Originally posted by Thundar
Still, it is very important for those who are very well versed in the scriptures and who follow Christ, to inform others of practices that go directly against it. As mentioned previously, Catholicism is very paganistic in its interpretation and presentation of the bible. Its paganistic rituals should be brought to the attention of those who subscribe to the Catholic faith, particularly those Catholics who profess these paganistic practices to others as being Christian.
I believe you will find, with any reasonably comprehensive study of theology, be it Christian or whatever, that there is never a "true" version of a religion. There are simply variation based upon the flow of time and human interpretation. There is not a single Christian sect or denomination in existence today that is without at least some Pagan aspect, be it religious occasions it holds dear or otherwise.
While it is true Catholicism (Roman Catholicism) might have more prominent remnants of "pagan" traditions, this can be attributed to the context in which it was founded, with those later Christian groups that split from the Catholics re-imagining doctrine again and again. When exactly has there been a "true" or "correct" or "Pagan free" branch of Christianity? Never is the answer. Just what people believe is true or correct or Pagan free.
You have to take into account though that prophecy of a savior was actually presented to Abraham sometime in 1400-2000 BC, pre-dating just about all of the earlier prophecies you've presented.
Operative word "just about all" (though to be honest more then a couple predate the Abraham period.)
So now with this nugget of information, take this into consideration. Abraham is the father of much of the world, so logically one would think it very possible that he shared this knowledge of the coming savior with his children. This is probably why many cultures, particularly those descended from Abraham, have similar accounts of a "Christ", as this prophecy was passed down to them by their father Abraham.
Which would be a valid theory if there was some logical proof supporting the concept that these cultures were spawned by Abraham. Which doesn't really stand up to what seems to be the soundly evidenced way in which humanity is seen to have spread. Likewise many of these cultures in question would, in classical terms, be considered Oriental, which is quite outside Abraham's theorised sphere of historical influence. Hehem.
Now let's go back a bit further, specifically back to man's creation and the Garden of Eden. As it is described in the book of Adam and Eve, Adam was made aware of the the coming messiah after his initial fall from grace. So one could then make the assumption that it is highly probable, for mankind to have had knowledge of a messiah shortly after the onset of creation.
Which is quite a lot to swallow. "One could make the assumption..."
What exactly is the time line for the Biblical progression of events? How long after they got removed from the Garden did it take for people to become "civilised"? Were they passing the same savior story down through oral history for what? 3000 years? 7000? 10000? 20,000?
Hmmm. The Aboriginals of Australia have been here for 20,000 years at least. So to have moved from Africa, all that way, built up such numbers... maybe 30,000 years? What we seem to have a list of claimed events (this happened then this then this etc) but no real sense of them in either a temporal or spatial reality. How exactly does it work in? And of course remember, if we assume the Garden of Eden story is the "original savior story"... well, it wasn't actually recorded in a physical way till a long, long, long time after it happened (if we assume it did at all.)
All of this again of course, pre-dates the historical accounts of similar stories you've presented. I'm sure you'll disagree with me, but If you truly want to learn more about what I've posted, I suggest you pick up a bible and read the verses/books I've presented.
Of course. If all humanity is descended from two people cast out of a garden but made aware of some distant future event then of course it predates all other claims. In all honesty do you think it would be unreasonable if people disagreed?
Grossly innacurate at worst, and purposely misleading at best. Listed below is archeological evidence supporting the existence of the Patriarchs...
By which logic the Greek myths are certainly true (since in the depths of their history there might be semi-historical causes), as would the Egyptian myths... and others. Is the Bible historical text (a record of history intended as such) or an "imaginative fiction" that included references to real places and events, much like fictional works of our era?
In the case of the walls of Jericho - they fell. The authors of the Bible give that a divine reason, were as others think differently on why they could have fell. So is it history - God knocked those big old walls down, or historical fiction - the walls fell, lets attribute supernatural reasons to something that wasn't.
AH, but he calls himself Shiva.......... the one who first said these words. Here on the Battle Field, he is likening himself to Shiva. Here he calls all the qualities of the Trinity, shiva, brahma, vishnu. After he is god incarnate upon earth
.......I am gracious Shiva among howling storms.
Of restraints, I am death,
Of measures, I am time.
I am the purifying wind.
I am the cleansing Ganga.
Of sciences, I am the science of the self;
I am the dispute of orators.
I am victory and resolve,
the lucidity of lucid men.
I am the brilliance of fiery heroes.
I am the morality of ambitious men;
I am the silence of the mystery
I am the seed of all creatures,
I am the death destroyer of all.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I believe you will find, with any reasonably comprehensive study of theology, be it Christian or whatever, that there is never a "true" version of a religion. There are simply variation based upon the flow of time and human interpretation. There is not a single Christian sect or denomination in existence today that is without at least some Pagan aspect, be it religious occasions it holds dear or otherwise.While it is true Catholicism (Roman Catholicism) might have more prominent remnants of "pagan" traditions, this can be attributed to the context in which it was founded, with those later Christian groups that split from the Catholics re-imagining doctrine again and again. When exactly has there been a "true" or "correct" or "Pagan free" branch of Christianity? Never is the answer. Just what people believe is true or correct or Pagan free.
You're probably correct with the above assumption. But the ultimate deciding factor of who is a Christian, will be determined by Christ himself. He will base this decision not just by one's knowledge of scripture or their ability to strictly follow every ritualistic Christian practices, but also on the loving intentions of an individual's heart.
Remember that neither the thief on the cross nor the Centurian were active participants of the Mosaic Law, while the Pharisee's, Scribes, and Saduccees were. But the former two peoples turned out to be Christians over the latter 3, because of their faith in Christ and the loving intentions of their hearts.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which would be a valid theory if there was some logical proof supporting the concept that these cultures were spawned by Abraham. Which doesn't really stand up to what seems to be the soundly evidenced way in which humanity is seen to have spread. Likewise many of these cultures in question would, in classical terms, be considered Oriental, which is quite outside Abraham's theorised sphere of historical influence. Hehem.
No I don't believe it to be unreasonable for people to not believe, particularly if there is no proof to support these claims. That being stated - without completely getting into geneology, I think it is quite apparent that many of these cultures share a common history with the stories presented within the bible.
Although not entirely accurate with its accounts or interpretations, the Muslim Koran incorporates much of the old testament into its doctrine. Abraham is referenced many times within it, and much like the bible, it refers to him as the father of most of mankind.
Abraham is also referenced in the Hindu Artharva Veda(sp?), although in the Hindu scripture he is given the name "Brahma", and his wife Sarah is given the name "Saraswati." With all of these religious works containing such glaring similarities, its quite obvious that their is some common relation among their peoples. Even if this relationship between these peoples isn't a geneological one(although logic and common sense dictate that it probably is), it still shows that these peoples did share many cultural, historical and religious dogmas, which supports why so many of them have similar stories referring to a "savior."
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Really? And hows that?
According to the Avesta, Saoshyant, is the savior which Ahura Mazda (God) will send to Earth to will possess and spread Truth, he will lead the battle against Evil (Angra Mainu), where evil will finally be destroyed, and all evil people on Earth shall be engulfed in flames....meanwhile, Saoshyant will reward the righteous by bringing them into Heaven to meet and become united with Ahura Mazda....
Tell me, that is NOT Jesus Christ's past incarnation 😆
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
According to the Avesta, [b]Saoshyant, is the savior which Ahura Mazda (God) will send to Earth to will possess and spread Truth, he will lead the battle against Evil (Angra Mainu), where evil will finally be destroyed, and all evil people on Earth shall be engulfed in flames....meanwhile, Saoshyant will reward the righteous by bringing them into Heaven to meet and become united with Ahura Mazda....Tell me, that is NOT Jesus Christ's past incarnation 😆 [/B]
no2
Krishna and Jesus -
[list]Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.[/list]
Somebody plagarised something...
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
no2Krishna and Jesus -
[list]Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.[/list]Somebody plagarised something...
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
no2Krishna and Jesus -
[list]Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.[/list]Somebody plagarised something...
Okay Lil B....you pwned me therr....there isn't that much detail about the legend of Saoshyant, only what he/she is meant to do, and it is even debated what Saoshyant's gender is...
So I'll argue that Saoshyant is the second Christ, and Krishna is the first, and Jesus himself is the third version
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No man is or has been without sin except Lord JESUS Christ. No one else before or after him.
Hush !