• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

Vishvavajra

Active Member
I didn't say you were making laws or commands. I said that you are saying that what you believe is absolutely true, based on no empirical evidence.
That is faith. I have no issue with faith. What I am saying It is that faith is something that people must be drawn to. Most do not come to decisions of faith when the witness comes across as condescending, attempting to push something on others that can only be reached voluntarily.

Peace on you and I genuinely wish you well.
I've been down that road. His position is basically that the scriptures are magical and contain all the answers, but only if you approach them with the correct attitude. And if you don't understand them as he does, then you obviously haven't approached them with the correct attitude. And you'll know if you have the correct attitude if you look at the scriptures and they magically reveal their contents to you, which then leads you to share his position. The upshot is that the scriptures say what he says they say, but only people who already agree with him are capable of seeing it.

The condescension is just a bonus.
 

Baladas

An Págánach
I've been down that road. His position is basically that the scriptures are magical and contain all the answers, but only if you approach them with the correct attitude. And if you don't understand them as he does, then you obviously haven't approached them with the correct attitude. And you'll know if you have the correct attitude if you look at the scriptures and they magically reveal their contents to you, which then leads you to share his position. The upshot is that the scriptures say what he says they say, but only people who already agree with him are capable of seeing it.

The condescension is just a bonus.
Excellent. I do love bonuses.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I've been down that road. His position is basically that the scriptures are magical and contain all the answers, but only if you approach them with the correct attitude. And if you don't understand them as he does, then you obviously haven't approached them with the correct attitude. And you'll know if you have the correct attitude if you look at the scriptures and they magically reveal their contents to you, which then leads you to share his position. The upshot is that the scriptures say what he says they say, but only people who already agree with him are capable of seeing it.

The condescension is just a bonus.

Sad thing is he is not alone.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Who said that pagan sacrifice had anything to do with sins or the redemption thereof?

"The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected.

Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

(Compare to Matt. 26-28: "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.")

The chief incident of Mithra's life was his struggle with a symbolical bull, which he overpowered and sacrificed, and from the blood of the sacrifice came the world's peace and plenty, typified by ears of corn. The bull appears to signify the earth or mankind, and the implication is that Mithra, like Christ, overcame the world; but in the early Persian writings Mithra is himself the bull [J.M. Robertson, /Pagan Christs/, p. 298.], the god thus sacrificing himself, which is a close approximation to the Christian idea. In later times the bull is interchangeable with a ram; but the zodiacal ram, Aries, which is associated with Mithra, was replaced by a lamb in the Persian zodiac [Bundahish, ii. 2.], so that it is a lamb which is sacrificed [Garucci, /Les Myste`res du Syn. Phrygien/, p. 34.], as in the Paschal conception of Yeshua. That this sacrifice had originally a human victim, and that it later involved the idea of the sacramental death of a human being, is clear from the fact that the Church historian, Socrates, believed that human victims were still sacrificed in the Mithraic mysteries down to some period before A.D. 360 [Socrates, /Eccles. Hist., bk. iii., ch. 2.].

Thus the paramount Christian idea of the sacrifice of the lamb of God was one with which every worshipper of Mithra was familiar; and just as Mithra was an embodiment of the seven spirits of God, so the slain Lamb in the Book of Revelation has seven horns and seven eyes "which are the seven spirits of G-d'' [Revelation v. 6.]. Early writers say that a lamb was consecrated, killed, and eaten as an Easter rite in the Church; but Easter was a Mithraic festival [Macrobius, /Saturnalia/, i. 18.], presumably of the resurrection of their god, and the parallel is thus complete, in which regard it is to be noted that in the Seventh Century the Church endeavored without success to suppress the picturing of Christ as a lamb, owing to the paganism involved in the idea [Bingham, /Christian Antiq./, viii. 8, sec. 11; xv. 2, sec. 3.].

The ceremonies of purification by the sprinkling or drenching of the novice with the blood of bulls or rams were widespread, and were to be found in the rites of Mithra. By this purification a man was "born again" [Beugnot, /Hist. de la Dest. Du Paganisme/, i. p. 334.], and the Christian expression "washed in the blood of the Lamb" is undoubtedly a reflection of this idea, the reference thus being clear in the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins". In this passage the writer goes on to say: "Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say his flesh ... let us draw near ... having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water" [Hebrews x. 19.]. But when we learn that the Mithraic initiation ceremony consisted in entering boldly into a mysterious underground "holy of holies", with the eyes veiled, and there being sprinkled with blood, and washed with water, it is clear that the author of the Epistle was thinking of those Mithraic rites with which everybody at that time must have been so familiar."

Mithra's Contributions to Christianity
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
Who said that pagan sacrifice had anything to do with sins or the redemption thereof?

In addition, it should be noted that both Mithra and Jesus are SOLAR deities. The Earth travels in an elliptical orbit around the Sun. When at its furthest point from the Earth, the ancients believed the Sun would die unless it was fed blood. Some scholars believe Yaweh and Moloch to be the same deity, both of which demand blood sacrifice. Moloch was also a solar deity to whom some pagan Jews practiced infanticide as a means of keeping the Sun alive. Interesting that Yaweh demands the blood sacrifice of Jesus as a means of re-opening the Gates of Paradise. The unifying theme throughout all of these practices, Christianity included, is that of RENEWAL. The old is no more, and new life arises. This means also renewal through the power of blood to wash away sin. It is the blood which was thought to be the life-force. This is not the case in the East, where the breath is considered to be the life force.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
I indicated that without studying carefully the scriptures, drawing close to Jehovah, and applying the scriptures in one's life, the proof of the scripture's truths cannot be experienced or known. Proving their truthfullness requires the one requiring the proof to follow the scriptures' teaching to acquire such proof. Proof does exist, but the veil placed over their meaning cannot be pierced in any other way.

You have it wrong, as you are placing the cart ahead of the horse. You are advising exactly what Jesus advised against:

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.
John 5:39

The spiritual experience of eternal life is the first hand experience; scripture is a second hand account of the spiritual experience. Only when one attains the spiritual experience first can he then understand the scriptures. This, of course, is the crucial difference between orthodox Christianity and mystical Christianity. Jesus was a mystic Jew, as evinced here in John 5:39.

There is no proof of the scriptures other than the spiritual experience itself, which is beyond rationally derived proof. Were it not so, you would be able to explain the taste of strawberries to someone who had never tasted them. It is the mystic who realizes it can never be done. All you end up with are notions about the spiritual experience, but not the experience itself. The mystic puts the scriptures aside and seeks divine union directly within.
 

truthofscripture

Active Member
You have it wrong, as you are placing the cart ahead of the horse. You are advising exactly what Jesus advised against:

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.
John 5:39

The spiritual experience of eternal life is the first hand experience; scripture is a second hand account of the spiritual experience. Only when one attains the spiritual experience first can he then understand the scriptures. This, of course, is the crucial difference between orthodox Christianity and mystical Christianity. Jesus was a mystic Jew, as evinced here in John 5:39.

There is no proof of the scriptures other than the spiritual experience itself, which is beyond rationally derived proof. Were it not so, you would be able to explain the taste of strawberries to someone who had never tasted them. It is the mystic who realizes it can never be done. All you end up with are notions about the spiritual experience, but not the experience itself. The mystic puts the scriptures aside and seeks divine union directly within.
I have the scriptures wrong? Impossible. God cannot lie. You're comparing religions? When the scriptures say they are all false and will be destroyed? Rediculous. Why would you take some religion's word for things, and not God's? Religions oppose God, and God opposes religions. It is God's word for things that I will adhere to and not any false religion. Sorry, try again.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
I have the scriptures wrong? Impossible. God cannot lie. You're comparing religions? When the scriptures say they are all false and will be destroyed? Rediculous. Why would you take some religion's word for things, and not God's? Religions oppose God, and God opposes religions. It is God's word for things that I will adhere to and not any false religion. Sorry, try again.

There's no need to as it is painfully obvious that you are indeed, wrong. You continue to expose your misunderstandings, both of the spiritual world and of things others are saying to you. Here, for example, you think I am comparing religions, when what I am actually doing is pointing up the difference between the orthodox and the mystical view. Apparently you don't know what that means. I used actual scripture to demonstrate what you are actually doing and how it is erroneous, but you are not listening. You cling to what you think is 'God's word' but you have no real understanding of what the scripture is pointing to. That which it is pointing to is what the scripture is about, but is not the experience itself. Get the experience first, then you will know how to read scripture, as Jesus is trying to tell you in John 5:39. Otherwise you will continue to eat the menu instead of the meal. And when someone points out that fact, you cry 'Impossible!'
 

Vishvavajra

Active Member
"The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected.

Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."
...
Mithra's Contributions to Christianity
OK, well I guess that answers my question of who said it, but that doesn't mean it's true. I'm not aware of any scholarly research that substantiates these claims. We classicists would like to know more about Mithraism, but aside from some some of their meeting places that have been excavated, we have virtually nothing to go on. Nor is there any indication that Mithraism was a competitor of early Christianity, either in numbers or in focus. If anything, it seems to have been a rather closed group, something like modern Freemasonry, open only to initiates, whereas Christianity was open to all comers.

There is some speculation about what exactly Mithraists got up to in their grottoes, but it's hardly as detailed or certain as this author makes it out to be. There's a lot of imaginative speculation going on there that is being presented as fact, with a bit of outright distortion mixed in.
 

Vishvavajra

Active Member
No god concept has ever written a word, only man has put pen to paper/papyrus
Yep, regardless of what one believes about gods, the fact is that it's mortal people who tell us about them, what they're like, what they want, what they have to say, etc. Everything that has ever been said and written about gods has been filtered through mortal human knowledge and understanding. And everyone can agree that mortal humans are fallible.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Yep, regardless of what one believes about gods, the fact is that it's mortal people who tell us about them, what they're like, what they want, what they have to say, etc. Everything that has ever been said and written about gods has been filtered through mortal human knowledge and understanding. And everyone can agree that mortal humans are fallible.

Not everyone has the education you do. So this intellect and reason will be tested by those with less. :D

Im glad your here, you are a welcome addition.
 

truthofscripture

Active Member
There's no need to as it is painfully obvious that you are indeed, wrong. You continue to expose your misunderstandings, both of the spiritual world and of things others are saying to you. Here, for example, you think I am comparing religions, when what I am actually doing is pointing up the difference between the orthodox and the mystical view. Apparently you don't know what that means. I used actual scripture to demonstrate what you are actually doing and how it is erroneous, but you are not listening. You cling to what you think is 'God's word' but you have no real understanding of what the scripture is pointing to. That which it is pointing to is what the scripture is about, but is not the experience itself. Get the experience first, then you will know how to read scripture, as Jesus is trying to tell you in John 5:39. Otherwise you will continue to eat the menu instead of the meal. And when someone points out that fact, you cry 'Impossible!'
Not possible. What I posted is in complete harmony with ALL the scriptures. No other meaning harmonizes. Nothing is painfully obvious, except that you have missed the sense of a few scriptures. Don't feel bad, it's not hard to do. Most people do miss the sense of ALL of the scriptures. I in fact know EXACTLY what each scripture points to. What they mean. Your postulations are not only wrong, but not polite. You claim that I have no experience. I am pretty certain that close to 50 years of critical and comparative study far outweighs your "experience", which is probably pretty meager. Many decades of studying and teaching do not point to what you claim. You are wrong.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
. I in fact know EXACTLY what each scripture points to. What they mean.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You have a personal opinion, of what you think they mean.

I cannot even make that claim nor can any professor or scholar. The best in the field would not admit to that.
 

truthofscripture

Active Member
Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You have a personal opinion, of what you think they mean.

I cannot even make that claim nor can any professor or scholar. The best in the field would not admit to that.
No. It most certainly is not opinion. You, professors and your scholars cannot because you don't have what it takes. Jehovah said that Satan is obfuscating the meaning of the scriptures, and the only way to clear that obfuscation is for God to use holy spirit to open up their meaning. God will only use His holy spirit if he sees in someone an honest heart and an honest desire to draw close to Him. Otherwise, you're just guessing. It's all spelled out in the scriptures, and if you are a student of the scriptures, you would know that. You are showing your lack of study.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
the only way to clear that obfuscation is for God to use holy spirit to open up their meaning.

Seems rather dangerous to invoke such perceived knowledge with certainty, that could be based purely on imagination.

Your invoking the supernatural as a reliable method of education. This factually is unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Did your spirit tell you why Matthew is the first book in the NT?

Did the spirit tell you why Pauls epistles are in order?
 

truthofscripture

Active Member
Seems rather dangerous to invoke such perceived knowledge with certainty, that could be based purely on imagination.

Your invoking the supernatural as a reliable method of education. This factually is unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Did your spirit tell you why Matthew is the first book in the NT?

Did the spirit tell you why Pauls epistles are in order?
My "invoking"? What are you talking about? What I posted is what the scriptures say. It is NOT a personal opinion. It is a teaching of God.
 
Top