The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (country, American, member, speakers)

[covle]

what i initially meant was that the concept of christianity is made up.
Emperor Constantine of the roman empire is known to have construacted it. the ancent world was dominated by the pagan religious "mysteries". as the christian fairht was rising and the pagan world was shrinking constantine made christianity the official roman emprire religion. but the pagans wouldnt just switch religiongs, obviously. so the two were combined. for example halo's were the pagan sundiscs, sunday was the religious day of resting, whereas initially the christians sabbath was a saturday. etc ertc
but the jesus story is a myth. the pagans had similar religious "god-men" that died and were resurrected. the greeks called him dionysus, egyptions osiris, syrians adonis etc etc.
he was also a wonderchild born of god to a virgin mother, who was killed in differing but basically the same ways, hung, didmembered, everything. their birthdays were december 25th, celebrated a festival very similar to easter at the same time...etcetc
i was just wondering what modern christians thought or knew of all this, that christianity is not the revolutionary religion it claims to be, its not even original

[adidasss]

Originally Posted by covle

what i initially meant was that the concept of christianity is made up.
Emperor Constantine of the roman empire is known to have construacted it. the ancent world was dominated by the pagan religious "mysteries". as the christian fairht was rising and the pagan world was shrinking constantine made christianity the official roman emprire religion. but the pagans wouldnt just switch religiongs, obviously. so the two were combined. for example halo's were the pagan sundiscs, sunday was the religious day of resting, whereas initially the christians sabbath was a saturday. etc ertc
but the jesus story is a myth. the pagans had similar religious "god-men" that died and were resurrected. the greeks called him dionysus, egyptions osiris, syrians adonis etc etc.
he was also a wonderchild born of god to a virgin mother, who was killed in differing but basically the same ways, hung, didmembered, everything. their birthdays were december 25th, celebrated a festival very similar to easter at the same time...etcetc
i was just wondering what modern christians thought or knew of all this, that christianity is not the revolutionary religion it claims to be, its not even original

not only did you not prove your point but you've made yourself look ridiculous, Constantine made up Christianity?! the only thing he did was declare it one of the official religions of the roman empire under the increased pressure because it was a religion that was expanding like no other before it and was becoming a very powerful factor in roman society ( he himself was not a Christian, as far as i remember ), the concept of Christianity was very original, and so were the teachings of Jesus, especially when you consider the surroundings in which they were born ( Judaism and paganism), the concept to turn the other cheek and love everyone like you love yourself, that every creature is equal in the eyes of God was incredibly revolutional ( and that's why many people, even the ones that don't believe Jesus was God, think of him as a revolutionary who's ideas and teachings eventually got him killed)
i don't know what your point is with the original sunday being a Sabbath ( duh, the first Christians were Jews ), and as far as i know they changed the day so they can be differentiated from the Jews, and it was/is proven that Jesus was a historical person and actually existed by numerous sources....
and i don't know what's the purpose in mentioning the dates of Christian holidays, everyone knows that Jesus was probably not born on the 25th of december, those dates are a construction of mankind and their only purpose is that on one day in a year we remember the birth of Jesus or his resurrection, and everyone knows that with all the changes in the calendar, even if Jesus was born on the 25th of december, that date doesn't correspond with today's 25th of decembre and this, in fact, is probably not 2004th year after the birth of Jesus....
i suggest you read the new testament and the wonderful messages Jesus had for all mankind and stop paying attention to insignificant things such as the random similarities between Christianity and other religions...this world would be paradise if everyone lived according to His teachings...

[covle]

[QUOTE=adidasss]

FINALLY! thankyou, this is what i was after as a response.
constantine combined the two dominant religions of his time, and is largely respected by historians for this. he was babtised against his wish on his deathbed, believing that would attain for all his sins.
as for a historical jesus, i believed that there was historical evidence also. apparently not. the romans reported everything they did. everything is documented, especially the enforcing of the law. you would think that messiah being judged and crucified would be somewhere? but it is not. there is nothing anywhere in roman documents from that time or before it about a man called jesus. he is m entioned, briefly i believe in the late 2nd century as the leader of the "mischieveous christians". if you can find something, please send it to me, as i have looked for a few months and can find nothing.
the 25th of december and 6 of jan(which early christians also celebrated) were pagan festivals, celebrated in egypt for centuries.
i went to christian schools for 13 years, im aware of the new testament. AND its hypocrassies. over half of them have been proven forged. if youw ere aware of the rediculously large amountof similarities, you wouldn't refer to them as "insignificant".
there were actually hundreds of christian gospels. but the four of the new testament are said to be eye witness accounts. but they agree on very little.
in matthew and david they both go to great length to show jesus is of the line of david, as the messiah should. both see jesus as fathered by joseph, but the lines of heritage are extremely different after the first generation. david continues all the way to adam, and thus to god. but this is fairly ridiculous as both claim joseph is not jesus' father at all, and mary is a virgin concieved of the holy spirit. this contradiction must have been noticed by the original writers? mark, however, doesnt mention bethlehem, the virgin birth, or jesus' lineage. these are fairly important points arent they? why omit them? some are even humorous. luke states that jesus was born in 6CE at the time of the census of Quirinious. then he contradicts himself saying john (the baptist) and jesus were concieved six month apart during the reign of Herod who died in 4 BC, which means he has created another miracle-a ten year pregnancy. even the events of jesus's crucifixionare not uniformly accounted in the gospels, and the historicity of jesus is what the literalist church is built upon! paul even states that jesus was not crucified but "hanged on a gibbet" and peter in the acts of the apostles "hung on a tree". the same indecisiveness is recorded about judas iscariot and even jesus' last words. even jesus himself isnt consistent in the gospels. in matthew peter asks his master "lord, how many times shall my brother wrong me and i forgive him? up to seven times?" jesus replies "im not telling you up to seven times, im telling you up to seventy seven times!"(18v22) and yet, why peter had to ask is uncertain, one paragraph earlier jesus stated:
"if your brother wrongs you, go have it out with him, just you and him. if he listens, you've gained your brother back. if he doesnt listen, bring one or two along with you, so that everything said stands on the word of two or three wtinesses. if he wont listen to them, speak up at a meeting. if he wont listen to the assembly, let him be the same to you as the foreigner and the tax-collector."(18v15-17). the gospels are inconsistent, and to early christians were 'phrase one' of christianity. thus pauls claim of reaching the "third tier of heaven" makes sense. and though the teaachings are as you say wonderful and beautiful, they are in no means original

[adidasss]

[QUOTE=covle]

Originally Posted by adidasss

FINALLY! thankyou, this is what i was after as a response.
constantine combined the two dominant religions of his time, and is largely respected by historians for this. he was babtised against his wish on his deathbed, believing that would attain for all his sins.
as for a historical jesus, i believed that there was historical evidence also. apparently not. the romans reported everything they did. everything is documented, especially the enforcing of the law. you would think that messiah being judged and crucified would be somewhere? but it is not. there is nothing anywhere in roman documents from that time or before it about a man called jesus. he is m entioned, briefly i believe in the late 2nd century as the leader of the "mischieveous christians". if you can find something, please send it to me, as i have looked for a few months and can find nothing.
the 25th of december and 6 of jan(which early christians also celebrated) were pagan festivals, celebrated in egypt for centuries.
i went to christian schools for 13 years, im aware of the new testament. AND its hypocrassies. over half of them have been proven forged. if youw ere aware of the rediculously large amountof similarities, you wouldn't refer to them as "insignificant".
there were actually hundreds of christian gospels. but the four of the new testament are said to be eye witness accounts. but they agree on very little.
in matthew and david they both go to great length to show jesus is of the line of david, as the messiah should. both see jesus as fathered by joseph, but the lines of heritage are extremely different after the first generation. david continues all the way to adam, and thus to god. but this is fairly ridiculous as both claim joseph is not jesus' father at all, and mary is a virgin concieved of the holy spirit. this contradiction must have been noticed by the original writers? mark, however, doesnt mention bethlehem, the virgin birth, or jesus' lineage. these are fairly important points arent they? why omit them? some are even humorous. luke states that jesus was born in 6CE at the time of the census of Quirinious. then he contradicts himself saying john (the baptist) and jesus were concieved six month apart during the reign of Herod who died in 4 BC, which means he has created another miracle-a ten year pregnancy. even the events of jesus's crucifixionare not uniformly accounted in the gospels, and the historicity of jesus is what the literalist church is built upon! paul even states that jesus was not crucified but "hanged on a gibbet" and peter in the acts of the apostles "hung on a tree". the same indecisiveness is recorded about judas iscariot and even jesus' last words. even jesus himself isnt consistent in the gospels. in matthew peter asks his master "lord, how many times shall my brother wrong me and i forgive him? up to seven times?" jesus replies "im not telling you up to seven times, im telling you up to seventy seven times!"(18v22) and yet, why peter had to ask is uncertain, one paragraph earlier jesus stated:
"if your brother wrongs you, go have it out with him, just you and him. if he listens, you've gained your brother back. if he doesnt listen, bring one or two along with you, so that everything said stands on the word of two or three wtinesses. if he wont listen to them, speak up at a meeting. if he wont listen to the assembly, let him be the same to you as the foreigner and the tax-collector."(18v15-17). the gospels are inconsistent, and to early christians were 'phrase one' of christianity. thus pauls claim of reaching the "third tier of heaven" makes sense. and though the teaachings are as you say wonderful and beautiful, they are in no means original

all the mistakes you have mentioned are man made errors, the new testament was written by men, extraordinary men, but men non the less, and as my priest has explained to me, their gospels were written out of memory, i'm sure they did their best to record the events as truthfully as possible but can you do that? write down all those pages about houndreds of events that took place during some 3 years ( if i'm not mistaken )maybe even more? i think not....that being said, i was completely unaware of their inconsitencies as far as the way Jesus died, if that is true, that is indeed a humongous mistake to make, one that has nothing to do with faulty mamories, his death should have been pretty clear to all of them,so i will have to do some research about that
as far as Jesus being a direct descendant of David i always thought that was unneccessary , if he is a Son of God and Mary's conception was immaculate, that's all i need, but i think they were trying to connect it to David so as to prove a point to the Jews and their prophecies, to me, it doesn't matter and clearly has nothing to do with Jesus being God..
as far as constantine, i still don't see what he had to do with the invention of christian religion, he may have combined some pagan rituals or ceremonies with the christian religion, but the religion itself was unaffected by him, so you'll have to do better than just saying it to make me believe it....