They seem to be along the lines of humanists. Imo anyway.

I don't really think quakers know what they are, really

The above scripture is misused by the Vatican. Peter was never made the Bishop of Rome through this scripture and there is no academic consensus that agrees that he was. If one looked at the Greek the word for Peter is really 'petros' and the word for rock is 'petra'

The scripture reads like this 'and you are a little rock and upon this big rock I will build my church. Anyone who believes in Christ can be a little rock. The pope is not the head of the church and never was for only Jesus is:

he only says this to peter .................... not anyone else.


ps -
A Protestant friend of mine and I recently had a debate over whether Jesus actually made St. Peter the first pope. Although I cited Matthew 16, my friend had some other interpretation of it. What is a good answer to this question?

In Catholic tradition, the foundation for the office of the pope is indeed found primarily in Matthew 16:13-20. Here, Jesus asked the question, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The Apostles responded, "Some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Our Lord then turned to them and point-blank asked them, "And you, who do you say that I am?"

St. Peter, still officially known as Simon, replied, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Our Lord recognized that this answer was grace-motivated: "No mere man has revealed this to you, but My heavenly Father."

Because of this response, our Lord said to St. Peter, "You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the Apostle being called to a special role of leadership; recall how Abram's name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob's to Israel, or Saul's to Paul, when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God's people.

The word "rock" also has special significance. On one hand, to be called "rock" was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered "rock" because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made.

On the other hand, no one except God was called specifically "rock," nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name "rock" to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority. Some antipapal parties try to play linguistic games with the original Greek Gospel text, where the masculine-gender word "petros," meaning a small, moveable rock, refers to St. Peter while the feminine-gender word "petra," meaning a massive, immoveable rock, refers to the foundation of the Church. However, in the original Aramaic language, which is what Jesus spoke and which is believed to be the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, the word "Kepha," meaning rock, would be used in both places without gender distinction or difference in meaning. The gender problem arises when translating from Aramaic to Greek and using the proper form to modify the masculine word "Peter" or feminine word "Church."

"The gates of hell" is also an interesting Semitic expression. The heaviest forces were positioned at gates; so this expression captures the greatest warmaking power of a nation. Here this expression refers to the powers opposed to what our Lord is establishing-the Church. (A similar expression is used in reference to our Lord in Acts 2:24: "God freed Him from the bitter pangs of hell, however, and raised Him up again, for it was impossible that death should keep its hold on Him.") Jesus associated St. Peter and his office so closely with Himself that He became a visible force protecting the Church and keeping back the power of hell.

Second, Jesus says, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the Old Testament, the "number two" person in the Kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22: 19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority and had to act in accord with the king's mind. Therefore, St. Peter and each of his successors represent our Lord on this earth as His Vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Finally, Jesus says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community.

Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter; however, they do not honor his binding jurisdiction over the whole Church but grant him a position of "first among equals."

St. Peter's role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. St. Peter held a preeminent position among the Apostles. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp

1 Peter 2 tells us we all can be rocks.

and that is 'peter ' speaking. insomuch as we are all rocks 'congregation' but jesus was speaking only to Peter , to lead. big difference.

( mind you I think the bible and any other religious text as bunk written by man with a salting of some history)

Interesting because the theory you hold cannot be proven either. This is about rational thought leading to the truth. It is tons more likely that a roman soldier raped mary then it is for this magical old man from the sky come down and knock her up.



Funny, nobody is threatening to murder christians over this. Though that would be poetic justice...



Saw him dying for his crimes of being a conman and leading a cult. The gospel of judas says that jesus set it all up for a big show. They probably sold out some poor guy on the street for the roman silver anyways. Probably why we likely found his tomb a while ago along with his son and wife's remains with his.



Help them why? The bible isn't something that is nice or moral to todays world for everybody.

All religions with gods want to be served by those that have fallen into submission to them... Even christianity.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) doesn't ask me to die for her.

Well, not so sure about the fourth century. If you'd said late first / early second century, I'd be in total agreement with you.

That's circular reasoning in my opinion, c&d:
By the above reasoning, if "Catholics believe in Christ, therefore Catholics are Christians", then by that same reasoning the devils who believe in Christ are Christians also.

I am not Clovis, but from my point of view, Catholics and Protestants are followers of corporate leaders who claim they have authority from God. Mostly they are average people who mistake these corporate organisations as God's church.

c&d, I think you wrote something similar about a week ago. I replied to that, and I don't think you responded to me.
As I recall it, you were saying the pope was successor of Peter ... and I showed that Peter never was ordained as head of the church of God, by Jesus.

Anyway, I guess that is not really relevant here, but I thought you may wish to address this point sometime ...
Karlis

Agreeing with Karlis. I would also like to add: thank God for people actually being individuals at times for throughout history the most important changes always start with one individual with a country or within an organization that sees something is not right with the way other people are running it. With that said I have one final thing to offer on the topic:

Some Catholics make better Christians than some Christians.

Think about it. Others might twist that the wrong way but love is the key.

by going by what is in bold ...... and looking at other types of christianity as well . they too would fall under the same heading since plenty if not all preachers , evangelical and otherwise claim to have authority from God ( especially those miracle healer types.) No different than catholics --- pass that collection plate to make another mega church !!

Im going to take these one by one, for conveniences sake:


No no, my dear Karlis, you've misread me. Its like this, all Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. Its like saying that all apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples. It works the same way.

Perhaps, perhaps not. As I am not a Christian, I don't think it really matters to me. No offense meant, however, just pointing that out.

Terribly sorry, I must have missed it.
I'm not actually a supporter of the Catholic Church, or a member, I was only talking about the verses in the Bible that support the primacy of Peter. For me, the answer to that is irrelevant, for the following reasons:
1. I am not Catholic
2. I don't believe that Jesus ever existed
3. I don't believe the Bible is a reliable document
If you wish to discuss the Primacy of Peter, I'd be more than happy if you PM'd me. It might take me a while, because the Catholic in me needs to scrape off that rust, but if you really want it I can explain pretty much anything about the Catholic Church to you. 15 years of Catholic school will do that to you

Christian summed up = follower of christ....catholics do in fact - follow christ...you dont like to believe in that..thats your own spite against the faith..hence the term protestant!

The above statement IMO should read is --> Some catholics make better christians than some protestants do....because its a known fact that Catholics are in fact christians that follow christ and that all protestants once came from the catholic faith...true fact....thats where protestant got the name from in the 1st place

the biggest denomation under christianity is in fact - Catholic...hey I can prove this if you like...with more than one source

It has often been emphasised that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands
or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of
time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and
as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical
realities. The Church agrees, saying:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its
earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which
we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)


http://www.nexusmagazine.com/index.php?opt...view&gid=30

Saucy, thought it may be, she, Mary, determined later through dream interpretation her child was the Son of God.

So, since she had an immaculate conception, as some claim of determined by MidWife, possible across the lips, but behold...

Many in Satanic Ritual, some through sale of MP3's and CD's, rebuke Him, this Lord of Light.

Damn at Eternal Flame, movie could be interesting, and for all involved, should light fail, seek of Forgiveness....

Yea but devils dont FOLLOW christ...Catholics on the other hand do...so have you any other ideas?

I'm not sure how this got started, but be you Catholic or Protestant ... you are under the title of Christian! I remember sitting in history class one day, many moons ago , and my professor discussing this same topic. He couldn't help, nor I, being a devout Christian (Protestant) at the time, getting a good laugh when a young lady insisted that Catholics were not Christians, but Protestants were. The discussion did not last long when most of the class quickly schooled her (no pun intended) in Religion 101--Catholic + Protestant = CHRISTIAN!

MK,

Sean

Careful ,your prejudice is begining to show


fullywired

Care to elaborate I have no idea what you mean.

Your coming across as a bit anti-catholic to me


fullywired

Maybe that is just your perception? Anyone can say they follow Christ but at the same time ignore the Bible. Catholicism has ignored it in many ways and all in the effort to control people. I am vehemently against any organization controlling people much less doing it under the name of Christ. Much more any organization which has attempted to hijack the message of Christ and claim it as their own. All the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church each had their stamping and blessing by the papal office.

Overall though the blame lies with the Vatican, the headquarters, and not the millions who have been fooled. Many Catholics themselves are good people. I find no fault with them but I do with their leaders.

Many Catholics even to this day do not eat meat on Fridays but it is OK to substitute fish. It has become so ingrained within society that many public places of dining or cafeterias now have Fish Fridays. The custom though is no where to be found in the Bible and began when fish vendors were having a hard time selling their fish so urged the right people until it became a Code of Canon Law.



They do not allow their priest to marry because as it is understood someone with a family might have more ambitions and wishes to pass along an inheritance and then those pose a threat to the organization. Peter himself was married.



The Catholic Eucharist descends from a Mithraic tradition. The list goes on and on in the many ways the Catholic church has only taken what was pagan and made them into Catholic traditions. While most of the world and even academia might consider Catholicism as Christianity anyone with a Bible and an inclination to study history can see many of the teachings, doctrines, edicts, and papal bulls of Catholicism have nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible and more to do with ancient pagan customs.

The same goes with the belief of the Virgin Mary as someone to be venerated, prayed to, or seen as an intercessor between us and God. No where does the Bible state this.



Even their artwork echoes their ancient pagan roots. There is nothing Biblical about it.



While I admire the beauty of the ancient Pagan beliefs I do not admire them being masqueraded as Christianity. While I can appreciate the goddess she should live on in her own traditions and not be turned into the mother of Christ who never would have wanted people to pray to her or consider her the mediator between us and God.

If anyone is interested follow the link below to see how even the last pope assigned her some of these titles...

THE VIRGIN MARY AS CO-REDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX AND ADVOCATE

thousands of people witnessed the resurrection of Jesus ? lol not even the family of or disciples recognised jesus once he was 'resurrected' let alone thousands. your making this up or were wrongly led to believe this.

as for the ascension(s) ? so how many times did jesus ascend ? Luke has him twice , john once and all different. Jesus says to not touch him because he hasn't ascended in one and lets Thomas in another.




ENEKPE - African deity : Goddess of Fate. Another so far unfathomable Goddess who does destiny for some far-away tribe.

She apparently sacrificed herself on the battlefield to save her people. That's fate for you

NOMMO African deity : Mysterious multiplying God Twins. Were born from AMMA's prodigious cosmic egg (second yolk on the right) and managed to get into his Godly good books by protecting YASIGI from the ravages of her brother YURUGU.

Unfortunately this wasn't quite enough to save one of them from being sacrificed to save the Earth. But the other NOMMO, using the latest genetic modification techniques, managed to multiply into four more pairs of twins. These enlightened folk were sent down to Earth to become the descendants of the Dogon people.

The Dogon's startling knowledge of esoteric astronomy has led some people to claim they were in fact visited by reptilian extra-terrestrials from Sirius in the distant past. (Anyone remember the television show 'V'?) Do the Dogons have anything to do with the Dog Star?



I've found a couple and more out there I bet.

http://www.godchecker.com/

A really good site dealing with Christianity and paganism.

POCM
http://www.pocm.info/

MK,

Sean

you do sound anti catholic and the fact is , no matter how much you argue against it , one who believes in Jesus as a saviour , messiah , ect ........... is christian. you may not like it , but that's the facts.

yes , Christianity it's self is based on paganism.

The core of Christianity—the worship of a miracle working, walking, talking godman who brings salvation—was also the core of other ancient religions that began at least a thousand years before Jesus.

thanks again !

I wanted to slip this in also....
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/life/va_00.html

In a few of my relgious studies courses it is interesting to note that the jesus character perhaps was modeled after "Apollonia of Tyana" .....

I would have liked to address this entire post, but, no offense meant Clovis, I'm relatively unnerved, and offended, might I add, by your blatant anti-Catholicism. I used to be a Catholic. Believe me when I say that I know the Catholic Church inside and out. From mundane and easily explainable things such as the origins of the Papacy, to things that are much less well known, such as the nature of Opus Dei.

I would like to say this. You took the virgin Mary quote out of context. You, ahem, forgot this part:

"...the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator."

"For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."
Link to Mary.

Boy, when you look at it that way, Mary doesn't sound so much like a God as she simply sounds like... the Mother of the Christian God incarnate, i.e. Jesus Christ.

For future reference, please do not take things out of context to support your point. Thats called "quote mining", and is a dishonest practice.

I never took that or any other specific quote from that page and added it anywhere in my post. The one you pointed out is just one of many quotes within that page. Maybe you missed the big glaring title of the whole page written in a large font? I did paste that title and the link of that page as is the custom and what many do when offering links.

I do understand that many within Catholicism themselves disagree on the exact nature of Mary and some relegate her more spiritual authority than others. The Catholic Church after all always changes its position on things as if they can never make up their minds.

Fortunately for those who turn just to the Bible and not the Holy See have a source that never wavers or changes. I understand you might have qualms with my post but you should focus on the claims within them instead of attempting to discredit the poster, namely me. There was no dishonesty or quote mining on my part and I stand by my post. The Catholic Church, not the millions of faithfuls for they are innocent or ignorant, but the government of the RCC has turned many ancient pagan customs and knowingly tried to hawk them off as biblical Christianity. The fact still remains they contradict biblical beliefs in many cases.

Also you misunderstand if you believe I am anti-Catholic but rather I am anti-Vatican. They are nothing but a corporate organization that has committed many errors in the past in their quest to remain afloat like any bureaucracy but their latest is to shuffle around child predators and sweep it all under the rug. We can only be thankful for the few brave people within that organization that have had enough and are slowly changing it and allowing their own to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity.

Considering all of my in-laws are mainly Catholics and my father grew up in a Catholic family I have more than an outsiders understanding on the faith. Add that to living in a region where many of my friends throughout life and anyone I could meet, even the random stranger, will most likely be Catholic. I have even participated in their rituals before, visited their churches, and even presented my mother-in-law with some very exquisite statues of the Virgin Mary, I not only sympathize with true believers of that faith but hold no hostility towards them.

Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit.

Matt 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Yes, but for an unbelieving world that is hardly enough proof. Fortunately for believers the witness of the Spirit as proof is enough confirmation of that scripture to be taken as truth. In case you missed it Mr Walker made some very interesting commentary about the Spirit and Jesus.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2259137

You really aught to consider asking some serious questions in my "ask a former Catholic" thread. Clovis, I went to Catholic School for 15 years. For about 5 of those years (the last 5) I was a STAUNCH atheist. Believe me when I say that I have seen both sides of the board, and I know a lot about the Catholic Church. Yes there are some glaring problems that the American church can't seem to take care of properly (as the American Bishops do, i will admit, have their heads up their butts), but all in all, in its current form, the Catholic church is a relatively benign organization. Your post strongly indicates to me that you know absolutely nothing about the Catholic church, and, further more, you have bought into a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that is completely unsubstantiated.

Good day to you, sir.

I have already asked a question on your thread. My post on this thread deals with more of the historical aspects of Catholicism and I would mostly agree with you that the contemporary Catholic church is 'a relatively benign organization'. It is not propaganda though that from its inception the Catholic church was simply paganism given a face lift to appear more like true Christianity. I have no doubt in my mind some within the Catholic fold (and their many derivatives) actually believe in Christ.

All christianity is an offshoot of paganism ,it is no secret that Paul adapted His invention of Christianity to accomodate pagan beliefs borrowing their feast days and ceremonies to make his new religion more palatable to his gentile converts .He also borrowed their stories




Although the unreliability of the gospels and other early Christian documents as historical sources is recognized by many theologians, most of them still maintain that an historical Jesus did live in the early 1st century, though opinions differ as to his alleged divine status. However, several recent scholarly books have concluded that the Jesus depicted in the gospels never existed at all and that, far from being a completely new and unique revelation, Christianity originated as a Jewish adaptation of the ancient pagan mystery religion that had held sway for thousands of years [1].

The pagan mysteries were practised in different forms by nearly every culture in the Mediterranean and inspired the greatest minds of antiquity. Their primary aim was to promote moral regeneration and spiritual progress. At the heart of the mysteries was the myth of a dying and resurrecting godman, who was known by different names in different cultures: in Egypt he was Osiris, in Greece Dionysus, in Asia Minor Attis, in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras. The name 'Osiris-Dionysus' was sometimes used to denote his universal and composite nature.

All the following features of the story of Jesus can be found in earlier stories about pagan godmen [2]: he is the saviour of mankind, the son of God, born of a virgin; he is born in a cave or cowshed on 25 December or 6 January;* his birth is prophesied by a star and witnessed by three shepherds; he is wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger; he is tempted by the devil; he is baptized; he heals the sick, exorcises demons and turns water into wine; he preaches the gospel of love, charity and forgiveness; he is surrounded by 12 disciples; he rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while crowds wave branches; his disciples symbolically eat bread and drink wine to commune with him; he dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world by being hanged on a tree or crucified; his corpse is wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh; his empty tomb is visited by three women followers; after his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory; his followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days; through sharing in his passion, Jesus offers his disciples the chance to be born again.

*There was a dispute in early Christianity as to when Jesus was born. It is interesting to note that Horus, Mithras and Adonis/Tammuz were said to be born on 25 December, while Osiris-Aion was born of the virgin Isis (also known as Mata-Meri or Mother Mary) on 6 January. Adonis/Tammuz was born of the virgin Myrrha in the very cave in Bethlehem now considered the birthplace of Jesus.

The passion of Baal or Bel of Phoenicia/Babylon, as revealed on a 4000-year-old tablet now in the British Museum, shows many points of resemblance with the later story of Jesus: Baal is taken prisoner and tried in a hall of justice; he is tormented and mocked by a rabble; he is led away to the mount; he is taken with two other prisoners, one of whom is released; after he has been sacrificed on the mount, the rabble goes on a rampage; his clothes are taken; he disappears into a tomb; he is sought after by weeping women; he is resurrected, appearing to his followers after the stone is rolled away from the tomb [3].

The story of Jesus clearly shows a startling lack of originality. Some early Christians tried to explain this by claiming that the pagan mysteries were mythical precursors of the 'real thing' -- the historical coming of Jesus. Several church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus, even resorted to the desperate claim that the pre-Christian pagans had been inspired by the devil! A more rational conclusion is that the story of Jesus is simply a reworking of the far older myth of Osiris-Dionysus. No one believes the stories about pagan godmen are literally true, and relating the same events in a Jewish setting hardly turns them into historical facts.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/christian.htm

Livius is one of my favorite sites Great--sound!--resource. Here's another favorite of mine ...

Jewish Roman World of Jesus (UNC)
HTTP://WWW.RELIGIOUSSTUDIES.UNCC.EDU/JDTABOR/indexb.html

Apollonius of Tyana ... I agree. Add Hanina ben Dosa and numerous others. Great read here ...

50 Jewish Messiahs: The Untold Life Stories of 50 Jewish Messiahs Since Jesus and How They Changed the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Worlds
http://www.amazon.com/50-Jewish-Messiahs-S...3539&sr=1-1



You're very welcome. Here's my personal view of Jesus et al ...

I believe Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. I can see Jesus growing up in a time of extreme religious fervor--almost unprecedented in human history--seeing the terrible cruelty of the Romans on a daily basis, hearing the constant mutterings of a coming messiah (a widely held belief at that time) that would deliver the Jews from their despair. Such dramatic events would have had a major impact on anybody--particularly a youngster. Later on in his life, I believe Jesus became convinced that it was he and John the Baptizer were somehow involved with the end of the age and the coming Kingdom of God. A little later on, Jesus goes to the Temple, flies into a fiery rage, starts whipping money changers and overturning tables (I believe this event did, indeed, occur), and gets arrested for it. Now seen as troublemaker and a rabble-rouser, he is executed by the Sanhedrin/Romans--who cannot afford any mischief with so many pilgrims in the city. Jesus becomes a symbol of what not to do during Passover.

Then there’s the gentle Jesus. I sometimes can’t help but wonder if the Jesus as characterized in the Gospel of Thomas (sometimes referred to as the 5th gospel) is not the real Jesus. This Gnostic figure is very much human, was no miracle worker, and preached a message of spiritual enlightenment. I would like to think that this was the real Jesus. I don’t know, it just rings true to me. Of course, the fact that early bishops/fathers--particularly Iraenaeus--went out of his way to try and squash the Gnostics (calling them heretics), makes me wonder if their [Gnostics] view of Jesus was, indeed, closer to the historical Jesus.

I believe that Christianity is “...essentially a reflection of the worship of Attis, Osiris, Dionysos, Orpheus, and Adonis. All are built around the theme of a Savior-god who takes human form, teaches, suffers, dies, and rises again. The minor divergences from this theme lend no greater authority to one than another.” (Orpheus, A History of Religions, Reinach, Salomon, 1930, p.228). I think the major characteristics of the popular ancient saviour-gods and divine heroes were applied to the NT Jesus: the virgin birth, born by the power of a holy spirit, miracle worker, raising the dead, dying, resurrecting, and salvation, ascending to heaven and returning, claim to be the son of a god etc. Such stories were numerous and well known. For example, Alexander the Great, Pythagoras, Plato were supposedly born of women and conceived by the power of a holy spirit. Heracles was the child of the Zeus and a human woman. Julius Caesar (48 BCE) was proclaimed “god manifest, savior of human life, and divine man.” August was said to have been sent by God, Himself. Livy claimed that Romulus was conceived by a god, born of a virgin, and left no bodily remains after his death. Like the much later Jesus, he reappears to “commission his successors”. And then there’s my personal favorite, Apollonius of Tyana. He was said to be the son of Zeus, perform incredible miracles--including raising the dead. He had quite the following. On and on and on.

Orpheus: A History of Religions by Salomon Reinach
http://www.amazon.com/Orpheus-History-Reli...6978&sr=1-1

I think such popular stories would have easily found themselves woven into the Jesus story. Jesus became a new god constructed from the most popular characteristics of the old gods--thus making him unique.

One can compile a long list of legendary figures who were said to have once been human but have now become immortal gods (Osiris, Dances, Hercules, Aristaeus, Asclepius, Aeneas, Romulus) as well as many from the not-so-distant past (Alexander, various Roman emperors, Empedocles, Jesus, Pythagoras, Apollonius of Tyana). Often tales of such figures report some kind of an extraordinary birth, wondrous deeds, wise teachings, and usually an account of an ascent to heaven at or after death. A few samples:

SOURCE: Divine Men, Heroes & Gods (Professor James Tabor, UNC)
<a href="http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/divine.html" target="_blank">http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/divine.html</a>

As for dying and rising for the remission of sins . . . I guess I should first explain my opinion on this subject. I fall into the camp that believes this to be an ancient method of appeasing the gods. Animal sacrifices--the shedding of blood for the remission of sins--was quite common. Jesus--or the writers of the Gospels/NT--Isimply took this concept one step further. Instead of spilling the blood of a lamb, for example, to pay for the remission of sins, a human became the ultimate sin-offering. Human blood must be spilt for human transgressions--not that of an animal. Hence, Jesus became the “lamb” that must pay the ultimate price for sin--a sacrifice (sin-offering) that would benefit all of mankind. In effect, Jesus became the sacrificial “Passover Lamb” (GJohn).

Professor Elaine Pagels (Princeton) in Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (p.20): “In the decades after his death, some followers of Jesus in Jerusalem invoked religious tradition to suggest that, just as animal sacrifices were offered in the Temple, so Jesus had died as a sacrificial offering. . .”

Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-Secret...6712&sr=1-1

Great read here as well ...

This is a powerful book. You'll discover firsthand, right from the pens of the ancients themselves, that Dionysus came to earth "incognito, disguised as a man"; that Pagan Gods died and were reborn with the meaning that "the God is saved, and we shall have salvation."; that pagans had initiation ceremonies seen as "a voluntary death", sacred meals shared with the God, ceremonial washing, Pagan miracles, a Godman who changed water into wine, and a Pagan version of the great flood. And much more.

The Ancient Mysteries: A Source book Sacred Texts of the Mystery Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean World by Marvin W. Meyer (Professor, Chapman University)
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081...aganoriginofthe" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081...aganoriginofthe</a>

At the last supper--if this event even occurred--Jesus proclaims the wine the [disciples] drink to be his blood, the bread they eat his flesh. Eat and drink of it and be saved (John 6:53–56). This rather gruesome ritual--the Eucharist, a sin and sacrifice ritual (used in Catholic Mass to this day)--was practiced amongst many religions of antiquity. It was not unique to Christianity. In fact, some scholars believe it’s possible to trace such rituals to a period in the distant past known as the Totem Stage (I believe this is the correct term). During this period, tribes were honoring and sacrificing--making sin-offerings (bear or bull)--to Totem spirits. They then ate the sin-offering in a “Eucharistic-type” feast. Again, Pagels, Beyond Belief, p.19, draws a similar conclusion by stating, “. . . many Jews and gentiles might have recognized the eucharist as typical of ancient cult worship.”

The late Edward Carpenter (Brighton College; Trinity Hall, Cambridge) in his book Pagan and Christian Creeds (p.72) makes an interesting statement about sacrifice, sin-offering, and Christianity: “I say it is an astonishing thing to think and realize that this profound and mystic doctrine of eternal sacrifice of Himself, ordained by the Great Spirit for the creation and salvation of the world--a doctrine which has attracted and fascinated many of the great thinkers and nobler minds of Europe, which has also inspired the religious teachings of Indian sages and to a less philosophical degree the writings of the Christian saints--should have been seized in its general outline and essence by rude and primitive people before the dawn of history, and embodied in their rites and ceremonies.”

Pagan & Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning by Edward Carpenter
http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christian-Cree...6793&sr=1-1

... The Christian writer Tertullian from North Africa around the year 197 really goes way out on a limb to try to make some distinctions. He says, "We Christians hold meals, sure, but we really don't do anything all that extraordinary. In fact, they're very tame. It's not at all like those people who follow the god Serapis. Why when they throw a dinner party you have to call out the fire brigades. We're nothing like that." But indeed the very point that he has to make suggests that in the eyes of a lot of people that's exactly how they looked.

SOURCE: The Empire's Religions (Paula Fredriksen: William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University; Holland Lee Hendrix: President of the Faculty, Union Theological Seminary; L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin)
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ait/empire.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ait/empire.html</a>



I respectfully disagree. Tales of virgin births were common and would have been well-known to the evangelists. Mark, the earliest Gospel (70-75 CE), does not even have this story! Paul? Nothing! And his epistles date from the 50's CE! No, stories of virgin births were nothing new. In fact, here is Trypho speaking with Justin:

CHAPTER LXVII -- TRYPHO COMPARES JESUS WITH PERSEUS; AND WOULD PREFER[TO SAY] THAT HE WAS ELECTED[TO BE CHRIST] ON ACCOUNT OF OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW. JUSTIN SPEAKS OF THE LAW AS FORMERLY.

And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ,[it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."

AND:

... Tales of virgin births, divine heroes, and miracles workers were relatively common 2,000 years ago and simply did not mean what they do to us today."--Kerry Temple (PhD), Editor, Notre Dame Magazine

MK,

Sean

I like the Greek legend that the sons of Heracles were the Dorian invaders who had caused much upheavel within the Peloponnese. As I understand new theories have been offered that dispute the actual ramifications the Dorian invaders, if they even existed, might have caused.

Personally I equate the sons of Heracles with the Nephilim, those men of old and renown. I know academia dismisses anything to do with the supernatural though.

well I was raised Roman Catholic ,12 years catholic school and stayed till about 24 or so. ....While the Vatican is not without 'sin' , can be looked at as a business ect....... so can ANY other christian religion. Surely those Mega churches turn a tidy profit ? How many leaders of their churches , baptist , protestant , ect ....... have been busted for illegal doings ? How many of them have been found as pedophiles ? drug addicts ? swindlers ?

hell , all christians contradict the bible when it suits them. not just catholics.

your anti vatican. well those mega churches and mega preachers on tv are just as bad. worse in some cases. they try harder to swindle people.



so they disagree...... change their minds. That's how people and institutions grow. otherwise you remain stagnate and stupid. For me religion isn't changing fast enough to keep up with modern thinking man. and religions either change or die off .

Morning C.



The excellence begotten in Herakles is not only seen in his great acts, but was known before his birth. When Zeus lay with Alkmeme, he tripled the length of the night, and, in the increased length of time spent in begetting the child, he foreshadowed the exceptional power of the child who was to be begotten. All in all, this union was not done because of erotic desire, as with other women, but more for the purpose of creating the child. Because he wished to make the intercourse legitimate, and he did not wish to take Alkmeme by force, nor could he ever hope to seduce her because of her self-control, therefore he chose deceit. By this means he tricked Alkmeme: he became Amphitryon (her husband) in every way.--Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 4. 9. 1-10

Although I understand your thinking here, C. Little doubt that Greek influence (Hellenism) influenced all of the ancient world--including the various authors of the Scriptures. The story regarding the Nephilim might very well be their version of the Hercules tale. Very interesting.



Maybe not everything ... but Historical and Devotional Method do not mesh well.

MK,

Sean

Neither am I a fan of mega churches or those who commit crimes while pretending to still be (if they ever were) of the Word.



Ooh I love the quote from Diodorus Suculus' work. There are also overtones with that narrative that are shared with Zeus seducing Europa and the Quinotaur seducing Chlodio's wife. Though the whole seduction theme indeed throws off direct parallels. Closer paralleing Diodorus Suculus' account of Alcmene and Mary is that Alcmene is portrayed by Hesiod as being very chaste, though in her case she was totally devoted to her husband and not a virgin. I did get a kick out of 'he tripled the length of the night' and what else it might imply lol It is fantastic to see reoccurring themes in history and myth be replayed over and over though and how they all share similar elements.

Me too! One randy fella isn't he?! Levitra?

MK,

Sean

What irks me is that you seem to think that the Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that has its root in Paganism. All Christianity has its roots in pagan ideas. Christmas, Easter, Sun worship, etc. etc. etc. While the Catholic Church, and many others, doubtlessly do have pagan roots, that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church is a secretly pagan organization. Paganism was in part borrowed by early Christianity to make it more conducive to pagan converts. As time went on, the pagan roots were still implemented, but largely forgotten. I think you've made a big mistake in many of your assumptions in this direction.

You should read the "Dream of the Rood" sometime. It is an excellent document that shows the tactics early Christian missionaries used to make Christianity more appealing to Pagans.

These are just discussion forums where people offer different views so no reason to get irked (~_^)



All those were introduced by the foreunners of Catholicism. All the 'Christian' denominations that share in these traditions descend from the Catholic church. True Christianity is biblical based and the Bible mentions nothing of Christmas (the sun god's birthday), Easter (spring fertility rites based on Ishtar and Oestre), sun worship, etc. etc. etc.



It defintiely makes the Vatican that from its inception till today.



Paganism was in part borrowed by the foreunners of Catholicism so the Roman Empire (where religion and state was not so sharply divided so if you payed taxes to the church you also payed them to the state) would not have to compete with true Christianity. Instead it just gave a Christian facade to its own state religion so that it would not lose taxes and not worry about true Christians falling out of line and under thier control.

I am also aware of the arguments and research on how paganism is in the Bible but the Bible does not instruct anyone to do these pagan things as the Vatican clearly has.



I think it is bad form on a forum to stray from topics and simply claim someone with an opposing view is making assumptions. There are no such assumptions here since the historical record tells the case that Vatican draws many of its traditions and imagery from paganism while the Bible makes the case that Vatican does and teaches many things that are not biblical whatsoever.

As it already has been said Paul borrowed pagan rituals and feast days to aid conversion of the gentiles and all Christian denominations still practice them with the exception of the fundies ,and who knows what they practice.I notice you are blaming the Catholics for things before it was an accepted religion .My word you do have it in for them !!!


fullywired

Guess you missed this part:

The only reason I am irked, Clovis, is because from my perspective you are making somewhat fallacious assumptions about the Catholic Church. Allow me to explain along the way...


True, these are feast days that definitely have their roots in Pagan traditions. I will not argue that. They do. However, just because they were pagan 2000 years ago does not mean that they are still pagan today. (well, actually, Christmas doesn't appear to be either pagan or Christian today... more... materialistic. But thats a whole different topic ) The meanings for those feast days have changed drastically from the days of their pagan roots. Easter, which is more or less the celebration of the Spring Equinox in pagan tradition, has evolved into a holiday that is celebratory of Jesus Christ's triumph over sin and death. Yes, it does have its roots in the fact that the early Christian church could not stifle the pagan tendencies of many of its constituents. So the early church adopted the old mantra of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The church kept ancient pagan rituals, but altered their meanings to be more oriented towards Christian traditions. Surely you would not argue that now a days Catholics celebrate Easter with Pagan traditions in mind. Of course they don't. As I explained before, Easter is the symbolic celebration of Jesus Christ's resurrection.

Im just going to jot down an argument and then walk away from this silliness.
Here are my premises, followed by my conclusion:
1. We can infer that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and celebrates his resurrection from the dead as a means towards salvation is a Christian.
2. The Catholic Church believes in Jesus Christ and celebrates his resurrection from the dead as a means towards salvation.
----------------------
3. Therefore, a member of a Catholic parish is a Christian, in the same sense that a Lutheran or Presbyterian or Baptist is a Christian.
They aren't different faiths, Clovis. They are different denominations. The little petty stuff in between is what separates the denominations, but they all believe in the same principle things: Jesus Christ, the Son of God incarnate was the Messiah, who died on a cross and rose from the dead, utterly defeating sin and opening the gates of Heaven for those who choose to accept Jesus' sacrifice.

This is true, but a large part of what was borrowed from Paganism WAS borrowed so that Christianity was easier to swallow for those who were reluctant to give up their old gods and their old ways. Since I don't see you showing much interest in reading the "Dream of the Rood" yourself, allow me to explain it to you.
The Dream of the Rood is a narrative poem Christian missionaries in Gaul used as a tool to convert the Gaelic people. The premise of the Dream of the Rood is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, however, some details have been altered in order to make the story more palatable to the pagans, who valued different ideals and characteristics than their Christian counterparts. For instance, in the Christian version of the story, Jesus' death on the cross is largely ordinary. It was pretty much the same as every other criminal who was crucified. Christ accepted his death, and was nailed to the cross by the Roman guards, and died 3 hours later. However, in the Dream of the Rood the cross was made out of the finest wood, gilded in gold leaf, and encrusted with gems and precious stones. Christ, instead of passively accepting his death, climbed up to the cross by himself and nailed himself to it (I'm not quite sure how that would work...). The Dream of the Rood also mentions Jesus' disciples, but instead of referring to them as his disciples they are referred to as a sort of army, the head of which was Christ.
There are many other differences that were put in simply to make the story easier for pagans to swallow. Honestly, the Dream of the Rood makes Jesus look pretty bada** if you ask me.

Virtually all of the mythological stories in the Bible come from older Babylonian sources. There is a definite correlation between the Hebrew creation story and the Babylonian creation story, and a correlation between Hammurabi's Code and the Laws of Moses.
How does the Vatican instruct people to do pagan rituals? I've already explained to you that though many of the celebrations have their roots in Paganism, they are no longer considered pagan because two thousand years of tradition has changed the old pagan rituals into actual celebrations of Christian Tradition. Materialism aside, Christmas, Easter and all the rest (materialism aside) are genuine celebrations of Christian dogma, i.e. the Birth of Christ and the Triumph of Christ over death.


A simple refutation of that would be found in Mt 16: 18-19, where Jesus tells Simon Peter that he is the rock upon which he will build his church. Peter is given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the gates of the Netherworld will not prevail against them. What is most interesting is right after that Jesus tells Peter that whatever he makes true on earth Jesus will make true in heaven.

However, as that answer will not stand in your eyes, I can say this (again). It is not just Catholicism, but Christianity as a whole that draws off of pagan ideas. That said, many of the things you might claim are "unbiblical" are not that at all. The veneration of Saints, which the ignorant and foolish often call worshiping false idols, is just that. Veneration. Catholics know that the Saints are not "gods", but are rather people they can look to for guidance. Saints are people whose lives a Catholic should seek to model his own after. The Saints, though fallible beings, devoted their lives to God and even though many of them met horrible deaths (or simply didn't exist), we can trust that from a Catholic perspective they received their just rewards in Heaven.

Most of the arguments against Catholicism stem not from legitimate claims, but rather from simple misunderstandings. Most Catholics I know (with the exception of a few loonies) would never claim that Protestants are less Christian than they are. Clovis, I fail to see why you can't show Catholics the same respect as many of them would give you. The Catholics that I grew up with and know are remarkably tolerant people, and they are devoted to their religion. But they aren't blind. They examine the evidence. Sometimes they get angry or frustrated with the American Bishops (as I often do) or with the Vatican. And justly so. I would never claim that the Vatican is infallible. Instead of propagating the schism within Christianity, Christians should focus more on ecumenical works: coming together under a common cause, namely, your faith in Jesus Christ. At least, thats what I was taught in Catholic School.

You see Clovis, there really is no difference between Presbyterians, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Puritans, Methodists and all the rest. Do you really think that your salvation at the hands of Jesus Christ is going to be affected by what denomination of Christianity you adhere to? Last time I checked, Christian salvation was dependent on one and only one thing: Believing in Jesus. And as far as I know (and I know alot about the Catholic church. I did, after all spend 15 years in their educational system) Catholics believe in Jesus Christ.

Fair enough c&d. If the discussion is about the actual believers and not the Vatican then we are much more in agreement. I would never deny that some Catholics believe in Jesus and are Christians. Proof of that is within my own family.

I will disagree with you on that all of early Christianity attempted to ply to paganism by dressing itself up in pagan vestments. The biblical approach is to never do that and I cannot help but think that throughout history there have been those few who follow the Bible and only the Bible and reject anything else that might make their faith impure. They did not need the Dream of the Rood when they have the Bible and others can simply take it or leave it on face value, most have left it as we can see. I do understand many others though did ply to paganism this way to gain more converts. But with that I believe we have come into consensus as far as the faithful go.



We are in total agreement here. I will read the Dream of the Rood though and so far what I have read in wikipedia sounds interesting. It will be interesting as well to read a modern translation compared to the original text just to see how much the language has changed but I will keep in mind what you have said about it while I do read it. Sounds similar to a theme within the Mists of Avalon. I cheated and just saw the movie (instead of reading the book) but it is one of my favorite movies.

Agreed.

Im sorry, I didn't mean to present early Christianity like that to you. What I was trying to say was yes there are Pagan roots, and this is the reason: because it was much easier to convert Pagans if you allowed them to keep their holidays. As long as they could get ridiculously drunk off their home-made beer on their feast days they really didn't mind (of course thats an exaggeration, but I'm just trying to make a point).

Good, I highly recommend it. I believe it, along with Beowulf, is one of the first known pieces of English literature.

Another book that discusses those issues and one not on your list seanph is Pagan Christs by John M Robertson. First published in 1903 but the one in my collection is not a first printing :/

Thanks C. I'll check it out.

MK,

Sean