ever said otherwisesmh, did you not even read my post? Here it is again...So yea, he never denied that writings by Arius were burned. If you only posted that because of the difference b/t burned and torn to shreds then, meh, petty. (again)Him saying that no manuscripts were burned was referring to the books of the bible, which is correct

AGAIN, I provided you Constantine's own words, the HNIC himself, calling for the BURNING of Christian writings he and his minions voted against, and for the death of his followers who tried to hide those works.


What the hell does any of this have to do with the post you quoted from me?

You said Constantine and the councils had nothing to do with suppressing Christian ideals from canon. You also claimed Eusebius transcribed the 50 bibles Constantine ordered. I showed you Eusebius' own words where he points out that there were Jewish-Christians (Ebionites) who claimed things that were different from the Constantine ordered orthodoxy- namely, that contrary to the pagan inspired beliefs of the Pauline's, Jesus was just a man, a mortal and Paul the 'apostle' was an apostate from the law.

And I asked, but you never answered- what makes the Ebionites less believable than the voted-on canon outlandish beliefs? Take away the blind faith goggles for a bit and answer this question. As a rational, educated, and logically-inclined adult (I'm assuming here :oldlol: ), which of these options seems more likely to you?

A) 'Jesus' or whoever he was based on Historically was a religious leader whose apocalyptic sect broke away from mainstream Judaism (although there was no orthodoxy). He was branded an agitator and killed by authorities after being proclaimed the messiah by his followers. In their anguish, his followers went to the scriptures to try to make sense of his failed ministry/messianic claim, and they found the answers that soothed them in Isaiah and other books (the suffering messiah, etc). They concluded that he fulfilled the 'prophecies' with his death and that he may return one day to end the world and usher in judgment day. 'Paul' and his followers joined the sect, but they wanted to expand the movement to a broader audiences, instead of just the Jews who still followed Mosaic law. So they created a version of 'Jesus' that would appeal to the masses, the gentiles. They achieved this by fusing his movement, teachings, etc with the stories of Pagan deities so it would be more easily absorbed by the gentiles. This obviously worked like gangbusters because the movement went from being a small group of Jews to the largest religion in the world.

B) An angel came down and told a virgin she would give birth to the son of God (like Perseus and many others), who was also God simultaneously. The golden child walked the Earth getting into one miraculous misadventure after the other (like Hercules). He turned water into wine (like Bacchus/Dionysus), He healed the sick and even resurrected the dead (like Aesculapius). He died and was resurrected (like too many deities to name). And now all of the important dates of his miraculous life just coincidentally match the dates of important pagan holidays.

Be honest.


Did I not just provide you with proof that no books were edited? Don't try to soften the blow now by saying that Christian 'beliefs' were suppressed. What beliefs are you talking about? You were claiming that books of the bible were edited......Thats false.

No, not at all. There are a ton of interpolations (read: forgeries) and questions about who wrote books in the bible and when. And again, the gospels found in canon were just a fraction of the books in Christendom at the time the ecumenical councils were convened. Most of the other gospels were hidden amid persecution by the Roman state and their minions and were only found recently. If you think what's found in your bible is the infallible, inspired word of God, then you are a fool. Like I keep stressing, study your History.


You were claiming that Jesus' birth to Mary was no different from that of Perseus' in that they were both born of a virgin Without looking it up readers would take from that that Perseus' mother too miraculously became pregnant

Perseus- Son of Zeus and the virgin mortal Danae.
Jesus- Son of Yahweh and the virgin mortal Mary.

One is a miracle, and the other isn't? :confusedshrug:

It's the same ****ing thing. You are grasping at straws over nothing. It is a recycled mythological convention dating back centuries before the Paulines hijacked the story. You have to come to terms with this. At least admit you can see the glaring similarity between the two stories. Can you do that?

[DonDadda59]

:oldlol: at them fabricating all of this.
1) He wasn't crucified, he was tied to a rock by Zeus
2) He was put there for stealing fire from Zeus for human use
3) As a result, people were punished by Zeus
4) He didn't die


No one is fabricating anything :oldlol:

Prometheus Bound was written in or around 415 B.C. and CLEARLY says:

Seize his hands and master him.
Now to your hammer. Pin him to the rocks.
Drive stoutly now your wedge straight through his breast, the stubborn jaw of steel that cannot break.
Now for his feet. Drive the nails through the flesh.

And the artwork, which clearly shows Prometheus bound to a pillar and bleeding, is from around the same era.




You keep saying blind faith when thats far from it. What you don't seem to understand is that it isn't blind faith that keeps people running to Christianity. Facts aren't usually what get people to come to Christ. For some people its simply saying I'm gonna give this guy a chance. For others, much much deeper. I've been asked time and again about my beliefs and never had I brought the topic up, they ask me first. They can sense it I guess

That's nice. But can you at least admit that there are clear similarities between Christianity and pagan conventions (as well as a monotheistic religion like Zoroastrianism)? My question is, why do you dismiss the religious beliefs of people who lived centuries before Jesus supposedly live? What makes the bible the word of God, and not the Quran, the Avesta, Talmud, the Pyramid texts, ancient Greek texts, etc?

[DonDadda59]

Done arguing with you man, i'll even allow you the last word

But we've only begun to scratch the surface, don't bail now :(

[DonDadda59]

:oldlol: You'll be iight

Zeus willing :bowdown:

[DonDadda59]

:oldlol: What angers you about me?

Angry? Who's angry?

If anything, your avy makes me smile. Especially now that the dog has a little santa hat :D