Where the heck did you get Ra is Jesus? Thats so wrong.

No thanks

If you are saying that because in the English we have the word Amen, that this must be talking about another Gods proper name, then this is poor textual criticism. If so, then everytime you see the word Verily (or at least 101x) in the new testament, you have to put in the name of that God. Its a word that means true, firm, or faithful.

Jews are the synagogue of Satan. whatever the is

cunnilingus was the origin of everything

lol it twas

Gotta have jokes man. Much respect.

The Hindu gods existed way before the Egyptian gods

God doesn't exist, what truths could there possibly be?

If only people acknowledged that science itself is a religion.

The truth is between religion and science.

The truth is between beyond religion and science.

Well said. I like to think of a 3 circle ven diagram. Religion, science and spirituality. People conveniently forgot the last one.

People also seem to forget that you can be spiritual without being involved in organized religion.

The way I look at it, many religions all had similar spiritual links and there underlying messages are all the same. We can learn much by learning about all different religions and opening our minds to it. It really changes your perspective of it all, and just further supports our own spirituality.

I can respect that. I think religion went wrong went they stopped using psychedelics tho..

Psychedelic are only a short cut to astral realm. It's difficult to control. Psychedelic are certainly useful for breaking through, but habitual use should not be necessary once you truly enlighten yourself.

My acid trip had changed my life and opened my eyes. And I microdosed for a bit. However, I always thought of the beetles song, Day Tripper. Acid, DMT, etc are shortcuts that can help, but don't depend on them.

My question is this: If all religions teach the same thing, what do we do when they clearly dont? When they contradict? All can be wrong, but not all can be right

Absolutely, sir/ma'am (just read the username...probably ma'am).

Reminds me of a poem I came across a while back.

Absolutely, sir/ma'am (just read the username...probably ma'am).

What you said very much reminds me of a poem I came across a while back.

If only everyone knew how close that answer truly is.

It'd be a lot more difficult for the elite to manipulate the masses.

Its within yourself.

What if that's still this world, the dark world? This world is getting healed, but astral travel and those things, from what I can tell (so don't claim to know for sure) can give people bad experiences, and possibly get manipulated into some agenda. So obviously only you know, I just wanted to mention that because I heard bad stories. But i have had some very good positive experiences and it didn't involve that, but definitely did involve a strong feeling of love for all humanity. That's the only way I can really know a religious experience.

You'll find this message at the heart of all religions, but through traditions, doctrines, and mistranslations it gets lost and transmuted into something so far from the original.

please provide evidence that the bible we have now is a mistranslation of primary documents?

To provide that much evidence in one reply is honestly more work than I'm willing to do. It's a lifetime of research into the subject but I will say in short that you have to remember the modern bible is composed of a series of books. These were borrowed from oral histories from many varied cultures. The first books were written in biblical hebrew and aramaic.

When you're talking about heady, cerebral subjects such as god and religion in general, even a fluent speaker can be lost for words. The act of translating these old languages is a challenge on it's own, not to mention the challenge of translating concepts and ideas that don't cross cultural barriers.

The etymology of the bible is a very interesting study. If you're really interested in it, I'd suggest reading the book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Whether or not you'll subscribe to his theories isn't important, but he offers a breakdown and study of possible translations for the biblical hebrew. He has one interpretation, but reading it will allow you to see why there is a lot of debate over translations in general.

I hope this helps somewhat.

Man first worshiped the sun because it gave him light and heat. When it set, it got dark and cold. Man praised each sunrise. As time went on, he lay in the fields looking at the stars. Over time he gave star sets names to help identify them and later noticed these sets had an annual pattern. He began to use them as a calendar of sorts, planting crops when the virgin was in the sky, reap when they saw the water bearer or whatever in the sky. This is the reason Mithra, Horus, Jesus, an a host of others down through the ages have all been born of virgins, died, rose from the dead, were here to save mankind, celebrated on the winter solace (Dec 25th) and spring (Easter). It's why they were the son (of) god, The Light, etc. And the bible was written to help convince people it was something more.... it was Caesar who called the council of Nicaea and defined Jesus as a god, not the bible. He was only a man prior to Caesar deciding he was instead a god or son of. Nothing metaphysical, nothing spiritual... not even religious. It was used to help control. Catholics invented hell.

No, they didn't practice meditation. These guys were still in the dark and meditation wasn't practiced until a few thousand years ago.

Show me what? You mean you think you'll be "in the astral"? here is a difference.

The "Jesus is a copy of pagan myths' has been heavily debunked. No real scholars support that view. Zeitgeist is not high academic research https://youtu.be/30AunYXtYDg

Thank you. Jesus did exists but until the Council of Nicaea, he was not considered a god.That was determined by the "bishops" in attendance after Caesar forced them all to agree on one concept. That concept spread as Christianity.

This is also debunked. Jesus refers to himself as God multiple times in some of the most attested to primary sources in history. If he is claiming to be God (before Abraham was, I Am), he is either lying, delusional, or he's telling the truth.

But what option that's not left is that Jesus was a good person that was later made God by followers hundreds of years later

I disagree. What "most attested sources" are we talking about?

The gospel accounts. Those are first hand primary documents. Nearly all textual and historical critics (at least those of scholarly backgrounds) would attest that they are authentic.

Authentically old but inspired by the "breath of God?" The litmus test seems to be which old books passed that test.... books that could be proven to be inspired by God. Josephus' writing are old but not considered as accurate because they know his work was not God inspired. How do we tel the difference? Some say those "forgotten" books have inaccuracies but isn't it true the included books do too?

Theres a lot to reply to here.

1. I wasnt making a breathed by God argument (although that is what I believe). I was saying that they can be trusted as to what they report. They are reliable witness to history according to any academic standard. We have no reason to claim that they misquoted Jesus. If you are claiming that they did, the burden of proof is on your end, because you are making the contradictory claim
2. If we are getting into the Inspired Vs Uninspired question, Josephus would never even be in the conversation. No one was claiming that it was a religious text or claiming that it was scripture.
3. The council of Nicea was not a time when they "Made the bible". Your history is incorrect. According to Dr R.C. Sproul, "During the second century a.d., the heretic Marcion produced a list of his approved books of the Bible. Marcion held that the Old Testament God was an evil god of wrath, so he eliminated the Old Testament and those places in the New Testament that favorably referred to the God of the Old Testament. To answer Marcion, the church formulated once and for all the list of true books of the Bible."
4. For the most part, The church simply recognized the books that had already been in circulation. There was very little debate during this council. A few shorter books like Jude, were debated, and a few Apocryphal books. All other books were not even seriously considered. The gospel of Thomas or Judas and other books like it, were not much of a controversy at the time, and are a recent revision to history.

1. Agreed 2. Josephus was a historical writer, not religious. But he writes about events in the time of Jesus and never mentions him. Is he less trustworthy that the others? 3. CoN did not "make the bible", they debated each other's beliefs and hammered them into one common idea. Some considered Jesus a god, others did not. In the end, they mutually agreed to preach that He was. 4. Gospel of Mary, was that discounted becasue it was a forgery or because the pope wanted few women in the church?

1. Josephus certainly did mention Jesus in Antiquities. But if he hadn't, an argument from silence is the best that can be made here.
2. CoN looked at the text to answer their questions... That same text that you agreed was reliable. They did not "decide" Jesus was God... Jesus claimed to be God. That's what they noted. If someone is "deciding" it was Jesus. 4.gospel of Mary is clearly written in the second or third century.
   

Added. 5. CoN did not meet to establish an orthodoxy. They met to remove heresy. The idea that the Gnostic gospels had been competing with the Canon since the beginning is false. They were later creations by a different group 6. By the time the CoN meet, the books of our modern Canon we're already in circulation and widely viewed as scripture.

Oh you mean this mention.... Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16]

yes, that mention. The quote says very clearly that most scholars think that while not entirely authentic, it is from an authentic nucleus.

The second mention is considered as having a high level of authenticity among scholars.

Thats all straight from the quote that you provided.

I'm not sure what's going on... My app says you replied but it's not showing me what you wrote. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.. also, while I'm not wishing to end the debate, I thought I would take a minute to thank you for engaging in this discussion in a fair and honest way and by discussing the position rather than insulting the person. That's what this sub needs more of.

Agreed. I wish i knew more. My "research" was done a decade ago, personal investigating. Who knows what the truth is? I think you for helping dispel some myths. Currently, I'm "researching" foods and nutrition. There is just as much misinformation about it as about religion. No one can see to agree on too many facts. But we try.

I feel like in nutrition, I can never find any cohesive work. So much contradicts other research. Its really hard to find commonality. Its almost like we are all guessing haha

I've finally decided on "food". That which grows naturally rather than made in a plant somewhere. And I've decided sugar, not fat or salt is my real enemy.

Caesar was long dead dude.. it was Constantine the Great

Caesar was a title, a rank. His father was a Caesar and he was eventually promoted to that rank. Constantine became leader of both eastern and western parts of the Roman empire and in order to solidify his new holdings, he commanded leaders of all the different factions of Christian teachings and beliefs to gather and hammer out one common belief. Some of these "bishops" were o more than itinerary preachers roaming around preaching whatever they thought.... at this meeting, they all agreed to teach the same things and from this the new unifying religion grew.

Yes but the Caesar only holds down the Augustus line.

The point being, he forced the various "churches" to find a common belief that became Christianity. He wanted a unifying force, not necessarily a new religion. But thanks for the clarifiation.

Constantine called the Council of Nicaea

Thank you.

Of all the conspiracy posts at this sub, I find this one to be the most delusional. Well done.

Ah Gnosticism. I was a follower and it made me half awaken. A lot of truth but one major flaw. If God is the enemy, then all Gods are the enemy. I believed this was Hell. Until I saw how the realm truly looks. I saw that God loves us so much that we are literally the center of the universe.

Funny this was downvoted.

Just remember, Quetzalcoatl created your gods and blows the wind that scours your deserts.

And Quetzalcoatl is the mystery unknowable.

The old gods.

The true gods.

If only people acknowledged that science itself is a religion.

The truth is between religion and science.

What if that's still this world, the dark world? This world is getting healed, but astral travel and those things, from what I can tell (so don't claim to know for sure) can give people bad experiences, and possibly get manipulated into some agenda. So obviously only you know, I just wanted to mention that because I heard bad stories. But i have had some very good positive experiences and it didn't involve that, but definitely did involve a strong feeling of love for all humanity. That's the only way I can really know a religious experience.