Here are some reasons why I will not do this anymore. The question is should YOU?

[truth]

The Roman Church (Namely the Catholic Church) took most of its features from Pagan mystery religions: vestments, pomp, ritual, mitre, wafer. When Western fundamentalist Christians try to argue that the Church took nothing from the mystery religions, they are not only arguing against sceptics and atheists, they are arguing also against the millions of protestant Christians whose protest was precisely that the Roman Church had adopted Pagan, largely Mithraic, practices.

The Vatican Hill in Rome considered sacred to Peter was previously sacred to Mithras. The cave of the Vatican was a Mithraeum until December 25, 376 AD, the birthday of the sun god, (Now well known as Christmas) when a city prefect suppressed Mithraism and seized the grotto in the name of Christ. Mithraic artefacts found in the Vatican Grotto were taken over by the Church of Rome.

The head of the Mithraic faith was the Pater Patrum, the 'Father of Fathers,' who sat in the Vatican cave. The Mithraic Holy father wore a red cap and garment and a ring, and carried a shepherd's staff. The head of the Christian faith, the bishop of Rome, adopted the same title and dressed himself in the same manner, becoming the 'Papa' or 'Father'—the Pope—who subsequently sat literally in the same seat in Rome as the Pater Patrum! The throne of St Peter at Rome is older than the Church. From the carved motifs decorating it, it was Mithraic.

All Christian priests, like Mithraic priests, became 'Father', despite an editor of Matthew's specific repudiation of this and several other rival religious habits on Jesus's behalf:

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. (Matthew 23:8-10)

The Magi, priests of Zoroaster, wore robes displaying the sword of Mithras. Identical robes are worn by Christian priests to this day. Why is the Pope's crown called a tiara, a Persian headdress? Why do Christian bishops wear a divided tiara called a mitre? Did they adopt the habit from Mithras's priests who wore a mitra (Greek) to signify their office and the duality of the world. Mithraists commemorated the ascension of Mithras by eating a mizd, a sun-shaped bun embossed with the sword (cross) of the god. This "hot cross bun" as the mass was adapted to Christianity and eventually degenerated to the communion wafer, though it is still the same design, in Catholic churches at least.

In the fourth century, Constantine effectively merged Mithraism with Christianity and the other solar cults of the Empire under the control of the Christian bishops. Roman Emperors from Julius Caesar to Gratian had been pontifex maximus, high priest of the Roman gods. When Theodosius refused the title as incompatible with his status as a Christian, the Christian bishop of Rome had no such qualms about taking the title. Patriarchal Pagan purists as well as worshippers of Isis defied official syncretism for a few hundred more years but after the beginning of the fifth century, the bishops were confident enough to purge Pagan religions. Paganism survived precariously for a while but illegally.

In 321 AD Constantine, still not officially a Christian, ordered that the "venerable day of the Sun" (That was for Sol Mithras Deus) should be a compulsory day of rest. And so it became, gradually taking on a stricter religious purity so that, despite the protestations of Luther that people should dance and feast on that day, the puritans took it over and turned it into a day to rival that of the Mosaic Law of the post-exilic Jewish priesthood!

There was a whole tradition in the Roman world of having Sunday as a sacred holiday and the early gentile Christians found it convenient to match it. Obviously Sunday was a special holy day for sun worshippers which included the worshippers of Mithras. Mithras was called Dominus, the Lord, and his sacred day was Sunday. So Sunday was The Lord's day long before the Christians took it as their sacred day. Because of the remnants of Nazarene tradition associating Jesus with the sun, justified by Malachi, and backed up by the tradition that Jesus had risen from the dead on a Sunday, it became customary even in the first century for Christians to meet on a Sunday. For Christians Sunday also became the Lord's Day. Irenaeus and Tertullian both thought the Lord's Day should be a day of rest.

Mithraism eventually died out after its suppression by the Christians in 376-377 AD. By then its doctrines and ceremonies had been absorbed into Christianity so it had little basis for an independent existence. The two religions had almost everything in common: a divine Lord who offered men salvation; a sacramental meal; baptism; the idea of the believers being crusaders against evil; an ultimate judgement of the soul; ideas of Heaven and Hell; a high moral code.


Think About it!

[beseder]

hi truth,
I agree with what is said here.
I just say that BIBLE was not forged together by these people.
These New testament writtings date back to the beginning of the 2nd century (at least we have manuscripts).
And there are other new testament writtings that were considered in authority (2 other ones) around this time.
so there ARE possibly two more books to the NT.

What we have now is good. However, there is a possibility that it is not complete. It would possibly change the idea that pseudo christianity has today.
But there is a true christianity that is hidden from many many people.
And the Messiah of this true christianity did not copy.

shalom u'bracha

[truth]

Shalom


Yes we do have manuscripts, something along the lines of 20,000 of them and not one agrees line for line or word for word. In fact there are many books of the so-called New Testament writings that were not canonized by the church that Constantine built. That doesn’t change the fact that the NT was first canonized by this very church that Constantine built with his own hands. Nor should one ignore the fact that Constantine worshipped and confused “Sol Dues Mithra” with the same very Christian man Gawd “Iesus”.

To him they were one and the same, the “SUN” and the “Son of Gawd” all at the same time.

Go figure!

Strangely enough the things you read about your Christ in the NT are so close t o the same things that the SUN/SON Mithra did it’s -------well it’s scary .

The real trouble is that this is not the only solar man gawd that you can say this very same thing about.

There is a whole slew of them!

The list is darn long! And long before the pagan emperor Constantine or his Mithric/Catholic Church.

If you have any doubts, please go to this link and take a hard look at the symbolisms that are displayed here:

http://www.jesuit.org/

Some how or another I think I see the SUN!

What do you see?

[truth]

Iesus and the sun

Do note the Jesuit seal in the far right hand corner of this page:

http://www.jesuit.org/

According to Roman Catholicism these letters IHS
are supposed to mean "Iesus Hominum Salvator"
Translated as "Jesus the Savior of Men"....hummm,
but why is it on an Idol of the SUN?

Perhaps this can shed some light on a very dark subject:

In the book “The Two Babylon’s” under the heading of

”The Sacrifice of the Mass”

"The importance, however, which Rome attaches to
the roundness of the wafer, must have a reason;
and that reason will be found, if we look at the
altars of Egypt. "The thin, round cake," says
Wilkinson, "occurs on all altars." Almost every
jot or tittle in the Egyptian worship had a symbolical meaning.

The round disk, so frequent in the sacred emblems
of Egypt, symbolized the sun. Now, when Osiris,
the sun-divinity, became incarnate, and was born,
it was not merely that he should give his life as a sacrifice for men, but that he might also be the life and nourishment of the souls of men." page 160

"In regard to the Pagan character of the "unbloody
sacrifice" of the mass, we have seen not little already.
But there is something yet to be considered, in which
the working of the mystery of iniquity will still further appear.

There are letters on the wafer that are worth reading.
These letters are I. H. S.

What mean these mystical letters?

To a Christian these letters are represented as signifying, "Iesus
Hominum Salvator," "Jesus the Savior of men."

But let a Roman worshipper of Isis (for in the age
of the emperors there were innumerable worshippers of Isis in Rome) cast his eyes upon them, and how will he read them?
He will read them, of course, according to his own well-known system of idolatry:

That system of the worship of "Isis, Horus, Seb,".

"The Mother, the Child, and the Father of the gods,"--in other words, "The Egyptian Trinity."

Can the reader imagine that this double sense is accidental?

Surely not!

Christainty is Sun/son worship! It has all the makings and Trappings and character that all the solar cults maintained to one degree or another throughout the ages.

This is truely not all that hard to figure out or to see for that matter.


All you have to do is look!

[EvrVexingOfOld]

looks like you have a problem

Many say that zoroasteriansm has influenced biblical writtings.

I am sure that you would say "no, only the new testament"

many say Mithra has also inflenced Old testament writtings.
You would disagree.

When i read the New testament- I can only see Old testament "prophecies" comming to life.

However, when I read the old testament, i see nothing but relations to many pagan religions and there is a site dedicated solely to bible (old testament) Mithra and zoroasterianism.
and there are many sites dedicated to showing the WHOLE ENCHILADA.

so it seems to me that you are also stuck in a borrowed religion.

If you can show me, with AAAAAALLLLL of the evidence out there, that the OT has not been influenced by ANY religion or codes- then be warned because that means that the NT follows its same boat.
And ORRRRR,
if you can show me how everything in the 4 gospels is not with hebrew mind frame of the time- even of the sages of time of this christ- and that none of what it says in the gospels in the OT and that it is made out of gentile minds as you claim (the catholics, obviously and evidently not hebrews or hellenist hebrews/ what the world would call jews) then i can and will believe that the NT is a totally different belief and writting.

However, when i read the new testament especially the gospels i read a nice over view of the entire OT.

explain otherwise, please
This no doubt is an arduous job ahead of you if it is not done already
buh-bye ciao

[truth]

Vex I am still waiting

http://www.lo-ammi.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=321&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

[Beulah]

Have ye not read?

Have ye not read?

Hello, all. This is my first time posting to the boards, which I chanced upon in a search engine--lucky me, yes? At any rate, I have found the other posts to this thread to be enlightening and informative, though I feel compelled to point out that there seems to be a point which has not yet been made regarding the "originality" of the Judeo-Christian texts and/or beliefs.

FYI, for what it's worth, I should probably first share my "credentials": I have nearly earned two master's degrees (just have to write my theses, first one this summer), with the first emphasis in English literature and linguistics (language stuff--semantics, rhetoric, semiotics, grammar, etymology, etc.), and the second in art history. I have always focused on Christian aspects in my studies, since this is an especially fruitful endeavor for art and literature of the Western Canon, which draws heavily on Judeo-Christian scriptures and traditions. I was raised in a bi-faith home (one parent from an ultra-Romish upbringing, and the other from an extremely anti-Romish, Protestant upbringing), and have been a non-denominational Christian for the last dozen years or so of my adult life.

That being said, it cannot be disputed (save by fools) that the so-called "Christian" religions (of which the Roman Catholic Church, or RCC, is the dominator, constituting approximately one-half of the 2 billion reputedly self-avowed Christians, i.e., one-sixth of the world's present population of 6 billion) are polluted with pagan customs which the RCC had adopted and modified so as to convert pagans readily, in order to win over their obedience and fatten its coffers. Every major Protestant leader of note has correctly identified the RCC and the Vatican City as the whore of Revelation and the beast on which she is seated.

The beast is identified as a city which has dominion over kings, and only one city in all of recorded history fits such a description, as kings typically have dominion over cities, not the other way around: The Vatican has demanded control over secular matters and temporal powers in the past, and is again actively petitioning for such authority beyond the confines of the religious realm. (John Paul II campaigned to make the RCC the official religion of the European Union, having as much ratified in its constitution; the ten countries which constitute the primary nations are those which had constituted those of the "Holy Roman Empire," and a former emperor of Spain--the first under said empire-- had been chosen for the first minting of the EU's money, to indicate their common heritage. Spain and Tyre are where the Kenites (the progeny of Satan, of whom the scriptures bear record in both the OT and NT) had migrated, and thus it should come as no surprise to astute Christians that the seat of the RCC's bloody and demonic Inquisition was in "Holy Toledo" in Spain, to where the wickedest of men were drawn.

This whore is given to be "the mother of harlots," meaning they follow after their wicked mother's ways. Of course, Protestant denominations have failed to recognize and concede that they are the harlots having sprung from the womb of their "mother church," who has whored after idolatrous customs--meaning the great apostasy of which Jesus had foretold includes the major, official Protestant denominations, with the RCC merely being singled out as the progenitor of the abominations (and guilty of horrific bloodshed, the latter of which is not the hallmark of the Protestant denominations, but of the RCC instead).

The scriptures attest that even though the people be numerous as the sands of the sea, in the latter days (which are, indeed, upon us), only a few will not concede to the idolatrous departures and filthy abominations of these so-called "Christian" religions. (Remember, one is to be reckoned a child of the living God not simply by a label, or circumcision of the flesh, but, according to Jesus, by one's conduct-- obeying God and loving one another, i.e., "by this sign shall ye be known, that ye show love one to another, even as I have loved you," and "wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them".)

So all so-called "Christian" denominations are polluted with pagan customs and practices, because they all derive from their whoring mother, the RCC, which had been the only so-called official "Christian" religion for 16 centuries, until the Reformation challenged its authority with enough momentum to pose a threat. But, the big question is, "How is this so?" Christianity and Judaism are supposed to be about discernment and distinction, not lumping together, copying, mixing, or permitting the leaven of false doctrine to contaminate the whole--leaven which manifests itself in the apostate borrowing of paganism. The root of the pagan infiltration into Christianity is, irrefutably, the Romish influence and power which had been exercised for centuries, but for the root of the pagan customs from which the RCC has drawn and poisoned other subsequent religions (because a few drops of cyanide can kill you just as effectively as a vat can, or a Vatican), we must go all the way back to beginning, with the "father of lies" identified by Jesus, i.e., Lucifer, aka, Satan.

Not only is he credited with being the most "subtle" (clever) of all creatures ever made, he is also the wickedest, having drawn a full third of the angels into rebellion against God, in trying to be ruler over even his creator, the Almighty God. Satan existed in the first world age (there are three--a past, present, and future, as Peter rightly notes), and having been created in the full pattern (according to the OT book of Ezekiel), knew full well what God's plan of salvation would involve, thus he planted the seeds of pagan worship, imitative but slightly different of God's rules, because, after all, he is the great counterfeiter, who will again visit mankind posing as Christ. ("Anti" in the Greek of the extant texts of the NT actually means "instead of," not "against," though, arguably, he who denies Christ by posing as him is also against God.)

These religious customs were established in Babylon, under the ministrations of the wicked and idolatrous Nimrod and Semiramis, and then disbursed throughout the world when the Tower of Babel (which they had ordered built) was destroyed and the people scattered, taking with them variations of the pagan customs planted in their cultures at Babylon. The NT parallels the OT, and the OT is said to be to provide "ensamples" (examples) for us in the latter times; just as the former city of Babylon (in present-day Iraq) was a fountainhead for diverse religious customs modeled after the iniquitous practices formed there, so, too, the RCC is the modern-day Babylon which has served as the fountainhead for the idolatrous customs (which Protestantism and Fundamentalist Christianity have not wholly shaken off or forsaken) of our times, and her destruction has been assured in Revelation, precisely because of her abominations and wicked bloodshedding (a practice which does not demonstrate love unto one another as Jesus had preached would be the identifying factor for God's own).

So there is a reason the so-called "Christian" religions are polluted with pagan customs, and Satan is that reason, because he knew well enough to plant "copycat" red herrings to be adopted by alternate-yet-comparable belief systems, because, let's face it, a counterfeiter's success depends on how well he can imitate or seemingly duplicate the real thing; if Satan could poison the well of thinking before the real deal were to arrive, everyone would think the genuine article were a phony, a hypocrite, or a copycat.

Food for thought...

In His Service,
Beulah

P.S. Oh yes, and Jesus, as a law-abiding Jew, did not consume communion wafers (the cakes prepared by the women of OT, whom had been "weeping for Tammuz"); the scriptures attest that he broke BREAD.

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." (Rev 22:21)