The Greko Roman Christian conspiracy

Wait, you will no longer believe because some man-made church, run by men, incorporate pagan practices and rituals into the faith of Christ, which IS THE OLD TESTAMENT? Do you really think I as a Christian am subject to what the Catholic Church has declared? Truly? Did not Jesus say "Follow Me"? So this argument of yours makes no sense whatsoever. You are commanded a very tough role in Christ, to always speak His Truth in a world hostile to His Name. And yet, you fell because many churches chose their own dogma over Christ......that's like those whom blame and reject Paul for the lawless behaviour of many Christians, when he himself preached no such thing. reply to post by begoodbees


Paul also disregarded the law of Moses. If you pay attention you will notice that both Jesus and Satan are referred to as the prince of the air and the morning star. The morning star being the planet Venus which is also an occultist pagan symbol.

reply to post by charles1952


I'm not sure how accurate this info is but it correlates original post.

"To Christianize his empire, Constantine had to gradually cripple paganism. He confiscated their treasures, destroyed their temples, banned their practices and killed many influential pagans. Not content with suppressing merely paganism, Constantine was also actively involved in missionary work. Whenever he conquered new lands and people, forced conversion to Christianity was always one of his demands. All these factors paved the way for the growth of Christianity which carried on after his death. Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire would become predominantly Christian. 4"

I found it at the following site.

neobyzantium.com...

I cannot locate the literature that I originally learned the idea of forced conversion so I cannot say for fact that this is the case.
This is said to have been around 325 A.D.

I don't believe there is any record of Jesus or Christianity at all before 100 A.D.
Please correct me if I am wrong, I am a willing student as much as a humble teacher.

reply to post by begoodbees


Or did Constantine paganize Christianity?

Wikipedia:

Constantine certainly did not patronize Christianity alone. After gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312), a triumphal arch—the Arch of Constantine—was built (315) to celebrate his triumph. The arch is most notably decorated with images of the goddess Victoria and, at the time of its dedication, sacrifices to gods like Apollo, Diana, and Hercules were made. Most notably absent from the Arch are any depictions whatsoever regarding Christian symbolism.

Later in 321, Constantine instructed that Christians and non-Christians should be united in observing the venerable day of the sun, referencing the sun-worship that Aurelian had established as an official cult. Furthermore, and long after his oft alleged "conversion" to Christianity, Constantine's coinage continued to carry the symbols of the sun. Even after the pagan gods had disappeared from the coinage, Christian symbols appeared only as Constantine's personal attributes: the chi rho between his hands or on his labarum, but never on the coin itself.[209] Even when Constantine dedicated the new capital of Constantinople, which became the seat of Byzantine Christianity for a millennium, he did so wearing the Apollonian sun-rayed Diadem; no Christian symbols were present at this dedication.

reply to post by begoodbees

I believe they invented Christianity as a way to turn people away from their God/gods.

That makes zero sense -- the Romans had a very effective religious system in place for hundreds of years, which served them very well. With one exception, Roman religious life allowed anything and everything, so long as one of the gods that you worshipped was the Emperor, which obviously solidified allegiance of incorporated cultures, as they were free to worship whatever gods they wanted to.

The one exception was the Jews, who proved so problematic in accepting polytheism that they were granted an exception -- they could continue to worship the God of the Israelites, and were the only group that did not have to view Caesar as a god. Christians began to be persecuted for not worshiping Caesar once they became a distinctive group from the Jews, and it was ruled that they did not enjoy such a provision. As Charles pointed out, until Constantine legalized (rather than "invented") Christianity, the Empire actively persecuted Christians, who were told that they could avoid death simply by attesting to the divinity of the Emperor.

That's history, my friend, well documented, not some imagined conspiracy. To say otherwise is to demean the lives of those who stood up to a corrupt government and died for their religious freedoms.

There have been a lot of threads lately talking about Romans interfering with the story of the NT. People are finally starting to wake up to the reality that Rome DID intervene in Jesus' life and afterwards changed his (her) story.

Simon Peter is the first person you need to look at to find the Roman conspiracy. Peter is called Satan by Jesus in Matthew 16:23 and isn't reinstated until after Jesus' resurrection. Any logical thinking person would come to the conclusion that Jesus never rose from the dead which means Jesus never had the chance to reinstate Peter which means Peter was never reinstated. His reinstatement was inserted by the Romans later on in order to cover up Peter's betrayal of Jesus.

The two people behind Jesus' capture and eventual death were named Caiaphas and Judas. Caiaphas is Aramic for "rock", Jesus renamed Simon Peter "Cephas" in John 1:42 which is also "rock" in Aramic. Judas was the son of a man named Simon, which also happens to be Peters name before his name change.

In my opinion, these 3 people and Paul are all the same person. I think this is what Leonardo was pointing towards in The Last Supper. If you take a look at Peter (third person to the left of Jesus in the painting) he is holding a knife behind his back while leaning toward John and Jesus. Judas is the man looking behind himself at Peter. Notice how Judas cuts Peter in half and how their is a disembodied hand coming from behind Peter that is at the throat of John. I think this represents Judas, Peter, and Paul being the same person because John traveled with Paul after the crucifixion. Paul was a Roman and the Romans split this one person into many persons to hide Peter's betrayal of Jesus and Romes infiltration into the story. Peter was supposedly crucified upside down which is a sign of the antichrist as well, I think Peter was a mole for the Romans.

There was another apostle named Simon, the Zealot. He supposedly died by being cut in half by a saw, this represents Simon Peter being split into Paul in my opinion.

Romans went on to add in pagan themes about 300 years later when they legalized Christianity. Paul added the faith and salvation part while Constantine and his people added in the miracles later. My opinion of course.

S&F

reply to post by begoodbees

Christianity began from within Israel and was not highjacked by the Romans until Constantine in the third century. There was however an early drift toward the Greko/Roman world because the negative reaction of the Jews to their own Messiah.

Christmas has pagan origins but Easter is Passover and the words for each are the same in every language except English although because Easter/Passover was a spring feast other spring symbols have became associated with it.

So you are almost right.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
There have been a lot of threads lately talking about Romans interfering with the story of the NT. People are finally starting to wake up to the reality that Rome DID intervene in Jesus' life and afterwards changed his (her) story.

Simon Peter is the first person you need to look at to find the Roman conspiracy. Peter is called Satan by Jesus in Matthew 16:23 and isn't reinstated until after Jesus' resurrection. Any logical thinking person would come to the conclusion that Jesus never rose from the dead which means Jesus never had the chance to reinstate Peter which means Peter was never reinstated. His reinstatement was inserted by the Romans later on in order to cover up Peter's betrayal of Jesus.

The two people behind Jesus' capture and eventual death were named Caiaphas and Judas. Caiaphas is Aramic for "rock", Jesus renamed Simon Peter "Cephas" in John 1:42 which is also "rock" in Aramic. Judas was the son of a man named Simon, which also happens to be Peters name before his name change.

In my opinion, these 3 people and Paul are all the same person. I think this is what Leonardo was pointing towards in The Last Supper. If you take a look at Peter (third person to the left of Jesus in the painting) he is holding a knife behind his back while leaning toward John and Jesus. Judas is the man looking behind himself at Peter. Notice how Judas cuts Peter in half and how their is a disembodied hand coming from behind Peter that is at the throat of John. I think this represents Judas, Peter, and Paul being the same person because John traveled with Paul after the crucifixion. Paul was a Roman and the Romans split this one person into many persons to hide Peter's betrayal of Jesus and Romes infiltration into the story. Peter was supposedly crucified upside down which is a sign of the antichrist as well, I think Peter was a mole for the Romans.

There was another apostle named Simon, the Zealot. He supposedly died by being cut in half by a saw, this represents Simon Peter being split into Paul in my opinion.

Romans went on to add in pagan themes about 300 years later when they legalized Christianity. Paul added the faith and salvation part while Constantine and his people added in the miracles later. My opinion of course.

Some interesting and original stuff there. I have not heard of nor thought of that theory. You have definitely given me something to ponder on. Thank you for your input.
S&F

edit on 10-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by begoodbees

 

I believe they invented Christianity as a way to turn people away from their God/gods.

That makes zero sense -- the Romans had a very effective religious system in place for hundreds of years, which served them very well. With one exception, Roman religious life allowed anything and everything, so long as one of the gods that you worshipped was the Emperor, which obviously solidified allegiance of incorporated cultures, as they were free to worship whatever gods they wanted to.

The one exception was the Jews, who proved so problematic in accepting polytheism that they were granted an exception -- they could continue to worship the God of the Israelites, and were the only group that did not have to view Caesar as a god. Christians began to be persecuted for not worshiping Caesar once they became a distinctive group from the Jews, and it was ruled that they did not enjoy such a provision. As Charles pointed out, until Constantine legalized (rather than "invented") Christianity, the Empire actively persecuted Christians, who were told that they could avoid death simply by attesting to the divinity of the Emperor.


That's history, my friend, well documented, not some imagined conspiracy. To say otherwise is to demean the lives of those who stood up to a corrupt government and died for their religious freedoms.

Ok. If what you say is true and it very well may be, then what is Christianity if you remove the resurrected Godman savior of man. For these are all pagan themes. What you have left is either nothing at all or just a prophet/phillosopher who should be the last chapter of the OT and there is no need for a NT because there is no new doctrine.

Originally posted by begoodbees
Ok. If what you say is true and it very well may be, then what is Christianity if you remove the resurrected Godman savior of man. For these are all pagan themes. What you have left is either nothing at all or just a prophet/phillosopher who should be the last chapter of the OT and there is no need for a NT because there is no new doctrine.

You haven't been reading Achyra S or watching Zeitgeist and its spawn, have you?

The "Jesus is just a refashioned _______ (fill in the blank)" hypothesis is overblown tripe, inventions of the 19th Century and resurrected in the 21st to serve a political agenda.

Anyone who tells you that Krishna or Horus or whoever was crucified and resurrected three days later is lying to you. Again, historical research will reveal that.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by begoodbees

 

Christianity began from within Israel and was not highjacked by the Romans until Constantine in the third century. There was however an early drift toward the Greko/Roman world because the negative reaction of the Jews to their own Messiah.

Christmas has pagan origins but Easter is Passover and the words for each are the same in every language except English although because Easter/Passover was a spring feast other spring symbols have became associated with it.

So you are almost right.

edit on 10/12/12 by troubleshooter because: (no reason given)

Absolutely false. Passover and Eater are 2 different things. 2 different words 2 different meanings. The word Easter is in relation to the pagan goddess ishtar. This is factual.

rcg.org...

"This passage is not talking about Easter. How do we know? The word translated Easter is the Greek word pascha (derived from the Hebrew word pesach; there is no original Greek word for Passover), and it has only one meaning. It always means Passover—it can never mean Easter! For this reason, we find a Hebrew word used in the Greek New Testament. Once again, this Hebrew word can only refer to Passover. And other translations, including the Revised Standard Version, correctly render this word Passover."

Originally posted by begoodbees
The word Easter is in relation to the pagan goddess ishtar. This is factual.

Do you think that the Bible was written in English?

Who cares what the word might be connected to in English, as it was referred to as Paschal in the original Greek and still is referred to that in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by begoodbees
Ok. If what you say is true and it very well may be, then what is Christianity if you remove the resurrected Godman savior of man. For these are all pagan themes. What you have left is either nothing at all or just a prophet/phillosopher who should be the last chapter of the OT and there is no need for a NT because there is no new doctrine.

You haven't been reading Achyra S or watching Zeitgeist and its spawn, have you?

The "Jesus is just a refashioned _______ (fill in the blank)" hypothesis is overblown tripe, inventions of the 19th Century and resurrected in the 21st to serve a political agenda.

Anyone who tells you that Krishna or Horus or whoever was crucified and resurrected three days later is lying to you. Again, historical research will reveal that.

Perhaps you could point me to some info that supports what you say. I would love some new info/sources to chew on.

reply to post by begoodbees


Take a look at Leonardo's Salvator Mundi, it looks as though Jesus' face doesn't seem to really fit with the body while the hair and shoulders seem very feminine. You can even see breasts if you look close enough. This points toward Jesus being turned from a woman to a man in my opinion. I think the smile of Mona Lisa is hinting at this gender swap. The Mona Lisa is most likely a self-portrait of Leonardo except he painted himself as a woman, hence gender swap.

His painting of John the Baptist is interesting too, why did he give him such feminine qualities and why is he pointing toward his chest and heaven? My opinion is that he means to say that John was the real Jesus by indicating "I am god" with the hand gestures.

Those two paintings point toward John being a woman and his miraculous birth by a very old woman being in common with Mary's miraculous birth by a very old woman points me toward them being the same person.

John baptizing Jesus in the Jordan was actually Mary giving birth to Jesus. The nativity story is completely false in my opinion, added in by the Romans. Once Mary (John) gives birth to (baptizes) Jesus, her name is switched from from John to Jesus while her son Jesus is switched to John, the apostle whom Jesus (Mary) loved. The same one who wrote the Gospel of John and Revelation. Revelation 12 is actually talking about Rome kidnapping him and killing his mother Mary. The dragon represents Rome and the woman represents Mary.

The holy grail is Mary, mother of Jesus who was the real Jesus. I believe this is the "code" that Da Vinci put into his paintings, not Dan Brown's version with Mary Magdalene.

reply to post by begoodbees


Here is anti-Christian Richard Carrier's article on the subject: Kersey Graves and The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors and a debunking of Zeitgeist, again by the anti-Christian Skeptic Project is here: Zeitgeist, the movie Debunked.

Those are non-Christian rebuttals. There are, of course, hundreds of Christian responses to those claims, but an anti-Christian, such as yourself, probably finds little credibility in them.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Interesting perspective you have. Although a little to fantastical for me, it is nice to see that there are still people capable of independent thought on the matter.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by begoodbees

 

Here is anti-Christian Richard Carrier's article on the subject: Kersey Graves and The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors and a debunking of Zeitgeist, again by the anti-Christian Skeptic Project is here: Zeitgeist, the movie Debunked.

Those are non-Christian rebuttals. There are, of course, hundreds of Christian responses to those claims, but an anti-Christian, such as yourself, probably finds little credibility in them.

To clarify, I am not anti Christian. Just because I no longer believe it does not necessarily mean I stand against it. I prefer Christian values to the slum of corruption that is our modern society. I have spent a lot of time on this site defending Christians against atheist attackers. I have not dismissed the presence of God. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater as the saying goes.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by begoodbees
Ok. If what you say is true and it very well may be, then what is Christianity if you remove the resurrected Godman savior of man. For these are all pagan themes. What you have left is either nothing at all or just a prophet/phillosopher who should be the last chapter of the OT and there is no need for a NT because there is no new doctrine.

You haven't been reading Achyra S or watching Zeitgeist and its spawn, have you?

The "Jesus is just a refashioned _______ (fill in the blank)" hypothesis is overblown tripe, inventions of the 19th Century and resurrected in the 21st to serve a political agenda.

Anyone who tells you that Krishna or Horus or whoever was crucified and resurrected three days later is lying to you. Again, historical research will reveal that.

Are you saying that Jesus is the first and only archetypal deity of mythology to be declared "the risen God?" Do you deny that there were previous myths and stories of resurrected deities?

If you are unfamiliar with myths that include 3 days of death, or darkness, only to return again, let me refer you to the story of Jonah. Many cultures had myths that included 3 days of death and darkness.

reply to post by begoodbees


Not fantastical if you think Romans changed the story. If they could add miracles to the story, setting and everything, then they could have changed Jesus' gender.

Jesus message of love, compassion, and forgiveness is very feminine like in my opinion, which is another reason I've come to this point. The truth requires an open mind.

Originally posted by windword

Anyone who tells you that Krishna or Horus or whoever was crucified and resurrected three days later is lying to you. Again, historical research will reveal that.

Are you saying that Jesus is the first and only archetypal deity of mythology to be declared "the risen God?" Do you deny that there were previous myths and stories of resurrected deities?

If you are unfamiliar with myths that include 3 days of death, or darkness, only to return again, let me refer you to the story of Jonah. Many cultures had myths that included 3 days of death and darkness.

What am I saying? I thought it was pretty clear, but let me repeat it.

Anyone who tells you that Krishna or Horus or whoever was crucified and resurrected three days later is lying to you. Again, historical research will reveal that.

Go read the article I posted that debunks Zeitgeist, because the guy did a very thorough job of both dispelling nonsense like Horus and Jesus being the same, and citing extensive sources to demonstrate his claims. I did something similar a couple of years ago, now I just point people to that article.

If the Hindus don't think that Krishna was born of a virgin on December 25 and crucified, why would you take a nitwit like Achyra S's word for it?

reply to post by adjensen


I don't think anyone is saying Jesus and Horus were the same person only that Jesus took on the role of Horus. There's a difference.