Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is a discution about the faith I follow, and what I believe in.

I'm going to post a story from the bible, I'll do this through out the forum for a while.

This one is the Christmas story.

While Mary and Joseph were engaged, but before they were married, Mary was found to be pregnant. When Joseph discovered this he started considering to break up with her quietly, so as not to open her up to public disgrace. As he considered this an angel came to him and said that Mary was pregnant with God's child, not another man's. The angel also said to marry mary and name the child Jesus.

All of this took place to fulfil a prophecy that stated:

"The Virgin will give birth to a son, and he will BE CALLED
Immanuel -- Which means God with us."

Now the rest is obvious, and well known, but just incase you don't here is a simple overview of it.

There was a Roman cencus taken so that every one had to go back to the place that they were born. Mary & Joseph went to bethleham (The city of david.) There Jesus was born in a manger, and was visited by the shepards.

Ok...and in what way can we discuss now?.....

What do you mean?

Originally posted by JLRTENJAC
What do you mean?

Like what is this thread aboot...just you posting some part of the Bible?.....That's really not worth it.....

I just want people to understand what I live for. The God I serve. I mean you don't have to be here if you don't like it.

Oh, and this isn't me posting posts from the bible, It is a discussion of what christians believe.

This doesn' t open up much possibilities to discussion.

I keep seeing this, people who got on line here and join in but don't want to here anything that is contrary to their belief.

Originally posted by JLRTENJAC
I searched for threads like this and didn't find any.

Seeing that I don't even know what this thread is aboot...maybe....

OK....this is what Christmas is based upon...

The answer lies in the pagan origins of Christmas. In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast.

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html Some nice pictures.

The Church Knew Christ was a fable.

The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the works of dissenters and "pagans" who knew the truth - and who were viciously refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and "Church Fathers" fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located throughout the known ancient world. In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 (Emphasis added.) As Wheless says, "The proofs of my indictment are marvellously easy."

But I still like Mithra gifts. newyear

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Good sites debbiejoe. I've stumbled upon a few things that coincide with stuff from the first website, including the immense parellels and borrowing from pagan traditions to help in the formation of early Christianity.

Originally posted by debbiejo

The Church Knew Christ was a fable.

The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the works of dissenters and "pagans" who knew the truth - and who were viciously refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and "Church Fathers" fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located throughout the known ancient world. In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 (Emphasis added.) As Wheless says, "The proofs of my indictment are marvellously easy."



Saying Jesus didn't exist is too far-fetched even for me. I don't have a problem with him not being the son of God. But to say he didn't exist just doesn't sit well with me.

Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
Saying Jesus didn't exist is too far-fetched even for me. I don't have a problem with him not being the son of God. But to say he didn't exist just doesn't sit well with me.

Once you look into it, it becomes much less far-fetched. Not to be misunderstood, I think a historical Jesus existed as well, but probably nothing like our image of him today.

Nearly every great civilization, and many smaller organizations, have myths surrounding a noble hero and his fall from grace and eventual rebirth/triumph/resurrection/etc. Often, as with the Holy Trinity of Christianity, the relationship of this transformation is represented in three's. So 3 being a 'holy number' goes back well before Christianity.

Similarly, life was so much different than it is now that to fully understand how a religion formed in those days is to accept that many falsities would find their way in. Without communication options, the characteristics of Jesus, or even the existence of him as an actual man, would have differed from town to town and region to region (or even person to person). And how was this pared down into one single doctrine and one Jesus image?? Simple...once a stable hierarchy was established, church leaders eliminated the other ways of thinking, whether it was destroying documents, killing "heathens," or simply teaching it the 'accepted way.'

Numerous different accounts exist of Jesus, that to say he didn't exist at all is mere conjecture at best and blatent lying at worst, but to say that it is likely that the majority of what we 'know' about Jesus is wrong is not only possible but probable.

-DM

she did say christ and jesus christ, big difference between that and that of just jesus

Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
Saying Jesus didn't exist is too far-fetched even for me. I don't have a problem with him not being the son of God. But to say he didn't exist just doesn't sit well with me.

Read that quote again....It was the Pope that called Christ a fable...

.

yeah that too

Originally posted by debbiejo
Read that quote again....It was the Pope that called Christ a fable...

.
Most of are aware of the role the Catholic Church has played over centuries in contaminating what was to be true Christianity. So I do not value much of what a pope said. There are many non christians who believe that Jesus was here and to some he was the answer to Roman opression and to others the Christ. We have always given many names to one thing/person over time. Whether he was the son of God or gods have always been up for discussion. I believe he was special and here to teach us how to live peacefully amongst each other as his teachings was primerily about love and forgiveness. I believe that if we were to follow those teachings we will reach the level of spirituality that many of us desire. I believe Christianity is a way of living just like Bhudism and not a religion because it is not something one must practise on Sundays only. If more Christians understand this, christianity would not have such a bad image today.

well getting of that horse named Arrogance wouldnt hurth either

Arrogance with ignorant followers...Gee...even the Catholic church doesn't want you to read the Bible...It tells you that it will make you crazy...you need to trust the Priest....Well, that's what my grandmother told me...and she was Roman Catholic...right from Italy....had 3 priests in the family....

of course the early churches knew that after the bible was translated and more people who became literate more question that they couldnt answer would be raised, also more people would interpreter the scriptures in different ways.
As long as the priests could read it the congregation got the priest view on the aspect and everything was fine.......then the bible got translated..............and thing werent so fine anymore

Just wait until the Koran is translated into different languages for the second and third generation of immigrants that doesnt read arabic, then they will have their renaissance

Yep...the Bibles in the Middle Ages were chained down, so you couldn't take them....If you were caught with one...I think it was like a death sentence...and Latin was said to be the "Holy/Gods" language...not Hebrew...funny....

Well, the Koran needs to get its butt in gear an then they'll have 1000 plus denominations...

Now that'll be a holy war

Originally posted by debbiejo
Read that quote again....It was the Pope that called Christ a fable...

.

I'm a little confused here, so you're saying you don't believe the myths *about* Jesus brought on by the Roman Catholic Church? This I can agree with.

Now the real question for you is.... do you believe in the *historical* Jesus? That's what I want to know.

Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
I'm a little confused here, so you're saying you don't believe the myths *about* Jesus brought on by the Roman Catholic Church? This I can agree with.

Now the real question for you is.... do you believe in the *historical* Jesus? That's what I want to know.

I don't believe the myths that were tacked on, but I think there was probably a man Named Jesus...and it's quite possible that many things he taught were true...though some I think were edited in by the church..I do believe in things like miracles, so that's not a problem...many cultures can preform miracles..

My point was that the Church admitted that it was a myth...so, they must if doctored something to their advantage.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I don't believe the myths that were tacked on, but I think there was probably a man Named Jesus...and it's quite possible that many things he taught were true...though some I think were edited in by the church..I do believe in things like miracles, so that's not a problem...many cultures can preform miracles..

My point was that the Church admitted that it was a myth...so, they must if doctored something to their advantage.

Okay. No problem here.

I'm in the same boat as you.

Before I was unsure what you really meant.

how biblical actually......

Originally posted by finti
how biblical actually......

Well, I think a lot of people are on life boats now....jumping from the Steam Liner....

Originally posted by finti
well getting of that horse named Arrogance wouldnt hurth either
I thought it was a guy from Lord of the Rings.......Oh sorry his name was Arragon.

Originally posted by debbiejo
My point was that the Church admitted that it was a myth...so, they must if doctored something to their advantage.
I would assume that they used Jesus in order to exert more control over the populace...it would have been helpful if the Pope had elaborated.

Like if he said, "That whole water-into-wine bit? Yeah, it was actually grape juice."

Of course, the Pope might have been referring to specific teachings during the time that the priests were, well, teaching.

Fece Man

How many hours of study have you conducted relating to Christianity?

Originally posted by FeceMan
IOf course, the Pope might have been referring to specific teachings during the time that the priests were, well, teaching.

I think it was a slip of the tongue.....

Originally posted by debbiejo
I think it was a slip of the tongue.....

I need to ask a quick question, did Zoroastarism(spelling???) predate Christianity?

Zoroasterism... Zoraster compiled ancient teaching 1000-600 B.C. Iran

Zoroastriansim teaches that there is one god, whom they call Ahura Mazda, who created all things. The basic belief of Zoroastrianism is that there is a constant battle between the spirit of good and the spirit of evil, and that the earth is the battleground. Everyone should therefore be dedicated to fighting for good thoughts, good words and good deeds, and we will be judged on how well we fought when we die.


Is that what you're asking?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Zoroasterism... Zoraster compiled ancient teaching 1000-600 B.C. Iran

Zoroastriansim teaches that there is one god, whom they call Ahura Mazda, who created all things. The basic belief of Zoroastrianism is that there is a constant battle between the spirit of good and the spirit of evil, and that the earth is the battleground. Everyone should therefore be dedicated to fighting for good thoughts, good words and good deeds, and we will be judged on how well we fought when we die.


Is that what you're asking?

Yes. That's it.

The reason I asked is because it's strikingly similar to Christianity. So I wondered if it predated the Christian faith.

From the information you gave me, it seems that Zoroastrianism existed at least 600 years before Christianity. Did the Jews believed in angels? Because in Zoroastrianism, there are angels. Ahura Mazda is portrayed as an Angel-like God, I think.

800 years...........

Christianity did not pop up until around 200 years after the supposed death of Jesus. It's alot easier for a church to declare miraculous deeds if the person they are basing them on or making up has been dead for two centuries. It's a little harder to fact-check.

Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
Yes. That's it.

The reason I asked is because it's strikingly similar to Christianity. So I wondered if it predated the Christian faith.

From the information you gave me, it seems that Zoroastrianism existed at least 600 years before Christianity. Did the Jews believed in angels? Because in Zoroastrianism, there are angels. Ahura Mazda is portrayed as an Angel-like God, I think.
as far as I know, there are three archangles mentioned in Genesis together with the mentioning somewhere that the devil is a fallen angel and that there are more angels than humans?
(correct me if I'm wrong)

Originally posted by Evil Dead
800 years...........

Christianity did not pop up until around 200 years after the supposed death of Jesus. It's alot easier for a church to declare miraculous deeds if the person they are basing them on or making up has been dead for two centuries. It's a little harder to fact-check.

The earliest Gnostic gospels date from A.D. 150 to 200. The New Testament gospels(Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) date from A.D. 60 to 100 - approximately one century earlier. This would be the strongest arguement for the majority of the orthodox Christian fundamentalists. They'll tell you that the New Testament gospels are the authentic and reliable source for information on the life and teachings of Jesus.

I don't know how to argue against that. But feel free to tell me what you or anyone else think?

Well, I've heard that both the book of Revelation and many things Paul taught are Gnostic..

Especially Paul on his teachings to deny the body...that's to be clean is to be free of fleshly desires....going against Gods teachings to be fruitful and multiply.

The Book of John and Revelation are both Gnostic in origin. Gnosticism is a pagan, dualistic system (God verses Satan, etc. from Zoroastrianism and other Eastern religions) that heavily influenced the Apostle Paul and via the Manichees Saint Augustine. The Gnostics were declared heretics after Nicaea in 325 CE and butchered. The Zoroastrians in Persia would be butchered by Islam. While Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism are not really monotheistic, their infiltration of the church is very great and still haunts us today.

And crept into other beliefs also.http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/gnosticism/

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well, I've heard that both the book of Revelation and many things Paul taught are Gnostic..

Especially Paul on his teachings to deny the body...that's to be clean is to be free of fleshly desires....going against Gods teachings to be fruitful and multiply.

The Book of John and Revelation are both Gnostic in origin. Gnosticism is a pagan, dualistic system (God verses Satan, etc. from Zoroastrianism and other Eastern religions) that heavily influenced the Apostle Paul and via the Manichees Saint Augustine. The Gnostics were declared heretics after Nicaea in 325 CE and butchered. The Zoroastrians in Persia would be butchered by Islam. While Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism are not really monotheistic, their infiltration of the church is very great and still haunts us today.

And crept into other beliefs also.http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/gnosticism/

debbiejo, you actually believe everything in that link?

I have a problem with two gods being male and female. I believe that an omnipotent supreme universal being should be beyond gender.

Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
debbiejo, you actually believe everything in that link?

I have a problem with two gods being male and female. I believe that an omnipotent supreme universal being should be beyond gender.

No, I do not believe everything in that link...I was just showing the different views and different religions that have some form of Gnosticism in them.

I do not believe that God/Spirit or what ever you want to call it has a Has a gender at all..

I am not a Gnostic.

Oh my god...I just realized how awful the links and pages on that site were.... ...Don't look!!!

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well, I've heard that both the book of Revelation and many things Paul taught are Gnostic..

Especially Paul on his teachings to deny the body...that's to be clean is to be free of fleshly desires....going against Gods teachings to be fruitful and multiply.

The Book of John and Revelation are both Gnostic in origin. Gnosticism is a pagan, dualistic system (God verses Satan, etc. from Zoroastrianism and other Eastern religions) that heavily influenced the Apostle Paul and via the Manichees Saint Augustine. The Gnostics were declared heretics after Nicaea in 325 CE and butchered. The Zoroastrians in Persia would be butchered by Islam. While Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism are not really monotheistic, their infiltration of the church is very great and still haunts us today.

And crept into other beliefs also.http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/gnosticism/ Paul was actually teaching us to stay away from promiscuity and to be faithful to our husbands/wives. Sexuality with ones partner were never condemned but even there we are warned about perverted acts. He also taught that the focus of our lives should be to become holy before God and not to focus on fleshly pleasures as it can very easily take priority in your life which would be wrong.

Originally posted by sonnet
Paul was actually teaching us to stay away from promiscuity and to be faithful to our husbands/wives. Sexuality with ones partner were never condemned but even there we are warned about perverted acts. He also taught that the focus of our lives should be to become holy before God and not to focus on fleshly pleasures as it can very easily take priority in your life which would be wrong.

Paul taught that you should ONLY marry, if you are afraid that you might commit fornication....Otherwise, better to NEVER get married...That's more of a Gnostic teaching...Gnostics taught that you should keep from all fleshly or bodily desires including sex or marriage..It's a more pure life......Paul has some Gnostic and some Mithric teachings mixed in. He lived when Mithra was big in his area...


That explicitly goes against what the OT said about being fruitful and multiply....Is he exerting his authority over the OT God?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Paul taught that you should ONLY marry, if you are afraid that you might commit fornication....Otherwise, better to NEVER get married...That's more of a Gnostic teaching...Gnostics taught that you should keep from all fleshly or bodily desires including sex or marriage..It's a more pure life......Paul has some Gnostic and some Mithric teachings mixed in. He lived when Mithra was big in his area...


That explicitly goes against what the OT said about being fruitful and multiply....Is he exerting his authority over the OT God?

I think that if you want to devote your life to God then not being married means that you would have less distractions and can devote all your time to God, prayer etc. Most of the dissiples were not married because devoting your life to spreading the Gospel is a full time occupation which need all of your time and effort. the distractions and activities of married life and children, needless to say would have complicated life and taken more of their time. They travelled constantly, relied on the help of God and other believers for providing shelter and food and preached the word weherever they came, hardly the life for a wife and kids. This also meant that they could spent time in prayer and meditation without being disturbed by every day things like taking out the garbage, etc. I believe this is the message that Paul was trying to bring across and nothing gnostic.

Paul didn't specify that...he didn't say wife and kids....He said fleshly desires...And not to marry unless for fornication's sake....That's a Gnostic teaching, if you study the Gnostic's.....deny self...all flesh and body is impure.

Besides, Peter was Married...Jesus didn't say the things Paul taught.

i think god wants us to get married

if nobody got married there would be no next generation

Children aren' t the privilege of married couples.

I aint married and I have a kid with the second on the way

Originally posted by Storm
Children aren' t the privilege of married couples.


The institution of Marriage was brought about by religions...and it differs depending on what belief....all though out history....and even the Mormons.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Paul didn't specify that...he didn't say wife and kids....He said fleshly desires...And not to marry unless for fornication's sake....That's a Gnostic teaching, if you study the Gnostic's.....deny self...all flesh and body is impure.

Besides, Peter was Married...Jesus didn't say the things Paul taught.
The problem I have with the Gnostic 's is that they were written about 100 to 300 years after the Gospels of Luke, Matthew, Mark and John. The Gnostic's borrow some elements of Christianity including the names of Jesus and his apostles but these writings are not Christian at all.The theological concepts of these texts sharply contradict those that are found in the Old Testamant while in the Gospels of the Bible are many references to the OT, prophecies and theological concepts. So i tend to disregard the contents of the Gnostic's also as no one knows who wrote them any way.

The way I see it, is that Paul's teachings are totally gnostic sounding and contradicts the OT.....He over rides gods statements of be fruitful and multiply....Jesus never taught what Paul taught.

Originally posted by debbiejo
The way I see it, is that Paul's teachings are totally gnostic sounding and contradicts the OT.....He over rides gods statements of be fruitful and multiply....Jesus never taught what Paul taught.
You are right Jesus' message was unique and He came to show us a new way of living. If you look at the letters of Paul each one has a different "theme" so to say. This is because he wrote to different cities or people of different locations and lifestyles eg. some of his letters are about love and tolerance, others is about church organisation, some about false doctrines and greek mythology that was corrupting the gospel that Jesus brought, some about living holy and caring for others, and a few about marriage and the relationship between a husband and wife and I believe these were written to the specific places because of the specific needs and lifestyles of the people there. Paul was not chosen by God to repeat the teachings of Jesus but to teach the followers of Christ how to live in God's will. If you read the introduction of all of his letters you will read that they were all written to followers of the faith. God's instuction to Abraham was part of the covenant he made with the people who became known as the Israelites. It has nothing to do with us today as we are part of the gentiles and become part of Gods children by accepting Jesus, the new covenant God made with man. So Paul's teachings has nothing to do with God's message to Abraham.

I've heard that Paul was the massager to the gentiles....Peter to the Jews.....Still Paul and Jesus messages have conflicting teachings....They should all be in one accord...At the time Paul lived, Mithra was a big influence in the areas...as was other pagan practices...also gnostic....I've read that all the books assumed to be Pauls are not for sure....only assumed......Also, there are other writings from Paul that the Gnostic's hold in high esteem....they weren't included in the cannon...The Gnostic's consider him a great teacher....And when you read the cannon scriptures along with his other writings, you can see the influence of it.

the problem with the 4 gospels are they aint the original scriptures they are copies.

not all gnostic scripture was written all that time after the 4 "accepted" pieces. The point is that they portray jesus in a different way than the Synoptics , and the followers of the Syntopics were the strongest part by far so they got to deceide which were ok to acknowledge and which werent..............very similare to the process the Nazi`s used to get rid of writings they consider to be a threat to their ways

Far as im concerned Jesus was an insurectionist

Originally posted by Imagawa666
Far as im concerned Jesus was an insurectionist

Yes he was, with Buddhist training.

far as Im concerned jesus was nothing but a man who could spellbind his listeners and followers into believing anything he said

Nah....Jesus was a vegetarian.....an Essene.

fruit of the looms

Maybe...

NO..fruit and veggies....It's an Essene Jesus....differs from the others...There were many, I'm told....

Jesus everywhere.

the holy carrot

Well I was thinking maybe cherries.....

guess he had to be one to be "perfect" though

NO, he ate cherries, and carrots....

and he had to be a cherry to be "perfect"

OK!!!! A perfect cherry....fruits_cherry

no perfect as in untouched aka virgin aka cherry

Well, the Bible said he was a cherry...

what a virgin prune

No...he's a cherry....with a holy carrot......As Mary Madeline.

Mary Madeline.????????Mary Magdalena or............., yeah I bet she like the holy carrot

Mary Madeline...the little french girl....hahahahaha...Oops typo...





Mary his mother was a cherry too....

Calendar, pin-up girl
Blonde and bronze, beauty fair
Photographed, cover girl
Unashamed, body bare
There's no story
She's a country girl at heart
There's no glory
She's just in it for the art, her part
Sun oiled skin, shapely breast
Slim and sleek, without dress - Barclay James Harvest

Stop it! your making me hungry.

eat a pie

Cherry pie...

Now you've done it, I'm going to the vending machine.

was there any alternative???

Nope.....either that or holy carrots.....

turnip pie..........................

Up side down cake.......

Monika is good at making this

Do tell....

Stop it! I don't have any money to buy some food. Do you have a dime I can borrow?

dime for a meal or a meal for a dime?

Originally posted by finti
dime for a meal or a meal for a dime?

Well, if everyone on the web gave me a dime I would no longer have any money problems.

I still wanna know about the upside down cake....

just whats it called, recipes and such is womens stuff

It think it's a metaphor....

Originally posted by debbiejo
It think it's a metaphor....

A meta for what?

nah it is actually a cake with that name

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A meta for what?

meta for meta - physical....

Originally posted by finti
nah it is actually a cake with that name

Like a bunt cake???...Or an apple turnover...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Like a bunt cake???...Or an apple turnover...

A bunt cake? I'm not going there...

cake is a cake

What about pie?

pie is pie unless it is a pumpkin pie..........

Originally posted by debbiejo

Mary his mother was a cherry too....

Originally posted by finti
Calendar, pin-up girl
blond and bronze, beauty fair
Photographed, cover girl
Unashamed, body bare
There's no story
She's a country girl at heart
There's no glory
She's just in it for the art, her part
Sun oiled skin, shapely breast
Slim and sleek, without dress - Barclay James Harvest

Look what he did to the Holy mother of god......Oh, finti....I thought I knew you better.....She's a brunette not a blond....God have mercy on you.....

it said blond and bronze.....and did you ever meet Mary to afirm she was a brunette?

Yeah....there is a special place to look.....then you know they dyed their hair.....

I know all about that suicide blonds...bah humbug