Hellenic religion

[Daskalot]

Philosopher you are free to believe what you like, but to believe that the Bible is the spoken word of God and not to take into other aspects of religion is to be ignorant to the given facts.

[Daskalot]

I forgot you, RTG, and Osiris, are experts on religion. None of you know anything of Biblical Chrisitanity or the Bible, and yet you are all so qualified to attack it. Explain to us Daskalot what is you educational level? Do you have master's degree? A Bachelor's? In what subject? How do you know so much about "religion." How do you know so much about Christianity? Who taught you?

You see, I'm having a hard time trying to understand experts such as yourself who claims to know so much and yet knows so little. I find it sad that a person who is lecturing me about blindly following some religion blindly follows another.

On what do you base your religious beliefs on--this all seeing eye in the sky, the Sun? You worship a Sun--a Star that was made by God? You're really bright.

You pseduo-experts on this forum make me laugh...how pathetic.



I don't recall Chrisitianity teaching me to be a puppet to the system. The Scripture states that we ought to behave God and not man.

I find it amusing that you guys make all kinds of statements and have been unable to back up even a single one.

I have a Magister degree and a Bachelor of Science degree, this however has nothing to do with empirical logic. I have a scensire interest in Religion, history and politics. Must I have a degree in each one of them to be able to tell you how things work?

[Risto the Great]

I find it amusing that you guys make all kinds of statements and have been unable to back up even a single one.

Is ego allowed in the bible? You have backed your statements up by mentioning "words within words" and "shadows". Clearly we all are allowed some latitude on this issue of faith. Your suggestion that only an expert on theology is allowed to comment is quite humorous. An expert on Islam would explain to you why your thoughts are wrong as well. Not that I agree with either of you.

The notion that the Bible is the complete word does not take into account that many books were left out of it. That some denominations acknowledge books that did not become accepted sections of the bible for others. The decisions to include some sections and exclude others was left in the hands of a select few. Are you sure we are not missing anything?

We are all sheep Philosopher, you are the one in the corner with neat wire rimmed spectacles on. I must be the dinosaur.

[osiris]

philospher why cant you state your case without abusing us, thats all i am saying, i dont pretend to be an expert on religion, or anything else for that matter, but i am entitled to my opinion.

if you were not such a self declared expert we could have had an interesting debate, but how does one debate a person who thinks we are all ignorants and must be chided and abused.

i suggest some christianity humility and comapssion.

[Philosopher]

Is ego allowed in the bible? You have backed your statements up by mentioning "words within words" and "shadows". Clearly we all are allowed some latitude on this issue of faith. Your suggestion that only an expert on theology is allowed to comment is quite humorous. An expert on Islam would explain to you why your thoughts are wrong as well. Not that I agree with either of you.

The notion that the Bible is the complete word does not take into account that many books were left out of it. That some denominations acknowledge books that did not become accepted sections of the bible for others. The decisions to include some sections and exclude others was left in the hands of a select few. Are you sure we are not missing anything?

We are all sheep Philosopher, you are the one in the corner with neat wire rimmed spectacles on. I must be the dinosaur.

Is ego allowed in the Bible? Why don't you read it.

I was merely pointing out that someone who has never read the Bible, let alone understood it, cannot possibly argue whether the Bible and Christianity are true. A person does not need a formal Theological degree; my point was that when you and Dask, and Osiris act like experts, I want to know from whence you guys procured this expertise, since I don't see it in your reasoning.

The early church decided which books were authentic and which were not. If we a take a purely humanistic view on the subject, we should obviously be skeptical of their decision of Christian Cannon. But believers maintain that it was the Holy Spirit who guided the early church on which books would become part of Cannon.

I realize this is not enough for non-believers.

One must understand something early on.

If the Bible is "the Word of God," as it testifies of itself, and if it is true and authentic, then there must be evidence to verify this. If not, I will be the first to abandon all belief in the Bible and in Christianity.

If the Bible was merely a series of moral axioms, miracles, and historic events of ancient Israel, without anything else, then I would be the first to argue that it is impossible to verify whether God is the author of this book.

As I pointed out earlier, my faith is not a blind faith; that is to say, I don't read the Bible, and think to myself how can one know if any of this is true? That is blind faith. It is faith based on nothing else than some tradition that states God wrote this book when in reality there is no evidence to support this position. That's blind faith. And that, my friends, is how you see the Bible.

You look at it and think to yourself this is absurd or how can one possibly think any of this is true?

If, however, the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, despite the various authors, has a central theme, both hidden (the text within the text) and apparent, then we can verify the Divine authorship.

Let me give you some examples.

In Psalm 110, the Psalm of David, states "The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool." Then "Jehovah hath sworn, and doth not repent, 'Thou art a priest to the age, according to the order Melchizedek.'

Now this verse will mean nothing to you or Osiris or Dask. But to the believer who understands Scripture it is pregnant with meaning. In the Mosaic Law, the only people that were allowed to be priests were the sons of Aaron, the brother of Moses. And only those of the tribe of Levi were allowed to partake of the Temple Service and priesthood.

King David, who wrote Psalm 110, knew this very well. And yet despite this fact, he brings a very obscure character from the book of Genesis, named Melchizedek. He was a priest-king from the days of Abraham. Now the question is: why would David, an observant Jew, be speaking of another priesthood? And why would David call his descendant, of whom he wrote the Psalm to, Lord, if David was to be his superior?

In the Book of Hebrews, in the New Testament, the author informs us that Jesus Christ is a priest. Now modern Jews object to this claim, suggesting that only those of the tribe of Levi, the descendants of Aaron, were to be priests. And yet the Messiah was to be of David's lineage, of the tribe of Judah. So if the Messiah was to be of Judah, he could not possibly have been a descendant of Aaron, and therefore a priest.

But the New Testament tells us that Christ, who is a chief priest, was to be a priest and a king, like Melchizedek, not according to the Old Testament Levitical priesthood of Aaron, but the Priesthood according to God's promise in Psalm 110, Melchizedek. And the Psalm states that David's Lord was to be a priest forever--this is only possible if the person was to have an endless life. Hence, the Resurrection. For Psalm 16 states "I did place Jehovah before me continually, Because He is at my right hand. Therefore hath my heart been glad and my honour doth rejoice, also my flesh dwelleth confidently: For thou dost not leave my soul to Sheol (HELL), Nor givest thy saintly one to see corruption (the Resurrection.)" Notice this verse speaks of Christ being at the Right Hand of Jehovah, a fact repeated in Psalm 110 and the New Testament.

The Book Of Hebrews, 7.11-28 states, "For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

4
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Psa 110:4

18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec
Psa 110:4

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23
And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Christ's priesthood was to be like the Levitical priesthood--the Old Testament Priesthood was a TYPE, a SYMBOL, or a PICTURE, of the coming TRUE Priesthood of Christ. The whole Old Testament points to Christ--it serves as a picture, a witness, to Christ, and his work. In the Old Testament, the Jews were instructed to offer up animals, perfect ones, as a sin offering. These sacrifices were only types of the true one to come--Christ himself the sinless one, the perfect one.

Hebrews 9.23-25 "23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

And Hebrews 10.1-4 "
Chapter 10

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

I doubt any of this will make sense to you. But to anyone who understands the whole Bible, these verses cannot be of chance or coincidence.
And of course, there are passages in Isaiah. Chapter 53, written 700 years before the birth of Christ, speaks of Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, his death, his atonement on the cross, and his resurrection. Psalm 22 speaks of his crucifixion; as does Zechariah 12
Chapter 53: “
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
John 12:38 Rom 10:16

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Mt 8:17
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
1 Pet 2:24
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
1 Pet 2:25
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Acts 8:32
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Acts 8:33
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
1 Pet 2:22
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Mark 15:28 Luke 22:37


In the prophet Zechariah, chapter 12.10, “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
John 19:37 Ps 22:16
There are billions of things to state but I don’t have the energy to show it all.

[Philosopher]

philospher why cant you state your case without abusing us, thats all i am saying, i dont pretend to be an expert on religion, or anything else for that matter, but i am entitled to my opinion.

if you were not such a self declared expert we could have had an interesting debate, but how does one debate a person who thinks we are all ignorants and must be chided and abused.

i suggest some christianity humility and comapssion.

I am not abusing you buddy. I have insulted no one; I'm merely pointing out that you guys are attacking something when you don't have all the facts. That is my righteous condemnation. I respect all opinions, even if I disagree with them. Whether you believe like me, is up to you. As I have stated over and over, in civil society I respect everyone's religious rights. That is why I defended the Pagan Greeks of today, whereas everyone else called them insane.

I'm not attacking anyone; I'm being attacked. I'm willing to debate anytime, anywhere. If my writing style offends you, bear this in mind, that is how I write. Don't take it personally,

You are free to believe anything you want; and I'm free to critize it, just as you are free to critize my opinions. This is healthy; this is free speech, and I'm all for debate and discussion.

[Philosopher]

I have a Magister degree and a Bachelor of Science degree, this however has nothing to do with empirical logic. I have a scensire interest in Religion, history and politics. Must I have a degree in each one of them to be able to tell you how things work?

Did you earn your Master's a few minutes after your bachelor's? Because I noticed your original post only said bachelor's and now it reads both master's and bachelors? Very curious, no?

[osiris]

philsopher do you believe in the virgin birth.

do you think the old testament was superseded by the new or are both equally the word of god.

do you believe god would choose a particular tribe as his people and then support them in their battles against other tribes

did the jews always beleive in one god.

[Philosopher]

philsopher do you believe in the virgin birth.

do you think the old testament was superseded by the new or are both equally the word of god.

do you believe god would choose a particular tribe as his people and then support them in their battles against other tribes

did the jews always beleive in one god.

The Virgin birth has its origins in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. In chapter 3. 15 "
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

The prophecy explains that Christ was to be the exclusive seed of the woman; this is the only place in the Scriptures that speaks of the "seed of a woman." For it is always the seed of the man. The prophecy was that Christ was to destroy the power of Satan, by bruising his head, but only by being bitten by Satan in the process, his death in the flesh.

In Isaiah 7.14, the prophet said "Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel." The prophecy, like so many prophecies in the Old Testament, has a dual function; this is the "text within the text," I speak of.

There is much misunderstanding as to what is meant by Old Testament and New Testament and if both are equally God's word and both valid today. Here goes: the Old Testament consists of law, both moral and ceremonial, psalms and wisdom writings, and prophets.

The ceremonial law, which is the Hebrew national law regarding customs, feasts, holidays, and the like, was only to the Hebrews, and no one else. That is why in the New Testament era, Christians don't observe Passover, or the day of Atonement, or clean and unclean meats and foods, and the like. The ceremonial laws were only instituted by God to serve as a witness or a picture to Christ's work on the earth and of sin.

Thus, for example, the Passover lamb of the Old Testament, is an earthly copy of the heavenly one to come, Christ being the True Passover Lamb. The Hebrews exodus out of Egypt is symbolic of Satan and Sin. Christ freed his people from slavery, like Moses, who is a type and figure of Christ, did with the Hebrews; but Christ's freedoms out of slavery was of the spiritual type, not the carnal.

When we speak of the Old Testament being done away with, we mean the covenant that God made with the House of Israel is no longer valid, because it was only a shadow of the New Testament. For example, a shadow of a tree outside is not real; it is not eternal; it abides only for a time, and is only a copy of the true, in this case, the Tree itself. Well, the Old Testament is a copy of the New; the New was made on Christ's blood, since Testament and Wills require the death of the Tester. The OLD Testament was founded a copy, a shadow of Christ's blood, in this case animal blood; the contract God made with the House of Israel in the Old Testament is no longer valid, because it was never intended to abide forever.

Thus, we interpret the Old Testament in light of the New; all the prophets and their teachings are valid; the Old Testament moral law, by and large, is valid; but the Hebrew ceremonial law is not.

Thus, both are God's Word and both are to be revered.

God sided with one nation over others in the past; just as he sides with one nation today over others; he is on the side of righteousness. It is true that in the Old Testament that God sided with the House of Judah over the House of Israel, but this he did because the House of Israel was wicked and deserved judgment.

Did the Jews always believe in one God? A better word is "Hebrews," since the Jews of today only means Judah. Well, yes and no. Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, was a pagan and then became a believer in Jehovah; then Moses led the way later on; but the Hebrew and Jewish nation has always sided back and forth with Monotheism and Polytheism.

[osiris]

thanks philospher

[Daskalot]

The Virgin birth has its origins in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. In chapter 3. 15 "
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

The prophecy explains that Christ was to be the exclusive seed of the woman; this is the only place in the Scriptures that speaks of the "seed of a woman." For it is always the seed of the man. The prophecy was that Christ was to destroy the power of Satan, by bruising his head, but only by being bitten by Satan in the process, his death in the flesh.

In Isaiah 7.14, the prophet said "Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel." The prophecy, like so many prophecies in the Old Testament, has a dual function; this is the "text within the text," I speak of.

There is much misunderstanding as to what is meant by Old Testament and New Testament and if both are equally God's word and both valid today. Here goes: the Old Testament consists of law, both moral and ceremonial, psalms and wisdom writings, and prophets.

The ceremonial law, which is the Hebrew national law regarding customs, feasts, holidays, and the like, was only to the Hebrews, and no one else. That is why in the New Testament era, Christians don't observe Passover, or the day of Atonement, or clean and unclean meats and foods, and the like. The ceremonial laws were only instituted by God to serve as a witness or a picture to Christ's work on the earth and of sin.

Thus, for example, the Passover lamb of the Old Testament, is an earthly copy of the heavenly one to come, Christ being the True Passover Lamb. The Hebrews exodus out of Egypt is symbolic of Satan and Sin. Christ freed his people from slavery, like Moses, who is a type and figure of Christ, did with the Hebrews; but Christ's freedoms out of slavery was of the spiritual type, not the carnal.

When we speak of the Old Testament being done away with, we mean the covenant that God made with the House of Israel is no longer valid, because it was only a shadow of the New Testament. For example, a shadow of a tree outside is not real; it is not eternal; it abides only for a time, and is only a copy of the true, in this case, the Tree itself. Well, the Old Testament is a copy of the New; the New was made on Christ's blood, since Testament and Wills require the death of the Tester. The OLD Testament was founded a copy, a shadow of Christ's blood, in this case animal blood; the contract God made with the House of Israel in the Old Testament is no longer valid, because it was never intended to abide forever.

Thus, we interpret the Old Testament in light of the New; all the prophets and their teachings are valid; the Old Testament moral law, by and large, is valid; but the Hebrew ceremonial law is not.

Thus, both are God's Word and both are to be revered.

God sided with one nation over others in the past; just as he sides with one nation today over others; he is on the side of righteousness. It is true that in the Old Testament that God sided with the House of Judah over the House of Israel, but this he did because the House of Israel was wicked and deserved judgment.

Did the Jews always believe in one God? A better word is "Hebrews," since the Jews of today only means Judah. Well, yes and no. Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, was a pagan and then became a believer in Jehovah; then Moses led the way later on; but the Hebrew and Jewish nation has always sided back and forth with Monotheism and Polytheism.

The virgin birth has its origins in ancient Egypt, it is not uniquely Christian, Buddha was born of a virgin. The same goes for Horace the Egyptian god. There are many more, strange is it not?

[Rogi]

While on this topic, has anyone seen "Religulous" ?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/

[Daskalot]

While on this topic, has anyone seen "Religulous" ?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/

Yes I have, the documentary is a must see for anyone interested of religion.

[Philosopher]

The virgin birth has its origins in ancient Egypt, it is not uniquely Christian, Buddha was born of a virgin. The same goes for Horace the Egyptian god. There are many more, strange is it not?

You think you are so smart, don't you? Did you not read my earlier post when I stated to RTG that I am well aware that other religions have similar concepts to the virigin birth, the trinity, the resurrection, the Son of God, and so forth?

The Church Fathers, knowing these things better than you, sought to refute the pagans they were living among, in order to arrest their mouths from speaking folly and ignorance. Genesis 3.15, my friend, predates Buddha, Horace, and Alexander the Great's claim of virgin births. It predates all these virgin births and more. Genesis 3.15 is the very begining of human society, when there were only two people on this earth.

But even if the biblical account is later--what does this prove, that the Bible's version is borrowed from the heathen? I think not. If you notice carefully, the pagan versions are always corrupt versions of the real event. Take, for example, the story of Gilgamish, the Babylonian myth of Noah's flood, the story is obviously a corrupt version of the biblical one. Why did the gods destroy the world with a flood--because the world was too noisy? Makes no sense, does it?

The simple explanation is that the theme of the virgin birth, known to the earliest humans, has been orally transmitted from culture to culture, and the story has been corrupted. Some of the Church Fathers argued that Satan, who is well aware of the Scriptures and their promises, helped inspire counterfits around the world, in order to discredit the real thing.

But here comes the clincher. What role does the virgin birth play in the pagan myths? What is its purpose? In the Bible, there is coherence on the subject, from Genesis to Revelation, on why the Messiah was to be born of a Virgin.

The New Testament tells us that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, and as such, could not have a birth after the natural order, otherwise he could not be divine. We know this not from some isolated passages merely; the whole bible tells us the Messiah's birth was to be the incarnation of God.

For example, Isaiah 9.6-7
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

Jeremiah 9.5-6

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

Throughout the Bible, the Messiah's birth is spoken of.

IN Michah 5.2 it speaks of Christ's birth as that of eternity
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Mt 2:6

In the Bible, the virgin birth is spoken of everywhere, because it tells us that the Messiah was to be God Himself, and not man.

Explain to me this: How did Christ predict the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. In Matthew 24.1-2

" And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

[Daskalot]

So you do believe that all humans stem from Adam and Eve? If so how did they prevent inter breeding? Are you residing in the States?