Catholicism, the Univeral church:what that means

a reply to: chr0naut

Plato studied abroad with the ancient Egyptian schools, it is, a field, of, hmmm... Understanding humans...(?)
Understanding what it means to be a human and understanding the ( a priori ) natural instinct..

a reply to: chr0naut

Why are you obsessed with the Magi, anybody who knows history knows that the Magi were the Priesthood of what the Greeks called Zoroastrianism. The Magi are not Babylonian because Babylon was not a Zoroastrian nation. Or a religion.

So if you want to insist that they came from Babylon it is fine with me. Babylon was conquered by Persia who was conquered by Greece. The Magi of the Bible were Zoroastrian, which is a Persian religion originally and historically. Nobody is denying this if they are educated about Zoroastrianism. Your wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't see what you have to gain by arguing about the Magi, you clearly don't know what Zoroastrianism called its Holy men or you wouldn't have said they were Babylonian. They were Zoroastrian, which most likely makes them Persian. Of course, they are mythological anyhow and not real, the Magi of the New Testament, so their country of origin is moot.

But the point of including the Magi in the story was that it is a syncretic myth that unites the faiths of old with the new.

Persian, Greek, Hebrew, Roman religious traditions are all a part of the Universal/Catholic religion, the religion that gave us the New Testament.

I don't care how knowledgeable you THINK you are, but you clearly have a lot to learn about the Bible. Some people don't need 40 years or however long you claim to have been studying the bible to learn simple facts about the genesis of Christianity from Catholicism and the syncreticism that you don't know anything about.

So I think you should stop trying to disprove actual history. It's reprehensible. You can believe whatever you want, but you won't convince me that you are knowledgeable about ANY religion and can brag all you want. You are denying the truth and promoting lies out of bias. You want biblical Christianity to be true. I want the truth about history. We have different goals, while I don't judge you for sticking to your beliefs, I will tell you that you have no idea where those beliefs come from, as you yourself have proven. How can you believe something so historically full of ish, and guilty of so many crimes against humanity that Yahweh himself is jealous.

You have the right, but that doesn't make it right.

Keep denying the influence that the mentioned religious traditions had on Catholicism. You are participating in deception, yours and the worlds. That isn't honorable at all. The truth might be unpopular, but it beats not knowing it. Enemies of the truth are the ones who hate those who speak it. Enemies of the truth deny anything that isn't beneficial to their own team.

Enemies of lies are enemies of those who lie. Those who deny the truth lie.

a reply to: Merari

So you have a PhD. in Zoroastrian theology? Or maybe a book to quote, even the page number? By someone who has a PhD in Zoroastrian Theology? Or maybe something similar? Someone who actually is a real scholar? Or maybe even a Zoroastrian priest? The Parsi in India?

You want the truth about History, well our history starts, with the first letters on paper about 6kya.. Before that, we dont know, is that hard to comprehend? We know that neolithic society started about 10-12kya, after the last Ice age.. Before that we dont know.. We can use carbon dating to 60kya before that we dont know..

But we can make a reference on things, someone had knowledge how to make a working farmers almanac with stones in a round circle.. That means something doesnt it? But the fact is, thats the only thing we know..
You used human deities to portray a divine ideal, you used the five naked celestial bodies tell stories about Gods.. That is astronomy, not someones blog.. You can observe it, with your eyes..

Do you understand the term, we dont know..

Just off the top of my head, I can think of several elements in Christianity that are pagan.

1. The comprimising of the true Sabbath for the purposes of making the transition for pagans to Christianity easier and more likely. A strategic move that cares not about God's ordinances. Or Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish tradition. It comes down to attracting converts without regard to what God says about adopting pagan customs. It's forbidden to worship the sun and for the pagans SUN day was the holy day. So if you make it the holy day of your church you have adopted the pagan custom of sun worship, knowingly or not. God ordained the 7'th day the Sabbath and he isn't known for letting small infractions go unpunished. I am pretty sure you could even be killed for certain Sabbath violations. Changing the Sabbath is not biblically allowed and akin to overruling God. God never changed the Sabbath and despised paganism and adopting pagan customs is forbidden. But people find ways to justify it, usually by saying that Jewish law doesn't apply or something similar. I think Jesus said to keep the Sabbath holy. Saturday. You aren't keeping the Sabbath holy by following mans decree to observe sunday, the day of the sun, as holy. That is forsaking the actual holy Sabbath, the opposite of keeping it holy. To attract pagans.

2. Christmas. A new name for a very old holiday that puts Jesus in the position and company of the many sun gods from Tammuz to Mithras or Sol Invictus (the unconquerable sun) who all were said to be born on December 25. Every Christmas tradition from the tree to the mistletoe to the caroling and giving of presents is pagan. It originates with the first trinity of Nimrod and the ressurected Nimrod known as Tammuz, son of Semiramis who was the sister and wife (possibly mother as well) of Nimrod, the slain first potentate of the world. Christmas is one of two pagan high holidays which are the winter and summer solstices. The other is:

3. Easter. The name Easter is an English way of saying the name of the pagan goddess Ishtar. Or in Greek it's Ioestre, I think. Ashtoreth is another version. There are many names for the pagan goddess Easter, but it is the name of a pagan goddess and a pagan high holiday that was disguised as a Christian holy day or holiday. Jesus didn't ordain any holidays that I am aware of, and none of these two holidays are Christian at all. They are both older than Christianity itself. And pagan.

4. The trinity. Not a word even in the Bible and a polytheistic as well as pagan invention. A human doctrine. Pagan trinities go back to Nimrod/Tammuz/Semiramis and India with its own trinity of Kali/Shiva/Brahma or whatever it was,I could have the names wrong about India but I now the Nimrod legend of the first Christmas and the first trinity well. The Bible has old Testament references to traditional pagan Christmas if you look. Just Google Christmas old testament. You will find references easy. But it was also the source of the first trinity.

I think that covers the pagan aspects of Christianity that subsist to this day almost entirely ignored. People get hostile when you show them this stuff. Or they say "that's just the roots" or another equally invalid argument about how it doesn't matter. That's just dismissive. You claim to follow Jesus but you don't. You follow human tradition over the WORD of God, YOUR God. I'm only talking in general and to unaware or unwilling to accept the truth christians who don't acknowledge the impact of MANY religions and philosophies in the creation of the mythical Jesus and the New Testament that is a mythical account of a historical man, not a literal history of Yeshua the Nazarene. You have to try and visualize the ancient world. The areas surrounding Jerusalem and the whole Roman Empire. Constantine needed a way to unite the Empire and make it easier to rule so he had the non Jewish Christians make an official canon and it was a political move that led to the official New Testament and it's universal message of salvation and Catholicism with its willingness to compromise if it meant success. No divine gospel. Just embellished history and the traditions of men.

Now, prior to the Babylonian captivity, the Israelites did not have a belief in an afterlife other than Sheol which is oblivious darkness or something similar and there was no heaven and hell for humans because they didn't have a judgment day of souls or Apocalyptic books like Daniel, which I hear was the actual last book written of the Old Testament and during the Maccabean revolt.

They didn't have much in the area of Angelology or Cosmogony, even the idea of a divine Messiah,uuntil they came in common with the Abrahamic friendly doctrines of the Persian Farsi or Parsee worshippers of the Wise Lord Ahura Mazda or Orhmuzd. They were thrilled to learn about the knowledge of the Parsees and became the Pharisees. I think they have gotten a bad name for absolutely no reason other than the New Testament Jesus is killed at the instigation of the Jews and he warns about the Pharisees in particular but they supposedly historically got along with Yeshua and the Jerusalem church. But the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism influened Christianity as did Zoroastrianism itself. Heaven and hell, judgement, a devil who is at war with God and man. The ultimate triumph of good over evil. The whole concept and importance of The Word. Sayoshant became Christ or the Christian version of Messiah. All from the doctrine of Zoroaster with their own spin on it. But Zoroastrianism is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion in the world and it's influence goes unnoticed because they are few in numbers and the Abrahamic faiths are more successful so nobody is paying attention to the Parsees, the modern Zoroastrians, except unrelenting missionaries who want to convert them.

a reply to: Merari

wow, you really dont get it do you? Ever tried a why to the how?

originally posted by: Tsuro
a reply to: Merari

wow, you really dont get it do you? Ever tried a why to the how?

... and Myrhh has just been banned (again). Seems that they can't take a hint.

It's good that good people are out here spreading knowledge, even if the evil censors of knowledge of the world do anything to keep alive a dead myth. Including hating people for spreading knowledge. Why anyone would ever hate someone for spreading knowledge is not hard to figure out, it comes down to several possible options. Usually it is a zealous almost rabid belief in the common belief and teachings of biblical Christianity, as told by the churches. Blinders are put on and the truth doesn't matter once you have salvation. The message of free salvation is universally appealing. It's just probably not what happens when you die. If there is a judgement as Yeshua taught then you might want to be a good person just in case. People can get away with what would be considered hate and bigotry if it weren't covered under freedom of religion. It's like heaven is a spiritual version of "whites only" in Christianity. Only there kind are allowed. Muslims and Hindus and everyone who didn't have faith that Jesus died for our sins goes to hell.

originally posted by: Gnosisrisen
a reply to: chr0naut
Haters

I don't hate you, I'm not particularly emotional about it at all.

I just feel that your "message" is not correct and I have posted links and data supportive of my refutation.

The basis of web based boards is one of debate, one opinion versus another. This allows posters to consider views and information that may be contrary to their own and to evaluate on their merits. Supportive links and factual details are a vital part of this.

If you imagined that ATS is a one-way public broadcast system for your opinions, then you are mistaken.

If such is the case, I suggest that logging out of ATS and standing in a public place with a megaphone, where people are likely to gather to listen to such views, would be far more satisfactory. Even then, you may have to deal with hecklers, but they would not have the redress of being able to provide external and verifiable facts.

And a single word post is against the terms and conditions.

Gnosisrisen,

If this is another new account due to your old one being banned then i really think you need too see a shrink. Or get out abit more, see the skies and talk to people face to face.

Not having a go i just really think your having mental health issues especially conserning religion. Man most religious people arnt this obsessed.

Just thinking out loud.

a reply to: chr0naut

He thinks is a revolutionary idea, then he just makes another story.. Even though i agree and disagree with organized religion, i weigh them both against each other.. I do pick organized religion, cause it fills the basic needs for us to be the ideal of what it means to be human.. Is it right or wrong?; I think the other option is worse..
But this guy just rants about Zoroastrian as the founder, even Nietzsche figured out modern Christianity with the book "Thus spoke Zarathustra"
But he is to much influenced by his own culture to make a reasonable thought..

originally posted by: Tsuro
a reply to: chr0naut

He thinks is a revolutionary idea, then he just makes another story.. Even though i agree and disagree with organized religion, i weigh them both against each other.. I do pick organized religion, cause it fills the basic needs for us to be the ideal of what it means to be human.. Is it right or wrong?; I think the other option is worse..
But this guy just rants about Zoroastrian as the founder, even Nietzsche figured out modern Christianity with the book "Thus spoke Zarathustra"
But he is to much influenced by his own culture to make a reasonable thought..

I do think that Zoroastrianism had links and influences to Judaism, but the time frames are probably not right to assume that Judaism is a descendant of Zoroastrianism. For one thing, Moses and Abraham date from well before Zoroaster in the traditional dating.

I actually think that there may have been a pre-Zoroastrian and pre-Mosaic common belief, which defined the language used to carry concepts of a monotheistic view. This also doesn't mean that Zoroastrian or Abrahamic beliefs necessarily came from this earlier one; merely that common concepts had a language in which they could be expressed.

Perhaps the faith of Melchizedek was Zoroastrian as some have proposed? The sources don't go into enough detail to make any sort of determination.

Either way, the Pentateuch is clear that the law and beliefs were not sourced from ancient sages, which might be the case if the Abrahamic faiths were a reinvent of earlier ones, but were by direct revelation from God, as were Zoroastrian beliefs.

a reply to: chr0naut

They practiced laws, or common sense as the greek wants to call it.. Its always been the same religion, sorta.. You just change the face when the time is right..

The religion of being a respectful individual towards others and with obligations to society and you have guidelines how it works..Or policies..

Zoroastrianism definitely influenced Judaism following the Exile when the Persians freed them. Christianity was affected more indirectly but it was affected by it nonetheless. Greeces version of Zoroastrianism was Gnosticism and Christianity which has less cosmogony than but the same savior. If a person is denying that Christianity is a faith with many outside influences such as Zoroastrianism, they just don't know yet. They might need time to look into it.

Zoroaster goes back, according to the Parsees, to Ibrahim Zeradust, who is said to have been Abraham himself before coming to Ur, and that he reorganized the religion of the daevas into a monotheistic religion where daevas became false gods and demons, and Ahura Mazda was the one Wise Lord. This is Parsee legend. It's plausible. Judaism and Zoroastrianism had common traditions before Babylonian captivity and as fate would have it, Persia freed them from Babylonian captivity. The no doubt grateful Jews even adopted the new name of Pharisee for one sect whose traditions come from the Parsees, Zoroastrians.

Mithras would become a god to the Romans who made their own traditions about Mithras, the Persian angel, and they would become Christian traditions as WE.

The ancient world is fascinating and the myth of Christ is just a syncretic myth. About a real guy.

a reply to: chr0naut

Jewish tradition is that Shem was Melchizedeck and Zoroastrianism was not the religion of Shem.

Melchizedeck means king of Righteousness and Jewish tradition supersedes Christian. If he is Shem in Judaism he SHOULD be in Christianity, but Christianity is not shy about tinkering with tradition.

It's a bad theory that Melchizedeck was Zoroastrian because Shem is older than Zoroaster could ever have been. Zoroaster was a Persian also, Aryan to be more precise. Which means he is either Indian or Persian. Abraham is a also legendarily A Brahman from India who also reorganized the daeva worshippers into monotheism. So they could all be the same person, Brahma, Ibrahim Zeradust, and Abraham.

a reply to: Esephech

You took several institutions and made one cause of human nature..

Aryanism is an religious ideal.. Its adopting the scientific value of religion, it even has a creed..

BuuUuuUUUt You Knewww that RiiiigHHHt?

Mr Scholar

a reply to: Esephech

So they could all be the same person, Brahma, Ibrahim Zeradust, and Abraham.

Wow, all of a sudden logic seems to prevail..

Christianity has a purpose and a meaning, see it like this.. Humans are stupid as s***, they dont care, nor will they ever care, they are lazy, and will rather kill something than work for it...

The Satanic -driven increase of sufferings of common people in the course of Church's history, (including the non demanding of Christian monarchs for more social justice), questions the very idea that the Good God send His Only begotten Son to Die for the sins of humanity and to bear upon himself what we "deserve by our sins".

Although I do not doubt the death of Lord Jesus, I doubt its interpretations by numerous church fathers, who after all defended a political status quo that brought increased suffering, not alleviated, and finally ended up with the darkest period of human history. The average lifespan was below 40. Nobody talks of that today, yes?

The (Roman) Church is yet to make remorse of past transgressions, even before demanding anything from the "poor sinners". The Church should make grandiose efforts to repair what she did in history, now on behalf of betterment of humanity.

ET Disclosure? Admission the Angels are ET good ones? One of the many examples how the Church may try to repair the 15 centuries abuse of power. Because we could probably reach the Industrial revolution in 5th century, if it was not for Augustine to declare the "Millennium" was "now" ib the Church's controlled Roman empire and afterwards, and everyone who opposes it deserves the fires of hell. Even more, everyone who tries to build up real kingdom of God on earth with beatitudes of Jesus fulfilled, may qualify for the antichrist, or at least for his forerunner. Augustine, who is not a DOGMA, as well as all subsequent teachers, should be publicly demystified and denounced about the screwing up the timeline of revelation. Especially about denying the possibility of building up a kingdom of God on earth in real terms, with social justice, food for the poor, and so on.

Sorry for being quite bitter on that, but can;t bear that 15-16 years after the paradise line of 2000 we still talk of things like feeding the homeless on the streets of developed countries, state loans for poor countries amid widespread corruption, and to cap it all, immigrants from Africa and Asia to overflow Europe. There was ENOUGH TIME after the Cold War these problems to be solved. There wasn't political will. As Obama said, 15 years of 21st century were missed. As Putin said, the paradise promised at the end of Cold War never came. What more to wait for, when our lives just passed slowly but surely? Why to be silent anymore? The system doesn't work! The king is naked! The Catholic Church as the major Christian organization and oldest institution on the planet, DOESN'T FUNCTION PROPERLY even for smaller things, let alone to be the beacon for the world.

Where is the New World Order that Francis would have established int he UN in September 2015? Why all good promises just run flat, and the next crisis comes to overtake our full beings? How long shall we wait, and wait what? Nibiru may be, to decide all our problems once and for all? Why not Francis say the things as they are, and start a real change NOW, at the 3rd year of his pontificate, not wasting even a minute more? Who if not he? Obama may be? Putin proved he is political leader not spiritual, and not liberator of the world. Forget about that scenario. We need a clear cut coming from spiritual place and taken by politicians as life-saving agenda of today. Otherwise, Merkel's resignation wouldn't be enough because the next ones wouldn't bring any betterment, as EU agonizes already 20 years. Otherwise, we are doomed even without Doomsday. Let do what should be done in 5 centuries, instead of Burning Heretics like Giordano Bruno! They should be canonized instead of those teachers who brought us here where we are now, wondering is there any future for our children or all was in vain.

Here is how Augustine crewed up the timeline of Reveation, still a teaching although not a dogma.

imgur.com...
Here is my version of the timeline of Reveation

imgur.com...