Whats your thoughts on this take of the origin of Christianity?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2009 9:39 PM GMT
    I found this pretty interesting...it's long and complicated so bear with me




    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_E0vfP79yE

    Part 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyXIeB1qI6w
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2009 11:25 PM GMT
    A lot of the christian stuff is based on older myths and legends. Some christians believe that the devil knew what was going to happen and influenced cultures to believe in those older myths to try to discredit christianity before the bible was written.

    They also started demonizing old popular deities to convert people. Take for instance Pan. Christians back in the day had a hard time converting pagans due to Pan's popularity so they made the christian devil have the likeness of Pan. For those that don't know Pan is basically a Satyr. Those that believe in the bible don't seem to realize that the christian devil is supposed to be a beautiful angel. You can argue that god twisted his form but that suspiciously didn't come about until they had a problem with Pan. Besides it's not in the bible... maybe in a newer translation but why bother even reading those.

    Here are two pictures of Satyr's.

    satyr Pictures, Images and Photos

    Satyr Pictures, Images and Photos
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2009 11:28 PM GMT
    Ahhhhhhhh another one of these deconstructing the myth of Christianity again, huh icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2009 11:52 PM GMT
    Because atheist people have nothing better to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2009 12:01 AM GMT
    G0ys saidBecause atheist people have nothing better to do.


    And you have nothing better to do than bash atheists. So here, hump this:

    il_430xN.29301687.jpg

    (right now I have nothing better to do than bash g0ys)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2009 12:02 AM GMT
    Actually, the first video appeared on this forum quite recently. I'd watched it then as I did this one. It is an extremely interesting documentary, and very enlightening. The astronominal/astrological parallel to the Christian faith does not discredit but enhances the faith. For example, let me quote Colossians 1:13-17:

    (Jesus Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things are created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or powers or rulers or authorities, all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    And also Romans 1:19-20:

    ...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    In other words, the daily rising and setting of the sun, the star Sirius, the three "kings", Virgo, the two fishes, Aquarius, the Southern Cross, all tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2009 12:09 AM GMT
    If people really think messiahs, virgin births, creation stories and floods are something unique or new then they are idiots.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2009 12:18 AM GMT
    Ah, my eyes are open, really wide open.
    icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2009 12:21 AM GMT
    yeah, I eat this stuff up...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2009 12:21 AM GMT
    LGWC saidAh, my eyes are open, really wide open.
    icon_eek.gif


    haha glad it opened someones eyes
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2009 12:48 AM GMT
    Oh boy another way to invalidate people. That's the whole point isn't it to invalidate others so that you can feel superior to them. Did you hear the smuggness in the voice grow in part 1, 2 and 3.

    Believers invalidating Non-believers and then Non-believers invalidating believers. LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2009 12:55 AM GMT
    andymatic saidIf people really think messiahs, virgin births, creation stories and floods are something unique or new then they are idiots.


    oh where will it ever end ....

    and i just might say that people who don't believe that messiahs, virgin births, creation stories, flood are unique - are just plain idiots.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2009 2:59 AM GMT
    This is from the Zeitgeist video. There have been dozens of other posts about it, but its accuracy of the video is very poor. While modern day Christianity indeed borrowed certain holidays from the pagan nations it migrated to, the early Christians are a different story. Here is something I posted before about it ..

    This is more Zeitgeist rehash. Being a fan of mythology and superstition I had looked into the whole notion of Mithras resurrection which appears to have no scholarly backing as well as a whole lot of other incorrect statements about what the various myths really say. The whole production is even rejected on skeptic.com:
    Skeptic.com articleThe Greatest Story Ever Garbled by Tim Callahan
    Perhaps the worst aspect of “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” Part I of Peter Joseph’s Internet film, Zeitgeist, is that some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally — and sloppily — mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus.
    One of the more damning features of zeitgeist is it's conspiracy bent:
    Skeptic.com articleConsidering that Part II of Zeitgeist asserts that the destruction of the World Trade Center was a conspiracy on the part of the powers that be, and that Part III is an attack on the Federal Reserve Board and income tax as unconstitutional plots devised by hidden powers bent on reducing all of us to poverty, one might wonder why Peter Joseph even bothered to open his film with an attack on Jesus and Christianity. ...
    Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids.
    Please go to the above link to read the whole article. It is interesting.

    Also
    http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/MithrasThere are many misconceptions about the relationship about Mithraism and Christianity. Some of these are misinterpretations of real facts, and others are simply utterly wrong. Here are some of the more common outright falsehoods:
    * Mithras was born of a virgin. Mithras was born out of a rock, often called the petra genetrix. He is often portrayed as already wearing a Phrygian cap and holding a dagger in one hand and a torch in the other. See Manfred Clauss' work The Roman Cult of Mithras, pp. 62-71.
    * Mithras was attended by shepherds at his birth. This appears to come from Mithras being attended by two torchbearers, but these are not shepherds. Again, see Clauss, p. 68-69.
    * Mithras had twelve disciples. This appears to be derived from some iconography in the mithraea where the twelve symbols of the zodiac are arrayed around the scene of Mithras killing the bull. The connection between twelve disciples and twelve signs of the zodiac is made in the book The Jesus Mysteries and by Acharya S (D.Murdock)[1].
    * Mithras died and was resurrected. This appears to be derived from a brief mention by Tertullian, a second-century Christian apologist, who writes in his Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 40, that "if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan, ) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown [2]." Tertullian's comment is unclear about what this "image of a resurrection" is supposed to mean, and it is not clear if indeed his memory does serve him. Claims that the mythology of Mithras actually included his death and resurrection are absent from work by Mithraic scholars such as Franz Cumont and Manfred Clauss, nor is it in the Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, and there is no evidence from the iconography of the mithraea that he even died. There is discussion in Cumont and the Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies of Mithraists sharing with the Zoroastrians a belief in the resurrection of the dead in the final judgment of the world, but not discussion of Mithras himself being resurrected. (It is quite possible that during the Babylonian captivity of the Jews, "Zoroastrian thought from Persia was a contributing factor" to the idea of resurrection in Judaism [3], so if Mithraism and Christianity did share a belief in the resurrection, it is most likely by common ancestry, with Christianity getting this belief from Judaism.)


    The above was an atheistic/agnostic source, but to be fair, the "christian" response at least quotes scholarly sources .. Even though I am a fan of myth and folklore and not a fan of fundamentalism, I agree with the scholarly source in that the relations drawn between various deities are highly conflated.





    I believe in small conspiracies and cover-ups but not some grand conspiracy by someone who calls herself Acharya s with a gnostic slant
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2009 5:56 AM GMT
    MOST Christians and Athetists leaders/scholars do not care about what is true and what is false; all they care about is how best to influence the ignorant public to their school of thought--it is about power and control and demonizing the other viewpoint.
  • wrestler674

    Posts: 21

    Mar 21, 2009 2:30 PM GMT
    i agree with cuba...the best way i've ever heard religion defined is:

    "religion is a crutch for the weak minded" former gov jessy ventura

    if people put as much faith in themselves as they do priests,chuches, moscs, synigogues etc...we could be a group of people that would achieve anything we imagine.

    after all...is wasn't that long ago that people believed the sun was drawn across the sky by a chariot and winged horse...

    all they did was go from worshipping one idol to another.


    just imagine what we would be now...had it not been for the church inspired "dark ages"....hmmmmmm icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 3:01 PM GMT
    wrestler674 saidi agree with cuba...the best way i've ever heard religion defined is:

    "religion is a crutch for the weak minded" former gov jessy ventura

    if people put as much faith in themselves as they do priests,chuches, moscs, synigogues etc...we could be a group of people that would achieve anything we imagine.

    after all...is wasn't that long ago that people believed the sun was drawn across the sky by a chariot and winged horse...

    all they did was go from worshipping one idol to another.


    just imagine what we would be now...had it not been for the church inspired "dark ages"....hmmmmmm icon_idea.gif



    No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! icon_evil.gificon_rolleyes.gifIf you are going to make such dogmatic statements at least get them right. The church did not inspire the period known as the Dark Ages. Can be argued just the reverse as a matter of fact:

    http://www.gotquestions.org/dark-ages.html

    The “Dark Ages” are commonly considered to be the early part of the period known as the Middle Ages. Often the term Dark Ages refers to the initial five hundred years following the fall of Rome in 476. It is thought of as beginning around 450 AD and continuing till 1000 AD. During this time period Rome and other cities deteriorated because of the invasions of barbarians from northern and central Europe. Since there was no longer an imperial authority with the power to protect the citizens of the cities, the urban population declined sharply during this period of history. Another consequence of the lack of a strong central power was the development of the feudal system especially from 900-1150 AD. During this feudal age, most parishes had rural populations and towns tended to be smaller less numerous. Castles and walled towns were guarded by the feudal lord’s armies that provided security and safety to the peasants and townspeople from the invading barbarians. One of the consequences of the feudal system was the decline in church structures because of feudalistic pressures and control that was put upon them.

    It was during this time that a new religious movement called monasticism developed. After the establishment of the Benedictine order at Monte Cassino in 529 AD, monasticism spread quickly throughout the medieval church and the monastery replaced the functions of the early church and became a link between the classical city and medieval city. The withdrawal of the church from cities to monasteries caused the church to be oriented more inwardly than outwardly. While sometimes the church is blamed for the spiritual darkness of the Dark Ages, in many ways it was the only light, no matter how dim, that shone in the darkness of surrounding barbarism and heathenism. During this time it was the priests and the monks that saved from the ruins of the Roman Empire the treasures of classical literature—along with the Holy Scriptures and patristic writings—and preserved them for the future.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 3:04 PM GMT
    I've always felt that Chritianity was a Hallmark (tm) creation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 4:36 PM GMT
    There are some troubling aspects to the video that make it look sloppy. There was no "miracle birth" associated with Joseph (his mother, Rachel, dies at childbirth of his younger brother, Benjamin, allegedly due to a curse Jacob puts on whomever stole her father's idols when he abandons Laban). Jospehus can be called many things but fraudulent isn't one of them (most recently, the detail provided of Herod's funeral allowed my uncle to find the long-lost tomb). The "Dark Ages" are called that not because they were "dark" but because there is little information available to shed light on them.

    Indeed, the "personal attack" on Josephus is unnecessary. There is only one passage in his voluminous works and it reads like a propaganda slogan:

    || Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

    Consider that Josephus was a Jew who did not accept Christianity, that the paragraph appears out of place and that early Christian writers (before the 4th century) did not reference Josephus for proof of the existence of Jesus. It's not a leap to conclude that the paragraph was not written by Josephus but was a later insertion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 5:03 PM GMT
    G0ys saidBecause atheist people have nothing better to do.


    To help you NeoCons Christians. with you weak mind set. Why do you assume I am an Atheist.
    I think it all you Christians who need a little help finding you way and not the other way around. Why do automatically assume I need to be saved.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 5:14 PM GMT
    BlackGuy4You> "During this time it was the priests and the monks that saved from the ruins of the Roman Empire the treasures of classical literature—along with the Holy Scriptures and patristic writings—and preserved them for the future."

    Um, no.

    The priests and monks may have, selectively, "saved" certain books (those they favored), but saved from whom? Are we to believe that illiterate barbarians confused scolls as treasures or had a burning desire to eliminate them?

    Take a look here:

    http://alexandrinelibrarian.blogspot.com/2007/03/welcome-and-introduction_11.html

    Disclaimer: That text has errors in it and appears to be as biased as what you quoted.

    This may be a better example:

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

  • everhorn

    Posts: 44

    Mar 22, 2009 12:02 AM GMT
    cjcscuba1984 saidMOST Christians and Athetists leaders/scholars do not care about what is true and what is false; all they care about is how best to influence the ignorant public to their school of thought--it is about power and control and demonizing the other viewpoint.




    In my opinion, that is an extremely cynical opinion and one which cannot be proven to have any basis in fact. How is anyone able to opine just what "MOST Christians and Athetists [sic]" care about or what are their motives regarding power and control?

    I think it is adequately proven that the "Zeitgeist" videos are erroneous and based upon poor scholarship (if ANY scholarship).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 22, 2009 6:24 PM GMT
    I think people need to learn how to separate Christianity from Christians...
    I myself am Pagan, but I have many Christian friends and family. I love them, and I absolutely hate the stupid fucking "Christian" church.

    Christianity as a faith - all fine and good - do what Jesus did, and everything works out great. Christianity as a religion can suck it.

    From my experience, the average everyday Christian is a rather nice loving person. Its when Christians get power that everything goes to shit, but then that really happens with any group of people.

    I mean really, it takes a special kind of person to tell someone else how to live their lives because 'god' "speaks" to them about other people's business.

    Its insane to me that people feel they need a pastor/preacher/priest w/e, really if god is capable of speaking to that person, well then 'by god' (haha pun intended), s/he can speak to everyone.

    I say keep your bibles and cut out the middle man.



    and really - I can speak from personal experience, I used to spend 5 nights a week at church + Sunday, for 2 hour sermons each, plus the 1 hour of worship... YAY me, I know my theology. I did that for years and years btw.

    And please, I'm sure people will hate for this, but if you're going to quote a Christian, quote Jesus... all the rest are posers. And if you even go that far, please get a direct translation from the originals.

    Stupid fucking Paul - Mr. Road to Damascus himself never even met Jesus (while he was alive)... Hmm thats funny, neither did I. I guess Paul doesn't know more than me...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2009 3:34 PM GMT
    icon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2009 3:48 PM GMT
    Even thou I found Zeitgeist quite entertaining...I wondered if it was correct, it made so many "facts" so quickly like it was trying very hard to CONVINCE me.

    As I watched it, I paused the video and researched the points it was making online. Time and time again I found it exaggerating "facts" that were incorrect. It also strung together crazy theories that were very difficult to reference. If I remember correctly, the film makes a big point by using a certain star system and a specific star. When I looked it up, the star it used wasn't even in that galaxy. It's really scary that some people believe it is truth because the film really is well put together which makes it more believable.

    Research everything you see from films like this before taking them as fact. Don't get taken in by anyone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2009 4:00 PM GMT
    It amazes me how inefficient God was. He sent His Son to preach to a few thousand Jews in a Roman backwater province, Who then dies. It takes His followers hundreds of years to get their act together and spread the Word.

    In the meantime, generations throughout the world had lived & died, and never heard a hint of any of this, and couldn't enjoy the benefits thereof. If we all need to know the word of Christ for salvation, what happened to them? Didn't get that memo?

    Of course, the Mormons think Jesus preached to the Native Americans after His resurrection, so I guess some of them made out OK. Sadly, no word of it seems to have been passed down to their descendants that the first Europeans met. But not surprising, since they had no formal writing system, and certainly no Bible.

    And I'm not sure about the Chinese, Japanese or Koreans, or the Mayans and Incas, or any part of Africa below the Mediterranean, or India, either, that were apparently left out of the picture. You can forget Australia altogether.

    What a hit-or-miss God this is! If He's the Almighty, He could have given us all a great multi-media presentation that everyone could see at once, in every corner of the Earth. What's with this limited VIP-only presentation, followed by conflicting word-of-mouth dissemination? I think God needs to get Himself a good PR agency.