shadow_moon

i think, i already read before from an article or email....

__________________

GAma_Oyabun

if its possible for christianity to take from other religions isnt it also possible for other religions to take from christianity? those stories of a messiah could have been taken from the jewish people instead of the other way around

__________________


FC's
owner of the Village Brawl fc ^^-----LIKE RPGS??? join Village BRAWL FC>..the original rpg fc

member of the Fruits Basket Fc

Azumi

lol not really. Christianity was founded after its founder, Jesus Christ. and pagans have no religion, that's the reason they were called pagans. but to be fair, it is true that many Christians follow some traditions of pagans.


and that dec 25th.... was there already a Gregorian calendar during the ancient Egyptian civilization? i think all of those names posted were man-made or just part of a mythology. and besides, Jesus was not really born on Dec 25.

__________________

Hurricane Chronicles

Pagans have been around way before monotheisim granted. But the Catholic Church converted most pagans by adopting some of their ways of worship. The biggest example of this is when they changed the sabath(day of worship) from Saturday (friday sundown till saturday sundown like the jewish) to Sunday. Also Christmas. and this became the norm in christianity once the Catholic church became prominent again.

Edit - Side Facts

Christianity is derived from Judiasm, because Jesus was the "king of jews". And since christianity is supposed to be the following of the path/life Jesus lived, It would be resonable to say christians are supposed to pretty much do everything the jews do except they believe that Jesus is Gods son and The Savior. So saying that Christianity takes from other religions is a lie. Christianity is born from Judiasm and since Judism/Hebrew is the First religion to believe in One God (Monotheism), you can pretty much say that it's one and only influence is Original and One of a Kind.

Heres a link on Judiasm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism

__________________

Gamr1469

well actually they were merged...yes Constantine merged christianity and paganism in about 300 AD to allow the growing number of christians to coexist with the sun worshipers of rome

ever wonder why the sabbath is on SUNday???

__________________
No, i didnt make tht picture, nor am i dumb enough to claim i did it can from

If you are one of the 100% of people who hate Naruto Fillers. Put this in your tag


Myspace--------->

Migagawe

I would like to make the Godliness of Jesus as clear as possible to you guys based on the Bible. Though, I'm not going to put verses because some people might get offended. So here it is:

Apostle Paul told Timothy that the Mystery of the Godliness is God turning into flesh to bring salvation. Though before this time, Prophet Isiah said no one would believe Jesus was God (Yoshue/Jesus means "God became salvation" in some Jewish translation) and everyone would try to deny and show proofs that he is not God (Pharisees tried). Well, that said Jesus called himself the "Son of God" or as the Bible scholars calls it "the Body of the Living God" (that's what Messiah or Christ mean). So everybody assumed he was just God the Son. There's one problem though, God said he's one, not three. So, bible scholars did more studying this is what they found: God said that we should search him and come to know him by reading his words meaning to understand how God works w/o doubts in us, we should read the word itself not other books that is not the Bible. Therefore, these scholars studied him and they found a verse in the Bible saying that man is made through his image and a man only has three parts: Soul, Body, Spirit. Now even though its not in the Bible we call it: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. But he is one. Now, how could a Human being claim he is God? And where in the Bible did he say he is God? Oh, trust me. He tried to tell everyone he was God though they stoned him. Why? He's a human being! That's why he refers to himself as the "Son of God" to prevent that happening but he never called himself "God the Son" but he said "My father and I are one". People got mad at him, even today that wrath's still inside people's heart. Now, why does this one God pray to himself then? I wondered too. But they found another proof why he prays to himself. They notice that he prays when people actually sees it. Why? Paul said to the Colossians that Jesus was an example, a firstborn. That's why we are called Christians because one of the reason God came to earth and manifests into the lowest flesh is because he wanted to show how live a humble life. He never said, to his followers to go kill his haters. He even healed one of them because Peter cut the ears of one of the man who's attacking Jesus. He never hated on anyone. He just got hated. He just became an example, because if everyone can live like that, oh trust me, wars are history. He is the image of God. He said anyone who sees him sees the Father. He told Thomas that God's inside him (meaning soul). Paul even proved it to himself by persecuting Christians. He was blinded and and he asked, "my God who are you?" he said "I am Jesus....". That's why many true Christians were and are still persecuted because they never fight back.

If you have any questions or you want those verses, you could just PM me.

That said, @Gamr1469- Dude, Jesus was proven to exists according to census made in his timeline. Some of the people you put are mythical although alot of them were not. Though, I tell you, Constantine's a pagan and he changed alot in Christianity that's why it sounded as if Jesus was like any other "Messiah". Though, study show that Jesus wasn't born in December 25 and also they proved Constatine to convert not because he wanted to but because he wanted peace between people and Christians. Though many Christians did not stick with his "pagan merging with Christianity". They reserved the real Bible and based every single thing there. Constatine's idea of Christianity though with huge changes develop to become the "Roman Catholics". That's why some people separates Christians and Roman Catholics. Also, Christians never started wars or anything. They never fought back of they can. The so called Christians that are aggressive were Constatine's. That's why dude, try reading a Bible which wasn't based on Constatine's belief. Old testaments were recovered by historians while the New Testament was passed down. And I also noticed something, why is it always Jesus hated on and why are people proving him wrong? I mean we can just prove Allah or Buddha wrong. Why Jesus even though there's a lot more choices and some other people rejected him and went to other "Gods"? Why not prove other Gods wrong? Oh yeah, because God predicted that people in the last days would barely believe in God, mainly Jesus( or just make fun of him, he predicted that also) and primarily, not at all.

__________________

Ninja48

Migagawe, your wording is interesting. You said "to prove Allah wrong." Allah is simply the arabic word for God, not some sort of opposing messiah. You also said "what separates Christians from Catholics." Catholics are Christians. You're either assuming your own version of Christianity is the only one that opposes Catholicism, or you forgot to include the word "other" before "Christians." Careful with that.

__________________

Migagawe

^Well. That's what I meant. Thanks for clarifying that. And I didn't just mean Allah. I just used him as an example since he's the God of the Muslims. It could be anyone really. But the point is, its always Jesus. But thanks for pointing that out.

__________________

senju naruto

are u saying that God lied to humans about being God to escape thier wrath ? oh God the almighty God! + do u really beleive that the same God that striked the jews with boltlights just becouse they demanded to see him just changed his mind and showed himself to them + why didnt God ( i mean YHWY and ALLAH by God not jesus) mentioned his beloved son to Abraham and Moses becouse when God talked to Moses in montsinai he said " IM God worship no other but me" he didnt say "IM God and this is my son and this my holyspirit" and here is another point the early christians didnt beleived that jesus was God or even the son of God such as the Ebonites, the Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the Hypisistarians and all of them rejected paul of tarsus as an "apostle of the law " it is clear as sunlight that the idea of trinity is a roman conception and invention
and anoother thing ALLAh means YHWY in arabic and muslims and jews and christians worship the same Abrahamic God but they dont worship jesus and only consider him as a prophet to the jews, the messiah is a prophet not God

__________________

Migagawe

Since we're debationg this based on the bible, I'll be basing all my thoughts from it as we speak:
God never lied. I did not say he did. He never said "I am not God". When Jesus speaks, it's mysterious hence people like the bible scholars would try and unlock the bible which God wanted in the first place. Thus, fulfills Isiah's prophecy of Jesus being mysterious in all ways that when he speaks its meaningful and broad.
The Jews never demanded to see God. They were aware that he was too holy to encounter those times.
I oppose trinity if you actually read my statements. The bible states that we are made in God's image hence God must have the same type of physical characteristics as human beings. The bible said humans have Body, Soul and Spirit. The trinitarians said that God is divided in three Jesus, Father and the Holy ghosts. Th bible scholars oppose that belief though. Why? God is one. He has a body, a soul and a spirit. How does this work? Jesus said that God dwells in him and that he and God are one. The bible also states that Jesus is the image of God thus seeing him is the point where they see God. Quick fact: Moses stood right beside Jesus when Jesus transformed in front of his disciples. Also, Abraham knew who Jesus was but only knows him by the name "I AM". I'm AGAINST TRINITY since it's not in the Bible.

Corinthians never rejected Paul. Paul was part of the Bible and since you're trying to use the Bible against, at least be accurate. Again, you should reread my statements.

YHWH and ALLAH (So does Jehovah) means "I am". He can't tell the old testament dudes his name yet. Though it was stated that God revealed his name in the New Testament. Jesus or Youshue means "Jehovah became salvation". Christ or Messiah means “the container of God”. If he's just a prophet, why is he judging all men in the end of times (it's also said in the Koran that Jesus will judge all human) according to the Bible and Koran? Why was he called King of kings and Lord of lords? Why was he called the Alpha and Omega and the Beginning and the End? Why was he called Creator and the firstborn? Why did it say that Jesus should be praised and worshiped, none other? Why is Jesus sitting on the throne of God? Where's Allah? Oh maybe because Allah's Jesus, too bad when he said he was God people threw pebbles and stones at him. Why? No human being can be God and Jesus knew that. He was smart enough to know that. Though he tried saying it twice or thrice. Again, before you speak, read my statements thoroughly. If you want to know the verses in the Bible where all those are said, politely and please kindly private message me and I'll make sure to give 'em to you. And based it in the Bible since its the thing we're discussing.

__________________

spooksies

First, I will say that even though this discussion has not been posted in since february, and certain moderators are here to do nothing more than inflame the debate and tear peoples posts apart as they have no true stance on anything other than to simply further more posting, I will ignore them and their posts.

I am in the process of writing a book about the myth and history surrounding Thor and the other Nordic/Celtic Gods and Goddesses taken straight from the legends and actual historic writings. It is to be on book shelves in February 2010. It is not written like alot of books such as boring historical type books as they do not sell very well, but rather it is written in story form telling the histories and mythos.

That being said, your information is very sadly wrong bigsmoke.

Odin was/is one of three sons of the frost giant BUR the descendant of the first giant YMIR. The brothers then killed Ymir the father of all giants and reformed the earth out of YMIRs body and the oceans from his blood. Odin is the one-eyed god of wisdom, and poetry, and of battles and the slain. He is the patron of warriors, rulers, and poets. He is the lord of hosts and the god of inspiration. But he is also known as the INFLAMER, THE HOODED ONE, TERROR, WOMANIZER, THE EVILONE, OLD ONE-EYE, etc. ALL stories of Odin have some reference to him changing into someone else to sleep with some woman he felt was attractive enough. Thors mother was one such woman who Odin later blessed/cursed as becoming the goddess of earth or "mother earth", JORD.

Again and again, the stories show that Odin is not to be trusted. While he can be generous with treasures and wise counsel, he can also be treacherous, and capricious. He routinely uses deception, misdirection, and seduction to achieve his aims.
The common man looked upon Odin with respect, rather than love; only the high born chose to embrace him.

He is in no way similar to Jesus in anyway shape or form.

Thor too was not born of a virgin and in every telling and writing ever found about him, Thor repeatedly curses Odin for his bad ways and misstreatment of the human race and women in particular.

Jesus never had anything but love to say about God.

Also, if you look hard enough you find that the Egytian Gods Horus and Osiris were brothers and their father was the Sun-God Ra and his repeatedly womanizing the human females, not to mention the HUGE harem of concubines he had, has more in common with the story of Odin and his half brother Loki and their relationship with Thor, as well as the story of Hesus AND Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids, (NOT HESUS OR EROS) than it does with the Christian and biblical tellings of God and Jesus.

As for the stories of BAAL, well, he was more of a demon/devil/djinn/genie type of God legend/mythos then anything to do with the story or Jesus and the resurrection, as all of the stories about him have always been about ruling from the flames of hell and converting the entire world into a part of his kingdom. Every picture or description of him ever found describes him as more of the devil from the movie LEGEND than some form of beautiful human male. In fact the Djinn in the whole WISHMASTER movie series is based off of his legends and stories of BAAL THE DESTROYER, as well as the references to him in such games as Dungeons and Dragons and Diablo. None of these references are in anyway a JESUS style character. Can you even imagine the story of Jesus being flipped to one of the Baal demonization? It is beyond blasphemous to the whole of Christiandom!!

The Pagans do have a religion, it has actually been divided into three seperate forms of the original religious beliefs.
Much as the Christian churches have many forms of the same teaching, aka - BAPTISTS, CATHOLICS, ETC. The Pagans called themselves Druids or Shamans, that is the name of the religion, DRUIDISM/SHAMANISM, but the church classified them as pagans, then they branched and became Witches and Warlocks under WITCHCRAFT, and WICCA or WICCAN, WHICH BY THE WAY IS ONLY FOR THE FEMALE GENDER AS IT IS ALL ABOUT THE FEMALES MOON CYCLES AND THE GIVING/BIRTHING OF LIFE WITH THE SEASONS AND HARMONY OF MOTHER EARTH, AND NO MAN, EVEN A FLAGRANTLY GAY MAN LIKE ELTON JOHN, CAN GIVE BIRTH OR HAVE A VISIT FROM AUNTIE FLOW!! AND IF YOU ARE MALE AND SAY YOU ARE WICCAN THEN YOU TRULY ARE AN IDIOT!! AND THIS IS QUOTED STRAIGHT FROM THE ORIGINAL WICCAN TEXTS ON DISPLAY IN IRELAND AND WALES WHERE THIS RELIGION SPRANG FROM!!

As for the Church adopting certain traditions that is true. Go to any catholic church, even the Roman catholics, and you will see signs of celtic knotwork and four leaf clovers turned to resemble the cross like Saint Patrick used to convert so many to the church.

As for the "adopting of pagan ways", just think about where the names of the days of the week come from.

MONDAY - ORIGINALLY MARS-DAY FOR THE SET WORSHIP OF THE GOD MARS.

TUESDAY - ORIGINALLY TOMBS-DAY FOR THE SET DAY OF BURIAL. IF YOU DIED ON WEDDINGS-DAY THE BODY WAS LEFT IN A CEREMONIAL STATE OF SORTS UNTIL TOMBS-DAY FOR BURIAL, THUS OUR MORE MODERN FORM OF BURIAL CEREMONIES - AKA FUNERAL PROCESSIONS AND WAKES.

WEDNESDAY - ORIGINALLY WEDDINGS-DAY THE ONLY DAY YOU WERE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED.

THURSDAY - ORIGINALLY THORS-DAY SET FOR THE EXPRESS WORSHIP OF THOR AND FOR THE NORSE TO GO "A-VIKING/RAIDING".

FRIDAY - ORIGINALLY THE DESIGNATED DAY FOR LOVERS UNDER WORSHIP TO ODINS WIFE FREYA OR THE PAGAN VERSION OF VALENTINES DAY.

SATURDAY - ORIGINALLY THE DAY OF WORSHIP FOR THE GOD SATURN

SUNDAY - HAS MANY DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS OVER THE MILLENIA, BUT THE FIRST RECORDED WAS FOR THE EXPRESS WORSHIP OF THE SUN-GOD RA.

In different parts of the world there are different versions of the days of the week but these are the most common meanings referenced in the history books for the actual basis of how they came to be named this way.

Now for the biggy. In comparing god to allah and jehovah, they are all the same being!!! READ the Koran, the Hebrew Scrolls, Holy Bible and you will find that the Christian bible is a ROUGH translation from the INCOMPLETE Hebrew scrolls. Being as the hebrew language has no actual vouls and they are constantly finding more and more caches of scrolls completing more and more sections of big blank spots in their own religious texts/scrolls, the christian bible itself must therefore be incomplete also as it is supposed to be a DIRECT translation from these said INCOMPLETE scrolls/texts. And if you read further, the Koran actually reads as a high school/college literature cliffnotes book to the bible. All three believe in the SAME god!! Except for the minor difference of opinion of whether Jesus was just a prophet, or the actual messiah, or the Son of God.

So we have been fighting a war over this one little thing, that to me is so very stupid! This is a situation that is very VERY similar to the current war of the baptism debate:

DO YOU BAPTIZE IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT?
IN JESUS NAME?
OR IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY LORD JEHOVAH?

Hmmm... again I say this is the same religion teaching the same thing, but with one very moot point that has had people at odds since the beginning. It even states in the bible and the hebrew scrolls that King David broke away from the temple and built his own temple to god where there was music and joyous songs to heaven and god with speaking of tongues and dancing in the aisles, and the other more 'traditional' temples claimed he was blasphemying God with these acts. But the more modern version of Davids temple is the Evangelical/Pentecostal and some extreme black baptist churches with the choir and instruments and the rightous roaring of song to the heavens and God.

Even with this incompleteness of translation from hebrew scrolls to holy bible, I believe the church is not evil, but I do believe that they are very controlling with the 'YOU WILL GO TO HELL OVER EVERY LITTLE THING YOU DO THAT IS NOT FOLLOWING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS'.

And yet, the bible says that after Jesus died on the cross, God turned his back on him and could no longer look upon his own son for he was become sin. And thusly Jesus bought our way into heaven by becoming our sin and breaking the curse of the law.

That roughly translates as - God gave us the ten commandments and it backfired. So he sent Jesus to correct that mistake. It states all over the new testament that 'AS LONG AS YOU TRULY ACCEPT JESUS AS THE LORD THY GOD, YOU WILL BE WELCOMED INTO HEAVEN.' It also states that even though we are sinners, the only truely unforgivable sin that will deny you entrance to heaven is the utter denial of jesus and god in your heart.

So, being as there it is in big bold black and white, and there is nowhere in the new testament that contradicts this simple statement, that means that as long as I truly accept jesus as my lord and savior in my heart, and that he died to take away my sin and I can no longer be viewed as a sinner due to this one supreme act, I can rape, murder, pillage, etc. and still go to heaven and be welcomed with open arms so long as I never forsake god/jesus. That to me is truly freaking awesome!!

That means that if someone hurts my daughter, i can go all 'EYE-FOR-AND-EYE' and get my revenge and the ten commandments, and the law of thou shalt not kill, is no longer valid. Hmmm... pretty interesting if I do say so myself.

Next time I post I will post the actual scripture that states this in the bible in plain old english.

Hitomare Urufu

I hate it when people say the Bible is incomplete, It is complete. The Old Testament, as we call it in the Bible, was put together and canonized by Ezra 400 years(roughly) before Jesus was born. And all the books of the New Testament were written within a 63 year period between a.d. 34 and a.d. 97, the last book written was Revelation by the Apostle John. In Revelation the LORD told John in the 18th verse of the last chapter of Revelation and I quote "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"* meaning don't add to it, that it is complete, finished, perfect(1 Corinthians 13th chapter 10th verse refers to the Bible itself*). I say perfect because the Bible has no contradictions if you understand what is being said. If you have questions pm me.
@Spooksies With your last few paragraphs you miss the point. Yes you can be forgiven but you will be punished.

Flames will be used to torch picture's of Obama.(I don't like his views or 98% of his actions)

*All my verses are from a KJV Bible.

__________________
If you don't feel like standing behind your troops feel free to stand infront of them.

I found this helpful maybe you will to
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5496615/1/My_Naruhina_rant

Mal

I don't know if you're doing it intentionally or if you really are that stupid, but:

1) Arbitrary dates are irrelevant, you have not given a reason that those dates imply the Bible is correct.
2) You can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is right.
3) 1 Corinthians 13:10 is not referring to the Bible.
4) Your opinion of Obama is irrelevant, and dumb.
5) The King James Bible is without doubt the least accurate translation.

It's because of ignorant people like you that those of us who actually know what we're talking about are not taken seriously.

Hitomare Urufu

Your flame just roasted the stack of photos. Thank you. I was tired of having them in my possesion. @#4 I know I just had hoped people such as yourself would not flame.

@#1 I put the dates because I took it as "the Bible was written many years after Jesus lived" so I put a timeline showing when the new testament was written.

@#2 & #3 It is refering to the Bible, Paul was speaking of the gifts to the church and said "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." "that which is in part" is the gifts(speaking in tongues etc.) while "that which is perfect" is refering to the Bible. Show me 1 contradiction you find and I'll not use the Bible to prove itself.

@#5 Show me proof that the KJV not the NKJV is the least accurate. It comes directly from the Textus Receptus. This is from wikipedia's article on the Textus Receptus "The Textus Receptus was defended by Burgon in his The Revision Revised (1881), and also by Edward Miller in A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1886). Burgon supported his arguments with the opinion that the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi, were older than the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; and also that the Peshitta translation into Syriac (which supports the Byzantine Text), originated in the 2nd century. Miller's arguments in favour of readings in the Textus Receptus were of the same kind.[15] However, both Burgon and Miller believed that that, although the Textus Receptus was to be preferred to the Alexandrian Text, nevertheless it still required to be corrected in certain readings against the manuscript tradition of the Byzantine text. In this judgement they have been criticised by Hills. Hills argues that the principle that God provides truth through scriptural revelation, necessarily also implies that God must ensure a preserved transmission of the correct revealed text, continuing into the Reformation era of biblical translation and printing. For Hills, the task of biblical scholarship is to identify the particular line of preserved transmission through which God is acting; a line which he sees in the specific succession of manuscript copying, textual correction and printing, which culminated in the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible. Hills argues that the principle of providentially preserved transmission guarantees that the printed Textus Receptus must be the closest text to the Greek autographs; and consequently he rejects readings in the majority Byzantine text where these are not maintained in the Textus Receptus. He goes so far as to conclude that Erasmus must have been providentially guided when he introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text;[16] and even argues for the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.[17]

Hence the true text is found not only in the text of the majority of the New Testament manuscripts but more especially in the Textus Receptus and in faithful translations of the Textus Receptus, such as the King James Version. In short, the Textus Receptus represents the God-guided revision of the majority text.[18]"

@Mal: My I.Q. is that of a genius, so don't call me stupid. And I'll quote you "It's because of ignorant people like you that those of us who actually know what we're talking about are not taken seriously."

__________________
If you don't feel like standing behind your troops feel free to stand infront of them.

I found this helpful maybe you will to
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5496615/1/My_Naruhina_rant

Mal

1) You still haven't told us why those dates mean anything.

2) In the beginning of The Davinci Code, Dan Brown has written that everything is true. This is not the case, so surely a genius such as yourself can see the fallacy in saying "this book says it is true, and if the book is true, it must be true." Even just typing that makes me feel retarded.

3) You're ignoring the fact that verse 10 is the second half of verse 9.

Quote:

{9} For we know in part and we prophesy in part, {10} but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

The Message translates it as:

Quote:

We know only a portion of the truth, and what we say about God is always incomplete. But when the Complete arrives, our incompletes will be canceled.

To my understanding, the verse is talking about prophesy and our ideas of God: when the perfect (God) comes, the imperfect (our human ideas of God) disappears.

4) You expected us to not "flame" you for stupidity? Are you serious?

5)

Quote:

Your correspondent is deeply confused. The KJV has a long history in the English language and many Protestant Christians are deeply attached to that translation because of its beauty and long established use. It is not, however, the most accurate translation available. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the NAB are both better. The problem with the KJV is basically that it is an okay translation of a bad text. By “bad text,” I mean that when the KJV translators worked, they had very few Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to work with, and most of them were late. Since then (1611), scholars have made a tremendous effort to uncover older, more reliable manuscripts that have been hidden in monasteries all over Europe and the Near East. Great progress was made in the 19th and 20th centuries, and we now have several thousand manuscripts of the New Testament alone (the KJV translators had a mere handful). All these manuscripts have been carefully compared with one another and, through a process known as “textual criticism,” scholars have determined which are the more reliable texts and reconstructed as closely as possible what the biblical writers originally wrote. - God Is For Suckers

P.S. I'm loving that you didn't even try to hide the fact that you just copy-pastsa'd that huge block of text. Seriously, put it in quotes, or at least remove the citations, Mr. Genius.