You poor Satanists out there......
First of all the common misconception of Satanism is that it is Devil worship. Yes there are some devil worshippers out there that call themselves Satanists, however the true concept of Satanism is actually nothing of the sort.
Satan, is a Hebrew word that simply means, 'Adversary.' Coming from the Book of Enoch ( 1st Greek Translation ) 'Sataniel' who was meant to have been on of the Fallen Angels or the Watchers. Sataniel, in ancient Hebrew literally means, 'Adversary of God' or 'Adversary of the Most High' in some dialects.
The proper Satanist actually believes that God was created by Man, that we conjured the idea of God/Gods as a way of making our own existence mean something.
To break this whole thing down simply and mathematically - there is one thing that we are absolutely certain about of Gods existence on Earth. That thing is 'Faith.'
Faith is the one indisputable thing that people have that connects them to their God/Gods.
So the Satanist, or the Adversary is the enemy of Faith.
So who is the Antagonist of Faith..... Knowledge
Knowledge is the Enemy of Faith, therefore a Satanist is simply someone who prefers answers, with credibility rather than belief in something that is not fully understood.
However this analogy is only a very basic one, Satanism is not as simple as this - but to put it simply, it is not Devil worship.
From 500AD to 1300AD a person in pursuit of knowledge before religion ( and in some cases at all ) was considered a heretic, an enemy of the Church, and in turn a Satanist or Devil Worshipper. But these phrases were conjured to incite the masses to hunt down and kill anyone who searched for enough knowledge to challenge a claim made by the church.
If people such as Da Vinci or Newton had not studied predominantly in secret they would have most likely been executed as Devil Worshippers.
Tuesday 29 November 2011
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
Funny question that actually... You see you can always bring up the old, 'you weren't there how do you know,' question - therefore we must settle with the most historically credible answer available.
But first we need to do some learning. We need to learn just what exactly is 'Historical Credibility?'
The first thing we'd think about is people we identify as historically renown people ( aka: Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great etc ).
What if I told you that Jesus's resurrection was a more historically credible event than Julius Caesar's murder on the Ides of March?
Historical Credibility actually depends on a few simple factors:
1. Time document was written
2. Who was the writer
3. Other texts on the same subject or person
4. Purpose of the text (Biast or unbiast)
Obviously the most important from a historical point of view is number 1. Time document was written.
2000 years ago ( and prior to ) it was actually unheard of for a historical document to be written about any one ( even the Caesars ) before give or take around 400-500 years after the person in question had died. The reason was that the general populous was illiterate and couldn't read or write anyway. The select minority who could read were either scribes, messengers, or scholars. These men, imbued with this unique gift, would use their ability to read and or write as a means of employment and for media purposes, getting the word out to the masses.
There were no newspapers in Rome 2000 years ago, the mob actually received their day to day news about the world by a man standing in the pulpit reading from a scroll containing relevant news of the day, week, month or year. Once each person had heard the news it was used as fuel for gossip among the Roman people and as a result, news travelled fast.
The need to write down the story of a man's life who had recently died was considered quite menotinous to say the least. Who would read it? Everyone who wanted to know about that person did know all they needed to know about a person.
Think about it - if your Father died tomorrow, do you think the first thing you'd do is write a book about him. Then add to that - do you think you'd write a book about him in 20 years time if no one could read?
One of the great Historical significances about the four Gospels we know from the Bible ( Matthew, Mark, Luke & John ) is that these texts were written between 40 and 120 years after Jesus died. That sounds like a long time by our standards but 2000 years ago in an illiterate world that was a turning point in the way the world viewed historical texts.
Another twist in the historical credibility in Christ's life story were the writers and their sources. You couldn't just talk to a person who met Jesus one day and use their dribble as basis for what would be possibly consiered a historical text for years to come - if that had been the case for these four books they would be literally laughed at during the Council of Mycae ( the unification of the books & scrolls we know now as the Bible ).
Matthew, Mark and Luke used hundreds of eye witness accounts to create a 'highlight reel' of Jesus' life. When one of these men would travel to Palestine and ask an eye witness of Christ what he said during a speech on the top of a hill and then travel to Ethiopia and receive an identical word for word testimony from another eye witness - it still wasn't enough to include in these Gospels. As mentioned, these men travelled abroad and spoke to hundreds of eye witnesses to form these books.
The significance of John is that he, whether intentionally or not, is renown for using completely different eye witness accounts from across mesopotamia and still unearthed a corroborating story.
Many Historians and Scholars say there were no other writers of the time that mentioned Jesus but they are incredibly incorrect. Religious Historian, John Dickson has actually revealed several extra biblical writings of Jesus from even the most skeptical viewpoints expressed within the 200 years after Jesus' death.
One writer, considered a mojor skeptic, speaks of Jesus being a magical healer who claims to be the Ho Christo ( the Messiah ).
There were also other gospels that were considered by the Council of Mycae and further rejected from being included in the Canon. The Gospel of Phillip, which talks about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdelene. The main reasons for this book not being included was because it didn't fully survive the test of time and is now torn and missing the latter chunk of the document.
So when you look at Historically credible and not historically credible you can say that "according to History, Jesus did indeed rise from the dead,'
Whether or not he did is a question we may never answer.
But first we need to do some learning. We need to learn just what exactly is 'Historical Credibility?'
The first thing we'd think about is people we identify as historically renown people ( aka: Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great etc ).
What if I told you that Jesus's resurrection was a more historically credible event than Julius Caesar's murder on the Ides of March?
Historical Credibility actually depends on a few simple factors:
1. Time document was written
2. Who was the writer
3. Other texts on the same subject or person
4. Purpose of the text (Biast or unbiast)
Obviously the most important from a historical point of view is number 1. Time document was written.
2000 years ago ( and prior to ) it was actually unheard of for a historical document to be written about any one ( even the Caesars ) before give or take around 400-500 years after the person in question had died. The reason was that the general populous was illiterate and couldn't read or write anyway. The select minority who could read were either scribes, messengers, or scholars. These men, imbued with this unique gift, would use their ability to read and or write as a means of employment and for media purposes, getting the word out to the masses.
There were no newspapers in Rome 2000 years ago, the mob actually received their day to day news about the world by a man standing in the pulpit reading from a scroll containing relevant news of the day, week, month or year. Once each person had heard the news it was used as fuel for gossip among the Roman people and as a result, news travelled fast.
The need to write down the story of a man's life who had recently died was considered quite menotinous to say the least. Who would read it? Everyone who wanted to know about that person did know all they needed to know about a person.
Think about it - if your Father died tomorrow, do you think the first thing you'd do is write a book about him. Then add to that - do you think you'd write a book about him in 20 years time if no one could read?
One of the great Historical significances about the four Gospels we know from the Bible ( Matthew, Mark, Luke & John ) is that these texts were written between 40 and 120 years after Jesus died. That sounds like a long time by our standards but 2000 years ago in an illiterate world that was a turning point in the way the world viewed historical texts.
Another twist in the historical credibility in Christ's life story were the writers and their sources. You couldn't just talk to a person who met Jesus one day and use their dribble as basis for what would be possibly consiered a historical text for years to come - if that had been the case for these four books they would be literally laughed at during the Council of Mycae ( the unification of the books & scrolls we know now as the Bible ).
Matthew, Mark and Luke used hundreds of eye witness accounts to create a 'highlight reel' of Jesus' life. When one of these men would travel to Palestine and ask an eye witness of Christ what he said during a speech on the top of a hill and then travel to Ethiopia and receive an identical word for word testimony from another eye witness - it still wasn't enough to include in these Gospels. As mentioned, these men travelled abroad and spoke to hundreds of eye witnesses to form these books.
The significance of John is that he, whether intentionally or not, is renown for using completely different eye witness accounts from across mesopotamia and still unearthed a corroborating story.
Many Historians and Scholars say there were no other writers of the time that mentioned Jesus but they are incredibly incorrect. Religious Historian, John Dickson has actually revealed several extra biblical writings of Jesus from even the most skeptical viewpoints expressed within the 200 years after Jesus' death.
One writer, considered a mojor skeptic, speaks of Jesus being a magical healer who claims to be the Ho Christo ( the Messiah ).
There were also other gospels that were considered by the Council of Mycae and further rejected from being included in the Canon. The Gospel of Phillip, which talks about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdelene. The main reasons for this book not being included was because it didn't fully survive the test of time and is now torn and missing the latter chunk of the document.
So when you look at Historically credible and not historically credible you can say that "according to History, Jesus did indeed rise from the dead,'
Whether or not he did is a question we may never answer.
Were the stories of the Bible chosen to paint a more perfect picture of Jesus and Christianity?
100% Absolutely!
What you need to understand is that the term, 'Christian' means something today that couldn't be more diametrically opposed to the Christian circa 100AD.
Once Jesus had been executed his followers continued to preach his word and by about 300AD about 40% of the known world ( Rome ) were Christians. By that stage Christians were massacring Pagans ( and vice-versa ) who also occupied around 40% of the Roman population. Considering the Roman Empire was made up of over 10 major European Countries, all with their own heritages and religions - 40% of the known world to be Christian was terrifying for the Roman Dictator, Constantine.
Rome was being torn apart by the ongoing feud which for individuals ended in death or conversion to either side. Sounds pretty ridiculous but back then, they didn't have the protection of people's rights that we do now and so submission by conversion sometimes sounded slightly more lucrative than death....
Constantine was in trouble to say the least. He erected the Council of Mycae to 'sift' through all the teachings, texts, parables, songs and stories from the Tanakh, the Torah, texts of Prophets and latter writings of Yehoshua ben Yosef or Jesus, son of Joseph.
The general Christian 2000 years ago was not quite as eloquent about their beliefs as the modern Bible-bashing Hillsong Christians - although they had one thing in common and that is following Christ. The 2000 year old Christian was quite ready to maliciously inflict mass violence to kill or convert any and all non-Christians. There are a myriad of historical events where Christians are said to have massacred temples full of worshipping Pagan and Jews ( and of course vice-versa not to be too opinionated ).
Constantine and the Council of Mycae decided to choose which texts best emphasised Jesus' teachings of peace and love - and particular loving and not killing thy neighbour. Constantine later attempted to unite Rome under Christianities values of the fore mentioned peace and love.
It backfired however between 300-500AD when certain writings were miss-interpreted and twisted with miss-interpretation in the pursuit of power and wealth. What many Christians don't realise is that it was phrases sounding something like, 'Women are to learn in silence and remain silent,' that were interpreted by the leaders of the Christian Church to mean 'Any Woman with a voice or opinion is to be silenced.'
Silenced... as in murdered in the most vile, cruel and religiously monotonous ways, believed by many to be Holy cleansing. This lunacy eventually ushered in the dawn of centuries of darkness known as the Melaus Malificarum, or The Witches Hammer.
Another Gospel some of us are familiar with is the Gospel of Phillip which quite obviously was not included as a Canonical Text. The Gospel of Phillips contence refer to Jesus' marriage with Mary Magdelene which the Canonical Gospels have conveniently neglected to touch on, leaving the subject to be debated over zealously most probably for years to come.
In short.... Yes the Texts found in the Bible have most definately been selected to paint a more 'Perfect Picture' of Jesus and Christian values especially, mainly because it wasn't written to guide current day Christians on how to live their lives ( although i'm sure they'd feel pretty happy with themselves if they knew it had such an effect down at Hillsong on a sunday morning... ) it was assembled as a fast and decicive way to stop the pre-Dark Age Christians from killing anyone who did not follow Christianity.
Unfortunately Christians, today, proclaim the Bible as the 'Word of God' and will more than likely choose to believe that all extra-Biblical texts ( books that are not in the Bible ) are most definately NOT to be held anywhere near as credible as the books found in the Bible.
Not even the contraversial Book of Enoch ( 2 greek translations 1 Hebrew ), which is even mentioned by Jesus younger Brother, Judas ( or Jude ) in the Bible as a reference to his own teachings found just prior to Revelations. This is one large reason why the book of Jude is commonly missed by Christians and Biblical Teachers as Revelations is much more far more exiting.....
What you need to understand is that the term, 'Christian' means something today that couldn't be more diametrically opposed to the Christian circa 100AD.
Once Jesus had been executed his followers continued to preach his word and by about 300AD about 40% of the known world ( Rome ) were Christians. By that stage Christians were massacring Pagans ( and vice-versa ) who also occupied around 40% of the Roman population. Considering the Roman Empire was made up of over 10 major European Countries, all with their own heritages and religions - 40% of the known world to be Christian was terrifying for the Roman Dictator, Constantine.
Rome was being torn apart by the ongoing feud which for individuals ended in death or conversion to either side. Sounds pretty ridiculous but back then, they didn't have the protection of people's rights that we do now and so submission by conversion sometimes sounded slightly more lucrative than death....
Constantine was in trouble to say the least. He erected the Council of Mycae to 'sift' through all the teachings, texts, parables, songs and stories from the Tanakh, the Torah, texts of Prophets and latter writings of Yehoshua ben Yosef or Jesus, son of Joseph.
The general Christian 2000 years ago was not quite as eloquent about their beliefs as the modern Bible-bashing Hillsong Christians - although they had one thing in common and that is following Christ. The 2000 year old Christian was quite ready to maliciously inflict mass violence to kill or convert any and all non-Christians. There are a myriad of historical events where Christians are said to have massacred temples full of worshipping Pagan and Jews ( and of course vice-versa not to be too opinionated ).
Constantine and the Council of Mycae decided to choose which texts best emphasised Jesus' teachings of peace and love - and particular loving and not killing thy neighbour. Constantine later attempted to unite Rome under Christianities values of the fore mentioned peace and love.
It backfired however between 300-500AD when certain writings were miss-interpreted and twisted with miss-interpretation in the pursuit of power and wealth. What many Christians don't realise is that it was phrases sounding something like, 'Women are to learn in silence and remain silent,' that were interpreted by the leaders of the Christian Church to mean 'Any Woman with a voice or opinion is to be silenced.'
Silenced... as in murdered in the most vile, cruel and religiously monotonous ways, believed by many to be Holy cleansing. This lunacy eventually ushered in the dawn of centuries of darkness known as the Melaus Malificarum, or The Witches Hammer.
Another Gospel some of us are familiar with is the Gospel of Phillip which quite obviously was not included as a Canonical Text. The Gospel of Phillips contence refer to Jesus' marriage with Mary Magdelene which the Canonical Gospels have conveniently neglected to touch on, leaving the subject to be debated over zealously most probably for years to come.
In short.... Yes the Texts found in the Bible have most definately been selected to paint a more 'Perfect Picture' of Jesus and Christian values especially, mainly because it wasn't written to guide current day Christians on how to live their lives ( although i'm sure they'd feel pretty happy with themselves if they knew it had such an effect down at Hillsong on a sunday morning... ) it was assembled as a fast and decicive way to stop the pre-Dark Age Christians from killing anyone who did not follow Christianity.
Unfortunately Christians, today, proclaim the Bible as the 'Word of God' and will more than likely choose to believe that all extra-Biblical texts ( books that are not in the Bible ) are most definately NOT to be held anywhere near as credible as the books found in the Bible.
Not even the contraversial Book of Enoch ( 2 greek translations 1 Hebrew ), which is even mentioned by Jesus younger Brother, Judas ( or Jude ) in the Bible as a reference to his own teachings found just prior to Revelations. This is one large reason why the book of Jude is commonly missed by Christians and Biblical Teachers as Revelations is much more far more exiting.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)