59
   

How much of Christianity is based on Paganism?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 02:45 pm
@edgarblythe,
How do you think wikipedia got written? y people who started and edited articles. The fact that people edit articles is a proof that the site is still growing and improving. Otherwise it'd be a dead site.

Wikipedia is the best thing to ever come out of the Internet.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 02:47 pm
@izzythepush,
I'm pocking fun at the thumb monkey(s). Why would that bother you? :-)
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 03:24 pm
@Setanta,
I don't argue for argument's sake. As a source of knowledge, Wikipedia beats any other website hands down, including OF COURSE A2K the misnamed... And that is in part because the business model of Wikipedia is more robust and less naive about human nature and about the incentives for disinformation than this place.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 03:30 pm
@Olivier5,
You're giving them what they want. I was just letting you know.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 03:35 pm
@edgarblythe,
Years and years ago, The Girl and some others were arguing with McGentrix. So he went off to Wikipedia, signed up, and then edited an article to support his claim--which the article had previously refuted. The Girl contacted Wikipedia, and the article was fixed. McGentrix got banned from there, or rather, whatever name and e-mail he had given was banned. Really, i suppose the only surprise should be that this has not happened on a large scale much sooner.

With the christian vandals, they were rather stupid to begin with. In the article on the historicity of Jesus, they claimed that Trajan's letter to Pliny was evidence for Jesus. That was stupid and clumsy. One might try to argue that Pliny's letter to the emperor is such evidence, although that would be a stretch. But there is no way Trajan's letter could be such evidence--he doesn't even mention christians. That must have been an embarrassment to them. There was a whole pile of specious crap in that article, too. The editorial staff just completely restored the previous text.

Eventually, though, the nickel dropped, and now they just go in an make insertions, and then battle with the ones who dispute their claims on the talk page. That works much better, because their changes stay until the dispute is resolved, and if it is not resolved,, then the changes stand. Then they whine about staff editors who put the "citation needed" tag in the text. Their methods are insidious, and as they perfect them, they are effective. I think others are taking a page from their play book, too.

I just deleted a long description of another gross error in a Wikipedia article which i find has now been fixed. But then, the Hundred Years War is not a rligiously or politically controversial subject, and those who do care about military history care passionately about accuracy, which is, i suspect, whey the article was corrected just ten days ago. When the subject is religion or political ideology, or even just influenced by then, i think the odds of corrections being made and maintained, is very low.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 04:03 pm
@izzythepush,
Would you let them monkeys know that I find their compulsive thumbing very funny? Thanks...
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 04:06 pm
BTW, on wikipedia, the most contentious articles have been "locked" for years, not editable by the average joe. They have the tools.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 04:06 pm
@Olivier5,
I'm sure they can read it for themselves, and they'll probably realise you're lying too. (You're not very good at it.)
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 04:10 pm
@izzythepush,
Monkeys can't read, Izzy... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 05:08 pm
The fact is that Wikipedia, like the forums here, is ruled and edited in accord to the views of the owner(s) of the website. And there is nothing wrong with this fact.

If someone wants to know who is the owner or what his orientation is about, you can write to the Wikipedia administrator and the reply from him will start with this salute: "Shalom... my name is...."

______________________________________________

Christianity is just a nickname given by others to the followers of the resurrected Jesus.

Jesus is the person who has received the headship of the priesthood of the Order of Melchizedec. This order existed before the Levitical order which started in the years of Moses.

The new religious order consisted in continuing with the existing levitical order, but knowing that such is temporary and not the primary one. Even the Temple passed to destruction in order to fulfill the extermination of the levitical priesthood as the main religious guidance.

The new Temple will be administrated by the high priest of the order of Melchizedec, which is assumed to be Jesus. Of course, as the biblical relates explain, before this event takes action, first will be a fake prophet who will try to supplant the true high priest.

Now well, the followers of the new priesthood were supposed to continue assisting to the existing synagogs. But, as many Jews refused to accept the new priesthood, these synagogs converted themselves into "sin-agogs" (Lol)

The problem got worst when gentiles caused the adoption of former religious customs and mixed them with the little bit they knew about the order of Melchizedec.

From one side, the Orthodox Jews rejected the idea that pork flesh eating people can participate in their synagogs, and on the other side gentiles took the wrong impression that another opportunity has been denied to the Jews in order to participate in the new religious order.

With all this scenario of confusion from everywhere, the new generations of Christians were never informed of their true mission and roots, and they decided to separate themselves completely from everything given to the Levitical priesthood.

This grave error caused Christianity to adopt with more frequency other religious rituals and holy days from other peoples and cultures.

And again, the same Israelites in the desert were worshiping other gods while following Moses for forty years. There are biblical narrations of prophets accusing them of being doing so in times of Moses and in times of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Even today, the most Jewish orthodox synagogs fall in copying a kind of idolatrous worship when considered the Torah as written "before the creation of the universe" and is touched in their services as a sacred item.

We cannot expect less from current Christians when they still follow religious customs from other ancient cultures.

Of course, the percent of influence of other religions in the doctrines of Christianity is huge.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 06:34 pm
@Setanta,
There is a biography on there of a man I have dealt with and communicated with he and his wife for at least fifteen years. The article follows the facts accurately in outline, but every point is stated in a way calculated to make the unknowing consider this an evil person. It is sickening that things like this are allowed.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 06:54 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
There is a biography on there of a man I have dealt with and communicated with he and his wife for at least fifteen years. The article follows the facts accurately in outline, but every point is stated in a way calculated to make the unknowing consider this an evil person. It is sickening that things like this are allowed.


Did you try to tell them in the discussion sheet? The thing with Wikipedia is that, the users make it. It's in essence a provider of user content. It's both a strength and a weakness. But there is an oversight system, and each 'project' is managed by a set of editors. If those are in effect the guilty party, your acquaintance can take it up with:

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
149 New Montgomery Street
Floor 6
San Francisco, CA 94105
USA
Phone: +1-415-839-6885
Fax: +1-415-882-0495
infowikimedia.org
Please note: we receive a large number of calls, so email or fax is always a better first option.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us


0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 07:09 pm
I'm hoping someone here will be more in the know about the info listed at this website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

Partial list of what's on that page:

Quote:
Many early Christians celebrated Jesus' birthday on JAN-6. Armenian Christians still do. In Alexandria, in what is now Egypt, the birthday of their god-man, Aion, was also celebrated on JAN-6.
bullet Christians and most Pagans eventually celebrated the birthday of their god-man on DEC-25.
bullet According to an ancient Christian tradition, Christ died on MAR-23 and resurrected on MAR-25. These dates agree precisely with the death and resurrection of Attis.
bullet Baptism was a principal ritual; it washed away a person's sins. In some rituals, Baptism was performed by sprinkling holy water on the believer; in others, the person was totally immersed.
bullet The most important sacrament was a ritual meal of bread and wine which symbolize the god-man's body and blood. His followers were accused of engaging in cannibalism.
bullet Early Christians initiated converts in March and April by baptism. Mithraism initiated their new members at this time as well.
bullet Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches.
bullet At Pentecost, the followers of Jesus were recorded as speaking in tongues. At Trophonius and Delos, the Pagan priestesses also spoke in tongues: They appeared to speak in such a way that each person present heard her words in the observer's own language.
bullet An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." 1 In John 6:53-54, Jesus is said to have repeated this theme: "...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)
bullet The Bible records that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. One went to heaven and the other to hell. In the Mithras mysteries, a common image showed Mithras flanked by two torchbearers, one on either side. One held a torch pointed upwards, the other downwards. This symbolized ascent to heaven or descent to hell.
bullet In Attis, a bull was slaughtered while on a perforated platform. The animal's blood flowed down over an initiate who stood in a pit under the platform. The believer was then considered to have been "born again." Poor people could only afford a sheep, and so were literally washed in the blood of the lamb. This practice was interpreted symbolically by Christians.
bullet There were many additional points of similarity between Mithraism and Christianity. 2 St. Augustine even declared that the priests of Mithraism worshiped the same God as he did:
bullet Followers of both religions celebrated a ritual meal involving bread. It was called a missa in Latin or mass in English.
bullet Both the Catholic church and Mithraism had a total of seven sacraments.
bullet Epiphany, JAN-6, was originally the festival in which the followers of Mithra celebrated the visit of the Magi to their newborn god-man. The Christian Church took it over in the 9th century.
...
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 07:32 pm
@FBM,
Most of it more or less true.
Paul predicted the degradation of true Christianity in Acts 20:29
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 01:04 am
@FBM,
I highly recommend Religious-Tolerance-dot-org for the information they provide.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 02:50 am
They do seem to be fair-minded about it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 02:55 am
I've used their information for years. They cite sources, and it is my experience that their material is unbiased.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 03:01 am
In that case, I'll use them as a resource instead of Wiki whenever possible. Less contentious that way, seems.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 03:08 am
They certainly have stronger editorial controls. Another good source for those who are willing to wade through the scholarship is Early Christian Writings-dot-com
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 03:19 am
@Setanta,
Had a gander at that and bookmarked it. It's right up my alley. Thanks for pointing me to it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/06/2022 at 02:15:40