Jesus Who?

Discussion in 'Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality' started by Phre-massen.nash, Dec 29, 2012.

  1. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    This is very typical of the Latinocentric beliefs of Western Christianity. Rome is all, Rome is everything, Rome is the beginning, the middle, and the end. My Church existed before "it was brought to Rome" and has existed independent of Rome from those days. Jesuits and Evangelicals are united in denying this, since it would violate their political ecclesiology and call into question their competing claims of absolute supremacy. Regarding the tired old lie that Christianity = Mithraism, that's a fairy tale invented in the 19th century by Evangelicals seeking to discredit anything they deemed to be "Popish". Fortunately, some Evangelicals have been honest enough to actually study history and not just repeat the same old tales: http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-connection.html.

    And the evidence that this "spirituality" was not expressed as religion is what? I have equally as much evidence to claim they WERE religious and the various artifacts found are all artifacts of religious activities.

    More 19th-century empty speculation.

    Sounds more like dogmatic diatribe on your part than a necessary attribute of religion. You sound like the teenage self-appointed philosophes of my college days. Blah blah blah--religion bad. Blah blah blah--religion bad--but be sure to construct a straw man parody of religion and then blindly and dogmatically insist that this is the "true" definition of religion.

    Prove it. Prove that my faith does not do these things. Go ahead, since you write as if you are infallible and omniscient, go ahead and prove your accusations. You can certainly find clergy of my Church who might have written or write all manner of things--including things that contradict each other. This is because the questions are bigger than any man's ability to comprehend the answers. My Church does not have a human monarch considered omnicompetent to rule on all issues.

    My faith is not divided. There is the Church, and there are those who left the Church or have never known the Church. Christ's Church has never been divided. Catholics and Protestants kill each other because they are human, and that's what humans do when confronted with the idea that something is greater than they are. In any case, what two groups of heretics do to each other is not a matter of issue regarding the Church. Both groups are outside the Church.

    And any "spiritual" person who blindly and dogmatically puts down "religion" is trying to do exactly the same thing--he just lies to himself and everyone else about making the attempt.

    Evidence? No tired old 19th-century nonsense or modern re-hashes of that stuff.

    Every negative screed you post about "religion" is mocking my faith. Of course, you exempt yourself from your own standards.
     
  2. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    Also I'd like to note that the so called scholars who refute this are of the Christian denomination, so how can they be credible when they have a vital interest in not showing anything that contradicts their faith, fact or
    not?
     
  3. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    Source of this alleged "definition"? Cambridge disagrees: the quality of involving deep, often religious, feelings and beliefs, rather than the physical parts of life. Webster also disagrees with you.

    I predict you will go full Humpty Dumpty on me and insist that your little pseudo-definition is the "true" definition.
     
  4. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    Well there is a problem with your latinocentric comment. First off the core attributes of Christ are the same no matter what part of Christianity you choose to affiliate yourself with, eastern, roman, Protestant, Calvinism, they all follow the attributes set out by the council of Nicea. This is fact. We do not see the other Christian sects refuting this or changing this. All they did was do away with the pomp and political hierarchy that dragged down the roman sect. All the churches became basic in decor, reflecting the simplicity that should characterize the teaching of the Christ. As far as Mithras: birthday: Dec 25th, shed the blood of the bull for the sins of the world, was known as "the way" "the light" etc. also note that Mithras had a halo as well, but was attributed to him as the status of the sun god. And there's more. Just take it upon yourself to look, if you can get around the your dogmatic mentality. Your evangelical comment also doesn't make sense as they are firmly in the belief of Christ as the sole saviour and would never attribute him to another lesser god. Ancient hominids never had any form of organization in their beliefs. They lived in family units and new innovations barely left the group due to them being territorial, but as Homo sapiens evolved and spread so did their ideas. Their spiritual ideas are what led to religion, but not until agriculture was domesticated. These ancient people revered certain aspects of nature which they knew they could predict, such as tidal forces so they can gather shellfish, moon phases for the seasons, fertility etc. these people were very superstitious, but there is zero evidence for worship of any deity. Please explain to me how any of this is 19th century thought. These studies have been carried on since then yes, but how exactly is it false? In 20,000BC Homo sapiens and Neanderthals warred over territory for hunting and living space, but not a shred of evidence shows that there was a religious or spiritual motive behind it. The earliest documentation of war between Sumerian and Akkadian people's shows that their "god" was behind them. Somewhere between 20,000BC and 10,000 BC religion became a major driving force behind conquest. We know this because the earliest records of civilization are in full swing, when we know it takes a lot of time to develop complex ideas of society and beliefs, Which makes sense because around 10,000bc agriculture was discovered, which led to civilization. As for my blah blah blah on religion, explain to me how this isn't the case. Whenever a religion needs to spread itself, it usually means that its trying to preserve its existence. Collecting more converts ensures a lengthy survival. Not all religions do this, only the ones who feel threatened by other ideals. Also wouldn't this be the case today? We see Christian sects agreeing with scientific ideas when 50 years ago it was refuted, and this is not just with Roman Catholicism. To me you sound like someone who is afraid that modern techniques will do away with religion. The proof that your faith doesn't open up for newer possibilities is: that the only way to discover God is through Christ. That science cant discover the qualities of God, that other faiths are inferior to Christianity, that most Christian sects condemn organizations such as freemasonry who have paved the way for free thinking that we enjoy today, that every person is born a sinner even though when we enter the world we have no clue between evil and good, that humans are older than 6000 years. And many more that I don't feel like typing out. You may choose not to acknowledge it but your faith is divided. If it wasn't and was the one true faith there wouldn't be the 1000 something versions of Christianity, but this is true with other faiths as well but expected from something that is imperfect, created from an imperfect being. You continually say that I'm rehashing 19th century beliefs when that is not the case. The 19th century brought a new wave of ideas as technology brought the world closer, but these ideas have been continually studied. Here are some modern scholars who have continued this thought: Carl Jung, Freud, Albert Einstein, Robert Eisenman, Manly P Hall, Matt Ridley, Spencer Wells as well as many more, but I'll let you do some work. I don't mock your faith. There are brothers on here who are not offended by the facts presented, only you seem to be, but the truth can hurt, but you shouldn't let it. I hold my beliefs up just as anyone, but if something comes along to prove it wrong I accept it, not throw some nonsensical jargon to reinforce it. I hold my beliefs up to the same standards I do to any belief. Again there are many authors who have shown the extreme similarity and overlapping quality in all religions to ever exist. Does this make your religion or any other less important? Absolutely not. Religion and spirituality are different but yearn for the same end result. As much as I am not Christian, I respect it, not because of the Christ or authority or age, but because of its teachings.
     
  5. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    Dont deep religious feelings stem from the questions of our origins and purpose? That's great that Webster and Cambridge say that, in fact it just reinforces the definition!
     
  6. Frater Cliff Porter

    Frater Cliff Porter Premium Member

    391
    30
    0
    I think spirituality and religion both have value, but I don't either of you should put the other in the place of having to defend it. I think that is different than discussing it.
     
  7. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    Very true, however there is certain things presented that are hard to refute, because of what we are learning about the past. And if one is going to deny and be condescending at the same time with a comment such as "19th century nonsense", then at least elaborate. Jesus isn't the first to preach what he preached, but if his words are what strikes you more than any other then follow it. I respect that. When the past is being dug up and we look into their world and see things that might contradict our own beliefs, that is up to the individual to reconcile. But it doesn't any less degrade what you are believing in.
     
  8. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    Religion and spirituality are no more opposite than the Key of B flat Major and the "Star Spangled Banner" are opposed. Claiming that religion is opposed to spirituality is as buffoonish as claiming that specific songs are opposed to the keys they are in. Going around putting down "religion" and cheerleading "spirituality" is as dimwitted as going around putting down Greek and cheerleading "language". I would think that such a fundamental truth would have been self-evident.
     
  9. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    But you do go around degrading what others believe in and do it often. Then, when you are called on your misbehavior, you backpedal, weasel, and act in a most unmanly fashion. If you are going to put something like religion down, be honorable enough to glory in this or virtuous enough to admit to it, apologize, and cease doing so.

    You will do neither, since you have done neither.
     
  10. BEDickey

    BEDickey Premium Member

    138
    7
    38
    I would recommend everyone look up Jordan Maxwell, student and friend of the late great Manly P. Hall, for the truth about all religions. Many faiths claim "astrology" to be evil, but all are based in it. Christianity came to power in the age of Pisces, so you have much "fish symbolism", ring of the fisherman, being a fisher of men, feeding people with two fish, the Jesus fish car symbol. Modern Judaism was founded in the age of Aries, hence they blow the Rams Horn. However it has it's beginnings in the age of Taurus, hence worshiping the golden calf in the bible, along with the Hindu religion, which is why cows and bulls are sacred to them. Mazzaroth is even the ancient name of the Zodiac as given by the early Jewish people's. The seat of the Popes Throne has a large golden zodiac on it. There were 4 major (7 total) cults of the ancient world, the stellar, lunar, solar and saturnian cults. Christianity is an amalgamation of all of them. An "astro-theological hybrid", if you will. Heck even that animal symbols for the Matt, Mark, Luke and John are Zodiac symbols, the lion (Leo) the eagle (Scorpio) the bull (Taurus) and Angel (Aquarius). I know some of our more devout brother will hate what I have just said, and not want believe it. But I use this analogy. If someone were to wake you up with a bright Light, is not the natural reaction to turn away from it? Now ask yourself how many Church congregations and sects use the Sun, rising Sun or other similar symbols? How many times have you seen Jesus the Christ (as he should be truly called, as "Christ" is not a name but a title meaning "anointed with oils") depicted with the Sun behind his head. Or the cross with a circle on it (known as a Celtic cross), depicting the 4 seasons. Nothing is hidden from us, our creator in his wisdom gave us not only eyes, ears, nose mouth and skin to learn about this world he gave us, but also a mind with which to reason and think. Did Jesus not say "Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts; the incense of your offerings disgusts me! As for your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath and your special days for fasting--they are all sinful and false. I want no more of your pious meetings" " Come let us reason, together"
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  11. BEDickey

    BEDickey Premium Member

    138
    7
    38
    I forgot to add, Jesus is a symbolical representation of the sun as is passes threw the zodiac. He was born of a virgin (born in Virgo), and brought Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh, ancient symbols of the Sun, in recognition of him being the Sun King. The Three Wise Men is an ancient name for the 3 stars in Orion's belt which just so happen to point the the exact spot of the Suns rise on the day of Jesus's current birthday (which has been changed many times) He raised to prominence being known as the Lion of the Tribe of Juda(meaning he is the Lion King or Solar king, Lion = Leo = The Sun). I mean he is even called "The Son". He is betrayed by Judas with a Kiss, this is the origin of the phrase "kissed off" and of the mafia habit of kissing those marked for death. Scorpions are known in the middle east to sting twice, one on top of the other, looking exactly like a pair of lips, hence in those days you really did get "the kiss of death". This is the origin of Jesus(the sun) being kissed by Judas, in Scorpio the Sun begins its fall into darkness and continues until the resurrection on Easter, when the ancients knew the Sun, after just barely coming over the horizon in the sky for 3 days, during which it was though of as "dead", rises one degree higher in the sky, the sign that the Son will once again come to full strength and reign over the earth as the "Light of the World", the Son of God, the Sun, who gives his life so that we may live, with out which all life on the earth would indeed parish, and fast. Jesus was asked, how would we know what do to at the end of things, he responds with,"As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters." this is a blatant reference to Aquarius. Not only that, at the time of its writing no man EVER carried water, it was a woman's job, strictly. This is where we get stories of woman hanging around and gossiping at the local well in ancient times. The fact he would say a man is carrying it only makes it more suspect when you know the customs of the times. This is just an allegory of the Sun moving out of the age of Pisces into the age of Aquarius. The more we all start learning these truths, why they were written and the meaning behind them the sooner we can all learn to live in peace and not slaughter ourselves in the name of religion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  12. BEDickey

    BEDickey Premium Member

    138
    7
    38
    Also if anyone would like some more Light on this subject I would be happy to help, just send me a PM. Also a fun fact, Israel is really Isis, Ra, and El. Isis an ancient moon goddess of the Egyptians, Ra(everyone should know that name) the ancient "high" sun god of the Egyptians, and El, the name of the god of the Saturnian cults faith. Ever wonder where the after prayer saying "Amen" comes from? "Amun Ra" the "final" name of Ra, is the answer. Ever wonder why the Sun sets or we turn lights on? On was an ancient name of the Sun. And after Horus(where we get hours from, also a name for the Sun) got done fighting with Set, the personification of darkness, the sun would disappear into darkness as Set ruled the world, until Horus was reborn/resurrected to fight off Set again and cover the World in his life giving Light.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  13. BEDickey

    BEDickey Premium Member

    138
    7
    38
    Also, I would like to earnestly ask the more faithful among the Brethren to give me there opinion on the Bible. If it is the absolute word of God, why has it been changed/rewritten so many times? The Bible as we know it(KJV), was set down during the time of Sir Frances Bacon in the 1500s. What of the Gospels of Thomas and Mary? They are known to be true Gospels but were excluded from the Bible. Why was it forbidden under penalty of death for anyone but a priest to read from the Bible in early years? Most of the those years it was also chained to the alters of the church. While it may sound like I am trying to cause trouble, I wish to honestly know how someone can believe the Bible is the Absolute word of God, while still knowing these facts to be true. Or do these facts cause doubt and as such are ignored? If it makes it even I shall discuss my Faith, in any manner you wish (i am a student of Hermes Trismagistus aka Mercurius ter Maximus aka Thoth-Hermes, known as a Hermeticist)
     
  14. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    Thank you bro. BEDickey for elaborating further on my comment. Bryan, I think your analogies aren't appropriate for the context. All I'm trying to convey is the similarities between religions past and present. I won't stop conversing about this because I don't have to. From the amount of info that I've come across, and experienced, is enough evidence for me to continue thinking and believing in what I've been talking about on this thread and others. If that doesn't sit well with you, then that's something your going to have to reconcile and is also not my problem. I've tried being civilized with you, but it just doesn't seem to work. Also i dont see you doing anything to prove me wrong, other than being condescending and insulting. Others believe in what I talk about too, and I will continue to express my belief. Also there are devote Christian brethren on here that I've personally conversed with and aren't the least bit offended by what i believe in. Never have I said anything derogatory about any faith. And anything I've said concerning any faith has been said or written on here by people other than me also. I've never said anyone is stupid or worse, for believing in what they believe in. I merely point out and converse on topics that have been studied by many academics, so take your problems up with them. As for my behavior, maybe you should look at yours. We have opposing beliefs, but in the true spirit of
    Masonry I welcome an respect your beliefs, even though they are opposed to mine. I really can't say the same about you. So I'm not going to apologize for what I believe in. I will continue to read and research and post topics on the subject(s) so they can be discussed with brethren who are interested. If you want to converse with me about this or any other topic, feel free to private message me.

    Fraternally,
    Widows Son
    Merritt Lodge No. 168
     
  15. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    Bro. BEDickey I ask myself the same questions all the time.
     
  16. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    The Bible as I know it is not KJV. Not all of us are Western Christians. My own Church has maintained its Scriptural tradition independently of the West.

    1: The spurious books you mention have NEVER been accepted as "true Gospels" except by fringe groups and crackpots.
    2: At NO TIME AT ALL in the history of my Church, going back to the earliest days in Jerusalem, was there any such prohibition on reading Scripture by non-priests. Why do you persist in spreading pernicious lies?

    Let me guess, you also believe the tired old lie that the Bible was only permitted to be in Latin, too. Latin was never popular in my Church. Greek, Slavonic, Syriac, and the other LOCAL languages of the people were used and have always been used.
     
  17. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    That is a flat-out lie. You have stated, multiple times, that religion is about nothing but power. Now, you will puff yourself up in false injured dignity and compound your lie by lying further.
     
  18. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    I am sorry but when I here someone state "the truth" about anything I have a problem. Even if 99% of everone think that it is the truth it may not be. The truth is only the truth untill proven diferent and we as humans can only acknowlage what we beleive is true to ourselfs.
     
  19. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    In my opinion some are. It doesn't mean that I think the followers are. Again Bryan not my problem if you have an issue with what I believe in. Also before the reformation in England priests were the only ones who could read the bible, and was always in Latin. Thank god for the printing press.
     
  20. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    Bryan in my opinion most religions are about control, but I don't necessarily think the followers are. Again it's not my problem, nor do I care if you have an issue with my beliefs. Also in England before the reformation, priests were the only ones who could read the bible, and it was only printed in Latin, at least in Europe. This was one of the reasons for the reformation. Thank god for the printing press.
     

Share My Freemasonry