Could a Christian become a Pagan??? [Archive]

Pythagoras

January 10th 2005, 05:26 AM

Hi Justin,

Hi, Pythagoras,

Crusader is neither Catholic nor Wiccan ... she's Christian (Evangelical, if one wants to be more precise, though I don't know if she specifically adheres to any particular denomination). Same with Amazing Rando and Jawa Man, I believe. Yoshiyah's an Orthodox Jew. I'm the only Wiccan on this thread.

And you? You, my friend ... give every appearance of being one who gives far too much credence to the rumors and lies of the likes of Alexander Hysslop and Jack Chick. So which is it ... are you a Christian, or a rumormonger?

JustinWhat ails thee Wiccan? You sound more like a nimble Catholic apologist than a Warlock. Did you know Catholic influenced Wiccans more often than not recognize the Virgin Mary as Goddess,as she is an earthly manifestation of the female Deity.

The Kabbalahists(your spiritual cousins) rationalized the names YHWH, Elohim and Jehova as the High Spirit, the female and male principles respectively.Yuo must know Hectate? She that is characterized as a Trinity. The Hindu Trinity too, represented by three Yahwehheads: Brahma- -the creator, Vishnu--the protector and Shiva--the destroyer. Ah Shiva, the primordial pre- Vedic nature God,lover of the forest, whose appelations are to be keenly discerned in Dionysis and Pan the Piper in Europe, and the Stag god. Kundalini power. The sensual Pagan. Shiva the Horned, just like Pan. Ever seen the Marshall Shiva ? That's paganism personified.

The trinity doctrine was adopted at the Council of Nicea and thereafter molded into several creeds and descends from Mystery Babylon via Greek philosophy in Plato's theories, and from Jewish Gnosticism ofcourse, not from the Hebrew Bible.All pagan religions from the time of Babylon,have adopted in one form or other a trinity. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz:In egypt was Osiris, Isis and Horus: within Israel pagan gnosticism it was Kether, Hokhmah and Binah. In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul. Then there are the Nordic trinits, which I trust you are well versed with if you're worth your salt as a Pagan.

Here are some tid-bits:

"The doctrine of the holy trinity is not taught in the Old Testament [New Catholic Encyclopedia]."

"The trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith" (A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, Lyman Abbott, 1875, p944).

The trinity: "is a very marked feature in Hindooism, and is discernible in Persian, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Indian and the most ancient Grecian mythologies" (Religious Dictionary, Lyman Abbott, p944).

P.S. Did you know the words Wiccan and Wicked are interrelated? The word 'witch' is allied to 'wit' to know. Robert Graves assumes the willow in Greece to be sacred to hectate. He says "It's connection with witches is so strong in N. Europe, that the worrds 'witch' and 'wicked' are derived from the same ancient word for willow, which also yields 'wicker'.(Janet and Stewart Farr, A witches Bible,pp.22)

kiwimac

January 10th 2005, 07:28 AM

Who cares Pythagoras?

Crusader,

God alone knows the state of the heart. To paraphrase Jesus, the wiccans and the mormons shall enter into heaven before you.

Kiwimac

jason

January 10th 2005, 07:37 AM

BlackOpal12

January 10th 2005, 09:04 AM

Pythagoras,

You have erred grievously, child of thought. Justin is no warlock - and your mindless, presumptive assumption is not only misguided, but offensive. Justin, like Dur, is a witch, not a warlock. What you have said is the equivalent of calling you, in your terms, a Catholic. I suggest you apologize, as TWeb is suprisingly good about disallowing religious slander when it is completely unsupported.

Have you met Jude3b? You two would get along. I suggest you talk to him, or Crusader. Beyond those two, you will find that your self-deluded psychosis are not echoed, or particularly welcome here.

The Opal.

Oh, and no - I'm not Catholic, nor Pagan. I'm Buddhist. Don't bother commenting, as I have no doubt you have less than a meager understanding of what that actually means.

Xmansmommy

January 10th 2005, 09:11 AM

I'm not necessarily sure that being sealed with the HS of promise equates remaining a Christian forever. Wonder why it's suggested as such? :eh:

Alberta girl

January 10th 2005, 09:58 AM

I'm not necessarily sure that being sealed with the HS of promise equates remaining a Christian forever. Wonder why it's suggested as such? :eh:
I think I agree with you. I always thought OSAS was too good to be true.

Durthorin

January 10th 2005, 11:17 AM

This is a funny thread with a funny title... "Could a Christian become a Pagan." ...

By 'Christian' you all at Wicca Land usually mean Catholic. It's like the daughter asking if her Prostitute mum is indeed a Whore.

The Catholic 'church' is the "Mother of Abominations"(according to Rev. 17) and therefore utterly Pagan. She is your Mother.

No offense .

Considering most of the ex-Christians I know are Southern Baptist.. then again I live in the Bible Belt.. I think you'lll find its more location than theology. Personally, I'm an ex-Sunday School teacher and left your faith over 20 years ago. Was I a born again Christian? I thought I was for about 8 years tho some of your faith take issue with that..

Brighid Bless, Dur

Pythagoras

January 10th 2005, 01:31 PM

Who cares Pythagoras?

Crusader,

God alone knows the state of the heart. To paraphrase Jesus, the wiccans and the mormons shall enter into heaven before you.

Kiwimac
Now that's the first intelligent thought I've heard all day.... Yes we all tend to be self-righteous on occasion..

I won't be surprised if some here who call themselves Wiccans and Warlocks ultimately end up in the Kingdom of God, but others ,most of whome who fancy themselves Cardinals, Bishops ( the so-called Princes of the Church), Priests and Popes , are cast into the Everlasting Furnace reserved for the Devil and his angels.

Carry on...

Pythagoras

January 10th 2005, 01:47 PM

Hi BlackOpal12

Justin is no warlock - and your mindless, presumptive assumption is not only misguided, but offensive. Justin, like Dur, is a witch, not a warlock.

what a world of difference that makes.

What you have said is the equivalent of calling you, in your terms, a Catholic.

Not necessarily.

I suggest you apologize, as TWeb is suprisingly good about disallowing religious slander when it is completely unsupported.

Should I? I though I was complimenting him.

Beyond those two, you will find that your self-deluded psychosis are not echoed, or particularly welcome here.

Why are you slandering me? Yuo really must apologize.

Oh, and no - I'm not Catholic, nor Pagan. I'm Buddhist
Whic school of Buddhism?

Don't bother commenting, as I have no doubt you have less than a meager understanding of what that actually means

Don't count on it. Odds are I know more about Buddhism than you probably will in.. say.. 50 lifetimes (no pun intended).

Durthorin

January 10th 2005, 01:55 PM

what a world of difference that makes.

What he is refering to is that in Wiccan lore the name Warlock was given to a witch that betrayed his or her oaths to her covenmates. The word is often among us used to refer to one who is foresworn.. an oathbreaker unworth of trust. I do not know of a Christian concept that would be similiar save to say that a man has betrayed his faith, his church fellowship and his personal honor in a single act.

Brighid Bless, Dur

adding some information:

The word 'warlock' comes from the Old English word 'waer logger', which literally means 'covenant breaker'. It could also come from the Icelandic word 'vordlokkr' - person who can summon the spirits. Basically, 'warlock' is generally (in this present day) used to mean 'oath breaker', and 'traitor'.

People generally perceive a warlock to be a male witch and indeed, some pagans use the word warlock to mean such. However, most pagans (Wiccans included) consider the word an insult because of it's literal meaning of traitor.

Overall, depending on what somebody believes, a warlock is a male witch (generally untrue but widely believed) or a traitor (more true but not so well known). As for it's relevance to Wicca, well, I'm sure you can form your own opinions based on the definitions above. I can safely say though, that it will vary from person to tradition, and that you can be Wiccan with never thinking about warlocks at all

JamesD

January 10th 2005, 02:11 PM

Warlock! :rofl: Don't count on it. Odds are I know more about Buddhism than you probably will in.. say.. 50 lifetimesJust like you know 50 times more about Wicca.

"Could a Christian become a Pagan." Yes, very easily. When xtians like Pythagoras open their mouths it is.

Pythagoras

January 10th 2005, 02:30 PM

Hi Durthorin,

What he is refering to is that in Wiccan lore the name Warlock was given to a witch that betrayed his or her oaths to her covenmates. The word is often among us used to refer to one who is foresworn.. an oathbreaker unworth of trust.
You're a Neo-Pagan, though you might not even know it.What you're describing is a new meaning of Warlock commonly portrayed in Hollywood movies.Many neo- pagans like yourself consider the word an insult, mainly because of its apparent etymology. The word comes from a Scottish word meaning "oathbreaker" or "liar". The more primitive etymology is probably the Old Norse Vardd-Lokur,"caller of Spirits". I think even the Harry Potter series doesn't suggest Warlock to be an nefarious oath-breaker in all instances, I think, though I might be wrong here.

I do not know of a Christian concept that would be similiar save to say that a man has betrayed his faith, his church fellowship and his personal honor in a single act.Neither do I...According to Christian tradition(i.e. Catholic jargon)Warlocks are the male equivalent of Witches and were said to ride large pitch-forks instead of broomsticks.

One other thought: The Old English 'water-logia' could be yet another viable etymology for Warlock, and this term no doubt related to Water-Wtiching(Dousing).

The words, Warlock, Witch, Wicca, Wiccan, Wicked are all interrelated.

Krusader

January 10th 2005, 05:44 PM

Who cares Pythagoras?

Crusader,

God alone knows the state of the heart. To paraphrase Jesus, the wiccans and the mormons shall enter into heaven before you.

Kiwimac
Kiwimac, I'm assuming that you are stating that because I am an evangelical Christian I am doomed to eternal torment, while witches and Mormons will be welcomed by the Lord.

Hold on there, something's wrong. Because according to Doctrines and Covenants (Mormon book), I'll get to go to the Terrestial or Telestial heavens, at least. But bad Mormons won't. Now, you served in a Mormon church, and are therefore, obviously not an evangelical.....but do you believe in Doc. & Cov.? (Of course, I don't, believe it at all!)

Could I ask why you have such dislike for evangelicals? You seem to defend Muslims, Mormons, and whatever, their right to believe as they wish, speak as they wish, and to make as many nasty comments as they wish - but when it comes to evangelicals - well, you seem to join that one who walks up and down, night and day, before the throne of God condemning believers.

Look to yourself, before you look in my eye.

As far as the question goes, do you believe a truly converted Christian could become a witch? Or one might also ask, could a Christian serve in a Mormon church?

Krusader

January 10th 2005, 05:47 PM

Crusader, in all honesty I cannot answer that. To the best of my knowledge, yes, I was a Christian ... but what person on this earth can authoritatively say if (by your scriptural standards) that seed was planted in good soil, or among stones? And if I cannot answer for myself, I would hesitate to accept any person's attempt to answer that question who has never been through the situation.

I would suggest that we simply leave such things in the hands of the Divine.

Justin
But what "divine?" Are you talking about some "primal being god" worshipped by wiccans? If so, I'll leave nothing there, for this "primal god" is not the Trinity I worship and believe in.

So, the question remains - could a Christian actually renounce Christ and become a witch. I would say, on the surface it looks that way. But, I would also say that the Scripture would teach contrary to that.

I think I'll stick with the Scripture.

Krusader

January 10th 2005, 05:56 PM

Hi, Pythagoras,

Crusader is neither Catholic nor Wiccan ... she's Christian (Evangelical, if one wants to be more precise, though I don't know if she specifically adheres to any particular denomination). Same with Amazing Rando and Jawa Man, I believe. Yoshiyah's an Orthodox Jew. I'm the only Wiccan on this thread.

And you? You, my friend ... give every appearance of being one who gives far too much credence to the rumors and lies of the likes of Alexander Hysslop and Jack Chick. So which is it ... are you a Christian, or a rumormonger?

Justin
Justin, for you info, I'm an Independent Baptist (doesn't that ring a bell with you). Not that they sent me to retrieve you, but it is rather strange!

Timothy Leary

January 10th 2005, 06:54 PM

The Kabbalahists(your spiritual cousins) rationalized the names YHWH, Elohim and Jehova as the High Spirit, the female and male principles respectively.

I don't know enough to say much, but given that the first and the last name you mentioned are just transliterations of one name (Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh), you don't have a trinity out of that.

kiwimac

January 10th 2005, 06:56 PM

Kiwimac, I'm assuming that you are stating that because I am an evangelical Christian I am doomed to eternal torment, while witches and Mormons will be welcomed by the Lord.

Hold on there, something's wrong. Because according to Doctrines and Covenants (Mormon book), I'll get to go to the Terrestial or Telestial heavens, at least. But bad Mormons won't. Now, you served in a Mormon church, and are therefore, obviously not an evangelical.....but do you believe in Doc. & Cov.? (Of course, I don't, believe it at all!)

Could I ask why you have such dislike for evangelicals? You seem to defend Muslims, Mormons, and whatever, their right to believe as they wish, speak as they wish, and to make as many nasty comments as they wish - but when it comes to evangelicals - well, you seem to join that one who walks up and down, night and day, before the throne of God condemning believers.

Look to yourself, before you look in my eye.

As far as the question goes, do you believe a truly converted Christian could become a witch? Or one might also ask, could a Christian serve in a Mormon church?

Crusader,

I did not say you'd be in eternal torment, nope I said that the Mormons & pagans would enter heaven before you, big difference I would have thought.

Why do I dislike evangelicals? let me see, their arrogance, their unshakeable belief in the rightness of their own dogma, their insistence that every one else is a: wrong, b: very wrong and c: hell-bound, their spiritual blindness and unwillingness to learn and last but not least their hatred of other faiths.

Kiwimac

Timothy Leary

January 10th 2005, 06:57 PM

So, the question remains - could a Christian actually renounce Christ and become a witch. I would say, on the surface it looks that way. But, I would also say that the Scripture would teach contrary to that.

BCV please.

Krusader

January 10th 2005, 07:17 PM

BCV please.
Yoshiya, there are a great deal of vss. in the New Testament that speak of the perseverance of the saints and the keeping power of God. Christians are divided over this issue, however, I would side with Calvin.

For instance, if you have a New Testament, read John 10

Here Jesus states that he knows his sheep and that they know him.
He also states that he keeps his sheep in his hand - and that he has already given them (as a present reality) eternal life.

The Father, also keeps the Lord's sheep in His hand - an nobody can pluck the sheep from the Father's hand.

These vss. in conjunction with others teach that the sheep (followers of Jesus) have eternal life as a present reality and assurance of salvation. They have been called by the Good Shepherd, are in His fold, and He keeps them Himself. Thus, no sheep could become a goat!

Krusader

January 10th 2005, 07:46 PM

Crusader,

I did not say you'd be in eternal torment, nope I said that the Mormons & pagans would enter heaven before you, big difference I would have thought.

Why do I dislike evangelicals? let me see, their arrogance, their unshakeable belief in the rightness of their own dogma, their insistence that every one else is a: wrong, b: very wrong and c: hell-bound, their spiritual blindness and unwillingness to learn and last but not least their hatred of other faiths.

Kiwimac
So let me get this right.

1. Mormons and witches (even though they do not have Christ as their Savior) wil enter heaven before us arrogant hateful evangelicals.

2. We are arrogant and hateful because we truly believe that Jesus is Lord, have repented of our sins and trusted in Him for our salvation. Also, we truly believe the Bible to be the Word of God, without error.

3. And we are just all together lost because we take the time to discuss doctrine with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and yes, Witches, in the hope that they will come to have a personal relationship with Christ and be with us in heaven.

4. Jesus said to go out in to all the world and preach the Gospel.......Paul said to continue in sound doctrine........where have we evangelicals gone wrong?

On this, I think Justin might agree with me - since he was once called evangelical, and pretty much knows what we believe. We certainly don't seek anyone's damnation, but seek to bring that which is lost to the saving knowledge of Christ.

Kiwi, if that is hateful, and arrogant, etc. - I think we have a different spirit.

How do you, personally believe a person is saved? Do you think it is sinful to point out error in a belief system?

D. Medvedev Fan

January 10th 2005, 07:51 PM

Those of us who believe that a Christian is kept and sealed by the power of God until the day of Redemption wonder whether or not a regenerated Christian could possibly renounce Christ and become a witch or a pagan. Is that possible? You cannot serve both God and someone, something, else. Could a believer, sealed by the Holy Spirit, stray so far?
I don’t know much about the once saved always saved idea, but if one were truly a Christian, what business would he or she have getting into believing in that stuff? It’s sometimes ok to learn about different faiths and try to understand them, it helps us understand the faith that Christians have by seeing it compared to something else, or maybe learn how to defend their faith, or even maybe witness to others. If one is weak enough in his faith that he would be so swayed from it by learning about another system of beliefs such as wicca, then he should not be doing that but rather simply working on his own faith and understanding it as it is. A Christian has no right to seek God in anything other than through Christ whom the Bible tells us of. If one thinks that Christ and Christianity have even a little more truth than other religions, then it is in Christ that he should seek truth, disavowing that which would lead him away from it. There is no good reason for a Christian to temp fate like that. Once he starts a little, it becomes easier and easier to do it a little more and a little more.

The less you listen to the Holy Spirit even through your conscience, the less you hear of Him. I suppose maybe that is how it could happen, at least with regard for this life. Whether or not such a person goes to hell, we are accountable to God for what we do and as the quote goes, “What we do in life echoes in eternity.”*

10According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

technomage

January 10th 2005, 08:43 PM

What ails thee Wiccan? You sound more like a nimble Catholic apologist than a Warlock.
What ails me? I hate lies--no metter who tells them. And lest you think I'm "picking on you," I'm just as quick to chide a Wiccan who improperly characterises our faith.

Now, it is possible that you do not know that your statement is not true--that's ignorance, and none of us are immune to it. If you like, we'll start a new thread, and I'll demonstrate your errors gently. Or you can continue to spew the "Catholics are pagans" nonsense, like an errant puppy who soils the carpet ... and you'll continue to get a harsh response. No doubt the puppy thinks that a sheet of newspaper across the nose is harsh, but you do what you must to gain the attention of the one who errs.

Did you know Catholic influenced Wiccans more often than not recognize the Virgin Mary as Goddess,as she is an earthly manifestation of the female Deity.
Oh, I knew--the appropriate question is "Did you care?" And the answer is no. Within Catholicism, calling Mary "divine" is a most grave heresy. Within Wicca, we're not Catholic ... but you have more than a few fluff-bunnies who miss the point, and try to conflate the two. To put it bluntly, I'm not concerned what some fluff-bunny who'se influenced by a Christian heresy has to say about doctrine: whether they're speaking of Christian or Wiccan doctrine, they're probably wrong.

I am one of those Wiccans who feels that the "Christo-Pagan" movement among Wicca and Neopaganism entirely misses the point of both Wicca and Christianity.

But you have proven that, once again, Wiccans are not the only ones who have fluff-bunnies in the midst:

The Kabbalahists(your spiritual cousins) rationalized the names YHWH, Elohim and Jehova as the High Spirit, the female and male principles respectively.
First and foremost "Jehovah" is a Latinization of the Hebrew YHVH--therefore, as Yoshiyah stated, you've erred in your understanding of Hebrew.

Secondly, esoteric Kabbalism is based not on a Trinity, but on one God manifest in ten "levels." In other words, you've erred in your understanding of Kabbalism.

Yuo must know Hectate? She that is characterized as a Trinity.
She that is characterized as a trinity ... rather late in her career, as it were. Originally, Hecate was a Thracian moon goddess. It was not until Publius Vergilius Maro that she was charachterized as "threefold Hecate." So again, you've erred, this time in Pagan mythology.

Now, Pythagoras, we can start that separate thread and start picking apart your errors--I was particularly amused at your rank ignorance of the Babylonian religion. But before we do that, let's cover one more thing....

P.S. Did you know the words Wiccan and Wicked are interrelated? The word 'witch' is allied to 'wit' to know. Robert Graves assumes the willow in Greece to be sacred to hectate. He says "It's connection with witches is so strong in N. Europe, that the worrds 'witch' and 'wicked' are derived from the same ancient word for willow, which also yields 'wicker'.(Janet and Stewart Farr, A witches Bible,pp.22)
There are several possible etymologies of the word Wicca. In this particular case, the Farrars picked the one that best suited their theories. It's called "quote-mining."

And as much as I respect the Farrars, I'd call them out on this. Like I told you, I don't like lies.

Justin

Durthorin

January 10th 2005, 09:32 PM

These vss. in conjunction with others teach that the sheep (followers of Jesus) have eternal life as a present reality and assurance of salvation. They have been called by the Good Shepherd, are in His fold, and He keeps them Himself. Thus, no sheep could become a goat!
Or he knowing all things, past, present and future already forgave them for becoming goats....

Brighid Bless, Dur

Pythagoras

January 10th 2005, 09:54 PM

Hi,

I don't know enough to say much, but given that the first and the last name you mentioned are just transliterations of one name (Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh), you don't have a trinity out of that.
You misunderstood. I wasn't trying to divine for the Kabbalists a trinity out of that particular sentence, merely showing that Kabbalism is intrinsically Pagan; and thus rightly termed a spiritual cousin to the Wiccans-- although if you dwell deeper into Kabbalism , you will certainly discover the trinity in their 'theology'..

Did you know many Evangelical Christians purport to show the Trinity even in your 'Shema'?

Pythagoras

January 10th 2005, 10:42 PM

Hi Wiccan,

W:"And the answer is no. Within Catholicism, calling Mary "divine" is a most grave heresy."

Youre mixing metaphors; you should know that your Catholic cousins are experts in the double speak,and so are you it sems. Are you not aware that Mary is Queen of Heaven according to Catholic lore(to borrow your terminology)? Which is a graver heresy dear Wiccan, to call Mary a Goddess or to brand her the Queen of Heaven ?Really boy, you need to grow up and be more perceptive in these matters of semantics.

W:
"Within Wicca, we're not Catholic ... but you have more than a few fluff-bunnies who miss the point, and try to conflate the two"

And you’re taking my words out of context, yet again. No one is suggesting Wicans are Catholics, merely that some of their ideas do indeed come together with the Catholics, conflate if you will, in the most peculiar fashion. You see, where there's smoke there is fire.

W:
"First and foremost "Jehovah" is a Latinization of the Hebrew YHVH--therefore, as Yoshiyah stated, you've erred in your understanding of Hebrew"
Like Yoshiyah, you miss the point of that sentence. Consult my post to Yoshiyah in this regard.

W:

"Secondly, esoteric Kabbalism is based not on a Trinity, but on one God manifest in ten "levels." In other words, you've erred in your understanding of Kabbalism."

You have only gleaned part of their doctrine.

W:
"Originally, Hecate was a Thracian moon goddess. It was not until Publius Vergilius Maro that she was charachterized as "threefold Hecate." So again, you've erred, this time in Pagan mythology."

I’m getting bored. Did you not know that the primordial Moon Goddess was partof/drrived from/attributable to an ancient trinity? She was later characterised more plainly (in your mind at least) as a trinity because she always was. Back to square one, as it were.

W:"Like I told you, I don't like lies"
And I abhor self-delusion even more than lies

technomage

January 10th 2005, 11:00 PM

I’m getting bored.
At what ... repeating your falsehoods, or that I refuse to quail before them?

And I abhor self-delusion even more than lies. Then I would suggest that you look to your own man-made doctrines, including the self-delusion that you know of what you speak. You have so far demonstrated your ignorance of Wicca, Catholicism, Thracian mythology (your spurious objections to the contrary), Kabbalism, Hebrew, Babylonian religion, and Christianity. Good Gods, man, is there anything that you are competent in?

I tell you what: let's you and I go down to the formal debate area of this forum, and we'll "discuss" this view that you have of the history of the Trinity Doctrine. Or Babylonian religion. Or any of the specific assertions that you made in the list of subjects above (Wicca, Catholicism, Thracian mythology, Kabbalism, Hebrew, Babylonian religion, or Christianity). We'll have a nice little chat. Oh, and I do intend for the chat to be nice ... now that the "newspaper" has gotten your attention, I'm hoping that an introduction to facts and research (outside of "anti-everyone who isn't like me" screeds that you've evidently been reading) will do wonders.

Justin

Sacrificial Ram

January 10th 2005, 11:02 PM

Did you know many Evangelical Christians purport to show the Trinity even in your 'Shema'?
Yes, of course, that is based on the rankest ignorance, and on what appears to be weak faith in their own spirituality.

Of course, someone who actually understand Hebrew, and the Jewish religion wouldn't make that claim. Of course, a reasonable person wouldn't start fuming about Catholoism being the 'whore of babylon' either.

Pythagoras

January 10th 2005, 11:57 PM

Hi Scapegoat,

Of course, a reasonable person wouldn't start fuming about Catholoism being the 'whore of babylon' either.
You started well but then got derailed...I can name you a dozen scholars without even trying , Burgess, Poole Beza, Zwingli, Nevins,Miller,Stevens, Gill, Gavin,Sparry, Hislop, Edgar, Van Dyke, etc. etc. who believe the Catholic churchto be the Whore of Babylon. Trust me, this list is much larger. Are they all unreasonable?

Their theory is based upon the words of Rev. 17 and 18 , and not on nonsense from Genesis Rabba etc. (heard the baloney about Titus?) and other Midrasic mumbo-jumbo .

Pythagoras

January 11th 2005, 12:02 AM

Hi,

I tell you what: let's you and I go down to the formal debate area of this forum, and we'll "discuss" this view that you have of the history of the Trinity Doctrine. Or Babylonian religion. Or any of the specific assertions that you made in the list of subjects above (Wicca, Catholicism, Thracian mythology, Kabbalism, Hebrew, Babylonian religion, or Christianity).
Justin
Let's do it right here. I hate to travel downwards...

Let's start with the Thracian(generically, Scythian) Goddesses-- Rea Krona for example. I can even show you how she is related to Kali, consort of Shiva .

You're a joker.

technomage

January 11th 2005, 12:08 AM

Pythagoras, you've already derailed the thread. Let's show at least a measure of courtesy to Crusader and ajourn to the Coach's Quarters (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=34) forum to discuss the terms of the debate.

As for the specifics, I'd prefer to deal with assertions that you've made already in this thread.

And as for being a joker, humor has its place. :wink:

Justin

Durthorin

January 11th 2005, 12:19 AM

technomage

January 11th 2005, 12:24 AM

Won't do any good, Dur.

MacDonald is "obviously" a Catholic Apologist, well skilled in "double talk."

:ahem:

However, thanks for the boost ... the effort, at least, is much appreciated.

Durthorin

January 11th 2005, 12:38 AM

Won't do any good, Dur.

MacDonald is "obviously" a Catholic Apologist, well skilled in "double talk."

:ahem:

However, thanks for the boost ... the effort, at least, is much appreciated.
As long as there is a possiablity of learning then I teach. You as I do the best you can.. after that, its in the hands of the Gods and the spirit of the student. Then again a certain Cherokee once told me the most annoying thing is to be asked for a truth.. speak it and watch the person refuse to hear it. She used to call it a trial of patience.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Pythagoras

January 11th 2005, 12:41 AM

Is this the same Alexander Hislop that Ralph Woodrow wrote the "The Babylon Connection" to refute his bad history, bad research and bad judgement? An are the others any better scholars than Hislop?

Brighid Bless, Dur

You might want to read this:

http://davidmacd.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.htm

Ralph Woodrow huh! He turned once, he could easily turn again, at any time...

There's something about wafflers that don't generally bode well for credibility.

Timothy Leary

January 11th 2005, 12:56 AM

Timothy Leary

January 11th 2005, 12:59 AM

You misunderstood. I wasn't trying to divine for the Kabbalists a trinity out of that particular sentence, merely showing that Kabbalism is intrinsically Pagan; And how did you show this?

Did you know many Evangelical Christians purport to show the Trinity even in your 'Shema'?[/quote]

Only a small, but vocal, minority do, IIRC.

Pythagoras

January 11th 2005, 01:18 AM

And how did you show this?

Only a small, but vocal, minority do, IIRC.[/QUOTE]
.Show what?

.The vocal minority writes and talks about it; the remaining sheep, faithfully follow these their leaders.

Learn.

Durthorin

January 11th 2005, 01:31 AM

Ralph Woodrow huh! He turned once, he could easily turn again, at any time...

There's something about wafflers that don't generally bode well for credibility.
Then again he could be exactly what was portrayed. A man who held certain beliefs that had errors pointed out, went back to research those supposed errors and found not only those that had been pointed out but others as well.. then at a finiancial lose to himself withdrew his own popular book which he then honestly knew to be in error as an act of Christian integrity. Now.. if you assume for a moment that -could- be true. Then do you know owe it to yourself to read his book and duplicate his researches in an effort to find if he was correct? Far from being a waffler he does not seem to have turned in the wind but only after careful and thoughtful examination of historical data.. an at a lose of both money and allies.

To quote him:

Many preferred my book over "The Two Babylons" because it was easier to read and follow. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other. Letters in a steady flow were received praising my book. Only occasionally would there be a dissenting voice. ONE WHO DISAGREED was Scott Klemm, a high school history teacher in southern California. Being a Christian, and appreciating other things I had written, he began to show me EVIDENCE THAT HISLOP WAS NOT A RELIABLE HISTORIAN. As a result, I realized that I needed to go back through Hislop's work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out!

As I did this, it became clear-Hislop's "history" was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities-why anything could be "proved"!

The concern about not having anything pagan in our lives can be likened to a ship crossing a vast ocean. This concern has taken us in the right direction, but as we come to a better understanding as to what is actually pagan and what is not, a correction of the course is necessary in our journey. This is not a going back, but a correction of the course as we follow "the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day" (Prov. 4:18).

Although we challenge some of Hislop's claims in THE BABYLON CONNECTION?-this is not intended as an attack against him personally. As far as we know, he was a dedicated Christian, a brother in Christ. Nor is it our goal in writing this book to merely discredit another book. Instead, it is our desire that this effort will help us understand "the way of God more perfectly" (cf. Acts 18:26), find a biblical balance, and glorify Him who said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

The begining of wisdom is when we refuse to believe we have learned all we can.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Pythagoras

January 11th 2005, 01:54 AM

Hi,

Then again he could be exactly what was portrayed. A man who held certain beliefs that had errors pointed out, went back to research those supposed errors and found not only those that had been pointed out but others as well.. then at a finiancial lose to himself withdrew his own popular book which he then honestly knew to be in error as an act of Christian integrity.
Many former Pagans are now Christians . Does that prove your religion wrong and Christianity correct? Same principle here.

Yuo see, if Woodrow and hislop were the only one's propounding the catholic church to be the Whore of Babylon, you might have had a point. But that's hardly the case.

Please be logical in your reasoning process.

The begining of wisdom is when we refuse to believe we have learned all we can.
The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God and to know that there is only One God-- not Gods, nor trinity, or other such mumbo-jumbo.

One God. No more, no less. In this the Jews are absolutely right .

Durthorin

January 11th 2005, 02:49 AM

Hi,

Many former Pagans are now Christians . Does that prove your religion wrong and Christianity correct? Same principle here.

Yuo see, if Woodrow and hislop were the only one's propounding the catholic church to be the Whore of Babylon, you might have had a point. But that's hardly the case.

Please be logical in your reasoning process.

In my faith if that is their path then that is the correct path for them.. just as I am an ex-Christian now a Pagan because this is the correct path for me. Given that others you listed use Hislop as a source then if his original thesis is inncorrect then so are theirs. His statements an assertions are the foundation of many of those you quote is he not? So if he is wrong then does that not call into question each of those who used him as a source without looking back and placing his original work under a light of modern historical scholarship? The logic is simple if the foundation is flawed then the building crumbles.

The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God and to know that there is only One God-- not Gods, nor trinity, or other such mumbo-jumbo.

One God. No more, no less. In this the Jews are absolutely right .
Then we will have to differ then I leave you with some things to ponder:

Three instructions not wise to believe: what a person imparts in support of what is for their own profit and success; what one imparts with hatred to another; and what a person wise in their own eyes imparts.

There are three things excellent among worldly affairs: hating folly; loving excellence; and endeavoring constantly to learn.

Three qualities which show wisdom: suffering discreetly, forgiving injury, and seeking knowledge.

Brighid Bless, Dur

just Johnna

January 11th 2005, 02:57 AM

Pythagoras

January 11th 2005, 06:43 AM

It humors me when people like Justin shout "Wicca has nothing to do with Satanism".Right! It might even be accurate to suggest that Wicca is not Satanism, but to deny any connection whatsoever between the two is disingeniousat best.

Gerald B. Gardner started (or adapted, depending on the version you believe) a religion he referred to as "Wicca", which is now more specifically known as the Gardnerian tradition -- because of all the different spinoffs also called "Wicca".
He claimed that this "Wicca" was the religion of pre-Christian

Europe, and of the people persecuted by the Christian Church[Catholic church] as "witches".
It must also be remembered that Gardner's rituals were heavily borrowed from Crowley's, though Wiccans like Justin will be quick to deny it, and will either negate or downplay the Beast's(666) influence on neo- paganism("Wicca").

The Italian witch mythology Leland presented in "Gospel of the Witches" is very telling in this regard.The first paragraph says this:

"Diana greatly loved her brother Lucifer, the god of the Sun and the Moon, the god of Light,who was so proud of his beauty, and who for his pride was driven from Paradise." Reminds one of the works of Mason Albert Pike . Like Wicans, Masons too decry any connections to Satanism. Sure!....

Richbee

January 11th 2005, 10:02 AM

Could a Christian become an Apostate? Back-slider? A drunk? Sure, so why not a Neopagan?

Wica?

A modern fantasy based on myths and poems.

In reality nothing more than Humanism, or Polytheism.

Man as a god, who has rejected objective moral laws, and the real God, resulting in their own craft, or "path".

See an old source of fantasy writings, and no doubt a source for some middle-earth tales related by J.R.R. Tolkein:

The Golden Bough, By Sir James George Frazer - Click Here (www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/index.htm)

technomage

January 11th 2005, 11:53 AM

It humors me when people like Justin shout "Wicca has nothing to do with Satanism".
Three problems, Pythagoras:
1: I never said "Wicca has nothing to do with Satanism." I'm quite aware of the connections to Leland and Crowley.
2: You're in the wrong thread--the "Wiccans are Satanists?" thread is over here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45323).
3: You're still hijacking Crusader's thread that is dealing with the possibility of Christians becoming apostate.

Now, you've made a number of assertions, and I've offered to debate them, but you've not responded. I've taken the liberty of proposing the terms of the debate in the Coach's Quarters (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=34)--my debate proposal will be visible as soon as the moderators review it.

You've made the assertions, Pythagoras. Now it's time to contend for your beliefs.

Justin

Krusader

January 11th 2005, 12:16 PM

Crusader,

What about Galatians 5:4, 1 Timothy 4:1?

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will commit apostasy from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons.” (1 Timothy 4:1)

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:4)
Yosh: There will be an apostasy from Christianity in the last days, and you can see it right here as you read some of the posts from those calling themselves Christian, but deny the very Lord Who bought them. Apostates are also called in the N.T. "those who went out from us" but who were really "no part of us." Jesus spoke of tares and wheat in the Church (tares are almost identical to wheat, but are, of course, not wheat).

The vs. from Galatians is speaking of those who are putting their faith in some type of works system to save them, therefore denying solo fide, faith alone, as the means to salvation.

Krusader

January 11th 2005, 12:38 PM

Yes a believer could, according to 2 Peter 2:20-22

20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”
But also note that this vs. states that the sow is still a sow, the dog still a dog. No regeneration (new nature) has taken place, only an appearance thereof. They have "known" Christ (about Him), but apparently never "received Him" (see John 1:12), and the sow and the dog never became children of God.

just Johnna

January 11th 2005, 07:34 PM

They have "known" Christ (about Him), but apparently never "received Him" (see John 1:12)

I've always found that exegesis to be odd, because it ignores the statement these people escaped from the corruption of the world, but then again became entangled. How does one escape without receiving Christ?

20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:4)

The vs. from Galatians is speaking of those who are putting their faith in some type of works system to save them, therefore denying solo fide, faith alone, as the means to salvation.

This interpretation seems odd to me too. The verb tense on "Christ is become of no effect" suggests he earlier was of effect, not that he never was of effect. "Ye are fallen from grace" suggests one previously had grace to fall from.

But as I don't belong in this forum, I'll take your answer off the air.

Pythagoras

January 11th 2005, 07:57 PM

Hi Durthorin,

Given that others you listed use Hislop as a source then if his original thesis is inncorrect then so are theirs. His statements an assertions are the foundation of many of those you quote is he not? So if he is wrong then does that not call into question each of those who used him as a source without looking back and placing his original work under a light of modern historical scholarship? The logic is simple if the foundation is flawed then the building crumbles.
You're under the false impression that the idea of Catholicism as Whore of Babylon originated with Hislop. Harldy. This concept is perhaps as old as the Catholic church itself.Early Christians have always known this.And no,most of the others did not use Hislop as a source, because many were born before him. So you probably don't know what you're talking about and thus can be forgiven.

It is a fact of history that many well known Protestant leaders of past centuries[who lived centuries before Hislop] have unhesitatingly denounced the Pope as the "antichtrist" and the Roman Catholic Church as the "Whore of Babylon". These include Martin Luther, John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliff, john Calvin, Tyndale, John Knox,John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards etc. etc. This is a non-issue.

Here's something from tektonics.org, a pro-Catholic site yet even it cannot escape mentioning the obvious:

tektonics.org

"Commentators from all schools have no significant disagreement about what John means when he refers to "seven mountains." The seven hills of the city of Rome are undoubtedly in view. Some say we have a view here of the Roman Catholic church. More commonly it is said that Rome will be the HQ for a coming anti-guy. But who is the harlot? Some say that is Roman Catholicism, but in light of what we have seen so far, the woman who rides the beast is a parody of the pure bride of Christ, and represents the rejected and apostate Jerusalem which did not recognize its Messiah, riding upon Rome in order to take advantage of its protection and authority and persecuting the church (17:6). The many images of apostate Israel as a harlot in the OT (Is. 1:21, Jer. 2:20-3:13, Hosea 9:1, Ezekiel 16) support this view."

Timothy Leary

January 11th 2005, 08:05 PM

Only a small, but vocal, minority do, IIRC.
.Show what?

.The vocal minority writes and talks about it; the remaining sheep, faithfully follow these their leaders.

Learn.[/QUOTE]

You said that your quote proved that Kabballah was pagan.

Timothy Leary

January 11th 2005, 08:11 PM

Yosh: There will be an apostasy from Christianity in the last days, and you can see it right here as you read some of the posts from those calling themselves Christian, but deny the very Lord Who bought them. Apostates are also called in the N.T. "those who went out from us" but who were really "no part of us." Jesus spoke of tares and wheat in the Church (tares are almost identical to wheat, but are, of course, not wheat).

The vs. from Galatians is speaking of those who are putting their faith in some type of works system to save them, therefore denying solo fide, faith alone, as the means to salvation.

Thanks for your input, Crusader.

I don't know much greek, but doesn't the word "apostacy" indicate that the person was one of the faith, but left it?

Timothy Leary

January 11th 2005, 08:12 PM

They have "known" Christ (about Him), but apparently never "received Him" (see John 1:12), and the sow and the dog never became children of God.

Hi Crusader,

Could you explain what it means, in your view, the differences between "knowing" and "recieving" your messiah?

technomage

January 11th 2005, 08:19 PM

Thanks for your input, Crusader.

I don't know much greek, but doesn't the word "apostacy" indicate that the person was one of the faith, but left it?
Hi, Yoshiyah,

Basically, it means "To walk away." It is usually interpreted as you describe ... but, well, such interpretations become inconvenient when it doesn't match the thesis.

Durthorin

January 11th 2005, 08:19 PM

Hi Durthorin,

You're under the false impression the idea of Catholicism as Whore of Babylon originated with Hislop. Harldy. This concept is perhaps as old as the Catholic church itself.Early Christians have always known this.And no,most of the others did not use Hislop as a source, because many were born before him. So you probably don't know what you're talking about.

Burgess Poole Beza Zwingli Nevins Miller Stevens Gill Gavin Sparry Hislop Edgar Van Dyke

"This view was first advanced by Alexander Hislop (1807-1862) in 1856 "The Two Babylons." "

OK.. I'm puzzled how many of the above were born before him? An if they did put forward the concept why does Hislop get primary credit?

It is a fact of history that many well known Protestant leaders of past centuries[who lived centuries before Hislop] have unhesitatingly denounced the Pope as the "antichtrist" and the Roman Catholic Church as the "Whore of Babylon". These include Martin Luther, John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliff, john Calvin, Tyndale, John Knox,John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards etc. etc.
Its also a well known historical fact that one demonizes ones enemies.. and your list carries names from some of the bloodiest periods of Christian vs Christian violence in history. Hardly conclusive.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Pythagoras

January 11th 2005, 11:53 PM

Hi,

OK.. I'm puzzled how many of the above were born before him? An if they did put forward the concept why does Hislop get primary credit?
[QUOTE=Durthorin]Burgess Poole Beza Zwingli Nevins Miller Stevens Gill Gavin Sparry Hislop Edgar Van Dyke

Zwingli immediately stands out. Look everyone knows the claim Catholic Church Whore of Babylon was already passe during the time of Martin Luther, who believed this wholehartedly. If even Martin Luther(and co.) is not good enough a source for you before Hislop, well then I can't help you.

Its also a well known historical fact that one demonizes ones enemies.. and your list carries names from some of the bloodiest periods of Christian vs Christian violence in history. Hardly conclusive.
So? You asked for sources before Hislop for my claim .I furnished them.

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Do you have a valid point to make? Your inexperience is very obvious.

technomage

January 12th 2005, 12:06 AM

Oh, Pythagoras! :wave: May I direct your attention here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45435), where the debate thread rests?

That is, unless you're just hanging around this thread to argue for the sake of argument....

Pythagoras

January 12th 2005, 12:09 AM

Oh, Pythagoras! May I direct your attention here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45435), where the debate thread rests?

That is, unless you're just hanging around this thread to argue for argument's sake....
In good time....

Pythagoras

January 12th 2005, 12:21 AM

Hi,

.Show what?

You said that your quote proved that Kabballah was pagan.One sentence proved Qabalah/Kabbalah is pagan. Wow!

But it is sir. Your name-sake Avrm Yoshiya(ever heard of him?) suggests that "Qabbala is an attempt on the part of some Jewish men and women to seek God of Israel through mystical and Gnostic means. For many centuries it was well outside normative Judaism, although today it has permeated into Orthodox Judaism and also claims many 'secular' Jewish(and Gentile) adherent." Does Madonna come to mind?

He says, "Jewish mysticism was picked up in Babylon. It was Babylonian Paganism(the basis for Gnosticism), that some Jewish men living in Babylon adopted and adapted to the Hebrew Bible...giving Babylonian gnosticism its Jewish clothes."

Infact there are interesting correspondences between Talmud-Kaballa and Taoist-Buddhism, not to mention Hinduism. But I fear a discussion of this would lead us too far off course.

Speaking of Talmud,David Conwayy in 'Ritual Magic' (I believe) says there are manuscripts related to esoteric knowledge in Talmud which are Kabbalistic.
I'm sure you are aware that the foremost book of the Kabbalah Sephere Yitzarch(Book of Creation) is reputed to be older than the Talmud according to the Rabbis [may their pants be on fire ], because they are described in Talmud as studying for magic(or as the Satanists wouls have it Magick) purposes...

Durthorin

January 12th 2005, 01:08 AM

So? You asked for sources before Hislop for my claim .I furnished them.

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Do you have a valid point to make? Your inexperience is very obvious.
A source should prove something .. so far your sources are no more conclusive than the smelly guy in the park shouting that the aliens are coming. A lot of people can yell it.. but it still isn't proven nor even supportable. Now my experiance covers about about 46 years much of it in law enforcment so.. prove your thesis logically and factually.

I also asked why Hislop is considered the grandfather and originator of the claim as it seems odd to ascribe it to him if he was the last in the list? It seems a valid question.

As to the So.. when I handled domestic disturbances as a cop.. I always took it with a grain of salt whatever the couple said about each other. I treat you the Catholic side of Chistianity in the same way.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Krusader

January 12th 2005, 02:19 PM

I've always found that exegesis to be odd, because it ignores the statement these people escaped from the corruption of the world, but then again became entangled. How does one escape without receiving Christ?

20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:4)

This interpretation seems odd to me too. The verb tense on "Christ is become of no effect" suggests he earlier was of effect, not that he never was of effect. "Ye are fallen from grace" suggests one previously had grace to fall from.

But as I don't belong in this forum, I'll take your answer off the air.
First, Justjohnna, as a Mormon, you are little bit off on what salvation actually does. From the Bible, we learn that when we receive Christ we become a New Creature. The "old" is no more. As Christians, we have been transferred out of the Kingdom of Darkness (the domain of Satan), and into the Kingdom of Light. Christians are not kept by their works, but are kept secure by the power of God (as John 10 clearly states).

A truly regenerated person, who has become a New Creature in Christ Jesus, does sin - but he doesn't wallow in it, so to speak. He realizes his/her sin, confesses it, and fellowship with the Lord is restored.

Sin breaks our fellowship with the Lord - but it does not destroy the believer's relationship with the Lord, for that relationship is based on the Blood of Christ.

John 1:12 clearly teaches that "to as many as received Him (Jesus), to them He gave the power to become the children of God." So, we are not children of God because we were begotten through celestial sex in some type of premortal life, but because of faith in Christ.

Our new relationship with God is one based on being children by adoption, as Paul states, and that adoption can never be terminated. We can sin, we can do all sorts of nutso things - but one thing we cannot do, we cannot be "unborn" as God's child.

Timothy Leary

January 13th 2005, 12:19 AM

He says, "Jewish mysticism was picked up in Babylon. It was Babylonian Paganism(the basis for Gnosticism), that some Jewish men living in Babylon adopted and adapted to the Hebrew Bible...giving Babylonian gnosticism its Jewish clothes."

Actually, it was long before then. I'll have to pull up some references. One that comes to mind is the scriptures about David when the spirit of prophecy came upon him, and the biblical references to the schools of prophets.

I'm curious, what is your evidence of the gnostic connection to babylonian religions?

Infact there are interesting correspondences between Talmud-Kaballa and Taoist-Buddhism, not to mention Hinduism. But I fear a discussion of this would lead us too far off course.

Oh, the tried and failed "it looks similar" argument. Atheists commonly use this type of argument to prove that Christianity is nothing but a mix of pagan and jewish beliefs.

A typical argument basically goes like this.

1) Jews believe in a diety by the title/name of "El"
2) The Caananites believed the same things
3) Therefore, the Bible (and Jewish beliefs) stole their beliefs from the Caananites.

Just because something is the same in two things doesn't mean that one ripped it from the other. Otherwise, you'd better stop believing in god- because a "pagan" does as well!

I'm sure you are aware that the foremost book of the Kabbalah Sephere Yitzarch(Book of Creation) is reputed to be older than the Talmud according to the Rabbis [may their pants be on fire ], because they are described in Talmud as studying for magic(or as the Satanists wouls have it Magick) purposes...

I don't insult your leaders with statments like "may their pants be on fire", so I'll ask you to do the same. It's that golden rule thingy.

Pythagoras

January 13th 2005, 01:55 AM

Hi Yosh,

I'm curious, what is your evidence of the gnostic connection to babylonian religions?

Read Kessler.

Actually, it was long before then. I'll have to pull up some references. One that comes to mind is the scriptures about David when the spirit of prophecy came upon him, and the biblical references to the schools of prophets
I have no quarrel with you in this regard.

Oh, the tried and failed "it looks similar" argument.
That's a simplistic way of looking at it.

We know Gnosticism and Quabbala are connected. We also know Gnostic thought to be linked to India, Perisa , Egypt , Babylonia. So what do you get?-- a connection. It's Eastern origin was mantained by Giseler and neander/ Larsen proved it's links to India.

The Gnostics consider this World to be sort of like an illusion and their foundational aim is to escape entire from it.It has the same parent-soil as Buddhism; yet Buddhism is ethical , Gnosticism is pseudo-intellectual, and trusts exclusively in magical knowledge. But this is not to suggest that one caused the other, only that there is a profound interrelationship of sorts between the two philosophies. Gnosticism, for all intents and purposes, is far older than buddhism as we know it, though ie we consider buddhist philosophy to be a sub-set of Hindusism[which it actualyl is]m then all bets are off. Are yuo beginning to see some sort of connection now? maybe not. Simply put, Gnosticis, Kabbala and the like is a collective name for a large number of greatly varying pantheistic idealistic sects, and Paganism comes directly into this fold as well. They all spring from one fountain, as it were. kessler was one of the first to bring out the connection between Kabbalah, Gnosis thought and it's connection to the Eastern(indian0 and Babylonian religions. He meant the syncretistic religion which arose after it's9babylon's) conquest by Cyrus the persian. The undefined[unknown God which Paul rightly mocked in his Epistle] though it might be addressed as the Good God, was not a personal benig, but like tadd of Brahma of the Hindus, the "Great Unknown" of modern thought. The unknown God was the genesis of religions based on pure spirituality,I believe, and find their practical fulfilment in the teachings of Buddha who seeked to anhiliate the Soul itself(Nirvana)-- the end of suffering, an end to illusion.Then there is Bousset's suggestion that the Gnostic Sophia is nothing else than a disguise of Deea syra[Rea crona], the great goddess Istar, or Astarte, seems worthy of consideration. In this regard consider the following etymology carefully:Ishtar == Ishwar[the pure, uncorrupted name of Shiva ] from which we get our modern day rendering Shiva. Some Kabbalists/quabbalists derive YHWH from ISHWAR , just writing it leaves a bad taste my mouth and makes my stomache weak. Thus it is just not to even write the name of God, for it may be identified with Demons . I recomend the Jewsih way of rendering God in English by skipping a letter. Maybe I should start doing the same.

Not that God cares either way for it doesn't affect Him. It's more for our own benifit. So I shall be strong and not one with a weak stomach and say God bless instead of G-d bless.,

Timothy Leary

January 13th 2005, 12:50 PM

Read Kessler.

Come on Py, you need to give me more than that. At least tell me *which* Kessler, and what publications of his...

We know Gnosticism and Quabbala are connected.

How do we know this?

We also know Gnostic thought to be linked to India, Perisa , Egypt , Babylonia. So what do you get?-- a connection. It's Eastern origin was mantained by Giseler and neander/ Larsen proved it's links to India.

Which Giseler? Which Larsen? In what publications?

The Gnostics consider this World to be sort of like an illusion and their foundational aim is to escape entire from it.It has the same parent-soil as Buddhism; yet Buddhism is ethical , Gnosticism is pseudo-intellectual, and trusts exclusively in magical knowledge. But this is not to suggest that one caused the other, only that there is a profound interrelationship of sorts between the two philosophies.

Would you be willing to accept this with the Bible? (I'm not disagreeing neccessarily with your conclusion, haven't studied enough on the paticulars)

Gnosticism, for all intents and purposes, is far older than buddhism as we know it,

Could you explain? I thought it was an early (psuedo) Christian sect?

though ie we consider buddhist philosophy to be a sub-set of Hindusism[which it actualyl is]m then all bets are off.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Buddhists would object to that. I think the Buddha believed that at one time Hinduism was the true path, but that it veered and became idoltarous.

Simply put, Gnosticis, Kabbala and the like is a collective name for a large number of greatly varying pantheistic idealistic sects, and Paganism comes directly into this fold as well. They all spring from one fountain, as it were.

Alright. Now what evidence is there that Kabballic mysticism was derived from paganism, rather than a preserved tradition from the prophets and kings such as King David?

In this regard consider the following etymology carefully:Ishtar == Ishwar[the pure, uncorrupted name of Shiva ] from which we get our modern day rendering Shiva. Some Kabbalists/quabbalists derive YHWH from ISHWAR , just writing it leaves a bad taste my mouth and makes my stomache weak.

What type of Kabbalists? Christian, "Pagan", Jewish, Fad-ish?

Pythagoras

January 13th 2005, 09:34 PM

Hi Yoshiyah,

Come on Py, you need to give me more than that. At least tell me *which* Kessler, and what publications of his...K. Kessler. Title goes something like this(I'm pretty sure): "Untersuchungeen zur Genesis des Manich." Good Luck finding it at your local library.Original publisher in the 1800's. I've only read sections of the translation a few years back.

Which Giseler? Which Larsen? In what publications?You don't know Gisleler? His "Text Book of Church History" is a basic read.-- Johan Karl Ludwig Giesler. Find it in your local U.... Forget about Larsen.

Could you explain? I thought it was an early (psuedo) Christian sect?
Hardly. Gnosticism was merely the last incarnation of an extremely old belief system. Even the severest detractor must admit that it goes back to at least 600BC. The belief system was known as Orpheanism, after the Greek hero Orpheus. Orpheus was a son of Zeus, an incredibly skilled musician. In this we have affinities to Dionysis and Shiva of India. Shiva , Dionysis, Orpheans are principally nature religions, deriving their inspiration from still earlier pagan cults of Babylon and India. Ever wonder why 'Neo-Pagans' unwittingly call themselves adherents of the Old Religion. It's roots are anterior by far to Christianity and even Judaism. Remember Abraham's father was an idol maker, and as such probably a Pagan of Ur..

I could be wrong, but I don't think Buddhists would object to that. I think the Buddha believed that at one time Hinduism was the true path, but that it veered and became idoltarous.
Have you observed the amount of idolatry present day Buddhists engage in? The temples in Kapilavastu are more elaborately dedicated to idols than any comparable Hindu enclave I can imagine. But yes, the Budha was repulsed by the corruption of Hinduism of his era. Ironically the nature God Shiva which finds so much synthesis in present day Buddhism, was repudiated by Guatama buddha as an evil, non-Noble(an - Arya) deity responsible for Hinduism's degradation. Have you heard the vedic story of the Noble Daksha who refused to give his daughter Sati in marriage to this lowly nature God shiva. The ancient Hindus contemptiously refered to Shivaites as shisna Devas(Sanskrit) meaning Phallus Worshippers. yet as Hinduism evolved, Shiva became part of the so-called Trimuti of Hinduism, -- the Aom-- Braham, Vishna, Shiva. Even Hislop concluded original Hinduism was basically monotheistic. Yet had he dwelled deeper, he would have discovered a trinity even in the incepient stage of Hinduism before it was corrupted by Shiva(Dionysis).

Alright. Now what evidence is there that Kabballic mysticism was derived from paganism, rather than a preserved tradition from the prophets and kings such as King David?There are no stupid questions, but this comes pretty close. A more pertinent question is the trinities found within Kabbala and paganism.

the ancient Kabala,Gnosis, or secret knowledge was never without its representatives in any age or country.The trinities of initiates, whether hidden or passedon explicitely,are preserved and impressed throughout the ages in every religion, including Christianity. Mystical judaism(Kabbala) hasn't escaped it either. Even Plato didn't take credit for all that he wrote, and gave credit to Pythagoras. Plato confesses that he has taken his teachings from ancient and sacred texts and from Eastern philosophies.It is impossible to deny that the theologies of all the nations and cultures dovetail into one stupendious whole. All is equal under the Sun. No philosophy is just, or does justice to God.

In the sublimest and profoundest of all philosophies, (the great lie I call it) reaches back in time to the earliest Babylonian and pre-Vedic Shiva religion of India. These are the two primordial, ancient Pagan, Gnostic, Kabbalistic religions; if you will.

A trranslation of Kabbala reads,"The ten Sepharioth are divided into three classes, each of them presenting to us the divinity under a different aspect, the whole still remaining an indivisible trinity."

Manu, writing in the age KaliYug(or age of Kali, a consort of Shiva): "The holy primitive syllable, composed of three letters AoUoM, must be kept secret,like another triple Veda",book X Sloka 200 something.--- This is through strength of memory.

Remember the Dance of Bacchus(aka Dionysus, Shiva) which David performed to his wife's annoyance? Or consider the 'Mystery of the Eucharist"( catholic). Do not suppose it originated with the Last supper. According to Geofry Higgins,this custom was common in the ancient times. Ceres as bread, Bachuus as wine. and all that Catholic mumbo-jumb business about transubstantiation and real presence is pre-christian Pagan , Gnostic.

Timothy Leary

January 14th 2005, 12:00 AM

K. Kessler. Title goes something like this(I'm pretty sure): "Untersuchungeen zur Genesis des Manich." Good Luck finding it at your local library.Original publisher in the 1800's. I've only read sections of the translation a few years back.

Interesting. I'll see if I can find a translation. I've found translations of ancient karaite works in judeo-arabic, I think I can find this!

You don't know Gisleler? His "Text Book of Church History" is a basic read.-- Johan Karl Ludwig Giesler. Find it in your local U.... Forget about Larsen.

Well, I've never taken any theology or comparative religion classes. I'm only in my second semester of college.

Hardly. Gnosticism was merely the last incarnation of an extremely old belief system. Even the severest detractor must admit that it goes back to at least 600BC. The belief system was known as Orpheanism, after the Greek hero Orpheus. Orpheus was a son of Zeus, an incredibly skilled musician. In this we have affinities to Dionysis and Shiva of India. Shiva , Dionysis, Orpheans are principally nature religions, deriving their inspiration from still earlier pagan cults of Babylon and India. Ever wonder why 'Neo-Pagans' unwittingly call themselves adherents of the Old Religion. It's roots are anterior by far to Christianity and even Judaism. Remember Abraham's father was an idol maker, and as such probably a Pagan of Ur..

I'm talking about the religion itself, not it's possible roots.

Have you observed the amount of idolatry present day Buddhists engage in? The temples in Kapilavastu are more elaborately dedicated to idols than any comparable Hindu enclave I can imagine. But yes, the Budha was repulsed by the corruption of Hinduism of his era.

Have you heard the vedic story of the Noble Daksha who refused to give his daughter Sati in marriage to this lowly nature God shiva. The ancient Hindus contemptiously refered to Shivaites as shisna Devas(Sanskrit) meaning Phallus Worshippers. yet as Hinduism evolved, Shiva became part of the so-called Trimuti of Hinduism, -- the Aom-- Braham, Vishna, Shiva. Even Hislop concluded original Hinduism was basically monotheistic. Yet had he dwelled deeper, he would have discovered a trinity even in the incepient stage of Hinduism before it was corrupted by Shiva(Dionysis).

Interesting.

You use the word "corrupt" - do you believe that Hinduism was originally a religion you would find acceptable?

A trranslation of Kabbala reads,"The ten Sepharioth are divided into three classes, each of them presenting to us the divinity under a different aspect, the whole still remaining an indivisible trinity."

I seem to recall a Messianic attempting to use that quote before, and it was shown to be an incorrect translation. However, I can't remember where I remember this from, and am not a student of Kabballah.

Remember the Dance of Bacchus(aka Dionysus, Shiva) which David performed to his wife's annoyance? Or consider the 'Mystery of the Eucharist"( catholic). Do not suppose it originated with the Last supper. According to Geofry Higgins,this custom was common in the ancient times. Ceres as bread, Bachuus as wine. and all that Catholic mumbo-jumb business about transubstantiation and real presence is pre-christian Pagan , Gnostic.

Perhaps, but when your Messiah tells you to eat of his blood and body...

Pythagoras

January 14th 2005, 01:59 AM

Hi Yoshiyah,

You use the word "corrupt" - do you believe that Hinduism was originally a religion you would find acceptable?
If my understanding of early Hinduism ended where Hislop's did,I could have grudgingly endorsed primordial Hinduism. The short answer is no.

I seem to recall a Messianic attempting to use that quote before, and it was shown to be an incorrect translation. However, I can't remember where I remember this from, and am not a student of Kabballah.
Oh boy.. The trinity concept in Kabbalism is not dependent on one quote. It's the central idea s of Zohar. Do you know what you're talking about?. They conceieve God as it were, actualizing Himself in or through the Sephiroth.There are ten Sephiroths. The first trinity is manifested by way of the so-called Crown. From the first procedes the Masculine Ya and an opposite feminine Yahweh, these two opposite energies are coupled with the crown to produce the first trinity. [At once you note the similarities to the [i]Yin and Yan elements in Taoism, and other thoughts on Eastern misticim.] There are two more trinities and when you reach no. 10 , in encircles all the others calling itself Adonai.[ At once you see the mystical coiled or encircled serpent of mythology in this conception.Immediately you recognize the Kundalini Youg power preached by Hindu Yogis in this functionality. Did you know Shiva is the Lord of Dance[Natanraj] , and Lord of Yoga? Have you seen the ancient dancing Shiva which was excavated at Mohenjo Daro or Harappa?( I forget exactly which site) -- it encircles itself complimenting the coiled serpent of it's mystical analogy found in all Mystery traditions.

Some say the Book of Traditions was inscribed by Rabbi Akiba though the Kabbalists mantain it to the time of Abraham. With regard to Zohar there are some very ancient elements inherent in it, but Moses of Leon added a few elements to it in the 1300's. Several of it's doctrines call to mind those of Pythagoras, Aritstile,Plato.

note: I go by the name Pythagoras , but I would not have endorsed his philosophy. The equation is what got me.

Pythagoras

January 14th 2005, 02:25 AM

Yosh,

An addendum to my last post. Consider the two pictures below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros)

Ouroborus(colied serpent,encircled serpent)

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/blefsshivadance.htm (http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsshivadance.htm)

Dancing Shiva

The tenth Sephiroth is nothing but the Ouroborus or Dancing Shiva presented in another motif… If you still don’t understand then I suggest you ask your local Rabbi(pof), though I doubt very much he would be of much help either....

Pythagoras

January 14th 2005, 04:43 AM

P.S. Following is represented the Kabbalistic tree of Life-- the 10 Sephiroth.

Can anyone tell me what similarity they see between it and the Ouroborous and Dancing Shiva. ?

http://www.users.bigpond.com/phdaley/kabala.htm

{Tim}

January 14th 2005, 05:50 AM

Here's something from tektonics.org, a pro-Catholic site yet even it cannot escape mentioning the obvious:Calling tektonics "pro-Catholic" is a bit rich...

tektonics.org

"Commentators from all schools have no significant disagreement about what John means when he refers to "seven mountains." The seven hills of the city of Rome are undoubtedly in view. Some say we have a view here of the Roman Catholic church. More commonly it is said that Rome will be the HQ for a coming anti-guy. But who is the harlot? Some say that is Roman Catholicism, but in light of what we have seen so far, the woman who rides the beast is a parody of the pure bride of Christ, and represents the rejected and apostate Jerusalem which did not recognize its Messiah, riding upon Rome in order to take advantage of its protection and authority and persecuting the church (17:6). The many images of apostate Israel as a harlot in the OT (Is. 1:21, Jer. 2:20-3:13, Hosea 9:1, Ezekiel 16) support this view."You do realise that he is arguing against you point of view here, right?

First, Justjohnna, as a Mormon, you are little bit off on what salvation actually does. From the Bible, we learn that when we receive Christ we become a New Creature. The "old" is no more. As Christians, we have been transferred out of the Kingdom of Darkness (the domain of Satan), and into the Kingdom of Light. Christians are not kept by their works, but are kept secure by the power of God (as John 10 clearly states).FWIW, I don't think this is an issue of her being a Mormon. There are plenty of orthodox Christians who accept the view she holds, myself for one. And while I agree with you that sin can never cause us to fall from grace, I hold that a willful rejection of Christ, once you have come to him, can do so. :shrug: If you want a good explaination of my view, read J.P. Holding's take on it here (http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/pers.html). I pretty much agree with that.

God Bless,
Tim

div_patel77

January 14th 2005, 08:44 AM

There is only 'one' God. This is the misperception that many people have about religion, such as Hinduism. Many people, such as Christians and Mulsims, believe that Hindus are pagan. No. They are not. There is only 'one' God in Hinduism, but there are 'DemiGods' that are prayed to by many people, such as I. In addition, there is only 'one' God in Judea based religion. I believe that all the religions come from 'one' same God. I just wish people see that rather than say their religion is 'exclusive', that they are all from the same God. If there is only one path that God wanted us to follow, then He/She would have created that one path. Thanks.

Those of us who believe that a Christian is kept and sealed by the power of God until the day of Redemption wonder whether or not a regenerated Christian could possibly renounce Christ and become a witch or a pagan. Is that possible? You cannot serve both God and someone, something, else. Could a believer, sealed by the Holy Spirit, stray so far?

Pythagoras

January 14th 2005, 02:24 PM

Hi,

Calling tektonics "pro-Catholic" is a bit rich...

You do realise that he is arguing against you point of view here, right?

You're missing the point I was trying to make.

I've noticed people who possess but a little knowledge usually argue side line, non-issues... Are you trying to catch me in a blunder?

If you have something intelligent to say then say it, otherwise hold your peace.

Good Day,

Pythagoras

January 14th 2005, 02:56 PM

Good morning Mr. Divyesh Patel,

There is only 'one' God in Hinduism,
Pagans also believe there is only one God but there are many paths to reach him, just like Hindus. You're playing games of semantics.

but there are 'DemiGods' that are prayed to by many people, such as I.
My sixth sense informs me you're a Shiviate.

In addition, there is only 'one' God in Judea based religion.

In Judaism there is only One God. The Shema,"Behold Oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One God" is clear. But Christianity doesn't harken to the one God; theirs is a trinity based religion, just like Hinduism. Though they will deny being polytheistic, just as you do. It must be pointed out that the Hindu Trimurthi is a later, 4th century conception, when Shiva had generally been accepted into the vedic religion.

but there are 'DemiGods' that are prayed to by many people, such as I.

I don't doubt that.

I believe that all the religions come from 'one' same God.

Ofcourse you do.

I just wish people see that rather than say their religion is 'exclusive', that they are all from the same God.

We are all from the same God, but not all of usworship the same God. Some like you are devotees of Shiva, others like Eliyosef believe in Yahweh,and yet others like Justin(not unlike you) worship goddesses and other nature deities. But why do you say, and how do you know that all these diverse paths(religions) lead to the same God? Odds are they don't. Have you not considered the Maze? Many paths in it seem to bring you home but ultimately only one actually does. The wise finds the path to the one gate of life .

If there is only one path that God wanted us to follow, then He/She would have created that one path.
And He has only created one path for us to follow.The other ways only block you wasting your precious time.Most people never get out of their Maze. Wide is the gate that leads to destruction and many fall into it, but narrow is the gate that leads to life and few there are who find it.

.