Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: << lovingpurelove >> The Pagan Roots of Christ

Expand Messages
  • peter daley
    Hello Steve, I am sending this extract about the Four gospels from my book, which you might like: There is an account of how the Four Gospels were chosen for
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 15, 2009
      Hello Steve,
      I am sending this extract about the Four gospels from my book, which you might like:
       

      "There is an account of how the Four Gospels were chosen for the foundation of Catholic teaching. Some writers of the period asserted that the council of Nicea comprised 318    bishops who were illiterate, apart from two named who were well known to be scholars, and of course the Emperor.

       

       Quoting from the book Isis Unveiled by Helena P.Blavatsky :

       Notwithstanding the grandiloquent eulogium of Constantine, Sabinus the Bishop of Heraclea affirms that, ”except Constantine, the emperor, and Eusabius Pamphilus (bishop of Caesarea) these bishops were a set of illiterates, simple creatures that understood nothing”.

       

      Quoting further from the same chapter of Isis Unveiled::

       In his Synodicon to that Council Pappus says:  “Having promiscuously put all the books that were referred to the Council of Nicea (June19.th 325) for determination under the communion-table in a church, they (the bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath; and it happened accordingly.”

       

      The divinity of Jesus was the most contentious of the Nicaean debates, the side that said he was God won over those who denied it. Eventually, reference to reincarnation was forbidden, and the idea that priests should be celibate became the rule.

      In recent times a number of the so-called spurious gospels have been discovered including one by Philip, another by James and one by a woman thought to have been Mary Magdalene."

       

       

       

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 7:25 AM
      Subject: << lovingpurelove >> The Pagan Roots of Christ

      The Pagan Roots of Christ
      December 7th, 2007 by stv

      Just when I thought I was done discussing the pagan roots of Christmas I stumbled across this really interesting documentary, The Pagan Christ, on the CBC last night. The film dealt mainly with the issues raised by Tom Harpur’s book The Pagan Christ: Recovering The Lost Light. The book examines the strange correlations between the Gospels of the New Testament and the ancient Egyptian myth of Horus. Apparently, according to all these ancient rolls of papyrus decoded using the Rosetta Stone, there are about 180 elements of Horus’ story that end up in the New Testament, including divine conception, being born in a hovel, the visit of the 3 mystic sages, the gathering of 12 disciples, rubbing the authorities the wrong way, being crucified (evidently not a Roman invention), and the resurrection. Apparently his birth was also celebrated around December 25th, and even terms such as the “son of man” and the “lamb of God” have their roots in the Horus myth. I thought it a strange coincidence that when I start coming to terms with the fact that the biggest Christian holiday is really borrowed from the ancient celebrations of pagan sun gods (most notably Mithra & Saturn) I find out that Christ himself might simply be an embellishment of another ancient sun god. Evidentally, even names like Christ and Mary have roots in ancient Egyptian.

      During the course of the documentary, there was also talk of how the first Christian Emperor of Rome, Constantine I, really shaped the church in his own image. He had struggled with many warring factions to eventually become the undisputed leader of Rome, and then, after converting, he held the First Council of Nicaea to get universal agreement on what the heck this Jesus fellow was all about anyway. What were originally dozens of Gospels were whittled down to the four we know today, the ones that agreed most with what Constantine wanted his new God to be all about. Oddly enough, when he couldn’t get universal agreement upon what Christianity should be all about, he used his power to clean things up. Apparently, it made the old Roman practice of feeding Christians to the lions seem trivial in comparison. People who preached a different interpretation of Christ suddenly lost their heads (quite literally, I’m afraid), and whole libraries were burned if they were found to house documents that offered an alternate interpretation of Jesus’ story. Who knows what wisdom and information was lost in the process?

      There was also a theory put forth that one of Constantine’s bishops had a few extra-curricular activities of which he was quite boastful, which included altering respected histories of Josephus, a first century Jewish scholar “who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70.” Apparently there’s quite a bit of controversy as to whether or not Josephus’ references to Jesus are genuinely his. And the real kicker is that Josephus’ writings about Christ seem to be the most solid evidence that that Jesus of Nazareth even existed.

      It just makes me wonder sometimes. I make no bones about the fact that I refuse to subscribe to any organized view of religion because the dogma imposed by the less-than-perfect humans that end up organizing religions instantly remove them from whatever spark of divinity gave them fuel in the first place. And what with the founder of Catholicism looking about enlightened as his modern day self-proclaimed “good Christian” world leader equivalents (I’m looking at you, Dubya), it’s doubtful that he did a very faithful job interpreting the supposed will of God. I mean, he used the story of a homeless wandering ascetic to found a ministry enshrined in palatial opulence, almost as if Jesus’ “teachings” didn’t teach him anything.

      Whether or not there’s any truth to Harpur’s claims remains to be seen, but I guess the same could easily be said of Constantine’s interpretation of the divine, as well as all the traditions (such as the various schisms, splinter groups, Protestants, etc..) that sprang from it. History always seems to be written by the victors, while alternative points of view tend to get left in the dust. So, if you’re looking for “the truth,” keep looking.

      http://www.stevecha tterton.com/ 2007/12/07/ the-pagan- roots-of- christ/

    • Grace Hope
      The Pagan Roots of Christ December 7th, 2007 by stv Just when I thought I was done discussing the pagan roots of Christmas I stumbled across this really
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 1, 2009
        The Pagan Roots of Christ
        December 7th, 2007 by stv

        Just when I thought I was done discussing the pagan roots of Christmas I stumbled across this really interesting documentary, The Pagan Christ, on the CBC last night. The film dealt mainly with the issues raised by Tom Harpur’s book The Pagan Christ: Recovering The Lost Light. The book examines the strange correlations between the Gospels of the New Testament and the ancient Egyptian myth of Horus. Apparently, according to all these ancient rolls of papyrus decoded using the Rosetta Stone, there are about 180 elements of Horus’ story that end up in the New Testament, including divine conception, being born in a hovel, the visit of the 3 mystic sages, the gathering of 12 disciples, rubbing the authorities the wrong way, being crucified (evidently not a Roman invention), and the resurrection. Apparently his birth was also celebrated around December 25th, and even terms such as the “son of man” and the “lamb of God” have their roots in the Horus myth. I thought it a strange coincidence that when I start coming to terms with the fact that the biggest Christian holiday is really borrowed from the ancient celebrations of pagan sun gods (most notably Mithra & Saturn) I find out that Christ himself might simply be an embellishment of another ancient sun god. Evidentally, even names like Christ and Mary have roots in ancient Egyptian.

        During the course of the documentary, there was also talk of how the first Christian Emperor of Rome, Constantine I, really shaped the church in his own image. He had struggled with many warring factions to eventually become the undisputed leader of Rome, and then, after converting, he held the First Council of Nicaea to get universal agreement on what the heck this Jesus fellow was all about anyway. What were originally dozens of Gospels were whittled down to the four we know today, the ones that agreed most with what Constantine wanted his new God to be all about. Oddly enough, when he couldn’t get universal agreement upon what Christianity should be all about, he used his power to clean things up. Apparently, it made the old Roman practice of feeding Christians to the lions seem trivial in comparison. People who preached a different interpretation of Christ suddenly lost their heads (quite literally, I’m afraid), and whole libraries were burned if they were found to house documents that offered an alternate interpretation of Jesus’ story. Who knows what wisdom and information was lost in the process?

        There was also a theory put forth that one of Constantine’s bishops had a few extra-curricular activities of which he was quite boastful, which included altering respected histories of Josephus, a first century Jewish scholar “who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70.” Apparently there’s quite a bit of controversy as to whether or not Josephus’ references to Jesus are genuinely his. And the real kicker is that Josephus’ writings about Christ seem to be the most solid evidence that that Jesus of Nazareth even existed.

        It just makes me wonder sometimes. I make no bones about the fact that I refuse to subscribe to any organized view of religion because the dogma imposed by the less-than-perfect humans that end up organizing religions instantly remove them from whatever spark of divinity gave them fuel in the first place. And what with the founder of Catholicism looking about enlightened as his modern day self-proclaimed “good Christian” world leader equivalents (I’m looking at you, Dubya), it’s doubtful that he did a very faithful job interpreting the supposed will of God. I mean, he used the story of a homeless wandering ascetic to found a ministry enshrined in palatial opulence, almost as if Jesus’ “teachings” didn’t teach him anything.

        Whether or not there’s any truth to Harpur’s claims remains to be seen, but I guess the same could easily be said of Constantine’s interpretation of the divine, as well as all the traditions (such as the various schisms, splinter groups, Protestants, etc..) that sprang from it. History always seems to be written by the victors, while alternative points of view tend to get left in the dust. So, if you’re looking for “the truth,” keep looking.

        http://www.stevechatterton.com/2007/12/07/the-pagan-roots-of-christ/

      • candleflame52
        Very interesting material, Peter. Reincarnation was originally in the Bible, but they removed it except for one excerpt which they forgot. This is from King
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 3, 2009
          Very interesting material, Peter. Reincarnation was originally in the
          Bible, but they removed it except for one excerpt which they forgot.
          This is from King James contemporary English bible:

          Matthew 11: 13-14
          "All the Books of the Prophets and the Law of Moses told what was
          going to happen up to the time of John (the Baptist). And if you
          believe them, John is Elijah, the prophet you are waiting for."

          It says the same in Mark 9:13, depending which version of the bible
          you look into. I think this is from the Jerusalem bible version: "But
          I tell you, Elijah has come, but they did not recognize him and have
          done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."
          And the apostles realized Jesus was talking about John the Baptist.

          Blessings,
          Grace

          --- In lovingpurelove@yahoogroups.com, "peter daley" <phdaley@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Hello Steve,
          > I am sending this extract about the Four gospels from my book,
          which you might like:
          >
          > "There is an account of how the Four Gospels were chosen for the
          foundation of Catholic teaching. Some writers of the period asserted
          that the council of Nicea comprised 318 bishops who were
          illiterate, apart from two named who were well known to be scholars,
          and of course the Emperor.
          >
          >
          >
          > Quoting from the book Isis Unveiled by Helena P.Blavatsky :
          >
          > Notwithstanding the grandiloquent eulogium of Constantine, Sabinus
          the Bishop of Heraclea affirms that, "except Constantine, the
          emperor, and Eusabius Pamphilus (bishop of Caesarea) these bishops
          were a set of illiterates, simple creatures that understood nothing".
          >
          >
          >
          > Quoting further from the same chapter of Isis Unveiled::
          >
          > In his Synodicon to that Council Pappus says: "Having
          promiscuously put all the books that were referred to the Council of
          Nicea (June19.th 325) for determination under the communion-table in
          a church, they (the bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired
          writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained
          underneath; and it happened accordingly."
          >
          >
          >
          > The divinity of Jesus was the most contentious of the Nicaean
          debates, the side that said he was God won over those who denied it.
          Eventually, reference to reincarnation was forbidden, and the idea
          that priests should be celibate became the rule.
          >
          > In recent times a number of the so-called spurious gospels have
          been discovered including one by Philip, another by James and one by
          a woman thought to have been Mary Magdalene."
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Grace Hope
          > To: lovingpurelove@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 7:25 AM
          > Subject: << lovingpurelove >> The Pagan Roots of Christ
          >
          >
          >
          > The Pagan Roots of Christ
          > December 7th, 2007 by stv
          >
          > Just when I thought I was done discussing the pagan roots of
          Christmas I stumbled across this really interesting documentary, The
          Pagan Christ, on the CBC last night. The film dealt mainly with the
          issues raised by Tom Harpur's book The Pagan Christ: Recovering The
          Lost Light. The book examines the strange correlations between the
          Gospels of the New Testament and the ancient Egyptian myth of Horus.
          Apparently, according to all these ancient rolls of papyrus decoded
          using the Rosetta Stone, there are about 180 elements of Horus' story
          that end up in the New Testament, including divine conception, being
          born in a hovel, the visit of the 3 mystic sages, the gathering of 12
          disciples, rubbing the authorities the wrong way, being crucified
          (evidently not a Roman invention), and the resurrection. Apparently
          his birth was also celebrated around December 25th, and even terms
          such as the "son of man" and the "lamb of God" have their roots in
          the Horus myth. I thought it a strange coincidence that when I start
          coming to terms with the fact that the biggest Christian holiday is
          really borrowed from the ancient celebrations of pagan sun gods (most
          notably Mithra & Saturn) I find out that Christ himself might simply
          be an embellishment of another ancient sun god. Evidentally, even
          names like Christ and Mary have roots in ancient Egyptian.
          >
          > During the course of the documentary, there was also talk of how
          the first Christian Emperor of Rome, Constantine I, really shaped the
          church in his own image. He had struggled with many warring factions
          to eventually become the undisputed leader of Rome, and then, after
          converting, he held the First Council of Nicaea to get universal
          agreement on what the heck this Jesus fellow was all about anyway.
          What were originally dozens of Gospels were whittled down to the four
          we know today, the ones that agreed most with what Constantine wanted
          his new God to be all about. Oddly enough, when he couldn't get
          universal agreement upon what Christianity should be all about, he
          used his power to clean things up. Apparently, it made the old Roman
          practice of feeding Christians to the lions seem trivial in
          comparison. People who preached a different interpretation of Christ
          suddenly lost their heads (quite literally, I'm afraid), and whole
          libraries were burned if they were found to house documents that
          offered an alternate interpretation of Jesus' story. Who knows what
          wisdom and information was lost in the process?
          >
          > There was also a theory put forth that one of Constantine's
          bishops had a few extra-curricular activities of which he was quite
          boastful, which included altering respected histories of Josephus, a
          first century Jewish scholar "who survived and recorded the
          Destruction of Jerusalem in 70." Apparently there's quite a bit of
          controversy as to whether or not Josephus' references to Jesus are
          genuinely his. And the real kicker is that Josephus' writings about
          Christ seem to be the most solid evidence that that Jesus of Nazareth
          even existed.
          >
          > It just makes me wonder sometimes. I make no bones about the fact
          that I refuse to subscribe to any organized view of religion because
          the dogma imposed by the less-than-perfect humans that end up
          organizing religions instantly remove them from whatever spark of
          divinity gave them fuel in the first place. And what with the founder
          of Catholicism looking about enlightened as his modern day self-
          proclaimed "good Christian" world leader equivalents (I'm looking at
          you, Dubya), it's doubtful that he did a very faithful job
          interpreting the supposed will of God. I mean, he used the story of a
          homeless wandering ascetic to found a ministry enshrined in palatial
          opulence, almost as if Jesus' "teachings" didn't teach him anything.
          >
          > Whether or not there's any truth to Harpur's claims remains to be
          seen, but I guess the same could easily be said of Constantine's
          interpretation of the divine, as well as all the traditions (such as
          the various schisms, splinter groups, Protestants, etc..) that sprang
          from it. History always seems to be written by the victors, while
          alternative points of view tend to get left in the dust. So, if
          you're looking for "the truth," keep looking.
          >
          > http://www.stevechatterton.com/2007/12/07/the-pagan-roots-of-
          christ/
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.