NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's talk about Mitra...;)

Mitra is a god. :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

Mitra in historical mythology was a god of the Vedas (early Indo-European religious documents), at a time when both the Persian and Indian peoples worshiped the same gods, following similar religions. At this early stage, Mitra was a very prominent god. Varuna and Mitra were the older, biological brothers to Indra and Vishnu. Mitra was also called Surya. Varuna, Mitra, and Indra presided as the ruling trinity of the Vedic gods.

However, in both India and Persia, Mitra fell from prominence. In India, when Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva ascended to heaven, they replaced Varuna, Mitra and Rudra in their respective places in the ruling trinity.

In Persia, Mitra was also subsumed, but here matters took a very different turn. Here, no later than 600 BC, a new religious teacher rejected the worship of the established trinity of Varuna, Mithra and Indra. He emphasized the eternal struggle between a force of good (Ahura Mazda) and a force of evil (Ahriman). This teacher was named Zoroaster or Zarathustra.

However, at some point after the reform of the Persian religion by Zoroaster, some Persians began to revive the worship of Mitra as a savior god who was the Way, the Truth, and the Light. He died for our sins. In time, the veneration of Mitra spread to many foreign lands, including in Europe.

now some christian bashing as I promised. :p

Mithraism competed with early Christianity in the later days of the Roman Empire. It soon became apparent that Mithraism and Christianity were very similar, and in several cases, it was obvious that Christians had plagiarized Mithraist practices:

* The celebration of the birth of Mithra took place on December 25. Note that the four generally accepted Christian gospels give no date for the birth of Jesus Christ. Mithraist stories tell of Mithra being visited by shepherds after his birth.
* Mithra healed the sick and raised the dead.
* Mithraists worshipped on Sunday. Note that the Hebrew Ten Commandments direct one to worship on Saturday ("seventh day"), not Sunday.
* The celebration of the visit of wise men to the young Mithra took place on January 6.
* Mithraism had seven sacraments.
* Mithraism had a ritual meal in which people were invited to drink of Mithra's blood and eat of his flesh--with the flesh of Mithra represented by bread.

Early Christian writers attempted to address the issue of the similarity between Mithraism and Christianity by stating that the Mithraists had stolen their rituals from Christianity. However, it became apparent that this was not a feasible explanation, since Mithraism was older than Christianity! The Mithraists had been performing their rituals long before the birth of Jesus Christ would have taken place.

So, many early Christian writers came up with a solution that ranks with the most extreme paranoid delusions. They explained the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity by saying that Satan knew Jesus was coming, and so to throw people off, Satan created Mithraism (and other similar religions) in the centuries before Jesus' birth. Satan hoped that the existence of religions that had many similarities to Christianity which preceded the life of Jesus would cause people to not believe in Jesus when he showed up!

This theory has been called "diabolical mimicry". Oh boy!!!...:eek: that Satan; he must be so busy, what with him also creating fossils for people to find all over the world in order to get people to believe in evolution and the Earth being millions of years old instead of people accepting the Hebrew Bible story of Adam and Eve with the world being less than seven thousand years old!

Christianity eventually won out over Mithraism by gaining the favor of the Roman Emperor. Specifically, the Emperor Constantine, who actually for most of his life was a member of Mithraism and other cults, had murdered his son, and sought to cleanse himself of the sense of guilt he felt about doing this. He was informed by the Mithraist priests and scholars that they could not cleanse him of the taint of what he had done. However, Christian priests informed him that Christian baptism erased all sins committed before the baptism. So not only would it forgive Constantine's murder of his son, if Constantine put off his baptism until just before he died, during his life he could commit all the sins that he wanted to, and his baptism would save him from any punishment in the afterlife for his accumulated sins! In fact, the Emperor Constantine chose this route. (So, you can do a last-minute conversion!)

Upon the ascension of the Roman Catholic Church, Mithraism was wiped out upon the passage of the Codex Theodosius, the series of laws which banned all religions in the Roman Empire except for Roman Catholic Christianity and Judaism. These laws came out in 341, 345, 356, 381, 383, 386, and 391 AD. Mithraists had their civil rights taken away.

Within centuries, any Mithraists in Persia soon also lost their civil rights due to pro-Jesus intolerance; circa the year 650 AD, Arabs who were Muslims (and thus believed in the Koranic account of the virgin birth of Jesus) invaded Persia. As a result, Persia became Muslim. The old Vedic-connected religions such as Zoroastorianism and Mithraism were wiped out. Today in Persia, now called Iran, anyone who follows these religions severe harassment.

For more...read this!!
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/library/myth.shtml

Christianity did indeed borrow many customs from pagan religions. December 25 being the date of Christmas was added later. The Pagans were worshiping on Dec 25 and the church turned it into a Christian holiday so new converts to Christianity could still participate in celebrations on that day. That is the same reason the church made Sunday the sabbath.

There are also similarities such as a miracle birth. Mithra's birth however involves him being born out of a rock if I remember correctly.

Given that Christianity was, and remains, a highly syncretic religion, especially during its earliest phases, there is little surprise that similarities developed. Things like holiday similarities are likely explained by plagiarism, (although, in this case, December 25 was likely looted straight out of the Roman playbook for the holiday of Saturnalia, for various functional reasons).

The superficial similarities are likely the result of imitation, especially given the less-than-favored status of early Christians in the Empire. Mimicking Mithraism might have even provided them with a degree of plausible deniability should they have come under suspicion. The more substantial similarities are likely coincidence. People want to believe in stuff like this, and are likely to create these sorts of stories independently of one another.

Given that Christianity was, and remains, a highly syncretic religion, especially during its earliest phases, there is little surprise that similarities developed. Things like holiday similarities are likely explained by plagiarism, (although, in this case, December 25 was likely looted straight out of the Roman playbook for the holiday of Saturnalia, for various functional reasons).

The superficial similarities are likely the result of imitation, especially given the less-than-favored status of early Christians in the Empire. Mimicking Mithraism might have even provided them with a degree of plausible deniability should they have come under suspicion. The more substantial similarities are likely coincidence. People want to believe in stuff like this, and are likely to create these sorts of stories independently of one another.

what do you mean with the more SUBSTANTIAL similarities?:confused:

* The celebration of the birth of Mithra took place on December 25. Note that the four generally accepted Christian gospels give no date for the birth of Jesus Christ. Mithraist stories tell of Mithra being visited by shepherds after his birth.
* Mithra healed the sick and raised the dead.
* Mithraists worshipped on Sunday. Note that the Hebrew Ten Commandments direct one to worship on Saturday ("seventh day"), not Sunday.
* The celebration of the visit of wise men to the young Mithra took place on January 6.
* Mithraism had seven sacraments.
* Mithraism had a ritual meal in which people were invited to drink of Mithra's blood and eat of his flesh--with the flesh of Mithra represented by bread.



Ok.I'm a Christian who has seen Mithraic Temples.

I'll go through this step by step:

Saturnalia, a Graeco-Roman Pagan Festival occured at the same time. It was a popular festival similar to Christmas. The Christians Adopted Saturnalia as it provided a cover for their Religion in the Early days. Shepherds appear in many Legends of the Ancient World, From The gods of Olympus to Jesus.

Many Religions include variants on the Biblical Stories, Mithraism is far from Unique.

There are hundreds of Religions and seven days in a week. Ergo there is severe overlap.

Wise Men wondered around for centuries and were a common feature of ife in some parts of the world until recently (see Rasputin).

You don't need to be Einstein to realise that the arrangement of weeks and months lends itself to Religious Usage.

Mithraism also Worshipped Mithras as creator of the Universe. Why not mention that? Or That he killed the Bull to do so? Or that Mithraism bore much similarity to the modern day Freemasons, with the many ceremonies etc? Or that Mithraism was a closed sect akin to Scientology?


This is just Christian Bashing for your own ends, of obtaining a sad little thrill through annoying people that worship God.

Please, Get A Girl!

"Christianity is a bastard religion" - Yes, which is why it's a pretty kickin' religion. Mishing and indeed mashing often produces Cool Things. Just looking backwards mostly = not actually that good.

Agreed. Christianity mixed the images of Christ with the images of Sol Invictus or the Roman Sun God. Most educated Romans didnt believe in the pantheon of Roman Gods. Constantine himself even identified himself with Sol Invictus. Many early images of Christ and the Saints have halos. Halos come directly from the images of Sol Invictus.

Mithraism competed with early Christianity in the later days of the Roman Empire. It soon became apparent that Mithraism and Christianity were very similar, and in several cases, it was obvious that Christians had plagiarized Mithraist practices: Christianity began 30AD with the death of Christ. The end of the Roman Empire was around 476AD...So why was there no competition between the two religions before "the end of the roman empire"? Something smells fishy here.

* The celebration of the birth of Mithra took place on December 25. Note that the four generally accepted Christian gospels give no date for the birth of Jesus Christ. Mithraist stories tell of Mithra being visited by shepherds after his birth. The birth of Jesus is largely to be thought of being anytime in the year BUT winter time. And what's with the point of people visiting at the birth? I had people visit me when I was born, so OBVIOUSLY i am copying off of Mithras.

* Mithra healed the sick and raised the dead. What religious figure hasn't made this claim?

* Mithraists worshipped on Sunday. Note that the Hebrew Ten Commandments direct one to worship on Saturday ("seventh day"), not Sunday. And Christians had times of remembrance on Sunday, because it was the day that the Lord rose. As for worship times, Christians worship God in all they do, so there is no specific time.


* The celebration of the visit of wise men to the young Mithra took place on January 6. And this is promoted in Christianity WHERE?


* Mithraism had seven sacraments. And Christ had the communion. Not seven sacraments.

* Mithraism had a ritual meal in which people were invited to drink of Mithra's blood and eat of his flesh--with the flesh of Mithra represented by bread. And what was the purpose of that ritual? Was it to represent the perfect and sinless body that took upon the sins of the world, and the blood that was spilled to wash humanity clean?

-snip same old tired and refuted remarks-

And now for truth. :)

http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Mithras.html
http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp

Its so interesting that so-called scholars with an obvious bias against Christians use arguments and "proofs" that were dismissed over a hundred years ago.

Actually, the cult of Mithras borrowed December 25. It was chosen as a day of worship because of its proximity to the winter solstice. It was a festival for Sol Invictus, the unconquered sun which would be reborn after the solstice. Mithras was adopted as a soldier's mystery religion after this and was associated with the sun so his worship also took place on December 25. So no the Christians didn't take Christmas from Mithras, they took it because it was a prominent Roman festival.

Christianity began 30AD with the death of Christ. The end of the Roman Empire was around 476AD...So why was there no competition between the two religions before "the end of the roman empire"? Something smells fishy here.


It was at the end of the Roman Empire when Chrstianity ascended to something more than a tiny cult.


The birth of Jesus is largely to be thought of being anytime in the year BUT winter time. And what's with the point of people visiting at the birth? I had people visit me when I was born, so OBVIOUSLY i am copying off of Mithras.


One thing is the winter, 4 month period in most parts of the world. Another thing its exactly the same day.


What religious figure hasn't made this claim?


erh...Thor? Quetzalcoatl? Shiva? Healing portafolio is not that common in ancient deities.


And Christians had times of remembrance on Sunday, because it was the day that the Lord rose. As for worship times, Christians worship God in all they do, so there is no specific time.


wtf? Ten commandments?


And this is promoted in Christianity WHERE?



And Christ had the communion. Not seven sacraments.


Obviously you are not catholic


And what was the purpose of that ritual? Was it to represent the perfect and sinless body that took upon the sins of the world, and the blood that was spilled to wash humanity clean?

Same god-eating ritual. Hardly a coincidence. Even if different meaning...but same rituals have different meaning depending on your christian denomination too.


And now for truth. :)

http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Mithras.html
http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp

Its so interesting that so-called scholars with an obvious bias against Christians use arguments and "proofs" that were dismissed over a hundred years ago.

buwajajajajajajajaaj!!!... thanks for calling me so-called scholar, I'm not.

Now, you wouldn't be TROLLING by announcing both in your title and in your original post that you were going to bash Christians, WOULD YOU?

Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to revise and make your point without going out of your way to get people riled, hmmmmm?

buwajajajajajajajaaj!!!... thanks for calling me so-called scholar, I'm not.

Granted. You are a sad loner with nothing better to do than revive an outdated argument against the World's most influential Religion which offers hope to millions.

In the Spirit of "fight fire with Fire", According to Phrenology you are a criminal of the most depraved and morose character.

Now, you wouldn't be TROLLING by announcing both in your title and in your original post that you were going to bash Christians, WOULD YOU?

Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to revise and make your point without going out of your way to get people riled, hmmmmm?

Don't worry, he's taken on Christians. We have the America and Russia on our side.

Ok.I'm a Christian who has seen Mithraic Temples.


where? what are they like?

where? what are they like?

In the North of England. There's some Reconstructions up there too.

Frankly, I don't see why it matters. Borrowing the dates and traditions of other religions is a way of making it easier for people to embrace new ideas; the use of Jewish traditions and concepts in Christian doctrine certainly doesn't invalidate Christianity, so I see no reason why using the ritual framework of another religion is somehow a bad thing.

I fail to see how that collection of data, even if true, constitutes Christian bashing. Unless you're saying that if it's similar to another religion, it must be pilfered, and if it's pilfered, it must be false, which doesn't follow. Both the original script for the Fantastic Four and The Incredibles had a scene with a character shaking a cat out of a tree; neither one got the idea from the other. So even as late as 2004 or so, we can see that two people can introduce the same plot elements into similar stories without one necessarily stealing from the other.

Further, I fail to see how the timing of Christian celebrations such as at Christmas or Easter in any way impacts what is usually considered the important part: what's being celebrated, namely the redemptive nature of Christ. I'm unsure how Christ being actually born on July 19 (just as a hypothetical) in any way adds or detracts from the value of the celebrations of his birth on Dec. 25 or any other day of the year.

Really, if I had to summarize what you appear to be saying in one sentence, it would be something like this: "Ancient Christians played politics with religious rights to attract followers from competing religions, therefore Christianity is a false religion". That's just silly.

Granted. You are a sad loner with nothing better to do than revive an outdated argument against the World's most influential Religion which offers hope to millions.


Hardly outdated, it's a very interesting subject of study.

And its actually a very good argument.

Christianity the world´s most influential religion? maybe you are right there.

Christianity gives hope? I don´t agree with this. More like gives sedatives.


In the Spirit of "fight fire with Fire", According to Phrenology you are a criminal of the most depraved and morose character.

:eek: ouch! that's personal.

In the North of England. There's some Reconstructions up there too.
oohhhhhh so.....got a suggestion of what i might put into google to see some pics?

I fail to see how that collection of data, even if true, constitutes Christian bashing. Unless you're saying that if it's similar to another religion, it must be pilfered, and if it's pilfered, it must be false, which doesn't follow. Both the original script for the Fantastic Four and The Incredibles had a scene with a character shaking a cat out of a tree; neither one got the idea from the other. So even as late as 2004 or so, we can see that two people can introduce the same plot elements into similar stories without one necessarily stealing from the other.

Further, I fail to see how the timing of Christian celebrations such as at Christmas or Easter in any way impacts what is usually considered the important part: what's being celebrated, namely the redemptive nature of Christ. I'm unsure how Christ being actually born on July 19 (just as a hypothetical) in any way adds or detracts from the value of the celebrations of his birth on Dec. 25 or any other day of the year.

Really, if I had to summarize what you appear to be saying in one sentence, it would be something like this: "Ancient Christians played politics with religious rights to attract followers from competing religions, therefore Christianity is a false religion". That's just silly.

If they played politics then they were NOT divinely inspired. See my point?

Hardly outdated, it's a very interesting subject of study.

And its actually a very good argument.

Christianity the world´s most influential religion? maybe you are right there.

Christianity gives hope? I don´t agree with this. More like gives sedatives.



:eek: ouch! that's personal.

It was dismissed 100 years ago (another poster (Zilam I think) said).

If you are inebriated.

Look at Western Civilisation, founded on Christianity, and the main influence on the world.

It gives hope of redemption and eternal life. What else can a starving man with no food coming as Prescott ate it all hope for?

Thats what attacking my religion feels like to me.

oohhhhhh so.....got a suggestion of what i might put into google to see some pics?

Hadrian's wall temples? We were on a school trip up there.

I'm not sure that people who believe that symbolic cannibalism and emulation of an undead jewish demi-god will grant them eternal life will be convinced to drop their beliefs on the grounds that a lot of their traditions may be rip offs of someone else's. Traditions that not all of them follow.

<snip>

Flaming someone in a thread that has already been visited by a mod is ill-advised.

granted. But he just hit a raw nerve. Apologies.

It was dismissed 100 years ago (another poster (Zilam I think) said).



I has been hardly dismissed. Maybe dismissed by christian standards, like evolution has been dismissed, but historically it's still worth considering.

If you are inebriated.


no comment.


Look at Western Civilisation, founded on Christianity, and the main influence on the world.

It gives hope of redemption and eternal life. What else can a starving man with no food coming as Precott ate it all hope for?

I look at Western civilization... what should i be seeing?

It could give some true too.


Thats what attacking my religion feels like to me.

I make fun of your beliefs...not of you.

I has been hardly dismissed. Maybe dismissed by christian standards, like evolution has been dismissed, but historically it's still worth considering.

no comment.

I look at Western civilization... what should i be seeing?

It could give some true too.

I make fun of your beliefs...not of you.

No, It has been dismissed by scholars who have other things to concern them, like the dead sea scrolls.

For Once

The most advanced civilisation in arts and technology ever.

Some guy found the ark. What more do you want!?

Yeah, but your plain of attack is not much higher than that of Phrenology.

Christianity ripped someone off? Shock, horror.

Just feel lucky they didn't burn your house, sleep with your wife and throw your babies on spikes.

Christianity ripped someone off? Shock, horror.

Just feel lucky they didn't burn your house, sleep with your wife and throw your babies on spikes.

Medieval Catholics are not acceptable to use in arguments as an Example of Christianity.

Hadrian's wall temples? We were on a school trip up there.
thanks. first try!

http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/mithras/text.htm

those museum of antiquities webmasters could use some help with photography.

I went to two of those sites

Medieval Catholics are not acceptable to use in arguments as an Example of Christianity.

It's funny because you're being serious.

Let's talk about Mitra...;)

Mitra is a god. :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

Mitra is indeed a god, of the Persian pantheon. Associated with the morning star, IIRC. Also associated with justice, truth, and the like. Possibly explaining his name.


<snip>
However, at some point after the reform of the Persian religion by Zoroaster, some Persians began to revive the worship of Mitra as a savior god who was the Way, the Truth, and the Light. He died for our sins. In time, the veneration of Mitra spread to many foreign lands, including in Europe.

Fail. No mention of Mitra in Europe. This sounds to me like the old Cumont idea that the Roman cult of Mithras had originally come from Persia and Mitra. Whilst the name may be similar the cult practises and mythology are completely different. Cumont's ideas have now been largely deemed incorrect.

At the time Cumont was writing our understanding of Persian religion and the Mithras cult were both much less advanced than now.

It should also be noted that by Roman times the name "Mitra" had evolved into "Meher" as Old Persian had evolved into Middle Persian by the 4th century BCE (at which point the Roman empire didn't exist), and there is no attestation of a Mithras cult in the Roman empire before 1st century CE. The Romans would have never have heard the name "Mitra" to describe the Persian deity.

Mitra is indeed a god, of the Persian pantheon. Associated with the morning star, IIRC. Also associated with justice, truth, and the like. Possibly explaining his name.



Fail. No mention of Mitra in Europe. This sounds to me like the old Cumont idea that the Roman cult of Mithras had orginally come from Persia and Mitra. Whilst hte name may be similar the cult practises and mythology are completely different. Cumont's ideas have now been largely deemed incorrect.

At the time Cumont was writing our understanding of Persian religion and the Mithras cult were both much less advanced than now.

It shoudl also be noted that by Roman times the name "Mitra" had evolved into "Meher" as Old Persian had evolved into Middle Persian by the 4th century BCE (at which point the Roman empire didn't exist), and there is no attestation of a Mithras cult in the Roman empire before 1st century CE. The Romans would have never have heard the name "Mitra" to describe the Persian diety.

Sir, you have a most Gentlemanly and correct argument. Cheers!

Sir, you have a most Gentlemanly and correct argument. Cheers!

*bows* You're welcome :)

And this is promoted in Christianity WHERE?


Epiphany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_(Christian))

*bows* You're welcome :)

Indeed sir. Please have glass of Port.

And Then please find a way to make Robert Mugabe die.

Christianity does have similarities to other pagan religions. Does that mean that Christianity as a whole is wrong? All religions have some truth in them. Ancient peoples took a stab at spiritual truth and came close. Christianity incorporates those truths.

All religions have some truth in them.

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Okay, most religions.

Epiphany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_(Christian))

I've never heard of that before. And probably for a good reason. The first century church didn't practice it. Just like they didn't celebrate Christmas, or any of that other crap. I hate how the gentiles took this way of life that Christ gave us, and made it into another crappy religion. :mad:

If they played politics then they were NOT divinely inspired. See my point?

Um, no.

God tells you to spread the gospel of the redemption offered by Jesus. You see a bunch of people worshipping for a competing god on Dec. 25. You say that you also have services on Dec. 25, and you can save their souls. They come to your place instead of the other place. How does this story not allow for both divine inspiration of the Gospel and politics about how to convey the Gospel?

I think it might work, if the essence of Christianity were in legalistic determinations of when certain events occurred. But Christianity is not concerned with such legalism; I refer you to Christ's condemnations of the Pharisees. At best, you've got an argument against being overly technical with the dates of religious events, not an argument against the divine inspiration of the word.

Um, no.

God tells you to spread the gospel of the redemption offered by Jesus. You see a bunch of people worshipping for a competing god on Dec. 25. You say that you also have services on Dec. 25, and you can save their souls. They come to your place instead of the other place. How does this story not allow for both divine inspiration of the Gospel and politics about how to convey the Gospel?

I think it might work, if the essence of Christianity were in legalistic determinations of when certain events occurred. But Christianity is not concerned with such legalism; I refer you to Christ's condemnations of the Pharisees. At best, you've got an argument against being overly technical with the dates of religious events, not an argument against the divine inspiration of the word.


I like this post!

Okay, most religions.

If you ignore the bits about Gods, miracles, rebirths and impossible events, then I guess some religions do have elements of truth about them. Plus they all tend to have some nice stories, which is good regardless of if they are true or not.

I see. So in order to compete with the other god,its OK to lie a little bit?

I've never heard of that before. And probably for a good reason. The first century church didn't practice it. Just like they didn't celebrate Christmas, or any of that other crap. I hate how the gentiles took this way of life that Christ gave us, and made it into another crappy religion. :mad:

The early church did have liturgical seasons. The early church was not evangelical protestant.

Mitra is indeed a god, of the Persian pantheon. Associated with the morning star, IIRC. Also associated with justice, truth, and the like. Possibly explaining his name.



Fail. No mention of Mitra in Europe. This sounds to me like the old Cumont idea that the Roman cult of Mithras had originally come from Persia and Mitra. Whilst the name may be similar the cult practises and mythology are completely different. Cumont's ideas have now been largely deemed incorrect.

At the time Cumont was writing our understanding of Persian religion and the Mithras cult were both much less advanced than now.

It should also be noted that by Roman times the name "Mitra" had evolved into "Meher" as Old Persian had evolved into Middle Persian by the 4th century BCE (at which point the Roman empire didn't exist), and there is no attestation of a Mithras cult in the Roman empire before 1st century CE. The Romans would have never have heard the name "Mitra" to describe the Persian deity.

OOOOO SACKED.
THe one thing I love about in depth bashing here is that just as it looks like the bashing is gonna keep bashing someone steps in and plants one in the OP's nuts.

Um, no.

God tells you to spread the gospel of the redemption offered by Jesus. You see a bunch of people worshipping for a competing god on Dec. 25. You say that you also have services on Dec. 25, and you can save their souls. They come to your place instead of the other place. How does this story not allow for both divine inspiration of the Gospel and politics about how to convey the Gospel?

I think it might work, if the essence of Christianity were in legalistic determinations of when certain events occurred. But Christianity is not concerned with such legalism; I refer you to Christ's condemnations of the Pharisees. At best, you've got an argument against being overly technical with the dates of religious events, not an argument against the divine inspiration of the word.
Wha?
You've lost me, but if you said what I think you said, then my response would be:
Yes. Christmas could be in summer and any other festival anytime, to quote Patristic teaching "Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath". It doesn't really make a difference. Actually prior to the Synod of Whitby Easter (i.e. the most important festival) was celebrated with some sparodicity (Not A Real Word) in different communities, not many places would have had it at the same time of year till the Synod (Where the formula for calculating the date of Easter was decided).

I've never heard of that before. And probably for a good reason. The first century church didn't practice it. Just like they didn't celebrate Christmas, or any of that other crap. I hate how the gentiles took this way of life that Christ gave us, and made it into another crappy religion.
Hey watch it there bud, I belong to that "first century chuch", although the dates were sketchy we celebrated basically everything we do now (obviously except for certain saints days as the saints in question may have had to be born first...)

OOOOO SACKED.
THe one thing I love about in depth bashing here is that just as it looks like the bashing is gonna keep bashing someone steps in and plants one in the OP's nuts.


I just like people to check their history before they use it for a debate :)

I see. So in order to compete with the other god,its OK to lie a little bit?

Most religions have done this at one point or another, even some of the polytheistic ones.

So no the Christians didn't take Christmas from Mithras, they took it because it was a prominent Roman festival.

Not just "a" prominent festival: as you explained, the symbology of the Sol Invictus is quite similar to the idea of the birthday of a god who dies and rises again...

Anyway, maybe the OP thought no one ever heard about Mithras here... Poor fellow.

Btw, in the OP was said "the end of the Roman Empire" and everybody thought about the the end of Western Empire... the Eastern Empire ended about 1000 years later. ;)

Hey watch it there bud, I belong to that "first century chuch", although the dates were sketchy we celebrated basically everything we do now (obviously except for certain saints days as the saints in question may have had to be born first...)

LOL rage mode? I am non-denom, and my church seeks to live as the first century Christians did, and we have NEVER done anything like the epiphany. We don't focus on holidays, mainly because every day is a day that we should be honoring Christ and what He accomplished.

The early church did have liturgical seasons. The early church was not evangelical protestant. I don't recall reading about it in the Gospels or Acts.

Medieval Catholics are not acceptable to use in arguments as an Example of Christianity.

1. Who said I was? There are plenty of Christians in the U.S. today who will happily burn down your house and rape your women.

2. Yes they are.

Most religions have done this at one point or another, even some of the polytheistic ones.

True. So?

LOL rage mode? I am non-denom, and my church seeks to live as the first century Christians did, and we have NEVER done anything like the epiphany. We don't focus on holidays, mainly because every day is a day that we should be honoring Christ and what He accomplished.

I don't recall reading about it in the Gospels or Acts.


The Acts of the Apostles has little to do with the way that the church actually functions, it has more to do with the history of Peter and Paul's missionary journeys. That is why all Christian groups claim to be the true first century church as found in Acts. You should read the early church fathers who were actually around during the few centuries of the church. You would be surprised at how 'Catholic' the early church was.

LOL rage mode? I am non-denom, and my church seeks to live as the first century Christians did

Does this stretch to not accepting the Nicene Creed? After all, it didn't exist in the first century BC.

Do you still celebrate Passover?

Does this stretch to not accepting the Nicene Creed? After all, it didn't exist in the first century BC.

Do you still celebrate Passover?

The Nicene Creed solidified what the Church Fathers and early church believed, and taught. Those ideas are in the Gospels, and the Epistles.

As far as Passover, I have somewhat celebrated it before. Not in the way that modern Jews celebrate it, but I have had a time of remembrance during that time. :)

No need to reinvent the wheel.
So to speak.

And your point?

True. So?
I was just about to ask you the same question. I fail to see how anything you've claimed in your OP (even the parts that aren't wrong) are in any way a slam against Christianity. It's kind of like "bashing" Christianity for calling itself a religion, where there were already all those other religions in the world before it came along. So the Christians built their religion the way people build religions. So what?

i seem to see that some people here seem to think that just because they dont hav proof of certain laws or rituals in their church's history it means that it doesnt exist ..

all churchess except for the catholic church took their current bible and teachings and laws from the cathloic bible ...the castholic bible has the oldest and most concistent and comprehensive view of what early christianity was ... protestanism came in the second millineum and so it is taken from the catholic bible ...wheter or not the catholic bible is right or wrong but all the versions other christians use are edited versions of the bible ..... get it ??? ..so to see what early christianity was probably like ..take a look at the roman catholic bible ...it is the unedited version ..not that i am saying tht is it entirely true ..but it is the one tht has been largely unedited ....over the years ...

the thing is that if christianity is copied and mixed and built along with influnces frim othr religions ....t would mean that it is not the one true religion ...which would instatntly dash the lives of thouisands of conservative, hardcore, traditional and evangelical christians worldwide .....

if christianity was merely a mix and match of the best religions of the time ....what does tht say about the uniqeness of chritianity ..

dont get mne wrong christianioty is perhaps the best kind of religion ever created ...it is better thern many other religions ...but it would lose part of its allure and authority ..many people would jyust stop believing ..
the thing with religions is that it depends on how much its people believe in it ...if the people who practice it believ dfrrntly, the religion would also change with the ppl's beliefs ..

during the roman era ....the worship of of the roman gods was the one true way ...now it is christianity ...what about the future ...who knos some being, creature or human might be born somwhere and then grow up ...hav a large following of people and then die bcoz fgundamentalist christians or muslims would kill him or her ...then that new reliogion would spread taking over the whols world ....and everyone would cast out the old religions proclaimimg them as pagan and false ...that was what the greek n roman gods did when they took over ..that was what the christian and muslim gods did whenthey took over ...would history repeat itself in the far future .????


bcoz at every momet in time the devotees of the current religions would sincerely believe that the religion they are worshiping is the one and true religion ....never knowing that after a few hundred years ..that religion would no longer exust and a new never seen before religion would take its place ....

* The celebration of the birth of Mithra took place on December 25. Note that the four generally accepted Christian gospels give no date for the birth of Jesus Christ. Mithraist stories tell of Mithra being visited by shepherds after his birth.
* Mithra healed the sick and raised the dead.
* Mithraists worshipped on Sunday. Note that the Hebrew Ten Commandments direct one to worship on Saturday ("seventh day"), not Sunday.
* The celebration of the visit of wise men to the young Mithra took place on January 6.
* Mithraism had seven sacraments.
* Mithraism had a ritual meal in which people were invited to drink of Mithra's blood and eat of his flesh--with the flesh of Mithra represented by bread.

This is bullshit that has been widely circulated. Mithra was supposed to be born on the winter solstice, and the timing of "Christmas" on December 25 was indeed related to that: that is the one and only true item in this list.
* There are no "Mithraist stories" surviving: we have zero literature from the cult (the Roman Mithraism was evidently quite different from the original Persian mythology), which makes it difficult to reconstruct their beliefs; we do have iconography from their shrines, which speculators have made various interpretations of; but I know of no iconography containing any depiction of shepherds at all. Certainly there would be no shepherds or "wise men" at Mithra's birth, because there wasn't ANYBODY around at his birth, which constituted the creation of the universe (his emergence from a formless rock appears to be much more analogous to Genesis 1, God saying "Let there be Light!", than to anything New Testament).
* The Persians did not even HAVE such a thing as "Sunday", because they didn't keep a seven-day week in their calendar. The quarter-phase days (new moon, half moon, full moon, waning-half moon) were sacred, but the interval from one quarter phase to the next is sometimes eight days rather than seven, so there is no fixed relationship between this "lunar week" and the Hebrew strictly-seven-day week.
* We only know of one "sacramental" ritual among the Mithraists, the "bull slaying" in which a bull was sacrificed, everyone was sprinkled with the blood, and then the meat communally eaten. There are some thematic parallels that can be drawn, but this is not the same as "baptism" as sometimes claimed, nor is it really like the "eucharist" as the version here makes it out (the bull is not identified with Mithra: rather Mithra is pictured as the one who is KILLING the bull, so the beef was not "Mithra's flesh" at all).

True. So?
It's kind of like "bashing" Christianity for calling itself a religion, where there were already all those other religions in the world before it came along. So the Christians built their religion the way people build religions. So what?

Pretty much what I was going to say... Seconded.

This is bullshit that has been widely circulated. Mithra was supposed to be born on the winter solstice, and the timing of "Christmas" on December 25 was indeed related to that: that is the one and only true item in this list.
* There are no "Mithraist stories" surviving: we have zero literature from the cult (the Roman Mithraism was evidently quite different from the original Persian mythology), which makes it difficult to reconstruct their beliefs; we do have iconography from their shrines, which speculators have made various interpretations of; but I know of no iconography containing any depiction of shepherds at all. Certainly there would be no shepherds or "wise men" at Mithra's birth, because there wasn't ANYBODY around at his birth, which constituted the creation of the universe (his emergence from a formless rock appears to be much more analogous to Genesis 1, God saying "Let there be Light!", than to anything New Testament).
* The Persians did not even HAVE such a thing as "Sunday", because they didn't keep a seven-day week in their calendar. The quarter-phase days (new moon, half moon, full moon, waning-half moon) were sacred, but the interval from one quarter phase to the next is sometimes eight days rather than seven, so there is no fixed relationship between this "lunar week" and the Hebrew strictly-seven-day week.
* We only know of one "sacramental" ritual among the Mithraists, the "bull slaying" in which a bull was sacrificed, everyone was sprinkled with the blood, and then the meat communally eaten. There are some thematic parallels that can be drawn, but this is not the same as "baptism" as sometimes claimed, nor is it really like the "eucharist" as the version here makes it out (the bull is not identified with Mithra: rather Mithra is pictured as the one who is KILLING the bull, so the beef was not "Mithra's flesh" at all).

*cheers*

Thank you for reminding me of all the stuff the school trip got told while stood in a freezing Northumberland field.

1. Who said I was? There are plenty of Christians in the U.S. today who will happily burn down your house and rape your women.

2. Yes they are.

They don't follow the rules of Christianity though. Its like saying Muslim extremists are typical of Islam or Ghandi (who caused a million deaths at partition) is a typical example of his religion.

2. No they're not, they were remote from the true message of the Bible then, and not Christians in the sense of following the order to "love thy neighbour".

I was just about to ask you the same question. I fail to see how anything you've claimed in your OP (even the parts that aren't wrong) are in any way a slam against Christianity. It's kind of like "bashing" Christianity for calling itself a religion, where there were already all those other religions in the world before it came along. So the Christians built their religion the way people build religions. So what?

So, christians built their religion the way people build religions...pagan religions included. So christian dogma was build by people, not divinely inspired. That's the point yes.

So, christians built their religion the way people build religions...pagan religions included. So christian dogma was build by people, not divinely inspired. That's the point yes.

It took you how long to make that point?

i seem to see that some people here seem to think that just because they dont hav proof of certain laws or rituals in their church's history it means that it doesnt exist ..

all churchess except for the catholic church took their current bible and teachings and laws from the cathloic bible ...the castholic bible has the oldest and most concistent and comprehensive view of what early christianity was ... protestanism came in the second millineum and so it is taken from the catholic bible ...wheter or not the catholic bible is right or wrong but all the versions other christians use are edited versions of the bible ..... get it ??? ..so to see what early christianity was probably like ..take a look at the roman catholic bible ...it is the unedited version ..not that i am saying tht is it entirely true ..but it is the one tht has been largely unedited ....over the years ...

I hate to sack you one in the balls but the Catholic Church wasn't the first church, the Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by the apostles and was the only church until 1156 (ish) when the Bishop of Rome called himself the Pope, decided he was the head of all of the church on Earth and tried to excommunicate all the other bishops of the church, this split thus seperated Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholocism, the Pope then took out a lot of books from the Bible which would contradict his earthly power.

LOL rage mode? I am non-denom, and my church seeks to live as the first century Christians did, and we have NEVER done anything like the epiphany. We don't focus on holidays, mainly because every day is a day that we should be honoring Christ and what He accomplished.

I don't recall reading about it in the Gospels or Acts.
This is because the Gospels and Acts were what the first century church (Lewl I shall call it Orthodoxy from now on, as that is the name it is called and has been called since the Catholics split off) was based on and thus won't contain what happened after it.

Out of interest Zilam I was wondering have you ever been to an Orthodox service? I think it may interest you quite a lot, it has remained unchanged since it's founding in 33AD, I think you'd enjoy it.

So, christians built their religion the way people build religions...pagan religions included. So christian dogma was build by people, not divinely inspired. That's the point yes.
No. You are leaping to yet another conclusion. The WAY somebody formulates and publishes their data says nothing at all about the source of their data. Just because Christianity was constructed on similar patterns to other religions does not mean that Christianity's beliefs were not divinely inspired (nor does it mean they were). Nor does it mean that the other religions were not divinely inspired.

People all learn to walk the same way, too, you know. It doesn't mean that one person didn't really learn to walk on his own just because someone else did it the same way before him. Nor does it mean that, when he walks, he's not really walking because he didn't make up a new way to do it.

Christian beliefs and rituals (not all but many) were politically motivated. you suggest you can be politically motivated AND divinely inspired at the same time?

You either do what your god tells you or what's more convenient to your political objectives (like taking symbols, rituals and dates from another religion). Unless your god inspires you to do what's more convenient, but that sounds kind of too relativistic for an absolute perfect god.

Christian beliefs and rituals (not all but many) were politically motivated. you suggest you can be politically motivated AND divinely inspired at the same time?

Yes. Politics in and of itself is morally neutral; you can use political power for good or for evil.

You either do what your god tells you or what's more convenient to your political objectives (like taking symbols, rituals and dates from another religion). Unless your god inspires you to do what's more convenient, but that sounds kind of too relativistic for an absolute perfect god.

You do what helps you spread your message most effectively. If that means using an existing framework, so be it. You're not worshipping that other God, nor are you paying them any kind of homage, just making it easier for people to embrace new ideas. It also helps avert the existing religions from attempting to oppress or destroy you.

Those damn Chrisshuns! Stealin' mah religions! :p

Yes. Politics in and of itself is morally neutral; you can use political power for good or for evil.



You do what helps you spread your message most effectively. If that means using an existing framework, so be it. You're not worshipping that other God, nor are you paying them any kind of homage, just making it easier for people to embrace new ideas. It also helps avert the existing religions from attempting to oppress or destroy you.

Are you being sarcastic?

Christian beliefs and rituals (not all but many) were politically motivated. you suggest you can be politically motivated AND divinely inspired at the same time?

You either do what your god tells you or what's more convenient to your political objectives (like taking symbols, rituals and dates from another religion). Unless your god inspires you to do what's more convenient, but that sounds kind of too relativistic for an absolute perfect god.
I am not interested in what you think sounds too "convenient" to satisfy you. Your personal tastes hardly amount to a definitive judgment about someone else's religious experiences.

As for the rest, I agree with Vetalia on this one:
Yes. Politics in and of itself is morally neutral; you can use political power for good or for evil.



You do what helps you spread your message most effectively. If that means using an existing framework, so be it. You're not worshipping that other God, nor are you paying them any kind of homage, just making it easier for people to embrace new ideas. It also helps avert the existing religions from attempting to oppress or destroy you.

Are you being sarcastic?
Why would you think he is being sarcastic? If a religion is trying to make inroads into new territory where a different religion holds power, it would do well to avoid pissing off the adherents to that older religion, especially if they happen to be the rulers, and especially if that older religion happens to occasionally practice human sacrifice. Rearranging its ritual calendar to dovetail with the existing traditions only makes sense, especially if it does not require a wholesale rethinking of the basic theology.

I see. Beliefs, dogmas and rituals aren't as important as gaining followers.

I see. Beliefs, dogmas and rituals aren't as important as gaining followers.
Kindly point out where I said that.

What I actually said is that it's okay if it does NOT require changes to the theology, meaning the fundamental beliefs of the religion.

They don't follow the rules of Christianity though. Its like saying Muslim extremists are typical of Islam or Ghandi (who caused a million deaths at partition) is a typical example of his religion.

2. No they're not, they were remote from the true message of the Bible then, and not Christians in the sense of following the order to "love thy neighbour".

So you're saying no true Christian would do such a thing.

You do not consider the eucharist a fundamental belief of the religion?

You do not consider the eucharist a fundamental belief of the religion?
Are you talking to me?

Are you talking to me?

Yes indeed. Ryadn beated me to post.



The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church's life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church.

Yes indeed. Ryadn beated me to post.



The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church's life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church.
Oh, so you DO know how to use the quote button. Learn to do it every time, please, thanks.

Yes, I know what the eucharist is, and now that I know who you were directing your comment to, I can answer you:

Are you attempting to get around to the point that the eucharist is not unique to Catholicism, but that other, earlier religions also had ritual, symbolic sacrificial feasts of or around dying/returning gods? Yeah, no shit. That brings us back to my point that just because a religion is built using forms that already exist, it doesn't mean the beliefs of the religion are false or insincere.

Oh, so you DO know how to use the quote button. Learn to do it every time, please, thanks.

Yes, I know what the eucharist is, and now that I know who you were directing your comment to, I can answer you:

Are you attempting to get around to the point that the eucharist is not unique to Catholicism, but that other, earlier religions also had ritual, symbolic sacrificial feasts of or around dying/returning gods? Yeah, no shit. That brings us back to my point that just because a religion is built using forms that already exist, it doesn't mean the beliefs of the religion are false or insincere.

:rolleyes:

No I'm not trying to get around that point!!!1!

That's exactly the point!!1!

how can you claim to be practicing divinely revealed rituals and the only true religion if your sacraments are copycat of other religions you claim to be false?

Are you being sarcastic?

No. Christianity in its early years suffered some very brutal persecution at the hands of Roman officials; Diocletian in particular was zealous in his attacks on Christianity and attempts to crush the religion.

Plus, it's rather hard to win people over to your side if you are preaching the complete and utter abandonment of existing traditions. For example, people like celebrating Saturnalia, and people aren't going to abandon it in favor of nothing or another festival at some other time. So, by celebrating Christmas at the same time people are far more inclined to embrace Christianity because it maintains that traditional celebration in a new form.

:rolleyes:

No I'm not trying to get around that point!!!1!

That's exactly the point!!1!

how can you claim to be practicing divinely revealed rituals and the only true religion if your sacraments are copycat of other religions you claim to be false?
I and a few other posters have already explained how you can do that. If you don't like our explanations, fine, but don't keep asking the same question over and over and expect different answers from the same people.

how can you claim to be practicing divinely revealed rituals and the only true religion if your sacraments are copycat of other religions you claim to be false?

Consecration. Just like how pagan temples were converted in to churches, so to were many pagan rituals reconsecrated in to Christian traditions.

This is just me, but Christianity is like Communism: right idea, wrong species. Humans will never be capable of the amount of self-control it takes to actually follow Jesus in His footsteps.
I'm something of an atheist, but I have come to realize an important thing: even if Christianity is proven to be false, should people then abandon the ethics and morality of Christianity?
My only problem with Christianity is that it is abused by humans.

Some guy found the ark. What more do you want!?
You're joking, right?

There are also similarities such as a miracle birth. Mithra's birth however involves him being born out of a rock if I remember correctly.

Worship of Mithras was usually in the form of a mystery religion, so much of what we know of their beliefs has to be pieced together from paintings and mosaics rather than written sources. As you say, some images depict birth from a rock while others give contradictory accounts.

Frankly, I don't see why it matters. Borrowing the dates and traditions of other religions is a way of making it easier for people to embrace new ideas; the use of Jewish traditions and concepts in Christian doctrine certainly doesn't invalidate Christianity, so I see no reason why using the ritual framework of another religion is somehow a bad thing.

If true it would only really invalidate the beliefs of those who claim that Christianity is somehow unique and untainted by the 'worldliness' of other religions. It's rather like the numerous Hebrew and Persian loan words in the Qur'an: it doesn't invalidate Islam per se, but it screws with the claims that the perfection of the Arabic writings in the Suras is proof of its divine origins.

The reason for so many similarities between the practices between the Christians and other religions is a very simple one to trace; the Romans, to appease those who they had conquered, historically changed very little. The basic idea was, "if we don't take anything away from them and only give them better things, they'll like us better, or at least not revolt." When the Romans adopted Christianity, they decided to make it easy for the population, especially the true-Romans, who were generally pagan, to transition. If their festival dates don't change, only in practice, and their days of rest and worship don't change, et cetera, everything becomes much easier. Things don't have to be reworked, and if it doesn't conflict with Christian beliefs, all the better.

Humans will never be capable of the amount of self-control it takes to actually follow Jesus in His footsteps. No, but Christ recognizes that. Hence the whole "salvation" aspect. If we could be perfect, like Jesus, we would not even need Him, thereby negating Christianity entirely.


My only problem with Christianity is that it is abused by humans.
Nearly every religion is, sadly. Religions, however, also have their upsides. Yes, there are wars, but more lives are saved through their efforts. Hospitals, technology-spread, and the like. Even the Islamic Extremists comprise only 5% of all Muslims, and even then, very few are actual terrorists (and they fight contrary to their religion, actually. It's actually suggested that some of the extremist leaders don't even really believe in Allah, they merely hate the West and merely use Islam as a machine to get what they want.)

But yeah, can you argue that the Ten Commandments shouldn't be followed, to some extent? Yes, the first three would only be followed by Believers, however, are honoring your parents, resting on the Sabbath, not murdering, not lying, not cheating on your spouse (or by some translations, having sex with someone you aren't married to period, which has a noticeable detriment to society, if you look for it), not stealing, and not coveting, all bad things? Is the Golden Rule all that bad?

As for the Ark, it is actually believed that an F-5 pilot found the Ark in Turkey, however, it is closed off and very remote.

As for the Ark, it is actually believed that an F-5 pilot found the Ark in Turkey, however, it is closed off and very remote.

Believed by whom exactly?

This whole "Christianity is actually fake becuase it borrowed from another religion" is just another Zeitgeist spin off.

If true it would only really invalidate the beliefs of those who claim that Christianity is somehow unique and untainted by the 'worldliness' of other religions. It's rather like the numerous Hebrew and Persian loan words in the Qur'an: it doesn't invalidate Islam per se, but it screws with the claims that the perfection of the Arabic writings in the Suras is proof of its divine origins.

Even then, they could simply say they took those traditions and made them perfect. Sort of the whole "in the world but not of the world" concept.

This whole "Christianity is actually fake becuase it borrowed from another religion" is just another Zeitgeist spin off.

I'm surprised noone has tried to disprove all religions on account of the Stone Age pagans believing in Gods first.

Lol, this forum's motto should be "NSG- Idiots arguing about stuff they don't really know about since 200X"

Most religions have done this at one point or another, even some of the polytheistic ones.

Ma! He started it!

the best book that i have read about "original" christianity is called:

The Origin Of Christianity: The Pacifism, Communalism, and Vegetarianism of Primitive Christianity

it's by a fellow named Charles Vaclavik. i find it to be extremely well researched and exceptionally well reasoned. i recommend it without qualification to anyone who is really interested in this subject, beyond whatever they may presently believe and whatever bias that may entail.

vaclavik traces the development of early christianity---its first 150 years---through three distinct forms, in its early days. he calls them "judaic christianity", "gnostic christianity", and "catholic christianity".

he traces the origins of "judaic christianity" all the way back to pythagoras. he makes the case that john the baptist and jesus were members of a neo-pythagorean, non-orthodox judaism. it included, according to vaclavik, the essenes and nazarenes---and, after the crucifixion of jesus---a sect called the ebionites, a version of this neo-pythagorean non-orthodox judaism that promoted the belief that jesus of galilee was the jewish messiah. after the death of jesus, this sect was led by james, the brother of jesus.

vaclavik claims that "gnostic christianity" was begun by saul (paul) of tarsus---but it did not actually extend the principal beliefs and practices of judaic christianity, so much as create a competitor to it. he says that paul's religion was not the religion OF jesus, only a religion ABOUT jesus. it was principally an extension of gnostic ideas, beliefs, and practices that had already existed---but which had now been reframed in a way that absorbed his understanding of jesus ("the christ"), complete with the necessary jewish underpinnings. it was "sold" by him principally to pre-existing gnostic communities, most of which were predominantly or totally "gentile" (non-jewish). nonetheless, this movement had to maintain positive---if very strained---relations with the ebionite (judaic christian) community for the sake of its own credibility, despite the fact that paul was promoting a set of beliefs and practices very different from these of the original community.

"catholic christianity", then, was the third form to arise. vaclavik posits that it was begun in conjunction with one of the congregations of gnostic christianity by a former jewish temple high priest called "john the elder", for whom there is some, but scant, historical evidence. vaclavik believes that this fellow was probably the source of "the gospel of john" (the last and most formally and theologically distinct of the canonical gospels), and that he may well have been "the beloved disciple" featured in that book (although NOT one of "the twelve" disciples). vaclavik believes that it was this character who provided the theological framework for a greater depth of integration of the gnostic and jewish ideas that were in some tension in paul's work, while also essentially grafting a transmogrified form of the jewish priesthood onto gnostic christianity. this form had a sacramental core that centralized the authority of the community in the priesthood. vaclavik does also believe that this series of innovations---producing this third distinct form of early christianity---borrowed almost as heavily from mithraism as paul did from gnosticism, and that this incorporation provided the principal theogical framework that enabled the shift to sacramentality and the centrality of the priesthood. given that mithraism was already widespread in popularity in the roman empire, this would also boost its palatibility to the masses and---as already noted elsewhere---to constantine, himself, a few centuries later. this third form, however, even further removed from the first, had no hope or possibility of reconciliation with the first, and sought instead to discredit it; later---after it had been established as the state church of rome---it sought simply to erase the memory of its existence, since this was an enormous threat to its self-created myth of its own origins. the second form, however, this "catholic christianity" was able to simply absorb into itself.

of course, this third form would also transmogrify considerably---arguably into a fourth form, "constantineism", with its adoption to state-religion status in the fourth century---but its essentials would remain the same. all major forms of modern christianity may be considered its descendants.


vaclavik writes that the focus of "judaic christianity" was a practice, of a peculiarly pythagorean variety. he says that they believed their salvation came through the duplication of the divine condition through the fulfillment of the law---not of moses, but of pythagoras, as revealed through jesus. "be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect", etc.

he says the focus of "gnostic christianity" was a form of knowledge, or belief. this replaced the centrality of practiced disciplines; i.e., "saved through faith alone", etc. this sect believed that salvation came through a certain kind of knowledge---or belief---just like the gnostics.

he also says that the focus of "catholic christianity" was rather a full participation in the sacramental life of the community. that is, salvation came through the reception of the correct sacraments from the correct priesthood.


vaclavik also believes that protestantism---a direct descendant of "catholic christianity" represents a "throwback", in spirit, to the "gnostic christianity" that preceded "catholic christianity". thus the renewed emphasis on "faith alone", etc., and the rejection of the priesthood.


vaclavik, himself, apparently practices and promotes a renewed form of "judaic" or "ebionite" christianity---which he considers to be the actual, original practice and teaching of jesus, himself. he offers a great deal of evidence that this practice and teaching was fundamentally pythagorean in character (though somewhat hebrew in content), and that this way included the practices of absolute pacifism, communalism, and phytivorism (complete veganism)---despite how the succeeding factions of "christianity" may have redacted the evidence to appear.


thanks for reading.

hope this is useful.

peace.

the best book that i have read about "original" christianity is called:

The Origin Of Christianity: The Pacifism, Communalism, and Vegetarianism of Primitive Christianity

it's by a fellow named Charles Vaclavik. i find it to be extremely well researched and exceptionally well reasoned. i recommend it without qualification to anyone who is really interested in this subject, beyond whatever they may presently believe and whatever bias that may entail.

vaclavik traces the development of early christianity---its first 150 years---through three distinct forms, in its early days. he calls them "judaic christianity", "gnostic christianity", and "catholic christianity".

he traces the origins of "judaic christianity" all the way back to pythagoras. he makes the case that john the baptist and jesus were members of a neo-pythagorean, non-orthodox judaism. it included, according to vaclavik, the essenes and nazarenes---and, after the crucifixion of jesus---a sect called the ebionites, a version of this neo-pythagorean non-orthodox judaism that promoted the belief that jesus of galilee was the jewish messiah. after the death of jesus, this sect was led by james, the brother of jesus.

vaclavik claims that "gnostic christianity" was begun by saul (paul) of tarsus---but it did not actually extend the principal beliefs and practices of judaic christianity, so much as create a competitor to it. he says that paul's religion was not the religion OF jesus, only a religion ABOUT jesus. it was principally an extension of gnostic ideas, beliefs, and practices that had already existed---but which had now been reframed in a way that absorbed his understanding of jesus ("the christ"), complete with the necessary jewish underpinnings. it was "sold" by him principally to pre-existing gnostic communities, most of which were predominantly or totally "gentile" (non-jewish). nonetheless, this movement had to maintain positive---if very strained---relations with the ebionite (judaic christian) community for the sake of its own credibility, despite the fact that paul was promoting a set of beliefs and practices very different from these of the original community.

"catholic christianity", then, was the third form to arise. vaclavik posits that it was begun in conjunction with one of the congregations of gnostic christianity by a former jewish temple high priest called "john the elder", for whom there is some, but scant, historical evidence. vaclavik believes that this fellow was probably the source of "the gospel of john" (the last and most formally and theologically distinct of the canonical gospels), and that he may well have been "the beloved disciple" featured in that book (although NOT one of "the twelve" disciples). vaclavik believes that it was this character who provided the theological framework for a greater depth of integration of the gnostic and jewish ideas that were in some tension in paul's work, while also essentially grafting a transmogrified form of the jewish priesthood onto gnostic christianity. this form had a sacramental core that centralized the authority of the community in the priesthood. vaclavik does also believe that this series of innovations---producing this third distinct form of early christianity---borrowed almost as heavily from mithraism as paul did from gnosticism, and that this incorporation provided the principal theogical framework that enabled the shift to sacramentality and the centrality of the priesthood. given that mithraism was already widespread in popularity in the roman empire, this would also boost its palatibility to the masses and---as already noted elsewhere---to constantine, himself, a few centuries later. this third form, however, even further removed from the first, had no hope or possibility of reconciliation with the first, and sought instead to discredit it; later---after it had been established as the state church of rome---it sought simply to erase the memory of its existence, since this was an enormous threat to its self-created myth of its own origins. the second form, however, this "catholic christianity" was able to simply absorb into itself.

of course, this third form would also transmogrify considerably---arguably into a fourth form, "constantineism", with its adoption to state-religion status in the fourth century---but its essentials would remain the same. all major forms of modern christianity may be considered its descendants.


vaclavik writes that the focus of "judaic christianity" was a practice, of a peculiarly pythagorean variety. he says that they believed their salvation came through the duplication of the divine condition through the fulfillment of the law---not of moses, but of pythagoras, as revealed through jesus. "be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect", etc.

he says the focus of "gnostic christianity" was a form of knowledge, or belief. this replaced the centrality of practiced disciplines; i.e., "saved through faith alone", etc. this sect believed that salvation came through a certain kind of knowledge---or belief---just like the gnostics.

he also says that the focus of "catholic christianity" was rather a full participation in the sacramental life of the community. that is, salvation came through the reception of the correct sacraments from the correct priesthood.


vaclavik also believes that protestantism---a direct descendant of "catholic christianity" represents a "throwback", in spirit, to the "gnostic christianity" that preceded "catholic christianity". thus the renewed emphasis on "faith alone", etc., and the rejection of the priesthood.


vaclavik, himself, apparently practices and promotes a renewed form of "judaic" or "ebionite" christianity---which he considers to be the actual, original practice and teaching of jesus, himself. he offers a great deal of evidence that this practice and teaching was fundamentally pythagorean in character (though somewhat hebrew in content), and that this way included the practices of absolute pacifism, communalism, and phytivorism (complete veganism)---despite how the succeeding factions of "christianity" may have redacted the evidence to appear.


thanks for reading.

hope this is useful.

peace.

Hey, it's good someone here is reading up on stuff, but this Vaclavik isn't as educated as you think. For a start Gnostics came well after Paul, whilst I am impressed by the enthusiasm of folk like him I do get a bit facepalm when they try to "delve into hidden secrets", there's no secret history or hidden complications in it xD.

Long Story cut short:
Jesus told his disciples at pentecost to teach what he had taught them. After a while because of the massive growth of the church the disciples found twelve leaders weren't enough, so they appointed bishops to aid them, who in turn appointed presbyters (aka priests), who in turn appointed diagonates (deacons), thus the church was well set up.
A few heretical groups claimed to be part of Christianity (such as the pagan Gnostics), but it wasn't till the founding of Catholicism in 1154 when a big split happened, then obviously protestant churches split from there.

Hey, it's good someone here is reading up on stuff, but this Vaclavik isn't as educated as you think. For a start Gnostics came well after Paul, whilst I am impressed by the enthusiasm of folk like him I do get a bit facepalm when they try to "delve into hidden secrets", there's no secret history or hidden complications in it xD.

Long Story cut short:
Jesus told his disciples at pentecost to teach what he had taught them. After a while because of the massive growth of the church the disciples found twelve leaders weren't enough, so they appointed bishops to aid them, who in turn appointed presbyters (aka priests), who in turn appointed diagonates (deacons), thus the church was well set up.
A few heretical groups claimed to be part of Christianity (such as the pagan Gnostics), but it wasn't till the founding of Catholicism in 1154 when a big split happened, then obviously protestant churches split from there.

what makes you think that?

Hey, it's good someone here is reading up on stuff, but this Vaclavik isn't as educated as you think. For a start Gnostics came well after Paul, whilst I am impressed by the enthusiasm of folk like him I do get a bit facepalm when they try to "delve into hidden secrets", there's no secret history or hidden complications in it xD.

Long Story cut short:
Jesus told his disciples at pentecost to teach what he had taught them. After a while because of the massive growth of the church the disciples found twelve leaders weren't enough, so they appointed bishops to aid them, who in turn appointed presbyters (aka priests), who in turn appointed diagonates (deacons), thus the church was well set up.
A few heretical groups claimed to be part of Christianity (such as the pagan Gnostics), but it wasn't till the founding of Catholicism in 1154 when a big split happened, then obviously protestant churches split from there.


before you fly off at the handle, you might want to find out how "educated" i actually "think he is"---or not; it's very much true that i think the guy has really done his homework, and uses it to make a great case---if not several. you also might actually want to find out how educated he actually IS---or is not---regardless of what i may think about it. seems like that would have more bearing on the discussion. ;)

but---interestingly enough---i don't need to refer to vaclavik to refute a lot of what you just said. widely accepted scholarship will be enough for that---on several points, even.


as far as gnostics coming after paul, here's a quote for your consideration, by one of the worlds best-known academics, who happens to be an expert on just this subject:
"The New Testament scholar Wilhelm Bousset, who traced Gnosticism to ancient Babylonian and Persian sources, declared that 'Gnosticism is first of all a pre-Christian movement which had roots in itself. It is therefore to be understood ... in its own terms, and not as an offshoot or byproduct of the Christian religion."---The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels, Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, New York Introduction, Page xxxii.
in fact, it's extremely well documented that there were forms of gnosticism that pre-existed Christianity that advocated the worship of a divine "Father" and a divine "Son" (as well as "Mother" and "Daughter", in many cases); the gnostics had an entire cosmology made out of this and even believed that "the only way to know the Father was through the Son, to whom alone it was given this knowledge"---they just didn't believe that this "Son" character had any mortal, human appearance---until paul came along and started plugging his version of jesus into that very special little slot in their pre-existing mythos.

a few more morsels of piping hot truth for you:

if you consider "The Holy Bible" to be your sole authority on such matters---which i do not, by the by, in the interest of "full disclosure"---then it is not true (to you, as you say) that "Jesus told his disciples at pentecost to teach what he had taught them." in fact, the bible does not record that jesus spoke at all---even in vision (since this occurred after his purported ascension)---during this event. the biblical story of this event may be read at the beginning of the second chapter of The Acts of the Apostles---even in the New Jerusalem Bible.

perhaps the same source that told you otherwise might have also told you that gnosticism did not pre-exist christianity---how should i know? or maybe you were actually referring to "the great commission"---which the bible says to have occurred on a completely different occasion, before the crucifixion; but i don't usually make it my business to speculate about what someone might have meant, but didn't say---particularly when they are trying to tell me that they are right, while i am wrong---and most particularly while they are wrong. (it leaves me feeling a little less than charitable.) :p

as far as the rest of your "long story short" goes, i'm willing to say that i think that you are probably mostly---if not entirely---right about how the episcopal structure of governance evolved; but i think that this is only true of what vaclavik calls "catholic christianity". in other words, i think that what you have given is a probably accurate description of how the authority of the priests was consolidated, hierarchically, in the early days of this third distinct form of christianity that he outlines. then again, i'm not sure the bible actually mentions the creation of "presbyters"---although i'm aware of the biblical mandate for deacons and bishops; feel free to let me know where that's at, if you like. (it's hardly critical to my argument, but i'd be curious to know.) you are also leaving out the creation of archbishops, five of which---the "pentarchy"---jointly ruled the whole of the church until after the schism that you refer to.

this brings us conveniently to some more problems that i have with your version of "the truth":

the date of the "great schism" (between east and west, in 1054---not 1154, as you say) is hardly the date of the origin of "catholicism"; it could perhaps be rightly called the beginning of "roman catholicism", as a more exclusively "western", post-schism phenomenon. however, the "one big church" which had preceded it---the same religion which had been made the state religion of rome by constantine---referred to itself both as "catholic" (latin for "universal") and "orthodox" (greek for "standardized", or "by one rule"). it was only after the split that each focused more exlusively on each respective term, as a form of differentiating themselves from the other; and, of course, the side that was based in rome chose the word in the language of rome, and the side based in constantinople chose the word that was in the language that more fully prevailed in that territory. incidentally, the nicene creed (of 381)---widely considered (even by most protestants) the most prevailing statement of complete christian faith ever to be written---was used by this "one big church" (east and west) for almost 700 years before the "great schism"; this creed includes the phrase, "We believe ... [I]n one holy catholic and apostolic church". there's that latin word, "catholic", again---being used by christians both east and west---which is especially interesting when one considers that this very creed is originally written in greek! but wait---it gets better---the eastern orthodox, i believe, still use this creed to this day---and have no problem with the word "catholic".

also: it is not true that "it wasn't until [1054] that a big split happened". while it is true that many different "heretical" sects had arisen to compete for the title of "christianity", it is also true that there had already been one MAJOR schism in the body of the "one big church"---after it had already become the state religion of the roman empire, and BEFORE the (even bigger) "great schism" of 1054 that divided east and west. it occurred in the fifth century, when one of the archbishops (or patriarchs)---a member of the aforementioned "pentarchy"---disagreed with the other four on a theological refinement that they all wanted to introduce; he thought it was both unnecessary and incorrect, so he wouldn't approve it---so they excommunicated him, and replaced him with a parallel "puppet" version, who would sign off on their addition. this is how the ORIENTAL (different that EASTERN) orthodox church was born. it still exists to this day, including the coptic church, the alexandrian orthodox church, and the ethiopian orthodox church (and more). (the eastern orthodox---produced by the later "great schism", alongside "roman catholicism"---includes the greek and russian orthodox churches, and others.)

so.

just to summarize, concisely, my response to the astonishing number of errors that i found in only a couple of paragraphs written by you:

1.) gnosticism DID pre-exist christianity. so, you are wrong.

2.) jesus did NOT---according to the bible, or any tradition that i am aware of---tell his disciples at pentecost to teach what he had taught them. so, you are wrong.

3.) the "big split" that you refer to---assuming that you're talking about the "great schism" or "east-west schism" did NOT happen in 1154; it happened in 1054. so, you are wrong.

4.) the "great schism" was not the beginning of "catholicism", since the church that preceded referred to itself as "catholic"---both east and west---and since other branches of christianity that ensued (including not only the eastern orthodox, but even some protestant denominations) continued to refer to themselves as "catholic" (just not "ROMAN catholic"). so, you are wrong.

5.) it's also not true that "it wasn't till [the east-west schism] in [1054] when a big split happened", since another (less famous in the modern west) schism had already occurred in the fifth century---excommunicating a whole (approximate) fifth of christendom from itself. so---again---you're wrong.


these are facts that you can look up almost anywhere. and, you don't need vaclavik to do it.


so: facepalm on that one.

Vakirauta, please have the common decency to check your facts and make sure that you know what you're talking about before you try to refute me (or an author that i'm paraphrasing, for that matter). this is particularly prudent in a case when you are trying to prove that someone "isn't as educated as [i] think he is"; clearly, YOU are not as "educated" as you think that YOU are.

oh---and try not to be so condenscending in your tone and "knee-jerk" in your reaction, next time; i promise you'll find me to be much less of an asshole, in that case. ;)


peace.

Christianity has borrowed or over written many customs and holidays from other religions.
that doesn't make it's message any less valid.

This whole "Christianity is actually fake becuase it borrowed from another religion" is just another Zeitgeist spin off.
Because the Wise Man Santa Claus brought Jesus a Christmas Tree.

Christianity has borrowed or over written many customs and holidays from other religions.
that doesn't make it's message any less valid.


unless some of those customs or holidays that are "added on" actually somehow contradict or obfuscate the underlying source-material.

of course, whether or not it seems to do that to your point of view depends on what you think the message of christianity is in the first place.

Even then, they could simply say they took those traditions and made them perfect. Sort of the whole "in the world but not of the world" concept.

I can't see many people buying that.

before you fly off at the handle, you might want to find out how "educated" i actually "think he is"---or not; it's very much true that i think the guy has really done his homework, and uses it to make a great case---if not several. you also might actually want to find out how educated he actually IS---or is not---regardless of what i may think about it. seems like that would have more bearing on the discussion. ;)

but---interestingly enough---i don't need to refer to vaclavik to refute a lot of what you just said. widely accepted scholarship will be enough for that---on several points, even.


as far as gnostics coming after paul, here's a quote for your consideration, by one of the worlds best-known academics, who happens to be an expert on just this subject:
"The New Testament scholar Wilhelm Bousset, who traced Gnosticism to ancient Babylonian and Persian sources, declared that 'Gnosticism is first of all a pre-Christian movement which had roots in itself. It is therefore to be understood ... in its own terms, and not as an offshoot or byproduct of the Christian religion."---The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels, Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, New York Introduction, Page xxxii.
in fact, it's extremely well documented that there were forms of gnosticism that pre-existed Christianity that advocated the worship of a divine "Father" and a divine "Son" (as well as "Mother" and "Daughter", in many cases); the gnostics had an entire cosmology made out of this and even believed that "the only way to know the Father was through the Son, to whom alone it was given this knowledge"---they just didn't believe that this "Son" character had any mortal, human appearance---until paul came along and started plugging his version of jesus into that very special little slot in their pre-existing mythos.

a few more morsels of piping hot truth for you:

if you consider "The Holy Bible" to be your sole authority on such matters---which i do not, by the by, in the interest of "full disclosure"---then it is not true (to you, as you say) that "Jesus told his disciples at pentecost to teach what he had taught them." in fact, the bible does not record that jesus spoke at all---even in vision (since this occurred after his purported ascension)---during this event. the biblical story of this event may be read at the beginning of the second chapter of The Acts of the Apostles---even in the New Jerusalem Bible.

perhaps the same source that told you otherwise might have also told you that gnosticism did not pre-exist christianity---how should i know? or maybe you were actually referring to "the great commission"---which the bible says to have occurred on a completely different occasion, before the crucifixion; but i don't usually make it my business to speculate about what someone might have meant, but didn't say---particularly when they are trying to tell me that they are right, while i am wrong---and most particularly while they are wrong. (it leaves me feeling a little less than charitable.) :p

as far as the rest of your "long story short" goes, i'm willing to say that i think that you are probably mostly---if not entirely---right about how the episcopal structure of governance evolved; but i think that this is only true of what vaclavik calls "catholic christianity". in other words, i think that what you have given is a probably accurate description of how the authority of the priests was consolidated, hierarchically, in the early days of this third distinct form of christianity that he outlines. then again, i'm not sure the bible actually mentions the creation of "presbyters"---although i'm aware of the biblical mandate for deacons and bishops; feel free to let me know where that's at, if you like. (it's hardly critical to my argument, but i'd be curious to know.) you are also leaving out the creation of archbishops, five of which---the "pentarchy"---jointly ruled the whole of the church until after the schism that you refer to.

this brings us conveniently to some more problems that i have with your version of "the truth":

the date of the "great schism" (between east and west, in 1054---not 1154, as you say) is hardly the date of the origin of "catholicism"; it could perhaps be rightly called the beginning of "roman catholicism", as a more exclusively "western", post-schism phenomenon. however, the "one big church" which had preceded it---the same religion which had been made the state religion of rome by constantine---referred to itself both as "catholic" (latin for "universal") and "orthodox" (greek for "standardized", or "by one rule"). it was only after the split that each focused more exlusively on each respective term, as a form of differentiating themselves from the other; and, of course, the side that was based in rome chose the word in the language of rome, and the side based in constantinople chose the word that was in the language that more fully prevailed in that territory. incidentally, the nicene creed (of 381)---widely considered (even by most protestants) the most prevailing statement of complete christian faith ever to be written---was used by this "one big church" (east and west) for almost 700 years before the "great schism"; this creed includes the phrase, "We believe ... [I]n one holy catholic and apostolic church". there's that latin word, "catholic", again---being used by christians both east and west---which is especially interesting when one considers that this very creed is originally written in greek! but wait---it gets better---the eastern orthodox, i believe, still use this creed to this day---and have no problem with the word "catholic".

also: it is not true that "it wasn't until [1054] that a big split happened". while it is true that many different "heretical" sects had arisen to compete for the title of "christianity", it is also true that there had already been one MAJOR schism in the body of the "one big church"---after it had already become the state religion of the roman empire, and BEFORE the (even bigger) "great schism" of 1054 that divided east and west. it occurred in the fifth century, when one of the archbishops (or patriarchs)---a member of the aforementioned "pentarchy"---disagreed with the other four on a theological refinement that they all wanted to introduce; he thought it was both unnecessary and incorrect, so he wouldn't approve it---so they excommunicated him, and replaced him with a parallel "puppet" version, who would sign off on their addition. this is how the ORIENTAL (different that EASTERN) orthodox church was born. it still exists to this day, including the coptic church, the alexandrian orthodox church, and the ethiopian orthodox church (and more). (the eastern orthodox---produced by the later "great schism", alongside "roman catholicism"---includes the greek and russian orthodox churches, and others.)

so.

just to summarize, concisely, my response to the astonishing number of errors that i found in only a couple of paragraphs written by you:

1.) gnosticism DID pre-exist christianity. so, you are wrong.

2.) jesus did NOT---according to the bible, or any tradition that i am aware of---tell his disciples at pentecost to teach what he had taught them. so, you are wrong.

3.) the "big split" that you refer to---assuming that you're talking about the "great schism" or "east-west schism" did NOT happen in 1154; it happened in 1054. so, you are wrong.

4.) the "great schism" was not the beginning of "catholicism", since the church that preceded referred to itself as "catholic"---both east and west---and since other branches of christianity that ensued (including not only the eastern orthodox, but even some protestant denominations) continued to refer to themselves as "catholic" (just not "ROMAN catholic"). so, you are wrong.

5.) it's also not true that "it wasn't till [the east-west schism] in [1054] when a big split happened", since another (less famous in the modern west) schism had already occurred in the fifth century---excommunicating a whole (approximate) fifth of christendom from itself. so---again---you're wrong.


these are facts that you can look up almost anywhere. and, you don't need vaclavik to do it.


so: facepalm on that one.

Vakirauta, please have the common decency to check your facts and make sure that you know what you're talking about before you try to refute me (or an author that i'm paraphrasing, for that matter). this is particularly prudent in a case when you are trying to prove that someone "isn't as educated as [i] think he is"; clearly, YOU are not as "educated" as you think that YOU are.

oh---and try not to be so condenscending in your tone and "knee-jerk" in your reaction, next time; i promise you'll find me to be much less of an asshole, in that case. ;)


peace.

Ooops, sorry about that, I think I misread your post, and then misworded mine, i'm very sorry also if I appeared aloof and condescending, I am actually pleased someone on this board actually bothers to read up about this stuff. Please forgive me on that one =(:fluffle:
Yeah, I accidentally put Jesus instead of the Holy Spirit, Pentecost is (as far as I know, I may be wrong) considered the birth of the church by many.
I also got a bit confused as to your post when it mentioned Gnosticism, I do know that certainly pre-dated christianity for sure, I meant Gnostic Christianity was a late-comer, as it i know it was considered heresy by the church at the time. Also, as far as I know most bishoprys could be mostly (and some still are) autonomous, I think the pentarchy was set up to sort out quarrels and discrepancies between said bishops.
I don't consider the schism between Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy that big, they still share the same beliefs and rite, it is just because of that split they are out of communion.
Gah, I pooped the date of that one up, I know it in my head as 1054 but always end up typing it as 1154 >.<
Sorry, I also misread your post, I thought you meant Roman Catholic, not the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic" Church (i.e. the nicene creed), I apologise for my confusion there.
Again I apologise, it was my misinterpretation of the Gnostic thing that threw me, I must say that your/Vaclavik's statement makes a whole lot more sense in this context, though i'm still not buying this three form business, I can't rack my brains for the exact source (lol, stuff just got wikipedia style), but I remember the subject of Gnostic Christianity uprising and being classed as heresy by the "one big church", so this (alright, it's a minor detail) sets Vaclavik's claims chronologically incorrect. What I was trying to do with the Long Story Short wasn't to slag you off or anything, I was just trying to condense the commonly accepted history of the church into a tasty bitesize chunk.
What I was trying to say is there was (or, I think that there was) only one properly accepted church that sprouted directly from Christ's close followers, not three distinct ones. This as you said continued, with ups and downs till the Great Schism when East and West split, and thus some (many in the West's case) split from these later on.
I hope I haven't stirred any bad blood or anything, again sorry if it looked like I was insulting you or dismissing you. Then again at the end of the day i'm just another nut on a board where everyone argues about what they think they know.

P.s. if you think i'm being biased to Orthodoxy it is because I am Eastern Orthodox xD, feel free to sack me one if I am blatantly being biased(Y).

I can't see many people buying that.

That's basically what the Spanish did in Latin America.

Ooops, sorry about that, I think I misread your post, and then misworded mine, i'm very sorry also if I appeared aloof and condescending, I am actually pleased someone on this board actually bothers to read up about this stuff. Please forgive me on that one =(:fluffle:
Yeah, I accidentally put Jesus instead of the Holy Spirit, Pentecost is (as far as I know, I may be wrong) considered the birth of the church by many.
I also got a bit confused as to your post when it mentioned Gnosticism, I do know that certainly pre-dated christianity for sure, I meant Gnostic Christianity was a late-comer, as it i know it was considered heresy by the church at the time. Also, as far as I know most bishoprys could be mostly (and some still are) autonomous, I think the pentarchy was set up to sort out quarrels and discrepancies between said bishops.
I don't consider the schism between Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy that big, they still share the same beliefs and rite, it is just because of that split they are out of communion.
Gah, I pooped the date of that one up, I know it in my head as 1054 but always end up typing it as 1154 >.<
Sorry, I also misread your post, I thought you meant Roman Catholic, not the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic" Church (i.e. the nicene creed), I apologise for my confusion there.
Again I apologise, it was my misinterpretation of the Gnostic thing that threw me, I must say that your/Vaclavik's statement makes a whole lot more sense in this context, though i'm still not buying this three form business, I can't rack my brains for the exact source (lol, stuff just got wikipedia style), but I remember the subject of Gnostic Christianity uprising and being classed as heresy by the "one big church", so this (alright, it's a minor detail) sets Vaclavik's claims chronologically incorrect. What I was trying to do with the Long Story Short wasn't to slag you off or anything, I was just trying to condense the commonly accepted history of the church into a tasty bitesize chunk.
What I was trying to say is there was (or, I think that there was) only one properly accepted church that sprouted directly from Christ's close followers, not three distinct ones. This as you said continued, with ups and downs till the Great Schism when East and West split, and thus some (many in the West's case) split from these later on.
I hope I haven't stirred any bad blood or anything, again sorry if it looked like I was insulting you or dismissing you. Then again at the end of the day i'm just another nut on a board where everyone argues about what they think they know.

P.s. if you think i'm being biased to Orthodoxy it is because I am Eastern Orthodox xD, feel free to sack me one if I am blatantly being biased(Y).

we're all good, vakirauta; peace.

for the record---i would've placed a bet that you were probably eastern orthodox. you kind of gave yourself away when you said that the Great Schism was the start of catholicism; obviously, most catholics and protestants are tending to look at it the other way around.

also, for the record---and in the interest of full disclosure---i'm not a christian; i was raised in a protestant christian denomination, which i left over fifteen years ago. i have since joined a religion that is not christian---or even a western monotheism. to be very frank about that, i do think that that qualifies me as a pretty "objective" witness on these things---since i really want to get to the bottom of them, but don't have a stake in any particular answer to these questions. obviously, i find this subject very fascinating---but not for "personal", or "religious" reasons.

also---i don't have a motive to "debunk" anybody's faith. i just want to get to the bottom of these things, and share whatever i find with whoever will listen. fair enough?


i disagree with you about the schism with the oriental orthodox. i think it was a really big deal, in its historical context. i think the r.catholics and e.orthodox have a kind of unconscious, mutual agreement to pretend that it never happened---after all, they had enough power to replace that archbishop with a new "puppet", so they could just "move on", wallpaper the whole thing over, and pretend it never happened. after the east/west schism however---which i admit was a lot bigger---neither side had enough power to do that, in the other side's territory---so everybody had to acknowledge, for geo-political reasons, that this huge thing had happened.

frankly, i think there was more actual substance in the first schism. it had more actual theology at its root than the second one. the second one---i think---was really more about the politics of the papal authority (pretending to be about theology). in fact, if you are eastern orthodox, i think that you have more theological kinship with the r.catholics than with the o.orthodox---even if you have more liturgical and political kinship with the o.orthodox. just my opinion.

also---i think the oriental orthodox position is probably closer to the "original truth" of the matter. but, then---what do i know?---i'm not even a christian! again, that one is just an opinion.


as to the issue of "gnostic christianity"---

i have no doubt that there were, indeed, gnostic "heresies" that were being dealt with by the early church. i am already aware of that part of christian history. but i think it starts to look a little different within the context of vaclavik's narrative.

assuming that vaclavik's narrative is either right or very close---which i admit that i am tending to do, much of the time---i think that he would say (and probably ilustrates, with sources, in the book that i mentioned previously---although i'm too lazy to look it up in this moment) that it was the third distinct form of early christianity---the priest-governed, ritual-centered "catholic" christianity (which would later become both roman catholic and eastern orthodox---as well as oriental orthodox) that was fighting those "heresies", in its early years. i think that he would argue that once "catholic" christianity had absorbed as much of the pauline "gnostic" christianity (the second distinct form) that preceded it as it could by relatively peaceful means, it began to label any outstanding communities as "heretical"; if they were not willing to get in line with the new priest-centered mainline, then they were offering a competitive form of christianity. so: if the "catholic" christians could not bring the "gnostic" christians into line, they were going to try to squash them. surely we would see this over and over again throughout history. if many of these gnostic communities had pre-existed the catholic hierarchy---as "christians"!---that certainly would not have stopped the "catholics" from decrying them and/or bullying them.

incidentally---according to vaclavik, i am sure---the "catholic christian church" also did this same thing in relation to the "first form" of "christianity"---which was still surviving during these early days, and which the "catholics" also considered to be a competitor. the "ebionite" heresy was another one that is mentioned in "catholic" history; that does not mean that the ebionites were not actually practicing something much closer to the actual teachings and practices of jesus---it just means that the "catholicism" that had emerged, after a certain point, considered them to be a threat.

the ebionites, however, were in jerusalem---not rome or corinth or thessalonia. and they had as their first "bishop", james "the just", the brother of jesus. this community included many of his family, in fact---and most of the original jewish community that had followed jesus during his lifetime. the next leader of the community---after james was assassinated by jewish leadership (sound familiar?!) was one of jesus' cousins, if i remember correctly. but: they had rejected paul's gnostic theology, and they had rejected john's insistence that certain sacraments, administered by certain people, were necessary for salvation. so. they were dead meat!

while i'm not as totally "sold" on all of this as vaclavik is, i do think it's possible---if not probable! and i find it to be certainly more believable than the "party line" of the mainstream christian churches. (no offense.)


in any case, i appreciate the integrity of your thoughtful reply---and your honesty in admitting your mistakes. i think that---in that way at least---you are probably a credit to your religion! ;)


by the by---where is your name from? it reminds me of fijian.

peace, and

best.

i disagree with you about the schism with the oriental orthodox. i think it was a really big deal, in its historical context.
It meant, among other things, that almost all of the population of Egypt and a significant portion of the population in Palestine preferred the Muslims to the Byzantines during the seventh-century wars: the Muslims were more "heretical" than the Byzantines in their eyes, but unlike the Byzantine government, which had engaged in brutal persecutions, Islam was famously tolerant at the time (ironic from our 20th-century hindsight).

It meant, among other things, that almost all of the population of Egypt and a significant portion of the population in Palestine preferred the Muslims to the Byzantines during the seventh-century wars: the Muslims were more "heretical" than the Byzantines in their eyes, but unlike the Byzantine government, which had engaged in brutal persecutions, Islam was famously tolerant at the time (ironic from our 20th-century hindsight).

thanks for pointing this out---i hadn't realized quite how that part had gone down.

the byzantines might have put them to death as heretics.

the muslims, however, would've tolerated them as "people of the book"; they would've taxed the hell out of them for not being muslims, but they would not have otherwise denied them rights.

thanks again.

peace.

we're all good, vakirauta; peace.

for the record---i would've placed a bet that you were probably eastern orthodox. you kind of gave yourself away when you said that the Great Schism was the start of catholicism; obviously, most catholics and protestants are tending to look at it the other way around.

also, for the record---and in the interest of full disclosure---i'm not a christian; i was raised in a protestant christian denomination, which i left over fifteen years ago. i have since joined a religion that is not christian---or even a western monotheism. to be very frank about that, i do think that that qualifies me as a pretty "objective" witness on these things---since i really want to get to the bottom of them, but don't have a stake in any particular answer to these questions. obviously, i find this subject very fascinating---but not for "personal", or "religious" reasons.

also---i don't have a motive to "debunk" anybody's faith. i just want to get to the bottom of these things, and share whatever i find with whoever will listen. fair enough?





by the by---where is your name from? it reminds me of fijian.

peace, and

best.

Ah. =D
I must say you're a gem in that respect, the reason why i skim-read your post (again I apologise) is that most people here are set on debunking everyone else's views with rediculously long posts that don't actually say anything of any substance, but you seem to be near enough the only one on here who has done their homework.

In my opinion a lot of the history of the church is simpler than it appears, since Dan Brown got everyone looking for some hidden mystery with his book (mighty good read actually, it's a well done novel but I dunno why everyone wet themselves about some 'conspiracy', and if you you want to get complicated even if Jesus DID marry Mary Magdelene and had children by all means he still was sinless as neither Love nor Sex Within Marriage are sins :wink:) people have gone mad.
Now, i'm being certainly biased towards my church here, but I think the Disciples started the original church, and as with practically any religion, there were side groups that classed themselves as Christian (Upon consideration Vaclavik's forms could well be true, however they existed more or less simoultaneously).
I agree the Oriental Orthodox Schism was major, but it was more covered up and didn't cause as much radical change as The Great Schism, the Orientals disagreed on the Forth Great Ecumenical Council, which disputed (if i'm right) the nature of Christ a major point yet a purely Theological one, however the Great Schism had repercussions in the political stage, mainly because of the political split between East and West, but also because of the (this isn't the proper phrase) ultimate papal authority, beforehand the church agreed all mankind were equal, clergy were honored for undertaking such dedicated, responsible and dangerous work, but didn't have any true authority. But because of the Bishop of Rome's declaration as him being the head of the Church on Earth, he thus gained great political power, hence there were more repercussions as he could then have more influence on world leaders than his predecessors.

Ah, and by the way Vakirauta is Finnish.
I got it from the title of a song by Korpiklaani, rauta means steel in Finnish, though i've never found out what vaki means.

[QUOTE=Vakirauta;13984429]Ah. =D
I must say you're a gem in that respect, the reason why i skim-read your post (again I apologise) is that most people here are set on debunking everyone else's views with rediculously long posts that don't actually say anything of any substance, but you seem to be near enough the only one on here who has done their homework.


thanks! :wink:

In my opinion a lot of the history of the church is simpler than it appears, since Dan Brown got everyone looking for some hidden mystery with his book (mighty good read actually, it's a well done novel but I dunno why everyone wet themselves about some 'conspiracy', and if you you want to get complicated even if Jesus DID marry Mary Magdelene and had children by all means he still was sinless as neither Love nor Sex Within Marriage are sins :wink:) people have gone mad.

i wasn't a big fan of dan brown's book. it seemed like an exercise in "let's string together as many tenuous possibilities as we can in a way that makes really great fiction."

and---for that reason, and that reason only---i actually half-enjoyed the movie! didn't even bother with the book, though. i'm not a fast reader, so i make sure that if i'm going to actually apply my attention to something like that, that it's at least within the realm of reasonable possibility.

in any case: i was looking into these matters quite a bit before dan brown ever came around. the dumbed-down popularization of these issues make me want to puke.

Now, i'm being certainly biased towards my church here,

...mmm-hmmm....

but I think the Disciples started the original church, and as with practically any religion, there were side groups that classed themselves as Christian (Upon consideration Vaclavik's forms could well be true, however they existed more or less simoultaneously).

i personally doubt it very much, from everything i've seen so far (vaclavik not withstanding)---that your assumption about origins is factually correct. no offense; i fully understand that if you are eastern orthodox, then the "official history" is not only the "party line", it is an article of faith.

vaclavik says that they did co-exist---which is particularly easy to understand as a possibility when one considers how small the entire movement was at that time (in any version) and how far these little counter-cultural enclaves were from each other in distance, without easy communication. he believes that all three were on the scene by about 100AD, if not earlier (say, 70AD). where he disagrees is in what came first, which is more original, which most closely continued the actual teaching and practice of jesus, and in how the victor in that competition managed to defeat the others (whether or not is was truly the "original", or just convincing itself---and everybody else---that such was the case). it is still the best explanation that i have seen---not only of the whole historical mess---but also in accounting for all of the competing/harmonizing theological trends.

I agree the Oriental Orthodox Schism was major

gee, thanks!

but it was more covered up and didn't cause as much radical change as The Great Schism, the Orientals disagreed on the Forth Great Ecumenical Council, which disputed (if i'm right) the nature of Christ a major point yet a purely Theological one, however the Great Schism had repercussions in the political stage, mainly because of the political split between East and West, but also because of the (this isn't the proper phrase) ultimate papal authority, beforehand the church agreed all mankind were equal, clergy were honored for undertaking such dedicated, responsible and dangerous work, but didn't have any true authority. But because of the Bishop of Rome's declaration as him being the head of the Church on Earth, he thus gained great political power, hence there were more repercussions as he could then have more influence on world leaders than his predecessors.

yeah, i mostly agree with this---particularly the part about the east/west schism being mostly about papal authority. (i think the filoque was mostly a "cover" reason.) monkeys display no less manners in their competition for dominance than in what we saw there.

however---as another poster has already pointed out---the first schism did have some pretty serious political ramifications down the road for those that lived in the territory concerned. i'll stand by that; it just didn't affect the rest of christendom so directly.

and: that theological point was REALLY HUGE, in my opinion. especially when i consider that i think the oriental orthodox more correctly represented what was probably the more original position!

Ah, and by the way Vakirauta is Finnish.
I got it from the title of a song by Korpiklaani, rauta means steel in Finnish, though i've never found out what vaki means.

very cool. ;)

it does look fijian, too, though---hey, i wonder if your name also has a meaning in another language? that would be cool!

...you know, unless it meant something like, "likes to eat rotten bananas mixed with bat dung." :D

then again, we don't know what vaki means in finnish, so your name could mean "steel gay prostitute". :D

i'm just having some fun, vaki.

seriously, though---it SOUNDS cool!

peace, and

best. :wink:

Ah, and by the way Vakirauta is Finnish.
I got it from the title of a song by Korpiklaani, rauta means steel in Finnish, though i've never found out what vaki means.

The title is actually Väkirauta and not Vakirauta. The word väkirauta could be iterpreted to have a few meanings, one of these could be forcefull steel or steel with high spirit. Väki could be also taken to mean populace or certain group of people and more likely in this case the old Finnish meaning which is associated with elfs and their magic and the illness they vere believed to bring to humans. In old Finnish the word väki could also be associated with the magic and power of humans. So take your pick.. of course I won't pressume to be the sole author in the truth on Finnish, but I have a pretty good idea about it, seeing that I'm from Finland.

Anyways, to post something on the actual topic. I do somehow see the point of the OP, that is if someone claims to be the one and only truthfull sect of religion and claims that the rituals and rites that they condone are the one and only correct rituals and additionally claim that all other people who might claim the same thing are wrong it seems reasonable that their point is somewhat undermined if most of their rites and rituals, and some of their believes, are copied from the same people that they claim are wrong.

Be that as it may. I do understand that every human being and every abstract idea has been influenced by ideas and human beings that have come before it/he/she and will be influenced by ideas and people in the future.

[QUOTE]

thanks! :wink:



i wasn't a big fan of dan brown's book. it seemed like an exercise in "let's string together as many tenuous possibilities as we can in a way that makes really great fiction."

and---for that reason, and that reason only---i actually half-enjoyed the movie! didn't even bother with the book, though. i'm not a fast reader, so i make sure that if i'm going to actually apply my attention to something like that, that it's at least within the realm of reasonable possibility.

in any case: i was looking into these matters quite a bit before dan brown ever came around. the dumbed-down popularization of these issues make me want to puke.



...mmm-hmmm....



i personally doubt it very much, from everything i've seen so far (vaclavik not withstanding)---that your assumption about origins is factually correct. no offense; i fully understand that if you are eastern orthodox, then the "official history" is not only the "party line", it is an article of faith.

vaclavik says that they did co-exist---which is particularly easy to understand as a possibility when one considers how small the entire movement was at that time (in any version) and how far these little counter-cultural enclaves were from each other in distance, without easy communication. he believes that all three were on the scene by about 100AD, if not earlier (say, 70AD). where he disagrees is in what came first, which is more original, which most closely continued the actual teaching and practice of jesus, and in how the victor in that competition managed to defeat the others (whether or not is was truly the "original", or just convincing itself---and everybody else---that such was the case). it is still the best explanation that i have seen---not only of the whole historical mess---but also in accounting for all of the competing/harmonizing theological trends.



gee, thanks!



yeah, i mostly agree with this---particularly the part about the east/west schism being mostly about papal authority. (i think the filoque was mostly a "cover" reason.) monkeys display no less manners in their competition for dominance than in what we saw there.

however---as another poster has already pointed out---the first schism did have some pretty serious political ramifications down the road for those that lived in the territory concerned. i'll stand by that; it just didn't affect the rest of christendom so directly.

and: that theological point was REALLY HUGE, in my opinion. especially when i consider that i think the oriental orthodox more correctly represented what was probably the more original position!



very cool. ;)

it does look fijian, too, though---hey, i wonder if your name also has a meaning in another language? that would be cool!

...you know, unless it meant something like, "likes to eat rotten bananas mixed with bat dung." :D

then again, we don't know what vaki means in finnish, so your name could mean "steel gay prostitute". :D

i'm just having some fun, vaki.

seriously, though---it SOUNDS cool!

peace, and

best. :wink:

Ah, you know, this Vaclavik guy kind of got it right, although he was a bit vague.
Definately the 'Gnostic' church (taken here to mean the church led by Paul as opposed to the group who combined ancient Gnosticism and mostly the teachings of Paul and believed Christ as a myth, which was, of course, classed as heretical) and the church led by James (i.e. James the Just, First Bishop of Jerusalem) were around at the same time 50-63 AD, as both Paul and James attended the Council of Jerusalem which was estimated to have taken place at said time, this was the one where they decided about the subject of circumcision for Gentiles.
I think Vaclavik is correct about the third form, though i'd say there were more than two predating ones, the slightly differed teachings from each Apostle and Evangelist would have created a haze* of like-minded followers within the first 20 years since Pentecost, which would have formed into one group once certain matters were settled in councils such as the aforementioned one in Jerusalem.

*Lol that wasn't very clear, i meant haze as in lots of little ones.

The title is actually Väkirauta and not Vakirauta. The word väkirauta could be iterpreted to have a few meanings, one of these could be forcefull steel or steel with high spirit. Väki could be also taken to mean populace or certain group of people and more likely in this case the old Finnish meaning which is associated with elfs and their magic and the illness they vere believed to bring to humans. In old Finnish the word väki could also be associated with the magic and power of humans. So take your pick.. of course I won't pressume to be the sole author in the truth on Finnish, but I have a pretty good idea about it, seeing that I'm from Finland

Ah lol, I was gonna copy and paste the ä but i decided doing the umlaut every time i log in would be a pain.
Yeah, the song is about humans creating steel to make swords to fight back against the Hisi (i think it's how it's spelt), so I presume it'd be Steel of High Spirit. I must say I think Finnish is one of the spiffiest looking languages around, with all double letters and such. I'd say that Finnish, Aramaic and maybe Armenian/Georgian (not the same but they both have asthetically pleasing alphabets) are top on my "What to have on my Gravestone" list.
Lol, actually I just named my country that as I couldn't think of a name and looked around the room and looked at what was playing on my iPod.
If anyone is interested my real name is Pasky. (Y)

Ah, you know, this Vaclavik guy kind of got it right, although he was a bit vague.

oh, no; not again. you're being kind of a jerk now, vaki. how do you know whether or not vaclavik was being vague?! you haven't read his book!(---the title of which is still posted earlier in the thread.) you've only read my summary description of his thesis!---which was necessarily a bit vague, for the sake of (not quite) brevity and conciseness.

once again: if you want to know what's really true of vaclavik, you're going to have to check out vaclavik. otherwise, you look like a jerk when you say he "was a bit vague"---or that he "isn't as educated as he thinks he is".

remember: i presented in very simplified summary what vaclavik takes a whole book to explain, expand upon, and back up with a whole lot of compelling sources.

Definately the 'Gnostic' church (taken here to mean the church led by Paul as opposed to the group who combined ancient Gnosticism and mostly the teachings of Paul and believed Christ as a myth, which was, of course, classed as heretical) and the church led by James (i.e. James the Just, First Bishop of Jerusalem) were around at the same time 50-63 AD, as both Paul and James attended the Council of Jerusalem which was estimated to have taken place at said time, this was the one where they decided about the subject of circumcision for Gentiles.

as i recall, peter was there, too. now here's an interesting question: which (if any) of the three was leading the council?---who was understood to be the leader of the total christian community? i believe it was james the just; and, i believe that is supported by your bible. the "council" (which is only what it was called retroactively by the "catholic" christian development) was held precisely because peter was responsible for keeping paul in line---and he was having some trouble. they decided to "take the issue to the top" and get a ruling from james on the matter. the ambitious salesman and the mediocre middle manager were in conflict---so they had to go work it out with the CEO. this is vaclavik's interpretation of the incident, but---regardless of your church's version of the history---i believe that it is right in your bible that peter and paul disagreed and so peter decided to consult james.

this gets glossed over a lot, since it doesn't really help anyone's case that peter was the first "pope".

I think Vaclavik is correct about the third form, though i'd say there were more than two predating ones, the slightly differed teachings from each Apostle and Evangelist would have created a haze* of like-minded followers within the first 20 years since Pentecost, which would have formed into one group once certain matters were settled in councils such as the aforementioned one in Jerusalem.

*Lol that wasn't very clear, i meant haze as in lots of little ones.

well, your justification for your idea that there were more than three doesn't really make sense to me. certainly there are many different idea of what is christian within your own church---and everyone's interpretation of their own religion is unique---but that doesn't mean there are different "forms" of, say, russian orthodoxy. certainly, it depends on how you define the word "form"; but, i think that you are now switching definitions, a bit, and at your convenience---that's the only real "haze", here---the one that you are throwing up by starting to quibble about terms, all of a sudden. i think that you are balking at the idea of acknowledging that vaclavik may be right, at precisely the point where it starts to directly conflict with your church's version of "the truth"---or you are balking at the prospect of looking into it more by, say, reading vaclavik's book---or both.

vaclavik's point is that there were three distinct but related---and, increasingly, mutually competitive---movements within the original christian phenomenon. while i do not deny that there may have been---and almost certainly were---other versions floating around, i think that they were all either absorbed into one of the other three or were too small, superfluous, and negligible to be of serious competition with the main three. also, i suspect that these others did not have leadership that was associated as directly with jesus, or his original apostles, as these 'big three' did.

but, you don't really know, do you?

and---you may not care enough to find out---particularly if it could prove something that contradicts your beliefs---right?




If anyone is interested my real name is Pasky. (Y)

nice to meet you, pasky; if you like, you can call me perry.


pasky, i'm going to post---later on---a chart from the back of vaclavik's book that shows how mithraism ties into all of this, etc.

peace.

best-thread-jack-ever

best-thread-jack-ever

um. thanks. i think. :$

(i guess i'm going to assume that you're talking to me.)


i'm very new here, and new to board-life, in general. this should account for a few things, like:

1) i can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

2) i don't know it if i've done something inappropriate.

i hope you'll let me know, relative to both.


i really liked what you posted; frankly, i'm grateful that there's someone out there doing it---i consider putting out that kind of information to be a public service.

i definitely didn't mean to take anything from what you'd done by jumping in with so much naive fervor.

i honestly thought that what i had to offer was pertinent to the subject at hand---still do---and so i didn't see any need to start a different thread.


not to mention: it's been clear to me that you could jump back in anytime.


so, if there are some appropriate rules that i am inappropriately breaking, i'm man enough to take it on the chin if you'll just let me know.


otherwise: thanks for the compliment! :p

oh, no; not again. you're being kind of a jerk now, vaki. how do you know whether or not vaclavik was being vague?! you haven't read his book!(---the title of which is still posted earlier in the thread.) you've only read my summary description of his thesis!---which was necessarily a bit vague, for the sake of (not quite) brevity and conciseness.

once again: if you want to know what's really true of vaclavik, you're going to have to check out vaclavik. otherwise, you look like a jerk when you say he "was a bit vague"---or that he "isn't as educated as he thinks he is".

My interpretation of his theory is definately skewed due to it being based on a summary. I'm not slagging him one, I regard his theory as well thought out and plausible, yet in my opinion it is vague, insofar that it ignores other "forms"/churches at the time. Now, I'm not slagging you either, you're one of the most thought-out people on here, but don't jump to conclusions based on what someone has typed without hearing their tone of voice to put it in a context. Anyway, his book is "The origin of Christianity", right? I better read it before I end up looking a right nonce xD [EDIT: Lol i've just checked it's website. I Srlsy cannot afford it, that scan you mentioned later on would be helpful. The guy reviewing it seems to like it (xD and you say I sound like a jerk), from the review it sadly appears to be religious propoganda as opposed to outside research]

remember: i presented in very simplified summary what vaclavik takes a whole book to explain, expand upon, and back up with a whole lot of compelling sources.

I'm with you, i'm with you.

as i recall, peter was there, too. now here's an interesting question: which (if any) of the three was leading the council?---who was understood to be the leader of the total christian community? i believe it was james the just; and, i believe that is supported by your bible. the "council" (which is only what it was called retroactively by the "catholic" christian development) was held precisely because peter was responsible for keeping paul in line---and he was having some trouble. they decided to "take the issue to the top" and get a ruling from james on the matter. the ambitious salesman and the mediocre middle manager were in conflict---so they had to go work it out with the CEO. this is vaclavik's interpretation of the incident, but---regardless of your church's version of the history---i believe that it is right in your bible that peter and paul disagreed and so peter decided to consult james.

this gets glossed over a lot, since it doesn't really help anyone's case that peter was the first "pope".

Hmm, good point. I myself upon research am unsure as to whether Peter and Paul were getting a third opinion (though, i am unsure as to why he would go to James, his dispute with Paul was that Paul was preaching salvation can only be obtained through circumcision, and James was a proponent of said rite.), or Peter was taking it (both Paul and the issue) to the "CEO" (nice analogy:)). In a pathetic attempt to defend it as a "council" I put forth the point Peter, Paul and James debated to ask themselves where a certain rite or issue fits into their religion.
xD yeah, i agree it's confusing Peter was placed as "first among equals" later on when the church was in it's, err, "catholic" state.

well, your justification for your idea that there were more than three doesn't really make sense to me. certainly there are many different idea of what is christian within your own church---and everyone's interpretation of their own religion is unique---but that doesn't mean there are different "forms" of, say, russian orthodoxy. certainly, it depends on how you define the word "form"; but, i think that you are now switching definitions, a bit, and at your convenience---that's the only real "haze", here---the one that you are throwing up by starting to quibble about terms, all of a sudden. i think that you are balking at the idea of acknowledging that vaclavik may be right, at precisely the point where it starts to directly conflict with your church's version of "the truth"---or you are balking at the prospect of looking into it more by, say, reading vaclavik's book---or both.

Lol, if my use of language makes no sense or throws my point into some confusing rift, ignore it. I'll try to clear it up (though i'll end up looking a fool probably) I meant there were various "forms" (i.e. kind of what Vaclavik classes as the Jewish and Gnostic)...oh crap wait there's no point in continuing as you've answered it below. [EDIT: yep, I looked a fool]

vaclavik's point is that there were three distinct but related---and, increasingly, mutually competitive---movements within the original christian phenomenon. while i do not deny that there may have been---and almost certainly were---other versions floating around, i think that they were all either absorbed into one of the other three or were too small, superfluous, and negligible to be of serious competition with the main three. also, i suspect that these others did not have leadership that was associated as directly with jesus, or his original apostles, as these 'big three' did.

I suspect perhaps some did, some didn't.

but, you don't really know, do you?

Does anyone alive? xD

and---you may not care enough to find out---particularly if it could prove something that contradicts your beliefs---right?

No, and I find it slightly offensive you assume so. I am always willing to question faith, only through questions do we recieve answers, after all it's plain foolish to continue to stand by something which can be forthright disproven, is it not?



nice to meet you, pasky; if you like, you can call me perry.


pasky, i'm going to post---later on---a chart from the back of vaclavik's book that shows how mithraism ties into all of this, etc.

peace.

Cool. Again I apologise if I appear stuck up or jerky in any of my posts, it is not my intentions to belittle anyone's opinion, or anything like that :wink:

best-thread-jack-ever
My theory about this thread contains three distinct forms:
1) The Troll form
Bashing starts
2) Disproven form
Bashing backfired
3) Perry and Pasky form
In-depth discussion veers thread hopelessly off topic

My interpretation of his theory is definately skewed due to it being based on a summary. I'm not slagging him one, I regard his theory as well thought out and plausible, yet in my opinion it is vague, insofar that it ignores other "forms"/churches at the time. Now, I'm not slagging you either, you're one of the most thought-out people on here, but don't jump to conclusions based on what someone has typed without hearing their tone of voice to put it in a context. Anyway, his book is "The origin of Christianity", right? I better read it before I end up looking a right nonce xD [EDIT: Lol i've just checked it's website. I Srlsy cannot afford it, that scan you mentioned later on would be helpful. The guy reviewing it seems to like it (xD and you say I sound like a jerk), from the review it sadly appears to be religious propoganda as opposed to outside research]


sorry you can't afford it, pasky. word to ya mutha.

and: it may well qualify as religious propaganda, of a kind, since vaclavik bases his own faith (belief and practice) on what he's putting forward in the book. but everyone's coming from some point of view, right?---so i try not to hold that against him; i try to just check what his logic is, and how he backs it up.


Hmm, good point. I myself upon research am unsure as to whether Peter and Paul were getting a third opinion (though, i am unsure as to why he would go to James, his dispute with Paul was that Paul was preaching salvation can only be obtained through circumcision, and James was a proponent of said rite.), or Peter was taking it (both Paul and the issue) to the "CEO" (nice analogy:)). In a pathetic attempt to defend it as a "council" I put forth the point Peter, Paul and James debated to ask themselves where a certain rite or issue fits into their religion.

i'm guessing---but not looking it up right now---that it was probably peter, in fact, who was in favor of the rite; i'm betting paul was taking the more liberal view---it was in his interest, after all, since he was the one with all the gentile converts who would have been telling him, "well, in that case, pauly, you're gonna have to count me out of that part!"

but that doesn't detract from your point. i suspect james ended up siding with peter on that one, but for theological reasons that were even different from the other two---i think he was probably turning to peter and saying, "jeez (pun intended) peter, they're just gentiles---i mean, who gives a fuck?"
you know---or something like that! :wink:

xD yeah, i agree it's confusing Peter was placed as "first among equals" later on when the church was in it's, err, "catholic" state.


yeah, that one looks like an obvious retroactive fabrication, to me.

Does anyone alive? xD

touche.

No, and I find it slightly offensive you assume so. I am always willing to question faith, only through questions do we recieve answers, after all it's plain foolish to continue to stand by something which can be forthright disproven, is it not?


you're right, i was being unfair. i apologize, pasky. :$

Cool. Again I apologise if I appear stuck up or jerky in any of my posts, it is not my intentions to belittle anyone's opinion, or anything like that :wink:

rightbackatcha.

My theory about this thread contains three distinct forms:
1) The Troll form
Bashing starts
2) Disproven form
Bashing backfired
3) Perry and Pasky form
In-depth discussion veers thread hopelessly off topic


most excellent. all of my own research totally confirms the validity of this theory. :)

some day, i'll be on some other thread, jacking it with long-winded posts about "this one theory by pasky....you should really just buy the book!" :D

best, and

peace.

oh, and:

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH

oh, by the by:

i tried to post that chart the other day, only to find out that i didn't know how to do it in a way that would be intelligible by others.

so, we're shit out of luck on that one, right now.


suffice it to say:

vaclavik believes that the influence of mithraism was incorporated into christianity in the early development of the "third form", "catholic christianity".

it was at that point that all the obvious rip-offs started to be obviously included in the religion. most of the things that santiago i points to in the o.p. weren't present in either of the two preceding versions.

this makes sense, since mithraism was already extant in the roman empire. certainly this would have helped make christianity palatable to all of those non-gnostic gentiles that were out of paul's sphere of influence, and would have helped groom it as a replacement for the state religion of rome.

peace, and

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH

best-thread-jack-ever

Agreed. Now, back to my original point. I had yougurt and honey for breakfast, what about you guys? :p

some day, i'll be on some other thread, jacking it with long-winded posts about "this one theory by pasky....you should really just buy the book!"
I'll write it all up one day: "Origins of NSG: The place where idiots argue about stuff they don't really know about and, upon realising their argument has run dry, brings their opponent's mother into question"

this makes sense, since mithraism was already extant in the roman empire. certainly this would have helped make christianity palatable to all of those non-gnostic gentiles that were out of paul's sphere of influence, and would have helped groom it as a replacement for the state religion of rome.

Yeah, I suspect Rome wouldn't be keen on taking what it's populace would count as a rival religion as it's own without making minor changes so they could point out similarities to pacify the population.

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH
On that note I think this conversation has reached it's logical conclusion. It's been good talking to someone who isn't a blathering idiot, I hope we end up having another banter on another thread, perhaps jacking that one too!
I bid you farewell.

Let's talk about Mitra...;)

Mitra is a god. :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

Mitra in historical mythology was a god of the Vedas (early Indo-European religious documents), at a time when both the Persian and Indian peoples worshiped the same gods, following similar religions. At this early stage, Mitra was a very prominent god. Varuna and Mitra were the older, biological brothers to Indra and Vishnu. Mitra was also called Surya. Varuna, Mitra, and Indra presided as the ruling trinity of the Vedic gods.

However, in both India and Persia, Mitra fell from prominence. In India, when Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva ascended to heaven, they replaced Varuna, Mitra and Rudra in their respective places in the ruling trinity.

In Persia, Mitra was also subsumed, but here matters took a very different turn. Here, no later than 600 BC, a new religious teacher rejected the worship of the established trinity of Varuna, Mithra and Indra. He emphasized the eternal struggle between a force of good (Ahura Mazda) and a force of evil (Ahriman). This teacher was named Zoroaster or Zarathustra.

However, at some point after the reform of the Persian religion by Zoroaster, some Persians began to revive the worship of Mitra as a savior god who was the Way, the Truth, and the Light. He died for our sins. In time, the veneration of Mitra spread to many foreign lands, including in Europe.

now some christian bashing as I promised. :p

Mithraism competed with early Christianity in the later days of the Roman Empire. It soon became apparent that Mithraism and Christianity were very similar, and in several cases, it was obvious that Christians had plagiarized Mithraist practices:

* The celebration of the birth of Mithra took place on December 25. Note that the four generally accepted Christian gospels give no date for the birth of Jesus Christ. Mithraist stories tell of Mithra being visited by shepherds after his birth.
* Mithra healed the sick and raised the dead.
* Mithraists worshipped on Sunday. Note that the Hebrew Ten Commandments direct one to worship on Saturday ("seventh day"), not Sunday.
* The celebration of the visit of wise men to the young Mithra took place on January 6.
* Mithraism had seven sacraments.
* Mithraism had a ritual meal in which people were invited to drink of Mithra's blood and eat of his flesh--with the flesh of Mithra represented by bread.

Early Christian writers attempted to address the issue of the similarity between Mithraism and Christianity by stating that the Mithraists had stolen their rituals from Christianity. However, it became apparent that this was not a feasible explanation, since Mithraism was older than Christianity! The Mithraists had been performing their rituals long before the birth of Jesus Christ would have taken place.

So, many early Christian writers came up with a solution that ranks with the most extreme paranoid delusions. They explained the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity by saying that Satan knew Jesus was coming, and so to throw people off, Satan created Mithraism (and other similar religions) in the centuries before Jesus' birth. Satan hoped that the existence of religions that had many similarities to Christianity which preceded the life of Jesus would cause people to not believe in Jesus when he showed up!

This theory has been called "diabolical mimicry". Oh boy!!!...:eek: that Satan; he must be so busy, what with him also creating fossils for people to find all over the world in order to get people to believe in evolution and the Earth being millions of years old instead of people accepting the Hebrew Bible story of Adam and Eve with the world being less than seven thousand years old!

Christianity eventually won out over Mithraism by gaining the favor of the Roman Emperor. Specifically, the Emperor Constantine, who actually for most of his life was a member of Mithraism and other cults, had murdered his son, and sought to cleanse himself of the sense of guilt he felt about doing this. He was informed by the Mithraist priests and scholars that they could not cleanse him of the taint of what he had done. However, Christian priests informed him that Christian baptism erased all sins committed before the baptism. So not only would it forgive Constantine's murder of his son, if Constantine put off his baptism until just before he died, during his life he could commit all the sins that he wanted to, and his baptism would save him from any punishment in the afterlife for his accumulated sins! In fact, the Emperor Constantine chose this route. (So, you can do a last-minute conversion!)

Upon the ascension of the Roman Catholic Church, Mithraism was wiped out upon the passage of the Codex Theodosius, the series of laws which banned all religions in the Roman Empire except for Roman Catholic Christianity and Judaism. These laws came out in 341, 345, 356, 381, 383, 386, and 391 AD. Mithraists had their civil rights taken away.

Within centuries, any Mithraists in Persia soon also lost their civil rights due to pro-Jesus intolerance; circa the year 650 AD, Arabs who were Muslims (and thus believed in the Koranic account of the virgin birth of Jesus) invaded Persia. As a result, Persia became Muslim. The old Vedic-connected religions such as Zoroastorianism and Mithraism were wiped out. Today in Persia, now called Iran, anyone who follows these religions severe harassment.

For more...read this!!
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/library/myth.shtml

Missed ya. :)
*bows*