New Age-prevalent or p***e?

[Trinity]

Hello Dave,

dave52_47: You are right. Jesus was the founder of Christianity. He told Peter that He would build His church and "the gates of hell would not prevail against it." My problem with the "inclusion" of all of these 'rising savior' myths is that it denies the supernatural intervention of God the father, Jesus Christ after He ascended, and the Holy Spirit in the origin and building of this "body of Christ" as it was called. To say, or imply strongly, as you are continuing to do, that the origins of the church are in paganism because of 'similarities' between the two puts the church in a 'contrived', 'man-made' category, and denies that it was God's plan from the beginning. That's a serious a serious charge and it makes one wonder (if one were to believe such a thing) if Jesus is coming back for His 'bride'--the church, as scripture promise. That is the 'eschatological' significance (which you speak of in the next reply) of this line of thought. Either it was founded on Jesus Christ and built by the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles or it has no basis in God's plans for mankind. I would choose the former without blinking an eye.

Both of us, we are agreeing that Jesus is the founder of the Christianity. Though I think that the religious phenomenon was also influenced by the human factor, imagination and perception, throughout the ages. That does not exclude God as factor, also. The parallels between those myths into a period of fifteen hundred years (BC and during the CE), is factual, and that can not be accidental. There are too much of those examples. Those similarities are not always identical but they are close. However, Jesus is the real thing in that maze.

I would disagree with the last part. I said earlier that Protestanism wasn't born out of Catholicism. Protestantism had it's roots in 1st century Christianity. That's why I say that it actually preceded the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Are you showing a chronology of derivatives? You've really broadened your argument to the point where any religious group that has some semblance of Christianity in it is said to have been "spawned" by Christianity. You know there are some that claim to be Christian yet their doctrinal teachings are completely the opposite of Historic Christianity.

Any religion has a development. This is not something that is static, but this is something who is alive. There is many Hinduism sects, same thing with the Muslim and the Judaism. Christianity is not different on this matter. Only in the United States you can count more than 35,000 denominations. And this is not the end of this exponential explosion about the belief in Christ.

This is where you mentioned Mithraism:

Thank you. It was an indirect allusion. I accept your correction. However and also, I mentioned later that Mithraism was only a branch of something much more older, the Zoroastrianism. Christianity came out of the Judaism and Mithraism came out of the Zoroastrianism. Said like this it should be more understandable.

Here is a quote from Justyn Martyr, Apology I, 2nd Century--(from The Kingdom of the Occult-Walter Martin, Jill Rische Martin, Kurt Van Gorden, p. 107):

"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospel, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn." (emphasis mine).

What a travesty! And this clearly shows that it was an imitation of a Christian practice that was established by Christ's example. It has no meaning otherwise. This was a men only religion that had a great appeal to the Roman army.

For us, the first written account of the bread and wine ceremony can be found in Genesis 14 when Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham. However, the Zoroastrianism had also this kind of custom. We also had this story of the three wises men who searched the baby Jesus. Keep in mind that they were pagans but they also had some clues about his birth.

Osiris is the Son of Geb and Nut (earth & sky). He was torn into pieces and scattered around by his brother Set. He married his sister, Isis, (goddess of ferility, magic, and motherhood) and she gathered up the pieces and gave them to Egyptian embalmers and then he is resurrected. Osiris is a good daimon (demon), a created being who became a god. He was not born of a virgin and was one of many gods. We're talking polytheism big-time in Egyptian mythology. He was not God incarnate. He did not sacrifice for the sins of the world. He also later became a god of the underworld. His resurrection then, was spiritual--not physical. Hence, no salvation by grace through him. These are the parents of Horus. A demon who was elevated to godhood and a Goddess.

Yes, there are also distinctions. I never pretended that all stories were copied and totally identical. Some gods in the antiquity were only men. Greeks and Romans were good at this (demigods).

I wouldn't make too much of the winter solstice angle. Scripture doesn't state clearly that Jesus was born in the winter. There are several scholars who have suggested a spring birth. I surely don't have enough evidence one way or the other. An interesting note though: If He was born in the spring that would surely throw off the astrological charts based on His birth., i.e.; the beginning of the "piscean age".

And we will still celebrate the birth of Jesus on the 25th day of December. However, Jesus birth was possibly during the Autumn, late during this season. Not a time to sleep outside.

• Are you equating the 3 "solar deities' with the wisemen?

Not really. I am only comparing the two postulates. But the number three is fascinating, and the three wise men were astronomers.

Where is the evidence for a crucifixion? I'm not even sure that "crucifixion " was commonly practiced by the Egyptians. Could you cite a source on that?

I should have used the term "impalement". That was the kind of public execution everywhere, from Egypt to Babylon. Romans had only perfected this method. Jesus was not the only one who was crucified by the Romans.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23
If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Talah or 'ets (heb.)= hanging on a pole or stake.

"The Bible speaks also of hanging (Deut. xxi. 22), but, according to the rabbinical interpretation, not as a mode of execution, but rather of exposure after death (Sanh. vi. 4, 75b)."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...128&letter=C#0

I think the Sages wanted to soften the image of this kind of capital punishment.

I still don't see what this has to do with 'new age' except that the last time I encountered this "presumption" was on a 'new age ' forum on a different website.

The conversation turned in this direction because most of the the New Age beliefs came from the Eastern World. And this beliefs has nothing very new to give. An ashram Hindu in United States or an ashram in India is still an ashram.

Thanks for your patience waiting for replies back from me.

You are welcome.

Trinity