why cant christians accept the origins of christianity

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Your information is incorrect. Hinduism came from Zoroastrianism.

I am merely using historical facts of the origin of religion.

It is a fact that Hinduism came from Zoroastrianism whether you want to accept it or not.

BACK IT UP

From ze wiki...

Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed credal religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly or indirectly, than any other single faith... some of its leading doctrines were adopted by Judaism, Christianity and Islam". (Boyce, 1979, pg 1)

....

Many traits of this ancient religion can be traced back to the culture and beliefs of the proto-Indo-Iranian period, and Zoroastrianism consequently shares some elements with the Vedic faiths that also have their origins in that era. However, Zoroastrianism was also strongly affected by the later culture of the Iranian Heroic Age (1500 BC onwards), an influence that the Indic religions were not subject to. Nonetheless, scholars have used evidence from the texts of both religious systems to reconstruct the earlier stage of proto-Indo-Iranian beliefs and culture. This has also formed attempts to characterise the even earlier Proto-Indo-European religion

So it seems that there is a likely root of all these religions. Guess religions have evolved just like language, culture, biology, cosmology...

You're right, it is the oldest Credal religion, however Hinduism isn't a credal religion. The Vedas didn't teach religious dogma or the following of any individual deity. However, many ideas, such as Om, and Dharma are shared between the two, and hold their origins in the Vedic teachings.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
You're right, it is the oldest Credal religion, however Hinduism isn't a credal religion. The Vedas didn't teach religious dogma or the following of any individual deity. However, many ideas, such as Om, and Dharma are shared between the two, and hold their origins in the Vedic teachings.

Oh, no, I agree with you. What I've read seems to confirm that. I was just pointing out that if zoroastrianism is babylonian, as stated by Sun, then it seems that the abrahamic religons are a derivative of it

And that there is a likely proto-religion that underlies them all.

[edit on 14-11-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
You're right, it is the oldest Credal religion, however Hinduism isn't a credal religion. The Vedas didn't teach religious dogma or the following of any individual deity. However, many ideas, such as Om, and Dharma are shared between the two, and hold their origins in the Vedic teachings.

Oh, no, I agree with you. What I've read seems to confirm that. I was just pointing out that if zorastrianism is babylonian, as stated by Sun, then it seems that the abrahamic religons are a derivative of it

And what you accidently showed is that Zoroastrianism is claimed to be the oldest religion.

Please provide one thing from Christianity that came from Zoroanstrianism. Just one. Christianity started when the prophesied Messiah rose from the dead.

Now tell me about the prophet Zoroaster from Persia. Look when he lived 500 or so BC.

Others say 1200 BC

The evidence says much earlier...............why is this?

[edit on 14-11-2006 by Sun Matrix]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
You're right, it is the oldest Credal religion, however Hinduism isn't a credal religion. The Vedas didn't teach religious dogma or the following of any individual deity. However, many ideas, such as Om, and Dharma are shared between the two, and hold their origins in the Vedic teachings.

Wrong again..............you must be getting frustrated.

Two of the most prominent world religions today have their origins in the Indian subcontinent of Asia. Both the Hindu and Buddhist religions can trace their creation back to this vast area. Hindu was the predecessor to Buddhism, as the latter was created as an offshoot of the central religion.

www.oppapers.com...

Dude, what are you talking about. Buddhism Zoroasrianism and Hinduism are all different religions.

And I know buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. That's not what we're talking about Sun. FOCUS!!!

[edit on 14-11-2006 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Dude, what are you talking about. Buddhism Zoroasrianism and Hinduism are all different religions.

And I know buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. That's not what we're talking about Sun. FOCUS!!!

[edit on 14-11-2006 by Rasobasi420]

I know, and thought so..........

Sun, you make my head hurt.

How did Sun managed to hijack the entire thread with completely unrelated and nonsensical arguments, while simultaneously sounding even more ridiculous as the posts roll on....what was the original subject again.... ah that's right the argument over the Origins of Christianity. What in the name of God, Yahweh, Vishnu, Zoroaster, Mani, Buddha, and any other religion you can conjure up to try and misconstrue this thread, DO YOU MEAN!?!?!?

Originally posted by Baphomet79
How did Sun managed to hijack the entire thread with completely unrelated and nonsensical arguments, while simultaneously sounding even more ridiculous as the posts roll on....what was the original subject again.... ah that's right the argument over the Origins of Christianity. What in the name of God, Yahweh, Vishnu, Zoroaster, Mani, Buddha, and any other religion you can conjure up to try and misconstrue this thread, DO YOU MEAN!?!?!?

Simple, I responded to factless statements..........read the thread.

If you have one piece of provable evidence that Christianity originated from Zoroastrianism please bring it forward.

If you can produce one incorrect prophecy form the Bible..........please feel free to come forward.



[edit on 14-11-2006 by Sun Matrix]

Alright well it's late so I'll just tackle the one area I know most about. China and its "kings of the east" with their 2 million man Army. No worries, I'll debunk a few others tomorrow.

In September 2003 China announced more cuts to its military, currently the largest standing armed force in the world. Former President Jiang Zemin, who heads China's Central Military Commission, announced the government plans to cut 200,000 troops from its force by the end the year 2005. The newest cuts would bring the size of the People's Liberation Army to 2.3 million. Most of the cuts are expected to occur in the largest force, the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

The size of the PLA ground forces suggests that continued modernization will remain slow, deliberate, and limited through at least 2010. By 2020, infantry, airborne, armor and army aviation units will comprise a much larger percentage of the force. The army is supported by a large reserve-militia force numbering more than 1.5 million personnel and a one million man armed police force.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Sorry I can not find that in biblical prophecy.

So at best (in regards to your argument) China is expecting to cut down to 2.3 million, close to your number but not quite there. Yet if you consider the difference between Reserve PLA and Reserve "Western Armies," your prophecy undercuts this number by 1.8 million soldiers. Reserve within the PLA implies I only wear a uniform when we go to war, I do not need an order to do this. Thus we are now at 4.1 million soldiers, not 2,000,000. Thus you are completely incorrect on your prophecy.

P.S. That is without the Kings of the East; I am sure whatever that means they have some boys to contribute as well.

Debunk #1.

[edit on 14-11-2006 by Baphomet79]

Wow I did not even realize how ridiculous your claim was (sorry not used to seeing such outrageous statements,) 200 million, huh? Makes the argument against your beloved prophecy even stronger.

Yes, there are defiantly similarities in the tales of many religions. I know from time I have spent with one group of American Indians that much of their ancient tales match so closely with the Old Testament of the Bible that I now understand why so many of the early pastors that worked with the American Indians began to believe that they might even be the lost tribe of Israel. They have similar Creation stories; they have a Flood story and even a Noah. To me this does nothing but further validate the authenticity of these events. To me it shows that these events were in fact either on a global scale, or happened before man had spread out over the surface of the earth. This does not affect me as a Christian in any way, nor does it hurt my faith, what it does do is show the true intent of the OP. Why is the thread title not: “All religions stem from a similar source”, or, “The Old Testament contains stories used by other religions”?

Because the OP’s and others here intents are clear, to attack Christianity specifically.

What you will not find similar in other religions is God sending a Messiah to die a sinless death to grant grace to those that will accept it, through which one may obtain eternal salvation…

Now the second group of Christian haters comes in with the other tactic used so often in these threads, attacking the validity of the books of the Bible. They would very much like you to think that the Bible was a total work of propaganda that was written as recently as yesterday by some guy with a word processor and an agenda. Here is my answer to them.

First off there is NO solid evidence that the books of the bible were not authored shortly after the life of Christ by the men that claim authorship, there is Speculation that some of the authors may have been ghost writers and that some of the books were written a bit later. All four gospels are agreed by ALL scholars to have been completed by 100AD, as they were being quoted in other sources by that time. Now that seems like it is a long time after Christ, but when you think about it, not so. Christ was crucified between 29-36AD, which means that those books were not only penned but also had time to come into circulation within 64 to71 years after his death at the latest…

Now think about that for a second, that is the life span of a single man, it is entirely possible that several of the apostles were alive when these books were written down, it is even possible that some were dictated by the apostles themselves.

Acts and Luke were never claimed to be written by one of the actual 12 Apostles and were in fact written by Luke the traveling companion of Paul, who also happened to be a Doctor by trade. These two books are almost certainly written by the claimed author as they include descriptions that are consistent with other writers of the medical profession of the day such as Hippocrates. Similarly, Mark is written by Peter’s translator/scribe.

As to dates of writing of the Gospels; there is one major thing that many of these anti-Christians do not want folks to know about: the reason that some of their compatriot’s date the Gospels later then the original accepted date of writing. Moreover, it is something that mortally hurts their objectivity in my opinion, as they seem to want to exclude certain evidence that lends credence to earlier dating of the books. One of the major reasons that they give for later dating of the books is the fact that several of the prophecies in them ended up being accurate within the exact timeframe that Christ warned they would happen. This would be the Olivet discourse also known as the “Little Apocalypse”.

For anyone not familiar with what this event was I will quickly recap it here. Christ predicted that there would be an end of an age in the lifetime of the apostles. That was the end of the Age of the Jews, and the beginning of the Church Age. At the time, the disciples misinterpreted what Christ was saying and believed that the End of the World would come at that point, including Christ’s return to Earth. However, the Christians of the day did know that a terrible time would come upon them, and they knew the signs that would proceed that time. When the afore mentioned signs did in fact occur, they were recognized by the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem, who fled the city before the “Siege of Jerusalem” written about by Flavius Josephus in The Wars of the Jews. The Siege was so terrible that the Romans literally stripped the forests of the area making crosses for those that they captured trying to flee the city.

Now the Christians of the day new this was going to happen, and at the first signs of it, they had a mass Exodus to outlying lands, especially to Pella:

Outside the NT Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus, says
The people of the church in Jerusalem were commanded by an oracle given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Peraea which is called Pella. To it those who believed on Christ migrated from Jerusalem

Epiphanius (Haereses XXIX:7; XXX:2; De Mesuris and Ponderibus XV:3) cites a similar tradition. Each writer specifically mentions Pella as the final destination of the refugees. Epiphanius traces the origin of later Christian groups in Decapolis and Coele-Syria, including the sects of the Nazarenes and of the Ebionites, to this flight from the Romans just before 70 C.E.

On the basis of these statements it has been assumed that sometime before the final overthrow, some Jerusalem Christians, either in mass, small groups or as individuals, withdrew from the city to places of refuge, primarily in Transjordan.

Additional evidence suggests that following the war, Jerusalem and other Jewish Christians returned to the city and reorganized their fellowship

Now, of course these anti-Christians have tried to attack the validity of this story too, but there is too much evidence to support that it did in fact occur, and thus it is pretty much accepted, though not often talked about by them.

Now considering that one of the main issues that these non-Christians use to challenge the dates of the Gospels is this “Little Apocalypse” (its too accurate so it must have been written after the fact, after the 66 to 70 AD war), how did the Christians of the day know about it in order to flee?

Because the earlier dates for the writing and circulation must be more accurate, dates more like 50-60AD or within 20 to 30 years of the death of Christ; before the Revolt…

As a matter of fact, the only reason that the Book of Mark is not considered the Oldest of the Canonical Gospels is because of its reference to the “Little Apocalypse”.

Originally posted by greywolf1
You are right. as far as you go. What this council did do was to accept the list that was assembled by Ireaneus (as I recall) some years earlier. It was this list
that Constantine commisioned 50 copies to be printed which became the basis for all
modern bibles ( with a few more edits and changes later).

No I AM correct 100%…
There were a number of councils convened to discuss what books would be included in the Biblical Canon, the Council of Nicaea has never been listed as having anything to do with the acceptance of any books of the Bible.

For the Roman Catholic Church these included:
Synod of Laodicea:
3rd Synod of Carthage
Council of Trent

There were other councils held by various faiths over the years some of these include:
Calvinism: Westminster Confession of Faith
Greek Orthodoxy: Synod of Jerusalem

Canon of the New Testament
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council [ Council of Trent ].

I'd really like to see some intelligent, in-depth research that actually discerns between the multitude of conflicts present in this amazingly vast topic; between religious sectarianism, human cognition, the reconceptualization of the 'story' and since, at the point in time that human society was given coalescence, the type of philosophy most prevalent in these primate cultures, the development of language, the doctrinal interrelation of creation and the theme of 'loneliness' on the planet (having risen above the primordial beasts from wince level we came) between cultures isolated for up to 10,000 years. Think of Ancient Greece and the Inca Empire. There are relations in myths, stories, government of people, societal ideals, and philosophy. There are so many reasons that the chronological canvas usurps to us information and myth of idealism and entropy. I would like to truly get into a heated discussion about these types of thing and the advent of religion as a result of our biological concrescence, and position in the universe, however, many people would plain get offended. Too much unflinching faith won't do anyone any good. One will never traverse the dimensions of his soul in this way, and to disregard the wonderments of humanity, and life is subsequent. I can't believe people just won't except the frailty of our existence, the unique loneliness of our physical properties. Anyway, pull the trigger on time and you will see all clear.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
And what you accidently showed is that Zoroastrianism is claimed to be the oldest religion.

Please provide one thing from Christianity that came from Zoroanstrianism. Just one. Christianity started when the prophesied Messiah rose from the dead.

Well, I'll just go as far as showing that Judaism may well be a derivative of zoroastrianism. As christianity is a derivative of judaism, this should suffice.

Now it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion...the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ...the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme." From The Gnostics and Their Remains (London 1887) by King and Moore quoted at 607a in Peake's Bible Commentary.

There are suggestions that mithraism is a zoroastrian subcult and how christianity has relations to that. But to be honest, I have little motivation to bother reading more, however, I think that it is unlikely that christianity was formed in a vacuum.

[edit on 15-11-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Baphomet79
Alright well it's late so I'll just tackle the one area I know most about. China and its "kings of the east" with their 2 million man Army. No worries, I'll debunk a few others tomorrow.


army is supported by a large reserve-militia force numbering more than 1.5 million personnel and a one million man armed police force.

So at best (in regards to your argument) China is expecting to cut down to 2.3 million, close to your number but not quite there. Yet if you consider the difference between Reserve PLA and Reserve "Western Armies," your prophecy undercuts this number by 1.8 million soldiers. Reserve within the PLA implies I only wear a uniform when we go to war, I do not need an order to do this. Thus we are now at 4.1 million soldiers, not 2,000,000. Thus you are completely incorrect on your prophecy.

P.S. That is without the Kings of the East; I am sure whatever that means they have some boys to contribute as well.

Debunk #1.



This comment needs to receive some kind of award. What have you debunked?
We can find 2,000,000 Chinesse in one rice patty.

Wow I did not even realize how ridiculous your claim was (sorry not used to seeing such outrageous statements,) 200 million, huh? Makes the argument against your beloved prophecy even stronger.

Please, you are starting to make me laugh. So you don't think that the Kings of the East can field a 200,000,000 man army. China claimed to be able to do that in the 1990's. Your debunking needs work. Just open your eyes and think.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Please provide one thing from Christianity that came from Zoroanstrianism. Just one. Christianity started when the prophesied Messiah rose from the dead.

Christo-paganism aka 'christianity' today was in effect well before Yeshua Messiah rose from hades. Do you even read His teachings???? Do you even adhere to any of His warnings??? Are you suggesting He lied