Christianity and Ancient Mythology

JackRT said:

This is fantasy.

Click to expand...

Possibly, I said it was my theory not fact eh?

JackRT said:

This is fantasy.

Click to expand...

Here is your clue, it's up to you to figure it out:

ICON and GOLD join a small fleet of spacecraft that study a vast interconnected system from the space surrounding Earth and other planets to the farthest limits of the Sun's constantly flowing streams of solar wind.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-icon-gold-teaming-explore-earth.html#jCp

People have always attempted to blend pagan religions with the Creator.
Look at Aaron. He made a golden calf out of gold and tried to connect it with YHVH in Exodus 32. The church prompted by Constantine did the same thing after around 300CE. This has been going on for a long long time. Even today.
Lucky for us, we mostly partake in pagan religious activities unknowingly.

Shempster said:

People have always attempted to blend pagan religions with the Creator.
Look at Aaron. He made a golden calf out of gold and tried to connect it with YHVH in Exodus 32. The church prompted by Constantine did the same thing after around 300CE. This has been going on for a long long time. Even today.
Lucky for us, we mostly partake in pagan religious activities unknowingly.

Click to expand...

It shows up in a lack of maturity in Christ.

mathinspiration said:

Many atheists and non- christians claim that Christianity and Judaism is based on ancient pagan myths. Christ is based on Greek gods and Egyptian ones among others. The renowned atheist Richard Dawkins says that the Son of God prefers to the sun myth word play: son means Sun. Are the words son and sun the same words in ancient Egypt, Hebrew, Arabic, Latin or Greek or rhyme like they do in English? I know they don't in Spanish? Son= Hijo. Sun=Sol. There is even a theory going on that Roman emperors made the Jesus story up to keep the Jews and the Roman citizens in line. It is called the Flavius emperors or something or other.

Click to expand...

Rule of thumb: Ignore anything Richard Dawkins says that's outside his field of evolutionary biology. The nonsense he spews about religion is just as silly as the things some fundamentalist Christians say. I see him as a celebrity and nothing more.

Fortunately, the alleged "pagan origins" of Christianity have been completely and utterly debunked. While sun and son rhyme in English, they don't in Greek. "Sun" in Greek is "hélios" whereas "son" is "huiús." (the accents are even on different syllables) Although you don't bring it up, the concept of of a "trinity" existed some forms of Judaism of Jesus' day. The Judaism of Jesus' day was very diverse. The Jewish philosopher Philo even claimed that the "Angel of the LORD" (mentioned in Judges 6 and other places) is an incarnation of the pre-existent Logos, a manifestation of God (compare John chapter 1)

There are ZERO reasons to reject the historicity of Jesus. In addition to him being mentioned in the New Testament, he is also mentioned in the Jewish Talmud, by Josephus, and by Tacitus. The principle of embarrassment tells us that the early belief in Jesus' crucifixion gives us good reasons to accept his historicity. Some atheists may tell you that there is no archeological evidence for Jesus, but that could also be said of the vast majority of historical figures.

Rubiks said:

Rule of Although you don't bring it up, the concept of of a "trinity" existed some forms of Judaism of Jesus' day. The Judaism of Jesus' day was very diverse. The Jewish philosopher Philo even claimed that the "Angel of the LORD" (mentioned in Judges 6 and other places) is an incarnation of the pre-existent Logos, a manifestation of God (compare John chapter 1)

Click to expand...

This is interesting, if the concept of the trinity existed before the birth of Christ, then how did they know that God would reveal Himself in the flesh?

Personally, I do not adhere to the doctrine of the trinity, I think it is a pagan concept applied on top of systematic theology. I do think that Christ was God in the flesh, but I do not think the God exists eternally in the future as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because we, reborn Christians are adopted into that family.

I read somewhere that the trinity was adopted at the council of Nicea to put the Arian debate to rest by Constantine and he did that in order to bring in the pagan priests in Rome to Christianity. His decision had nothing to do with belief in Christ only trying to politicize Christianity for Rome.

Doulosiesou said:

This is interesting, if the concept of the trinity existed before the birth of Christ, then how did they know that God would reveal Himself in the flesh?

Personally, I do not adhere to the doctrine of the trinity, I think it is a pagan concept applied on top of systematic theology. I do think that Christ was God in the flesh, but I do not think the God exists eternally in the future as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because we, reborn Christians are adopted into that family.

I read somewhere that the trinity was adopted at the council of Nicea to put the Arian debate to rest by Constantine and he did that in order to bring in the pagan priests in Rome to Christianity. His decision had nothing to do with belief in Christ only trying to politicize Christianity for Rome.

Click to expand...

Careful, such talk may cause you problems here. As I understand it, the site doesn't consider anyone Christian if they don't agree with the Creed/Trinity.

Not that I blame you for speaking up...trust me, I get it, and I'm not sure the site will get on to you officially or not. I've had mods get upset and warnings from others, but nothing official. The site rules also state we are not to say anyone who claims to be a Christian, is not a Christian, so with that in mind you may be safe, but I've had minor trouble in the past for going on about it, so figured I'd let you know.

Kenny'sID said:

Careful, such talk may cause you problems here. As I understand it, the site doesn't consider anyone Christian if they don't agree with the Creed/Trinity.

Not that I blame you for speaking up...trust me, I get it, and I'm not sure the site will get on to you officially or not. I've had mods get upset and warnings from others, but nothing official. The site rules also state we are not to say anyone who claims to be a Christian, is not a Christian, so with that in mind you may be safe, but I've had minor trouble in the past for going on about it, so figured I'd let you know.

Click to expand...

Good to know thanks.

Kenny'sID said:

Careful, such talk may cause you problems here. As I understand it, the site doesn't consider anyone Christian if they don't agree with the Creed/Trinity.

Not that I blame you for speaking up...trust me, I get it, and I'm not sure the site will get on to you officially or not. I've had mods get upset and warnings from others, but nothing official. The site rules also state we are not to say anyone who claims to be a Christian, is not a Christian, so with that in mind you may be safe, but I've had minor trouble in the past for going on about it, so figured I'd let you know.

Click to expand...

Do I believe in original sin, that we are all fallen in need of redemption? Yes.

Do I believe that salvation comes only from believing/trusting in Christ Sacrifice/Blood? Yes.

Do I believe that Christ was God incarnate, God in the flesh born of the virgin Mary and that He led a sinless life making a perfect sacrifice? Yes.

Do I believe that He was crucified on the cross and that He was buried in a tomb for 3 days to later rise from the dead? Yes.

All these things I believe/trust in for salvation, merely the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by the council of Nicea I question, I don't find that in the Bible as specified by the council.

The reason I mentioned it to begin with is because that is why I left seminary. They wanted me to make this confession, I couldn't in clear conscience make that confession.

It's also why I don't attend a church today. I believe in John 3:16, that it is enough for salvation.

And I'll drop it now, this is the 'junk' drawer anyway correct?