Who was Jesus talking to when he said...

[Medicine*Woman]

Can you prove that he is some sort of symbol for a fish(do you believe in Billy the Fish?)?

I would rather rely on a historical document, such as the Bible. And read it as a historical document as it is one.

*************
M*W: I understand where you are comnig from, and I don't want to offend you. We see differently on religion, but in all honesty, do you really believe the bible is an historical document?

The reason I don't believe the bible is an historical document is that there are certain things that might be able to be proven in the bible, names, dates, locations, etc., but the inclusion of these verifiable data does not make it an historical document.

Although I know you will disagree with me, I would ask that before you do so, you will give some thought to what I am saying and consider the possibilities.

 

[davewhite04]

I do agree that the claims for Christianity solely being a personification of earlier zodiac/astrological mythologies are pretty thin in the evidence department (many of these sorts of claims reference astrological symbolism that only came about in the middle ages), however, there has certainly been wholesale adoption of existing religious ceremonies, mythologies and symbolism into Christianity over the years. The use of the fish symbol prior to early Christian's adoption is clear, and the use of other such pagan fertility rituals and symbols in Christianity is rampant.

This can be explained perhaps by the fact that many of the early Christians came from a pagan background.

Either this means, as I think M*W has previously claimed, that Christianity is actually a pagan fertility religion disguised as the exact opposite, or it means that Christianity's history of adopting local customs and symbols to its own use, applied to the religions common in the area at the time, resulted in a new religion with *lots* of older stories and symbols integrated into it.

I'm not going to defend Christianity in anyway, I'm just simply interested in Jesus the man. I think as time went on Christianity became more and more corrupt.

One example is the Constantine conversion which was obviously a move to reconcile this new movement that was gaining momentum at a furious rate, Christianity, with the Romans belief in paganism. This is when the influence shifted from the Jewish origin of Christianity to a pagan related relationship.

My stance is that the man Jesus existed, and he was an enlightened being, similar to the Buddha.

So I do think the site M*W linked to is drawing conclusions that it doesn't effectively support, but I don't think that every claim it makes is 100% false, either. I initially commented on your refutation of the fish paragraph because on its own, that was one of the best-substantiated paragraphs in the entire article.

Okay, but it's a trivial point and doesn't confirm whatsoever that the NT was all symbology. That's ridiculous in my opinion.

As for the zodiac ages, I haven't done much in-depth research into the topic, but what I have read says that the 'ages' equate to roughly 2,000 year periods, with the recent progression being Aries (Ram), Pisces (Fish), Aquarius (water-barer). Outside of any supposed link to Christianity, people are waiting (and singing) about the coming "Age of Aquarius" for a while now.

Yeah, so they can smoke more dope.

 

[davewhite04]

*************
M*W: I understand where you are comnig from, and I don't want to offend you. We see differently on religion, but in all honesty, do you really believe the bible is an historical document?

Yes I do. It is used in archeology to uncover settlements etc. that existed around the time the stories in the bible we being played out. There is no reason to question whether or not Jesus existed, I find it delusion thinking to think that he didn't judging by his influence on the world for hundreds of years.

it explains the culture at the time, the customs etc. some of the books in the bible have been dated back to around the time of the events which adds validity to it, not many other written literature can claim this.

Although I know you will disagree with me, I would ask that before you do so, you will give some thought to what I am saying and consider the possibilities.

I disagree with you here which is no surprise, but I'm still interested in this other research you were going to share.

 

[NMSquirrel]

This can be explained perhaps by the fact that many of the early Christians came from a pagan background.

at this point i would argue a seperation from the Roman catholic church and christians..as that is one reason i have an attitude towards the RCC

One example is the Constantine conversion which was obviously a move to reconcile this new movement that was gaining momentum at a furious rate, Christianity, with the Romans belief in paganism. This is when the influence shifted from the Jewish origin of Christianity to a pagan related relationship.

see above..

Okay, but it's a trivial point and doesn't confirm whatsoever that the NT was all symbology. That's ridiculous in my opinion.

me too..

Yeah, so they can smoke more dope.

'ere

The reason I don't believe the bible is an historical document is that there are certain things that might be able to be proven in the bible, names, dates, locations, etc., but the inclusion of these verifiable data does not make it an historical document.

i agree,don't take it so literally..it is a guide book..not a rule book..

 

[davewhite04]

at this point i would argue a seperation from the Roman catholic church and christians..as that is one reason i have an attitude towards the RCC

Good point, and I agree.

 

[river-wind]

He's a question - the Epic of Gilgamesh can be used as a historic document, both as source material for later religious myths and as a reference material for actual places and events. The city of Ur, the Cedars of Lebanon. But does its ability to act as reference material in some areas mitigate the majority of items in the story which are clearly fictional? Does its use as a historic document or the large effect that the epic had on surrounding culture for thousands of years mean that Gilgamesh existed?


I think the only thing I have to argue with both side of this discussion is the certainty you are each giving to your conclusions, based on evidence which, by its very nature, cannot be considered certain.

 

[davewhite04]

He's a question - the Epic of Gilgamesh can be used as a historic document, both as source material for later religious myths and as a reference material for actual places and events. The city of Ur, the Cedars of Lebanon. But does its ability to act as reference material in some areas mitigate the majority of items in the story which are clearly fictional? Does its use as a historic document or the large effect that the epic had on surrounding culture for thousands of years mean that Gilgamesh existed?


I think the only thing I have to argue with both side of this discussion is the certainty you are each giving to your conclusions, based on evidence which, by its very nature, cannot be considered certain.

Let's concentrate on the NT for now...

Do you think the very first Christians believed in a story that was in essence a fairytale(according to some here)?

Considering the first Christians are referred to by independant sources at a very early time, it seems more logical to me that they knew someone who (or even witnessed them firsthand) witnessed the things in the gospels happening, this or we had alot of delusional people at the time, in fact you might as well class all the people of all time of all religions delusional which is far fetched.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

This can be explained perhaps by the fact that many of the early Christians came from a pagan background.

*************
M*W: Okay, now it sounds like you are not being as defensive as before, and you're opening up to discussion. The early christians were pagan just as the ancient Hebrews were pagan. Even going as far back to Abraham, his father Terah was an idol maker, and Abraham was a pagan himself. Pagans believe in many gods. Pagan symbols are still used by Roman Catholics today! I was a Roman Catholic. I was a christian. I also believed that Jesus existed and was god. I look back now, and it's hard for me to believe that I was a christian! Well, then, I wasn't as informed as I am now.

I'm not going to defend Christianity in anyway, I'm just simply interested in Jesus the man. I think as time went on Christianity became more and more corrupt.

*************
M*W: I'm curious about your statement, and why you wouldn't defend christianity? Can you explain?

One example is the Constantine conversion which was obviously a move to reconcile this new movement that was gaining momentum at a furious rate, Christianity, with the Romans belief in paganism. This is when the influence shifted from the Jewish origin of Christianity to a pagan related relationship.

*************
M*W: I have this same belief about Constantine's "conversion." Today we would call that being "politically correct." Can you tell me more about when the pagan influenced shifted from the Jewish origin? That's an interesting idea. I don't know much about that particular paradigm shift.

My stance is that the man Jesus existed, and he was an enlightened being, similar to the Buddha.

*************
M*W: I don't really know much about Buddha, except that Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy. I'm an atheist, but not a Buddhist.

Okay, but it's a trivial point and doesn't confirm whatsoever that the NT was all symbology. That's ridiculous in my opinion.

*************
M*W: I'll get back to you on the symbology of the NT, but I have the feeling that you won't be receptive to anything I post.

Yeah, so they can smoke more dope.

*************
M*W: Dave, you and I both know this is a cop-out answer. I don't smoke dope, and I assume you don't either. Just because you don't agree with what someone else believes, doesn't mean they smoke dope because they don't agree with your beliefs.

I almost thought you were willing to have a mature discussion about what might contradict what you believe.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Considering the first Christians are referred to by independant sources at a very early time, it seems more logical to me that they knew someone who (or even witnessed them firsthand) witnessed the things in the gospels happening, this or we had alot of delusional people at the time, in fact you might as well class all the people of all time of all religions delusional which is far fetched.

*************
M*W: No, not really.

Believing that religions are a myth is reality. Believing that religions are a reality is a delusion.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

at this point i would argue a seperation from the Roman catholic church and christians..as that is one reason i have an attitude towards the RCC.

*************
M*W: The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church was and is entirely a christian religion, and it can't be separated from mainstream christianity.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Yes I do. It is used in archeology to uncover settlements etc. that existed around the time the stories in the bible we being played out. There is no reason to question whether or not Jesus existed, I find it delusion thinking to think that he didn't judging by his influence on the world for hundreds of years.

*************
M*W: To date, no respectable archeologist or educated biblical scientist have uncovered any finds to confirm that Jesus existed. However, I will agree with you that one of the characters of Jesus has had influence on the masses, even though the Jesus of Nazareth cannot be proved to exist. There were several other Jesuses who were confirmed to exist who were not an influence in christianity. Again, will the real Jesus please stand up?

I disagree with you here which is no surprise, but I'm still interested in this other research you were going to share.

*************
M*W: Okay, then we shall share research.

 

[davewhite04]

*************
M*W: Okay, now it sounds like you are not being as defensive as before, and you're opening up to discussion. The early christians were pagan just as the ancient Hebrews were pagan. Even going as far back to Abraham, his father Terah was an idol maker, and Abraham was a pagan himself. Pagans believe in many gods. Pagan symbols are still used by Roman Catholics today! I was a Roman Catholic. I was a christian. I also believed that Jesus existed and was god. I look back now, and it's hard for me to believe that I was a christian! Well, then, I wasn't as informed as I am now.

As far as we can tell, the whole world was pagan way back yonder.

Define a Christian to me.

*************
M*W: I'm curious about your statement, and why you wouldn't defend christianity? Can you explain?

Because the premise is flawed. Christianity as it stands (the "Jesus is God" group) is ridiculous to me.

*************
M*W: I have this same belief about Constantine's "conversion." Today we would call that being "politically correct." Can you tell me more about when the pagan influenced shifted from the Jewish origin? That's an interesting idea. I don't know much about that particular paradigm shift.

As far as I can see, paganism was introduced to Christianity by the Roman influence. Many sects of the Catholic/Christian church have obviously adopted pagan symbolism, the world is influenced by paganism more than anything else.

*************
M*W: I don't really know much about Buddha, except that Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy. I'm an atheist, but not a Buddhist.

*can* be atheistic.

*************
M*W: I'll get back to you on the symbology of the NT, but I have the feeling that you won't be receptive to anything I post.

I don't bite.

*************
M*W: Dave, you and I both know this is a cop-out answer. I don't smoke dope, and I assume you don't either. Just because you don't agree with what someone else believes, doesn't mean they smoke dope because they don't agree with your beliefs.

I almost thought you were willing to have a mature discussion about what might contradict what you believe.

Hmmm this was a tongue in cheek comment, not an essay on drug use.

It wasn't aimed at you personally, so chill.

 

[davewhite04]

*************
M*W: No, not really.

Believing that religions are a myth is reality. Believing that religions are a reality is a delusion.

Step outside today/tomorrow and visit your local church. Ask the vicar what religion he belongs to and ask independent witnesses about this vicar, and ask questions like "who else is part of your flock", then you'll eventually discover that this shepherd is part of some religion or other.

Which makes it real.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

As far as we can tell, the whole world was pagan way back yonder.

*************
M*W: Hmmm. I hadn't actually thought about it that way, but you do make a point.

Define a Christian to me.

*************
M*W: To me, a christian is someone who believes in God, and in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. He was born and lived among us. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and buried, and rose again for our sake. He ascended into heaven and supposedly sits at the right hand of God. He will come again to judge us.

That's what I believe a christian is supposed to be.

Christianity as it stands (the "Jesus is God" group) is ridiculous to me.

*************
M*W: What is this, a particular group or sect? I've never heard of it.

As far as I can see, paganism was introduced to Christianity by the Roman influence. Many sects of the Catholic/Christian church have obviously adopted pagan symbolism, the world is influenced by paganism more than anything else.

*************
M*W: Paganism existed for thousands of years before Rome became a world power. Rome took the Greek gods and renamed them. Before that, the people of that area believed in Mithras (a god with similar events as Jesus). So, yes, they were pagan, but paganism was nothing new. Even when the Hibiru were down in Egypt, they were son worshippers. The Roman christians copied that myth.

My point is that christianity was a myth of a myth of a myth, that had been perpetuated for thousands of years. The names of the gods changed, but they were all the same ol' gods.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Step outside today/tomorrow and visit your local church. Ask the vicar what religion he belongs to and ask independent witnesses about this vicar, and ask questions like "who else is part of your flock", then you'll eventually discover that this shepherd is part of some religion or other.

Which makes it real.

*************
M*W: I don't get your point.

 

[John99]

*************
My point is that christianity was a myth of a myth of a myth, that had been perpetuated for thousands of years. The names of the gods changed, but they were all the same ol' gods.

Which ones?

Edit: Mithra. M*W, I am sure you know as well as i do that Mithra and there being similar events (whatever they may be) is really just made up. Supposedly Mithra came out of a rock as a fyll grown man but how do we even verify that? The same people mention Horus as well but Horus was not even completely human and had a falcon head. Whatever similarities were made up long after though.

 

[davewhite04]

My point is that christianity was a myth of a myth of a myth, that had been perpetuated for thousands of years. The names of the gods changed, but they were all the same ol' gods.

This is what you have brainwashed yourself to believe, based on researching bogus websites and obscure books.

 

[davewhite04]

*************
M*W: I don't get your point.

Didn't think you would

 

[davewhite04]

Which ones?

Edit: Mithra. M*W, I am sure you know as well as i do that Mithra and there being similar events (whatever they may be) is really just made up. Supposedly Mithra came out of a rock as a fyll grown man but how do we even verify that? The same people mention Horus as well but Horus was not even completely human and had a falcon head. Whatever similarities were made up long after though.

You are exactly right John, they were made up after, obviously to burn the fuel that resides in the hearts of people like Medicine*Woman.

The internet has caused so much confusion.

If you disagree with what John wrote Medicine*Woman, then link me some books that cover this subject that were published before the inception of the internet, that you have actually read.

 

[NMSquirrel]

*************
M*W: The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church was and is entirely a christian religion, and it can't be separated from mainstream christianity.

yes the RCC was responsible for maintaning and growing christianity through the ages, and it can be considered a christian religion (although i say its more catholic but thats just somantics)..

they are also responsible for creating the pomp and circumstances of religion,IOW they created the routine, the rituals(carried over from paganism) that some christians think that is all they need to do to be closer to god..

the RCC when established carried over pagan rituals into the new religion and to this day still encourages those rituals.
and the RCC (my opinion) is responsible for all the bad in christianity..didn't they start the dark ages?