Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on May 29, 2011 8:07:06 GMT -5
Simply there is no basis to saying Horus is Jesus any anthropologist worth his salt schooled in Egyptian religion and Christian religion will tell you. I never said that Horus was Jesus.I was pointing out similarities in their stories from what I believed to be the truth.I was given background on Horus from someone who teaches the history of ART and the details of Horus' birth and his mythology isn't actually essential to understanding how he is depicted in Egyptian Art.However Horus' origin was given exactly the way I stated it in a film we were required to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 29, 2011 8:16:02 GMT -5
Cry Caine, that comment you quoted wasn't meant as a critique towards you. It was a general comment about how mythology in general has been treated by popular culture and some groups who loudly proclaim things that have not basis in fact.
It was not aimed at you, I apologize if you felt insulted. I was not my intention to insult you single, you out or imply/voice anything hurtful towards you. If it sounded that way, I'm sorry.
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on May 29, 2011 8:28:07 GMT -5
Cry Caine, that comment you quoted wasn't meant as a critique towards you. It was a general comment about how mythology in general has been treated by popular culture and some groups who loudly proclaim things that have not basis in fact. It was not aimed at you, I apologize if you felt insulted. I was not my intention to insult you single, you out or imply/voice anything hurtful towards you. If it sounded that way, I'm sorry. I didn't feel insulted at all.I was letting everyone know where I got the information from so they don't think I just pulled it out of my ass.(No Homo).
|
|
|
Post by Khaos King on May 29, 2011 9:26:09 GMT -5
Edit: for posting erroneous information
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 29, 2011 9:28:59 GMT -5
Cry Caine, that comment you quoted wasn't meant as a critique towards you. It was a general comment about how mythology in general has been treated by popular culture and some groups who loudly proclaim things that have not basis in fact. It was not aimed at you, I apologize if you felt insulted. I was not my intention to insult you single, you out or imply/voice anything hurtful towards you. If it sounded that way, I'm sorry. so they don't think I just pulled it out of my ass.(No Homo).
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on May 29, 2011 9:53:38 GMT -5
Isn't there and Indian\Asian Diety named Krishna that is supposed to be something like Jesus..born of a virgin, adoptive father was a carpenter etc. etc?
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 29, 2011 23:56:11 GMT -5
Noah was also divinely conceived through Virgin birth although not sure if his mother was an actual virgin. It was in the Book of Enoch, his mother was scared and didnt know how she could be pregnant and went out of her way to claim she was never touched. not true. In fact there is no such story in the christian bible or Torah or Qu'ran at all when talking about Noah's origin in birth, which is covered from Genesis 5 verses 26 to 32 (and not in the book of Enoch which as is also worth pointing out is actually not canon by any judaic, Islam or christian denomination except for the Ethiopian Orthodox church and the Eritrean Orthodox church. And the Book of Enoch tells of the time of Great-Grand Father of Noah and nothing of Noah himself): Quoted right passages detailing Noah's birth, Genesis 5 verses 28-32: " 26 And Methuselah lived after he begot Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begot sons and daughters. 27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years; and he died. {S} 28 And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begot a son. 29 And he called his name Noah, saying: 'This same shall comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, which cometh from the ground which the LORD hath cursed.' 30 And Lamech lived after he begot Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begot sons and daughters. 31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years; and he died. {S} 32 And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
After those passages, there is no mention again of Noah's ancestors as the next passage starting from Genesis 6 is the story of the Flood: Here's the beginning which is straight to the point: "1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. 3 And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.' 4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. {P} 5 And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. 7 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.' 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was in his generations a man righteous and whole-hearted; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begot three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 And the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. {S} 13 And God said unto Noah: 'The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; with rooms shalt thou make the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. 15 And this is how thou shalt make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A light shalt thou make to the ark, and to a cubit shalt thou finish it upward; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. 17 And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish. 18 But I will establish My covenant with thee; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the fowl after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.' 22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
"[/i]
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 30, 2011 0:20:26 GMT -5
Isn't there and Indian\Asian Diety named Krishna that is supposed to be something like Jesus..born of a virgin, adoptive father was a carpenter etc. etc? No, because Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu the life giver, one of the hinduism triad (Vishnu, Brahman, Shiva). He has many incarnations. One who is Krishna, he incarnated himself as Krishna by birthing himself from lady Devaki, the daughter of Devaka of Mathura who was brother of King Ugresana. Therefore his "adoptive father" was a royal prince not a carpenter. And since Vishnu, willfully created this mortal form. It wasn't a new birth, just a new physical incarnation of a deity that already existed.
|
|
|
Post by Khaos King on May 30, 2011 10:09:42 GMT -5
I could not read any of that nor did i try to, it was an eye sore.
I have to look at again at Noah's story mention in the book of Enoch to see who it was referring to Noah or one of his ancestors.
I think it is irrelevant if the book of Enoch was canon or not since that does not take away anything from the story itself. Nor does the Catholic church or Roman Emperor and the Council of Nicea have any more authority to decide what books should be canon anymore than you or I.
Especially when their decisions are heavily based for political reasons more so than spiritual reasons.
there are various agnostic groups who do consider the book of Enoch as legitimate as the Book of Revelations and the letters of the apostle as gospel. >_>
also i retract my earlier statement since i am remembering wrong and got my info from a irreputable source.. i stand corrected with egg in my face
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 30, 2011 12:07:36 GMT -5
edited the previous post whith the quotes, eliminated the symbols since they were turned to windings and it was impossible to read. Just the english text now. I have to look at again at Noah's story mention in the book of Enoch to see who it was referring to Noah or one of his ancestors. It doesn't refer to Noah, Noah is not mentionned in the book of Enoch at all, it tells the story of the time of Enoch. Noah's Great-Grand father as well as the story of the watchers and the nephilim. None of the content has anything to do with Noah. And none of Noah's ancestors are virgin births either such a thing would not happen in Jewish theology because such is reserved for a single being the Savior, a person whom in Jewish theology has not been born yetThe book of Enoch doesn't contain any virgin births at all. the Catholic church the Council of Nicea have any more authority to decide what books should be canon anymore than you or I. It wasn't the catholic church that decided the book of Enoch wasn't canon or the Council of Nicea. All the Abrahamic denominations, including the earliest judaic scholars agree the Book is not canon. These are scholars of the faiths, sages and prophets. It was already long declared uncanon before the Council of Nicea let alone the catholic church (whom only became a separate entity long after the council of Nicea) even existed That book was studied deeply and even long before Jesus was even born by the early scholars of the Torah and it was then that it was declared not canon. Therefore this bad tasted attack on the catholic church is completely unwarranted and untrue. I could not read any of that nor did i try to, it was an eye sore. Roman Emperor Especially when their decisions are heavily based for political reasons more so than spiritual reasons. The object of the Council of Nicea was not political and the emperor never imposed anything. This is an ill-informed myth. It was a reunion to cover the following theological points: -The nature of Jesus-Christ -the date that Easter should be celebrated and if it should be seperate from the judaic pentescopal -The promulgation of canon law Constantine the Great never really care at the outcome as long as the Church was unified, contrary to myth he did not impose any version, he only ratified the majority vote at the council whom he called and used his own funds to make happen so the bishops could come to a consensus. When this consensus was not complete he several times tried to make the majority happy. First with the exile of Arius (whom he pardoned later), then the exile of Athanasius of Alexandria. Constantine never cared which version the church chose, as long the empire was peaceful. He let the church decide which was canon then just smiled and nodded, putting his seal of approval. there are various agnostic groups who do consider the book of Enoch as legitimate as the Book of Revelations and the letters of the apostle as gospel. >_> Agnosticism is not a religious denomination, therefore there are no true agnoticistic groups who would consider it canon. Agnosticism is by definition an absence of belonging or belief in any religion with the acceptance that the spiritual and supernatural can be real but there is no proof. By this definition the Book of Enoch wouldn't be considered canon by agnostics because that would mean admitting and believing it is correct. Which is not at all what agnosticism is. Furthermore, again the only Abrahamic group that considers the book of Enoch canon is the Ethiopian orthodox church and the Eritrian orthodox church, all the others don't consider it canon. Even one's with no central authority (like Judaism and other Orthodox Christian denominations)
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on May 30, 2011 16:20:13 GMT -5
@ Crom:
Thank you, thank you, a thousand times thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 30, 2011 17:24:20 GMT -5
@ Crom: Thank you, thank you, a thousand times thank you. it is my pleasure to share what I know, anything comes up just ask. And if I don't have the answer right away, I can find it.
|
|
|
Post by Khaos King on May 30, 2011 23:18:15 GMT -5
Crom, i already acknowledged my mistake on the book of enoch referencing a virgin birth. i dont see the point of continuing to reintegrate it.
again whatever reason that the books were edited and put in the bible is irrelevent due to their being many stories that were being read and the inspired word of god. like all religions there are various sects even in Christianity nor does one have more validity over another especially during that time when stories varied from village and towns with what a person considered to be the word of god.
that also includes the hebrew and old testament as not all stories were gathered nor codified in the ancient time. Many stories were lost during wars and destroyed some never to be recovered others living in oral tradition or rewritten.
again agnostic/orthodox religions and views are just as legitimate as any other christian mainstream view since is all up to interpretation and faith and no one can truly say what who's story was written 1st or reaches further in time even in oral form especially since many of the bible stories appear to be nothing more than reinterpretation retelling of other ancient civilizations, sumarian flood myth, Zoroastrian early monotheism concept and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 31, 2011 11:38:36 GMT -5
again whatever reason that the books were edited and put in the bible is irrelevent due to their being many stories that were being read and the inspired word of god. like all religions there are various sects even in Christianity nor does one have more validity over another again agnostic/orthodox religions and views are just as legitimate as any other christian mainstream view All of this is irrelevant to my previous post and shows you completely missed the entire point of what I said. My post doesn't have anything to do with whether a person has a right to believe something or not, nor does it have anything to do with whether one set of beliefs is more valid then another. My posts addressed the incorrect data of what you said. You said the Council of Nicea declared the book of Enoch non-canon. That is the part that was incorrect. Because the book, historically speaking, was declared not canon long before that. You said it was the Catholic Church at the council of Nicea. But that is not true, the catholic church as 1 church did not exist at the time of the council of Nicea. You said emperor Constantine butted in and made a judgement on what version was correct for political reasons. That is the part I corrected you on. Because it is incorrect. You said there are many groups that consider the book of Enoch canon. That part is incorrect, the only religious denominations that consider it correct are the Ethiopian Orthodox church and the Eritrean orthodox church. You said agnostics believe the book of Enoch. That is what is incorrect, because by definition, agnostics do not believe in any religion by the very definition of what agnosticism is. If a person has faith in a particular set of religious books and doctrine. Then by definition he is not an agnostic, he is a religious person of that denomination of that book. I made no judgement on the validity of believing in the book of Enoch or not. I corrected where you made commentaries about subjects where the data about those subjects was clearly incorrect. Only you took it as me saying one set of beliefs is more correct then another. That is not what I said, you are completely beside my point. My post was addressing the data about those beliefs and their origin, not their value or validity no one can truly say what who's story was written 1st Actually we can trace the origin of belief systems through archeology and anthropology. Ancient texts, excavated settlements etc. When one civilization has much earlier archeological traces then another. The they are the older civilization. Regardless and irrelevant to what their beliefs are, completely outside the point of whether they have validity or not. especially since many of the bible stories appear to be nothing more than reinterpretation retelling of other ancient civilizations, sumarian flood myth You do know that flood myths as heavenly punishment are not unique to the regions where the Sumerian, Babylonian, Zoroastrianism and Christianity originated right? Hinduism has such myths, so do native american myths and greek religion, amongst many others. Saying the bible is just retelling the Sumerian myth in is a gross oversimplification, that archeologically speaking has many flaws. Just because the bible has a flood myth, doesn't mean they are necessarily retelling the Sumerian flood myth. Because by that logic as the Anthropologist Noam Chomski pointed out leads believing common origin to a type of myths. But that is not correct because the commonality of human thought and mythos does not necessarily need a common origin to appear in different cultures even when their manner of telling the story is incredibly similar, nor does it necessarily mean that one birthed another. If that were the case, all flood myths would be just retelling and re-imaginings of an original core myth. Which is incorrect because some cultures with flood myths never came into contact with the Sumerians. Zoroastrian early monotheism concept and so on. Judaism pre-dates Zoroastrianism. Evidence place the origins of Judaism in Semitic and Levantine tribal beliefs and earliest physical record of proto-judaism is the Merneptah stele where Israel is mentioned, dated 1203 BCE. Evidence place the origins of Zoroastrianism at the 10th or 11th century BCE Meaning that Judaism has at least 100 years over Zoroastrianism by all physical evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on May 31, 2011 11:50:42 GMT -5
You said agnostics believe the book of Enoch. That is what is incorrect, because by definition, agnostics do not believe in any religion by the very definition of what agnosticism is. If a person has faith in a particular set of religious books and doctrine. Then by definition he is not an agnostic, he is a religious person of that denomination of that book. I think Castle is confusing Agnostics with Gnostics. Also, isn't the extent of Emperor Constantine's involvement in the Council of Nicaea a rather debatable topic? Or am I confusing it with something?
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 31, 2011 12:09:48 GMT -5
I think Castle is confusing Agnostics with Gnostics. possible, but if that is the case, then Castle is way off. The roots of Gnostic belief systems have no link to the book of Enoch. Gnosticism as a belief system was created by the melding of concepts and ideas that have zero to do with the the contents of the book of Enoch. Gnosticism is something entirely different from the book of Enoch. Also, isn't the extent of Emperor Constantine's involvement in the Council of Nicaea a rather debatable topic? Or am I confusing it with something? Constantine was a pagan originally, he was a politician and a military commander, born in the time of the Tetrarchy. He changed his "religious inspiration" many times. First as a worshiper of Sol Invictus and was quoted as receiving visions from the sun god. Then as a christian inspired by God and Christ. During his reign he funded temples of the old roman religion and christian churches at the same time. The edict of Milan doesn't give primacy to any religion in it's text, it makes Christianity a legally recognized religion in the empire, nothing more In all cases, especially telling in sources who had very different opinions from each other (even arguing each other). It is painfully evident that Constantine first and only goal is maintaining the stability of the empire that he had managed to allow moment to catch it's breath and rebuild a little. He was a deft speaker and he actively chose solutions to keep as many people calm and happy as possible. When the question of the council of Nicea came to his attention, the debates had grown venomous and some of the peace was being disrupted because various groups within Christianity were competing for primacy and arguing their version correct. Constantine with the council of Nicea, explicitly ordered them to discuss and vote a consensus which he would ratify, hoping to pacify the whole issue would be settled. Constantine never imposed anything beyond a legal format to keep things calm and under control. Never actually forcing one belief over another, because such things were of little concern to him. In fact he was only baptized a christian on his death bed.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on May 31, 2011 12:30:49 GMT -5
In all cases, especially telling in sources who had very different opinions from each other (even arguing each other). It is painfully evident that Constantine first and only goal is maintaining the stability of the empire that he had managed to allow moment to catch it's breath and rebuild a little. He was a deft speaker and he actively chose solutions to keep as many people calm and happy as possible. Aye, whatever I've read of him (Not that it was that much) agrees on that. I suppose it's this pragmatic tendency to make people calm and happy rather than enforce anything on them is what makes it hard for historians to reach a consensus about his actual personality and thus go into debates over it. Well, to be fair, that was more or less how it was done then. Not really out of the ordinary.
|
|
|
Post by Khaos King on May 31, 2011 12:55:02 GMT -5
Mithra
immaculate birth
There is reference to Mithra as being born of "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras". Anahita was said to have conceived the Mithras from the seed of Zarathustra preserved in the waters of Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan. In other, contradictory traditions, he is also born without any sex but from the rock wall of a cave. One must know that there were separate Mithra traditions that may have changed and been adapted over time. This information comes from a Temple that bears this inscription dedicated to Anahita and dated to about 200 B.C.E..
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Jun 1, 2011 2:00:40 GMT -5
Isn't there and Indian\Asian Diety named Krishna that is supposed to be something like Jesus..born of a virgin, adoptive father was a carpenter etc. etc? No, because Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu the life giver, one of the hinduism triad (Vishnu, Brahman, Shiva). He has many incarnations. One who is Krishna, he incarnated himself as Krishna by birthing himself from lady Devaki, the daughter of Devaka of Mathura who was brother of King Ugresana. Therefore his "adoptive father" was a royal prince not a carpenter. And since Vishnu, willfully created this mortal form. It wasn't a new birth, just a new physical incarnation of a deity that already existed. No? Isn't Jesus essentially an avatar of God? How is this different? You said that Vishnu willfully created his mortal form...does that mean he procreated with the woman who birthed him? Or he just placed himself in her stomach? Isn't that what God did with Jesus...had himself born as a mortal from a woman? God existed before Jesus so technically Jesus is a physical incarnation of a god that already existed..correct?
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 1, 2011 16:09:42 GMT -5
No? Isn't Jesus essentially an avatar of God? How is this different? You said that Vishnu willfully created his mortal form...does that mean he procreated with the woman who birthed him? Or he just placed himself in her stomach? Isn't that what God did with Jesus...had himself born as a mortal from a woman? God existed before Jesus so technically Jesus is a physical incarnation of a god that already existed..correct? I'll answer all this in turn So let me start: 1- Jesus is not an avatar of God. Jesus is one of the trinity (Father, son, Holy Spirit), that is the son. Whom in christian theology is a separate entity from the All-Divine that is all (God). Jesus's essence is divine because he is part of god. But God in Christianity is immanent, omni-present, transcendent. Meaning he is at the same time part and apart from all things and beyond all things. This means that Jesus is a part of God but God is not Jesus because God is separate of all things therefore not Jesus, Jesus is a separate entity lower then him. God does not have avatars because he is one-all and immanent, omni-present. Yes, Christian Theology is much more complex and fascinating then sunday school teaches us 2- Vishnu is a greater god, the preserver. He enters the mortal plane (reality is many layered in Hinduism) by way of avatars. These are beings that are his essence, soul, mind given form. They are a him incarnated in a lesser form. Krishna is one of these, He created his mortal form in the womb of Devaka and entered the world through there. However, as an avatar of a being that already exist/is already born and also keeps on going elswhere while the avatar is active. Each incarnation and avatar is not a birth per say, it's Vishnu returning once again in a layer of reality in a suitable form. It's a rebirth, passing from one state of being to the next in a constant cycle of incarnation and reincarnation. Travel to other layers of reality, etc. Vishnu's essence and reality existed long before Krishna was created. In Hinduism, this distinction is very important. Birth (any birth even a virgin one) and rebirth/reincarnation are very distinct concepts. Essentially, the womb of Devaka is the place where Vishnu placed a part of his essence to allow part of his consciousness (now what is also very important to remember is Hindu gods can have multiple avatars acting at the same time) to enter the world in a proper form (a new body that grows to adulthood) 3-See #1 why God did not birth himself as Jesus. God is seperate from Jesus. Jesus was definitively born in Christian theology, having never existed before I'll clarify more if this is hard to wrap one's head around.
|
|