₦airaland Forum

THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT CHELSEA ARE 'BAD LOOSERS' ISAID IT IN MY FIRST POST THAT THEY ONLY WANTS TO PUT REFFS UNDER PRESSURE,IF NOT IN ALL CHELSEA MATCHES MATCH ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THEY COMMITS HIGHER FOUL! REFF WAVED MORE FOUL FOR CHELSEA THAN OTHERS,CHELSEA MAN-UTD FOUL STATISTICS GOES THIS WAY CHELSEA 14 FOUL COMMITED MAN UTD 12, YET THEY CRY FOUL, WELL I THINK THEY KNOW THAT SINCE NOEVIDENCE VS THE REFF MIKEL IS GOING TO BE PUNISHED BY RUSHING INTO THE REFFS DUGOUT 'AN ACTOF INDISCIPLINE,BAD LOOSERS!

@chukwudi44,

Yes we ask mary to pray for us to Jesus and we have no apology for that.

Who commanded that? can you back it up using the bible,just one quote? or bible is irrelevant? Nobody needs your apology here! the only ones who needed it are those whom you led into idolatory what God never commanded and led into sin,some are dead now and you still demand moneys from their relatives 'in the name' of 'purgating' their souls,if you dont owe such an apology,or God an apology,we dont need it pls.

The bible says Jesus is the only madiator between God and man and not between man and Jesus.

Oh, are you saying jesus and God are not 'one' again? (trinity) even on earth is jesus not having 'the fulness of Deity rest on him bodily? and that means that even in body form he is God in human body? can you see that you have boxed yourself in a corner? lets go now!

[size=14pt]so there is nothing wrong in going to Jesus through Mary [/size]just like most of you hypocrites go through your pastors and brethren to Jesus

do i hear you say''nothing wrong in going to Jesus through Mary''
We are still saying the same thing, since you catholics says jesus is God,equal with God,God in human form, is he a mediator to himself and man?

lets read from the bible,who a mediator is, and what constitutes the parties,(law discipline required here)

Galatians 3:19-21

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels[b] and entrusted to a mediator.[/b] 20[size=14pt] A mediator,however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
[/size]

now going by pauls defination ''A mediator,however, implies more than one party'';see the description below;

having exposed the baseless reason for mary's statue in the church or shrines, lets see the motive behind the statue,tagged 'modern idolatory! pagan culture,why must holy things be shared with pagan,thats the mess catholics are dragging xtianity to!

picture A below

Egypt, she was called Isis. In Crete, she was represented as a mother who made friendly contact with snakes. In Greece she was known as Demeter, and in Rome she was worshiped as Cybele, the Magna Mater (Great Mother), a mother goddess of Phrygian origin. There is practically no ancient culture that did not worship this type of deity.” ( The Myth of Mary, pp.74, 75)

picture B below

figure of Mary has been erroneously elevated to a goddess status by Roman Catholic theologians. She is known as the Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, Eternal Virgin, Queen of Peace, Our Mother, Lady of the Good Death, Co-mediatrix, and Blessed Mother. Thousands of shrines around the world commemorate her. Visions, apparitions, visitations, and channeled messages accompany the mystical experiences of her followers.
Cesar Vidal elaborates,
“The idea of the universal motherhood of Mary, which does not appear historically until the 11th century, has a much greater connection with paganism than with Scripture. The same can be said of the representation of Mary with the divine child. This concept was also unknown…in the first centuries of Christianity.
…it is especially significant that Mary worship, which we find in Catholicism and in the Eastern churches, does not stem at any point from biblical concepts, but from theabsorption of pagan theologies like those present in the myths of Isis, Demeter and Cybele.” ( The Myth of Mary, p. 86, 89)

@ijawkid

The rationale behind mary being a medium through which they pray and expect salvation is because they have flung Yahweh into the dustbin and made Jesus the almighty......

Now that is exactly what happens when the trinity is taught and gulped........

When many equate Jesus to Yahweh then it means we have to look for a substitute mediator and high priest....and I think mary is doing just that for them....in there dreams I mean.....:-)

but dont expect them to admit under no circumstance,they are stuck to logic from the innexperienced then they pray on such, but if you knock them off their base,they will resort to insults,or tell you to answer yes or no, or accuse you of stories! and not the real bible truth,but overwhelming proofs exposes all these!

@italo

John fell at the angel's feet to worship him. Even though it was wrong but that verse shows 'falling prostrate' as a sign of worship...but you reject it in the case of Joshua, just because you want to blame only Catholics.

lets Thank God that you aknowledge that it is wrong to worship even an angel,and it is because the angel bluntly reject the gesture,not only that!the angel humbles himself to tell john that ''im a fellow servant like you''he then directs john to give the worship to the rightfull person;God!and not through any other source tallkless of images that are made with woods,carved by a sculptor,and what happens to the remains of the woods carved? they are burned away in fire or may be used to cook even used to roast maize or suya! had it been that this passage was not recorded,dont you see that a religion can follow suit in making image of an angel and 'fell prostrate'as you put it,and they will tell u or claim that they are not worshiping the angel,but God!

Now let me ask you, if Mary who is not an angel,but a lower creation;human could turn back to real human and saw all the prayers made in her name,prostrations and kneeling down,kissing of her feet,dont you think that she will also say what the angel said; 'im only a blessed woman among the blessed, worship God' (smile) just imagine that for once, there is 99 per cent chance that she will.

unfortunately while mary was alive nobody worshiped her or direct it through her,even peter whom you catholics said was the first pope never prostrated or bow for mary even while she was alive because peter too was around,with jesus, so,why does he not praise and adore Mary in the same vein as other popes? not even mentioned in his letter (1st and 2nd peter)? Must mary rebuke the pope today like the angel did to john before you know that directing worship to God in the manner he commanded is the right thing,and not what we feel?

.but you reject it in the case of Joshua, just because you want to blame only Catholics.

you still dont get it! the point is that do you learn from the johns case? you are more concerned with definations but you forgot that you have ceeded the right to supply the defination to me in the first place? see my defination in full again;

''act of worship demands 'bowing or making supplications' as the catholics do to their Mary statue''

My point is, if you exclude 'falling prostrate' as a sign of worship, you are contradicting the Bible, because it is.

...And if you include it as a sign of worship, then Joshua worshipped.

so since it is mine defination,i have the exclusive unchallenged right to reject 'prostrate' because it wasnt captured in both my defination, and your quote in (joshua 7:6-9)maybe you wanted to trap me,by telling me to supply defination first,just the way some had fallen into the trap,but you lost the right to later fix 'prostrate'in my defination because you relied on my defination, i knew beforehand,and still dared you,and still very consistent.ok?

Again can we compare the case of joshua with the catholics? it is not only bowing or 'fell prostrate alone that suggest worship,but what is communicated can lead us or show us really who the supplications revered,[/b]and that brings us to my defination relied on again,'bowing or making [b]supplications' as the catholics do to their Mary statue'' having settle with bowing above,we move to supplications!

did joshua supplicate by mentioning the ark? or even mention the cherubs contained in the ark by name? lets see;
. 7 And Joshua said, “Alas, Sovereign Lord, why did you ever bring this people across the Jordan to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us? If only we had been content to stay on the other side of the Jordan! 8 Pardon your servant, Lord. What can I say, now that Israel has been routed by its enemies? 9 The Canaanites and the other people of the country will hear about this and they will surround us and wipe out our name from the earth. What then will you do for your own great name?”
no mention of any other person here in the suplication by joshua exept 'Sovereign Lord'.

now can we compare it to what pope did in the shrine built for mary and still conclude that it is the same? lets see who was been revered;

Pope John Paul made more than 40 pilgrimages to her shrines at Lourdes and Fatima. He wrote in his Apostolic Letter of Oct. 16, 2002, the following words:

“I entrust this Apostolic Letter to the loving hands of the Virgin Mary, prostrating myself in spirit before her image in the splendid Shrine built for her by Blessed Bartolo Longo, the apostle of the Rosary.”

or this;
The Glories of Mary by Alphonsus de Liguori explicitly mentions Marian worship in the fifth stanza of the hymn, “Mary, Virgin of Virgins” (page 589).
[size=14pt]“Queen thou art, whom all things worship,
Earth and hell, and heaven above;
But thy heart o'erflows with goodness,
Just and sinners feel thy love.”[/size]
http://willingshepherds.org/Aspirations%20to%20Mary.htm

and to cap it all,
Embroidered inside all of Pope John Paul’s robes was the phrase, “Totus tuus sum Maria,” which means, “Mary, I am all yours.”

who is deceiving who? while joshua did not mention the ark while prostrating? or even mention the cherubs contained in the ark by name by sendin them to convey any message as we can see, the catholic's own na oversabi abi wetin, no other name than idol worship,and that is how i got my defination earlier.

so no sentiments,i expect you to deny,thats what you are coached to do,but overwhelming facts proved you otherwise.

@ijawkid

it is not a new thing,

and it is contained in the

THE MARIAN PRAYER OF
POPE JOHN-PAUL II

Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith
and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Mother of God
and our Mother, Mary!

see one of the links; i can supply other links too
http://prayers.viarosa.com/Prayers2BlessedVirginMary.html

this raise some questions demanding a honest and unedited answer!

Since Our Lady of Fatima (the Virgin Mary) asserts an equivalent position to Christ with respect to mediating salvation, we have a problem on our hands since 1 Timothy 2:5 together with Hebrews 7:23-25, Acts 4:11-12 and John 14:6 clearly and unequivocally state that Jesus Christ is the eternal and sole mediator who can save us and that he is the only way to the Father. Can the Virgin Mary have any possible rivaling salvaging role that also happens to be supported by scripture? No, it doesn’t… because salvation is a business done by Jesus and Jesus only.

sacred Scriptures leaves no room for doubt or compromise.

these are written in black and white,and with the internet,it is easier to asses catholic sites,new advent and even the CD rom which i have, but unfortunately they deny,because they are told to do so,thats pathethic.

@@italo
can you see thst john reject the angel gesture?[size=14pt] something your greedy pope will take with ease oooleeeeeeeee! barawo banza! onyi oshi![/size] you guys dont read to understand i will mess you up,lets go now!

@Italo

Firstly, I think its pathetic and disgraceful that you're trying to distinguish between "bowing" and 'falling prostrate' as regards worship. I could have expected something of that sort from Boomark or Plappville, but I thought higher of you... I thought wrong!

Your definition would then be contradictory to what is found in the Bible.

Rev 19:10: At this I fell at his feet to worship him.

But you say it is only when you bow that as the Catholics do, not when you fall, as Joshua did.

Also it would mean that you don't worship God, since you don't do "as the Catholics do" in.

Whichever way, your logic is wrong.

is apostle john defining worship to suit your fraud? or he is humbly rejecting any form of worship!oooooh!just see yourself!

ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa, i thought as much, you are only looking for holes and not to teach bible truth,ok!
lets see the whole verse that you deliberately chop, chop and chop so as to reduce to your own level,crimiminal!

rev 19:10

10[b] At this I fell at his feet to worship him.[/b] [size=14pt]But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus.[/size] [size=28pt]Worship God[/size]! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.”

@Italo

If your definition of "worship" is 'bowing and making supplication', then Joshua and the Israelites worshipped the Ark of the Covenant.

you are making the same mistake you earlier made here again,and this is just the way people who are caged into a hole do,they are desperate!and so since you dont have a genuine reason,you tend to go round in circle.
I allude my defination of ''Worship''to a particular set of people, see it again,''

act of worship demands 'bowing or making supplications'Main clause

as the catholics do to their Mary statue

Sub-ordinate clause! the main clause rests on the sub-ordinate, so if you must quote my defination of 'worship' pls quote it in full this way below;
''act of worship demands 'bowing or making supplications' as the catholics do to their Mary statue''


Again;

If your definition of "worship" is 'bowing and making supplication', then Joshua and the Israelites worshipped the Ark of the Covenant

Can you read at all? joshua's case is totally different from my defination of worship,joshua fell on his face he prostrated,he is not on his feet,he 'felled' and that is quite different from someone 'on his feet but bowed',read again your quote again;

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the Lord, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads. 7 And Joshua said, “Alas, Sovereign Lord, why did you ever bring this people across the Jordan to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us? If only we had been content to stay on the other side of the Jordan! 8 Pardon your servant, Lord. What can I say, now that Israel has been routed by its enemies? 9 The Canaanites and the other people of the country will hear about this and they will surround us and wipe out our name from the earth. What then will you do for your own great name?”

do you see 'fell' in my defination in the fisrt place? why are you forcefully putting words not contained in my defination and conclude it as a worship?

Even going by your logic,which i see does not help your case,

now that you can see that your bible quote up there at least it was you who quoted it and not me, josh 7:6; does not mention 'bow' but mentioned 'fell' which if we follow that strictly and going by my defination,im exonerated,that is ; joshua did not worship,or perform an act of worship.


technically,i have knocked you down again, pls read well before posting, ok!

many words has no correlation with making sense.

Note pls,im not expecting to make sense to people like you who have already 'made up their mind' to stick with idolatory, but my target is to expose your clear disobedince and violation to Gods command!

@Italo

I have just demostrated how what is contained in the bible can be used to knock off your technicalties! you see you catholics cant fool God,you knew deep in your mind that your religion is an embarrasement to God and a more embarrasement to jesus by substituting his role as a mediator with 'virgin Mary'.

and you guys are short on confidence but desperately seek to cover up your embarrasements,you seek for holes in argument,or just use anything mentioned in the bible to cover up,i.e, using the desperate action of joshua which God did not command in anyway,and unneccesary felling on his face which he would have saved himself had it been joshua followed God instruction and not act on his own,his fallen down before the ark is uncalled for in the first place,and even a dissobedience to God because God never commanded that,but instead of you to even understand the story, what you are interested in is ''the unwarranted prostration of joshua before the ark in disobedient'' what a shame! do we learn from obedient way or the disobedient way? i challenge you, are you guys been taught Gods word as it appeared in the scriptures or adulterated? know that you cant fool God,'obedient is better than sacrifice' samuel said.
@ubenedictus

u have decided to give a long story, u guy said worship means "to bow down and make supplication" just two questions all i need is yes or no! Did joshua bow down and make supplication b4 d ark?

see your life! in the first place,are you italo? italo ask me a question and i have answered him, he seems to get the point,and im not surprised that you are pained to the fact that i exposed the error of using the ''unwarranted prostration of joshua before the ark in disobedient''as your reason to clearly violate Gods law by making images of mary,something he did not command. and obviously if there is a shame,i think should go and cover your face due to the fact that your religion has been exposed!

2. If he did does that make him an idol worshipper? Yes or no!
Stop telling me stories i can read d stories myself frm my bible.

that is the 'bait' italo wanted to use,and it failed him,as it exposes his reason for mary's image!

the joy here is that i have expose the reason behind it,and it does not help your case but even ridicule the reason for your mary's image because it is''unwarranted prostration of joshua before the ark in disobedient''. only a fool will read the story and still bother to give a yes or no.

incase u missed it my friend mary is mentioned in d acts of the apostles

see your life here again!
why cant you quote the chapter and verse in the book of acts? where “Virgin Mary” mary is mentioned,again you are embarrased and i challenge you to quote it, ''virgin Mary''.

you are on ur own, d above is not a catholic teaching nobody is competing with Jesus. You are on ur own. U cant ask me to defend something my church doesnt believe, u ar on ur own.

read these again! you have not denied them;

“HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

[size=18pt]“Sustain us, O Virgin Mary,[/size] on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation.”

no! that last point was talking about not altering the law it wasnt talking about all scriptures because all that is scripture hadnt yet been given.

see your desperation, what of the last book of the bible see the warning pop-up again;
Revelation 22:18-19

18 For[a] I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book[d] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

this is the very reason why i said protestants should study a little history. The synod of rome and hippo decided what is called d christain bible about the 4th century. And macabees was among canon 36 http://www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/Reading-Hall-JWC/Western-Civilization-Jewels/HEFELE/Book-8/109.html cathage confirmed it and macabees was also among canon 24 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm from the till 1500AD Macabees was in all christian scripture and martin luther came in and saw that if he retain d deuterocanonical books he will be unable to win a biblical arguement so he removed them instead of 46 books he put 39 in his bible. And yet u dare to accuse the catholic church of adding books? No accuse ur protestant churches of removing books. And i repeat read a little history.

i think you need to read and read well,im making a case for 'sacred scriptures' and again is Maccabee part of the sacred scriptures? yes it is a scripture,but was is a sacred scripture? stop evading questions!

you know that you are toiling the embarrasing way of our discussion on trinity,if you can remenber until you got y'slf embarrased completely! until a catholic like you told you to hands off! that trinity was 'not defended in the bible' you thanked him and left,isnt it, now you are toiling that path!

1. Why did God create the world in 6 days? Why not just instantly do it all in one day if he was all powerful?

Because he is the master,he works independently and exclusively,he does not need frostyzone to tell him what to do!

2. If God has a plan for us then why pray at all?

who is talking of plan a? we owe him prayer if not for anything but for our precious lives not as a goat or chicken but as intelligent humans!we want to show ourself gratefull!

3. Why did God punish Adam and Eve for doing wrong if they did not know the difference between right and wrong?

because after giving them a freewill to choose btw right and wrong, he has to stamp his authority GBAMMMM!

4. Where did God come from?

he got no beggining and end,but it will be difficult for a 5/6 ft tall persons like u,bacause God who creates the universe containing some awe inspiring galaxies programmed in such an inteligent ways,his reasonings cant be comprehend by mere humans,so his existence is more than our brain to comprehend that he is ever-existing!

5. How does a virgin get pregnant?

through holy spirit!

6. Did God create sin?

no,but God did give his laws,and if broken,it becomes a sin!

7. Why are there so many religion with each one claiming to be the only true one?

because of imperfect state of humans,of which very soon,the ferfect state will be restored,and only obedient mankind will be worshiping God in truth and spirit!no diff religion!

8. Between Isaac and Ismael, which one was the legitimate son of Abraham?

isaac!

9. Why are there no chairs in mosques?

the question should be directed to the muslims,its a mistake to ask such here!

10. What status does Jesus hold in Islam. And what status does Mohammed hold in Christianity?
.

there is nothing that connects jesus with islam,and mohammed was not a debate or a refference in christianity! thanks,your questions are too cheap!

He pointed out the fourth paragraph signed by Ribadu and the secretary, Olasupo Shasore (SAN), which said the content of the report was not verified, as against the terms of reference of the committee that mandated it to consult with stakeholders and verify all claims.

from Day one, Ribadus assistant oransanye starts to frustrate the report bynot even attending for once a meeting in six month, and was given a role in NNPC board to kill the availability of those facts, the question is 'whoplanted oransanye,a shameless old fool in that commitee? What ribadu did was just to provide Nigerians with a sketch of whats going on and we are gratefull to him, as for why he signs,it was put to him to sign that it was not verified because they employ him,but he leaked the report,thankS to ribadu

are you even sure of where you are going even after death, lets say lords day is far!

@Italo

You didn't answer me still,

You said 'worship' involves bowing to and making supplication,

For the third time again,you are making me to restate what an act of worship means as i relate it to the catholics,and just because you want to justify a fraudulent act of the catholics using a particular incident that did not in anyway supports your assertions!,and im still reffering you to my 1st post which i state categorically and you need to quote my statement to the end,or in full(go back and view it again for the last time and see that i mean every word that i put there and can defend it to the end),

and this is it again,read;.... act of worship demands 'bowing or making supplications' as the catholics do to their Mary statue!
why do i say in that last sentence that ''as the catholics do to their Mary statue''!it is because they are the disobedient type of people,and self reliance not needing Gods direction for anything! a sturborn set of people!

Joshua bowed and made supplication

you are a criminal,oh you think i dont remember what i said earlier? by mixing it? italo, you are a criminal to the core by 'setting in disguise or putting this next words in quote as mine ''Joshua bowed and made supplication''you see your life? did i ever equate what joshua did 'as an act of worship? noooo!
joshua's case is a tottally different one! firstly,you need to understand that did God ever demand that joshua should fell down before the Ark? all what God demanded was to listen and follow his command, because he need not to have fell on his face before the ark had he not rely on his own understanding and failed and later seeking Gods favour by force! and he did so out of panic!''obedience is better than sacrifice(samuel says)''

may i say that you 'italo are learning' only if you will be humble enough, because your poor application here shows that you are not even conversant with the joshua story that you want to use as a bait to hunt others; lets see how you poorly put it like olodo

So did he worship the Ark of the the Covenant or not?

“Get up off your face, Joshua.” God spoke, with surprisingly brusque words It was not a time to pray.there was no need to fell on his face at all! refusing to learn from the story tell so much ignorance in you!

It was not a time to seek God’s blessing. There was nothing to pray about until Israel faced its sin and repented. Then, and only then, would the blessing of God-given victory continue.

First, Israel became self-confident. When the spies returned, they told Joshua, in Joshua 7:3, that they would not need the whole army. It would only take two or three thousand to conquer this city. They relied on their own ability.
Where did this presumption come from? What had Israel done to defeat Jericho? One thing. One thing only. They obeyed. When God said march, they marched. And the walls came a-tumblin’ down. It was not Joshua’s leadership or Israel’s military prowess that won the battle. It was God’s power. But now,Israel was taking credit for what God had done. “A mighty army like ours, having just defeated Jericho, will find little challenge against Ai.”

Remember this: In the power of God, no enemy is too big. Greater is he that is in you… But in the power of self, no enemy is too small. You can be defeated by anything in this world if you trust in yourself and rely of your own power. Those who trust in Christ will never be disappointed, but those who trust in themselves will be amazed at their ability to fail.

Second, Israel was careless. Achan had sinned against God, taking spoils from Jericho against the command of God. Israel had sinned and God would not bless them until the sin was dealt with. Today, we want to think that God has changed his mind, that he will bless us whether we are obedient or not, whether we walk in the flesh or in the Spirit.

When Israel repented, the blessing of God returned and Ai was defeated. But the victory at Ai, in Joshua 8, reveals the fatal flaw in Joshua’s leadership in Joshua 7. Israelwas self-confident and careless, but there was a bigger problem.

Finally, the battle of Jericho was won because Israel did what God told them to do, the way God told them to it. In Joshua 8, the battle of Ai was won because Israel did what God told them to do, the way God told them to do it. There is a pattern in victory; God commands, his people obey, and God acts in power.

In Joshua 7, Joshua acted independently, entirely on his own. God did not say, “Attack Ai.” He did not give battle plans. Joshua sent out the spies. Joshua made the decisions. He never sought God. If he had gone to God before the first battle of Ai, God would have said, “Deal with your sin first.” Thirty-six men would not have had to die.

The man or woman of God who wants victory does not act independently. He does not listen to the will of man or the ways of the world. He does not expect God to bless his agenda but seeks to submit himself to the agenda of God.

It is not the size of our enemies or our armies that matters; it is our dependence on God that makes the difference between victory and defeat.

Joshua learned at Jericho that a weak army, dependent on and obedient to God could defeat any foe. He learned at Ai that God’s people, sinful and self-reliant, could be defeated by the smallest things. (go and read the account again JOSHUA chapter 7-.ok?

Its a 'yes or no' question.

No need for long meaningless stories.

thats the bait, you think you are fishing? ole! tell us you are spoonfeed by your catholic priets! you dont even know the detail of the joshua story!

Great one

great-one koo,small one nii, see who is talking great one!

Even going by your reason of using marys image, you are still found wanting and causing of confussion, how? Mary's role according to catholics is Competing with Christ,and Conflict with Scripture

Since Our Lady of Fatima (the Virgin Mary) asserts an equivalent position to Christ with respect to mediating salvation, we have a problem on our hands since 1 Timothy 2:5 together with Hebrews 7:23-25, Acts 4:11-12 and John 14:6 [size=14pt]clearly and unequivocally state that Jesus Christ is the eternal and sole mediator who can save us and that he is the only way to the Father.[/size] Can the Virgin Mary have any possible rivaling salvaging role that also happens to be supported by scripture? No, it doesn’t… because salvation is a business done by Jesus and Jesus only.

sacred Scriptures leaves no room for doubt or compromise.

you can see that from all angle the notion is defeated outrightly!

@Italo

Again you need to know that God has a standard 'he directs how his things are to be done' and that is why you need to know how God frown at when someone 'creates and subtitutes Gods standard with his own'. that is what the catholics just did! and fortunately,let us see a perfect example of ''creating an image as a means through which we direct worship to God''

Have you ever wondered why 3000 isrealites were killed by plague by God? because they seek worshiping God through 'Calf image' since they cannot see God and could not wait for moses to return from the mountain to give them Gods commandment, they assume worshipping God in their own way 'through calf image'
lets read;Exodus 32:7,

7 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them [/b]and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, [b]‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’

Note Gods anger is that ''They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them'' God understood the fact that they were trying to give a worship to him through the calf by reffering to Gods wonderfull act towards their delivery from the egyptian army of pharaoh saying ''These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt'',since the calf-image was moulded with their rings necklace etc,they want to impress that the calf image is just a representation, and they want God to understand their desperate situation for worship but they are impatient to follow Gods command earlier in exodus 20; 'you shall not carve any image for youself.......

Similarly, when men seek to worship God according to their own innovations, they are concurrently deviating from the biblical means of worship, and thereby adding to their own guilt. The Lord declares of such: "In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).
"The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy scripture."

Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it" (Deut. 12:30-32).
That last statement points to doctrine highlighted earlier in the book of Deuteronomy respecting the sufficiency and authority of scripture. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2)

@Italo,

Firstly, we don't bow to and make supplication to any statue. We can bow before a statue

CONTRADICTION!!!this is just indicisive!!! can you see that? lets go now;

We can bow before a statue but only in reverence to the depicted Saint or God who bestows honour on that Saint.

who commanded that? was any command to such effect contained in 'the sacred scriptures' just name one! this is another example of what jesus was saying to the pharisees/religious leaders of his days that ''you make Gods law ineffective'' due to your own tradition...mathew 15:1-3.

Does this your definition of worship apply to everybody or just to Catholics?

since that 'act of rosary or bowing to mary's image and making recitations' were not 'commanded by God' in the first place in any of the sacred scriptures, the catholics grossly erred in assuming such for God.

If it applies to everybody, can we then say that Joshua and the other Israelites worshipped the Ark of the Covenant? Or are you going to judge them differently than you do Catholics?

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the Lord, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads. 7 And Joshua said, “Alas, Sovereign Lord, why did you ever bring this people across the Jordan to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us? If only we had been content to stay on the other side of the Jordan! 8 Pardon your servant, Lord. What can I say, now that Israel has been routed by its enemies? 9 The Canaanites and the other people of the country will hear about this and they will surround us and wipe out our name from the earth. What then will you do for your own great name?”

This is where you missed the point,(pls note it)God had earlier commanded not only the use of Ark of the Covenant,but he (God)instructed,and directed detailed pattern of the ark,what to be used in its construction;the lenght,breath etc and how it will be used! we can say that God had already pictured in his mind what the ark will look like before it was constructed.the of Ark of the Covenant does not come by joshua's own innitiative like the 'image of mary' which does not follow any laid down pattern by Gods command,but where it came from was formulated by the catholics,but the of Ark of the Covenant; its construction details were commanded and passed over to the isrealites, lets read;Exodus 25:
EXODUS 25
''The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Tell the Israelites to bring me an offering. You are to receive the offering for me from everyone whose heart prompts them to give. 3 These are the offerings you are to receive from them: gold, silver and bronze; 4 blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen; goat hair; 5 ram skins dyed red and another type of durable leather[a];acacia wood; 6 olive oil for the light; spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense; 7 and onyx stones and other gems to be mounted on the ephod and breastpiece.
8 “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. 9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you
10 “Have them make an ark of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high.[c] 11 Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. 12 Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 13 Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14 Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. 15 The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed.16 Then put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law, which I will give you.

@rich4God

We worship God and Him alone...

ask a willing-suicide bomber's opinion about who he worships,he will definatelly tell you allah, and what reason does he have? he cites the jihad'surah chapter 9:5; which mandates them to 'slay' or 'kill' non-muslims who are generaly perceived as idolaters,it reads and i quote surah 9:5...slay the idolaters,besiege them,lay ambush for them....

Now from the suicide bombers Opinion,his actions as perceived by many is 'ignorance to them' because he is commissioned with a scripture backing! and that is why 'we' the onlookers do not follow what they say, but what they do.
The same applies to the catholics, they are taught to dissmiss any querry to their act or behavior to an image by sharply denying that theyare worshipping a God-forbidden image as clealy spelt out in the bible.....they start by riddiculing your objection by saying,'what are you talking about?'

catholics solid stance is, “No, we do not worship Mary!”(that is how they are trained to respond) However, the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. But before the evidence is presented, I’d like to cut at the root of this dispute.

Now lets reason from their own perspective and you will see that catholics are found wanting based on the available evidences ; lets go;

The apostle Peter, who is alleged to be the first pope,did he mention Mary in any of his biblical letters. Nor is there any record in any of the other letters, such as Acts of the Apostles, that Peter ever referred to Mary. Not only did he not mention her, directly or indirectly, but zero nothing is said by any apostle about the need to venerate or worship her. This fact speaks volumes against the Catholic’s view of Mary.

Why? Why did Peter fail to mention the “Virgin Mary”? Surely if all popes worshipped Mary and leaned on her for salvation, and they have, as the evidence will show, and if Peter was the first pope, why does he not praise and adore Mary in the same vein as other popes? The question demands an answer.

The Late Pope John Paul II Worshipped Mary & Relied On Her For Salvation

If the pope is the role model and instructor and guide for Catholics, and he is, and if they are striving to follow in his footsteps, and they are, they give the same level of reverence to Mary as their “Supreme Pontiff.” [size=14pt]It is a documented fact that the late Pope John Paul II relied more on Mary for salvation than on Jesus.[/size]

Pope John Paul made more than 40 pilgrimages to her shrines at Lourdes and Fatima. He wrote in his Apostolic Letter of Oct. 16, 2002, the following words:

[size=14pt]“I entrust this Apostolic Letter to the loving hands of the Virgin Mary, prostrating myself in spirit before her image in the splendid Shrine built for her by Blessed Bartolo Longo, the apostle of the Rosary.”
[/size]
Salvation In Mary & The Rosary!
Embroidered inside all of Pope John Paul’s robes was the phrase, [size=14pt]“Totus tuus sum Maria,” which means, “Mary, I am all yours.”[/size]

The Catholic Rosary concludes:
“HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!”

It is of interest when we ponder Roman Catholicism’s popular “15 Promises of Mary.” Among them we find:

“The soul which recommends itself to me [Mary] by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish...I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary. Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall…at the moment of death…participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise.”

It is obvious, then, that not only did the late pope worship Mary and place his eternal security in her, but it is equally obvious that “the faithful” follow in his footsteps. When Catholics turn from faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation to trusting Mary and the Rosary, as did Pope John Paul II, they place their eternal salvation in jeopardy, [size=14pt]for Jesus Himself declared, "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
[/size]
If Jesus spoke the truth, and He did, there is zero security and salvation in Mary and the Rosary. In the pope’s “Prayer For The Marian Year,” he prayed:

[size=14pt]“Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation.”
[/size]
There is ample evidence that Catholics in general worship Mary. It is a sad day in human history when any person, whether Protestant or Catholic, places his/her allegiance and salvation in anyone except the Son of God.

HERE ARE SOME PICTURE THAT EXPLAIN BETTER;

@italo

When you say "Catholics worship..." Can you define what you mean by worship?

i have defined it in my last response,but let me still refer you to it again,but dont think you can maake one recycle comments while your answers are are clearly there with you,again in my last post;

BERNIMOORE; again,God did not direct 'an act of worship to the snake' which would have been a double standard or superflous, and act of worship demands 'bowing or making supplications' as the catholics do to their Mary statue!

why are people dismissing Gods day as a mere threat?

rhymz pele, sorry i can see that you are working hard! ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

collosian 2:8
[size=18pt]Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.[/size]

Spiritual Terrorism & the Lunatic Fringe
In my books I expose a pattern of censorship within the fields of religion and mythology created through intimidation and terrorism that culminated in the Inquisition but by no means ended there, as it is continued by fanatics of a variety of religions, including and especially Christianity and Islam. Where facts and logic fail, out come the personal attacks, ad homs, calumny, vitriol, libel, slander and threats. And we wonder why this material is not more widely known? As my research shows, time and again scholars have stepped forth with this information, only to be slapped down by religious authorities and the general public. Where the persuasion of "authorities" fails, these scholars have been thrown to the mobs—and that is precisely what we see flourishing all over the internet. The mainstream ignores this fracas, while the frenzied mob gleefully drags the bodies around.
For those with an open mind and a more serious interest in the reality behind the scenes, however, such mob rule will not suffice. These truth-seekers will look to the real research behind the so patently logical and rational claims that our "revealed" religions represent little more than the dressed-up rehashes of ancient ideologies dating back millennia. Scholars and other writers have not only lost their occupations for revealing such truths but they have also been killed. Again, is it any wonder why this info is not more widely known? Those of us who have brought to light this information have been subjected to the most uncivil and depraved treatment at the hands of rabid and utterly unqualified individuals who have slandered and libeled us with all manner ofcalumny and false witness deriving from religious delusion, delirium and dementia. This calumny includes allegations of the most bizarre and fanciful nature imaginable, devoid of facts but reflecting an unglued worldview that is best described as "lunatic fringe." This lunacy would include ridiculous and malicious rumors, lies and vitriol invoking the "Illuminati," "Theosophy,""Masons" and assorted other nonsensical notions.
In this regard, one ZG "challenger" remarks: "I hope you will find that this 'Christ-myther' scenario is the exact dogma of the ancient mystery schools and many secret societies." Now we get to the heart of this matter, which is to convince you of the validity of Christianity and that the powers that be are trying to destroy it. Despite the proselytizing effort, the facts, however, reveal otherwise: To wit, such powerful secret societies who could pull off all the other shenanigans attributed to them, including creating a massive amount of human culture such as various religions and cults, would certainly be able to destroy Christianity in an instant, if they wanted to do so.
The actuality is that these selfsame agencies—remember, these are the powers that be, according to this mentality, the "Illuminati" and so on, who control the media—do whatever theycan to shore up the flagging faith, by producing endless "documentaries" concerning the "real" Jesus that never discuss possible mythical originsof Christianity based on Pagan precedents. In fact, the mainstream media—which undoubtedlywould be under the control of these all-powerfulsecret societies and brotherhoods—bend over backwards to ignore this Christ-myth research, burying it wherever it can be found, censoring those who bring it up, and, in earlier times, driving them into poverty or worse.
Who was behind the Inquisition, if not the powers that be? Where was the all-powerful god Jesus when millions were being abused, Molested, tortured and murdered in his name? Where is he now, if the Illuminati are really in charge? Why is Jesus relying on the likes of those we see all over the internet spreading disinformation regarding human history? Why dothe mainstream media favor received Christian tradition and history, if there is some grandiose conspiracy to bring to light the information foundin ZG1.1 and elsewhere?
In the end, "ZEITGEIST" is a grassroots movementcreated by "some guy with a computer," not the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Illuminati and New World Order. In this same sense, I myself am "just some gal with a computer," and I know many of the other people in the field of Jesus mythicism, most of whom arejust barely making ends meet. The idea of an overarching conspiracy of omnipotent scalawagsbehind Jesus mythicism is completely absurd.
Confronted with these facts, debunkers retreat into supernatural claims that the purported puppetmasters are working through diabolic agencies including channeling the sentiments of long dead people with whom this material does not originate in the first place. In other words, when faced with science, we hear the same old"Devil got there first" platitudes. That's right—when all else fails, it's obviously the all-powerfulSatan getting the better of God once again and yanking our chains.
The same "challenger" contends that these"ancient mystery schools" and "many secret societies" are "the groups more or less behind the problems in parts 2 and 3 of Zeitgeist" and then remarks:
They seem to encourage the belief system Zeitgeist is pushing, even though it is primarily based on initiated writers like Plutarch Gerald Massey, and Manley P. Hall. NOT on the actual writings or records of historical Egypt or any other.
This entire paragraph reveals a number of problems with this detractor's viewpoint, including the utter fallaciousness of ZG.1. being"primarily based on initiated writers…" Firstly, merely a small portion of the mythicist position has anything to do with Plutarch or Gerald Massey, and that much concerns Egypt only. Secondly, the Egyptian evidence of Jesus mythicism relies not on either of these sources but on the numerous artifacts from Egypt itself and the voluminous commentaries thereupon by highly qualified authorities. Moreover, I personally have never read any book by Manley Hall and therefore make no reference to him in any of my works.
In addition, if Plutarch was "initiated," then he was in a better position to know what exactly was this "Christ-myther scenario" that is supposedly the "exact dogma of the ancient mystery schools and many secret societies." Is the debunker claiming here that the belief that Christ is a myth is really an ancient doctrine, sincehe asserts it was "the exact dogma of the ancient mystery schools?" According to the same debunkers, the idea of Christ as a myth is simply a "new fad" fabricated in the 19 th century!
Moreover, this individual is not qualified to state what is or is not in the "actual writings or recordsof historical Egypt or any other." Does he read hieroglyphs, and has he personally done a surveyof thousands of papyri and inscriptions? In Christ in Egypt , I have quoted numerous well-respected authorities on Egypt and sifted through several translations of thousands of pages of Egyptian writings, as well as translated some myself, to demonstrate that these parallelsare real and are indeed in the "writings and records of the historical Egypt." This individual's remarks simply show that he is neither qualified nor capable of doing such intense research, not that the material isn't there.
In reality, this statement would more accurately read that the Christ myth scenario is the exact dogma of the ancient mystery schools and many secret societies. In other words, the various motifs of the gospel story are essentially what was being taught in the mystery schools for hundreds to thousands of years before Christ purportedly lived.
As concerns the besmirchment of Plutarch, why should we not trust his assessment, particularly when the ancient Egyptian writings and other artifacts do in reality back up his contentions? Dowe have any refutation of his commentary from antiquity, anyone calling him a liar and denying his accounts? No, but we do have Egyptologists remarking upon his accuracy, such as: "When we examine this story by the light of the results of hieroglyphic decipherment, we find that a large portion of it is substantiated by Egyptian texts…" (See Christ in Egypt , 91)
Plutarch's writings appeared in a pre-Christian context, despite him having written during the first and early second centuries. There is absolutely no evidence that Plutarch was aware of Christ, Christians or Christianity and was influenced by them, nor has anyone reputable made such a contention. He was obviously free to make these statements without the censorial Inquisition and its harpies on his back calling hima liar, as there was no reason to do so. Not only isit likely he was telling the truth but also that no one had an interest in refuting him because there was at that time no Christian tradition to defend.
What does Plutarch say? He relates that Osiris is the sun and Isis the moon, and that Isis was impregnated by the sun and gave birth to Horus on the winter solstice (which has come down to us as December 25 th ). Plutarch also relates the myth about Osiris's annually celebrated death and resurrection. We have no reason to doubt any of these claims—in fact, in Christ in Egypt , I have demonstrated through numerous pre-Christian primary sources that Plutarch is correct. Thus, Plutarch remains a very valuable resource who shows that no one in the modern era is making up any of these contentions. When faced with Plutarch, in fact, rather than honestly admitting they knew nothing of the existence of these remarks in his writings—if they had even heard of him in the first place—debunkers smugly raised the bar and pretend that he has norelevance.
Not content with revealing such flawed thinking,this same "challenger" also libels me personally by saying that my books are "notoriously absent of many references to her claims," an utter falsehood that is again reflective of this individual's total ignorance of the subject matter in general and my work in particular. Every majorand many minor contentions in my work are carefully cited, with abundant ancient and modern sources, including biblical verses in their original languages, as well as citations from other languages. The lack of honest admissions on the part of apologists is what is notorious, not the absence of references by so-called "Christ-mythers."
In the same paragraph, after falsely characterizing my work, the "challenger" includes my email address and incites his readersto harass me with requests for information that is already demonstrated repeatedly and copiously in my writings over the past two decades.
Where does it all come from?
When one reads various remarks from would-be debunkers, whether theists or atheists, one can see that they have not studied this subject in depth by their repeated admissions that they do not know where the information has come from. When one hears someone say, "I have no idea where they got that from" or "I can find no historical record of these claims myself," they arein effect revealing their own ignorance of the subject and their own personal inability to do adequate research, and should therefore not be presenting themselves as experts.
This fact is handily demonstrated by the massive amount of research concerning the Horus-Jesus parallels that I have put together in my book Christ in Egypt . Again, in that book, I have shownthrough numerous ancient, pre-Christian primary sources that the contentions in ZG1.1 concerning Horus and/or his father Osiris or other Egyptian divine figure are true and factual. There is, of course, no acknowledgement of these facts from the ZG debunking crowd, just more of the same dismissive calumny, libel and vitriol designed to cover up the criminal destruction that has allowed for these facts to be buried. As I describein my book, however, in Egypt there was simply too much evidence of the ancient astrotheological religion at the basis of the Christmyth to destroy or cover up. Christians did in fact rampage all over that country, defacing and destroying monuments, texts and other artifacts wherever they could. Nevertheless, again, the evidence was too overwhelming—literally, in this case, as there were so many massive buildings, some of which were buried and forgotten. Where the Christians could not destroythe monuments, they stuccoed over the hieroglyphs, having the effect of preserving them for future generations, and it is to these and much else that we may turn for our evidence.
This information thus comes from many differentsources, including primary sources, as well as the works of ancient historians and moderns scholars.
It needs to be kept in mind throughout this study of comparative religion and mythology dating back into ancient times that much of it takes place in languages other than English. In addition to the writings in their original languages, including Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, appears much commentary in more modern times also in languages such as Latin, as well as French and German. This material is not particularly easy to dig up and/or understand, and requires expertise to make it more readily available.
107. rhymz(m): Quote Post
Primary Source Destruction
In this regard, the loud shrieking of the debunkers for "primary sources" in fact serves to remind us of the historical treachery of religious fanatics in the willful and deliberate destruction of human culture-mankind's very past. The scale of this censorial sin is so vast and appalling that it takes the breath away. Who will answer for this heinous crime against humanity, about which we are reminded every time someone raises the issue of primary sources?
The reality is that there would be much more evidence of ancient religion and mythology had not so much been destroyed, largely by fanatics spawned by the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For example, in antiquity there existed multiple volumes about ancient religions specifically mentioned bythe early Church fathers; yet, these important treatises do not survive, while the Christian apologies and polemics against them do. These works on religion obviously were around when the fathers wrote their commentaries, criticisms and diatribes against them-the latter were preserved but the original bases of these apologies and polemics have been "lost" or deliberately destroyed. Why? These lost/destroyed works include the voluminous writings of the Roman statesman and soldier Marcus Terentius Varro (116-27 BCE )-called "the most learned of the Romans"-especially his workon religion ( Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum ), which no doubt would have been eye-opening, had it survived. Although Varro's works were burned in his day after he was outlawed by Marc Anthony, based on commentaries upon him by St. Augustine (354-430), enough must have survived until that time at least.
In a number of instances, where so much primary-source material has been destroyed wantonly and willfully, we simply must rely on secondary sources such as the historians of the past, who took the time to chronicle painstakingly whatever they could find within their limited resources of the era. In many cases, these sources are more accurate than scholars of the modern era because they were closer to the events or material in question.
Even if a story, myth, tradition or motif is not recorded in a pristine primary source of the impossible kind required by the "debunkers," if itdoes appear in the works of a historian , regardless of whether he represents a source secondary, tertiary or otherwise, prior to the Christian era-such as is the case with Diodorus Siculus (c. 90-27 BCE), for example-the information presented therein could likewise have served as an inspiration for the creation of the Christ myth. No one is contending that only primary sources were used in the creation of Christianity, as such a proposition is ludicrous.
And where are the inerrant primary sources written by the very hands of the apostles themselves that prove Christianity's extraordinary claims? Millions give a pass to these supernatural claims, because they have been conditioned by them since an early age, while making unreasonable and impossible demands of proof for rational and logical contentions that Christianity is in significant part a rehash of earlier religions and myths.
If the works of ancient historians such as Diodorus, Plutarch and Macrobius do not represent reliable sources, then neither does the New Testament. In addition, if we cannot rely on the works of historians for corroboration of comparative religion, then we may also throw out the purported testimony of Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus, Thallus, Phlegon and all the rest as having no value in "proving" the historicity of Jesus. In this regard, a " Jesus Challenge " is issued and unlikely to be met any time soon.
If the Christian faith can rely largely upon the secondary-source testimony of non-eyewitnesses as "proof" of extraordinary, supernatural events-there being no textual autographs or concrete and relevant archaeological evidence for gospel claims concerning Jesus-then so too may we turn on occasion to secondary sources when it comes to chronicling one of the most important and fascinating subjects of human culture, i.e., religion and mythology. To ignore this wealth of information because it is considered secondary not only constitutes an egregious waste of a massive human effort but also is utterly unscientific and derived from a need to shore up the faith no matter what the cost. Indeed, the dishonesty in ignoring this body of work can onlybe deemed appalling and negligent.
The mockery concerning primary sources-many of which were obliterated long ago by Christian fanatics attempting to stamp out all signs of Paganism-reminds one of the taunting by a criminal who believes the law will never catch up with him because he is too clever and has destroyed all the evidence. It is obvious from the caution with which they proceed and the commentaries and polemics they eventually produce that this evidence was extant during thebulk of the period when the early Church fathers were creating Christianity, but began to disappear sometime after they finally procured the power to destroy it.
Happily, despite the desperate and endless widespread criminal acts of destruction, the evidence of our collective human past is so vast and obvious that enough of it remains regarding many aspects of human culture-including variousartifacts we take for granted today, such as the names of the days of the week and the months-that we can piece together a reasonably accurate picture of our ancient religious and mythological heritage, using both whatever primary sources remain, as well as secondary sources deemed to be accurate and factually sound. We are fortunate, for example, that so much of the massive and long-lived Egyptian culture also survived the numerous assaults by religious fanatics. Despite all of the frantic evidence-burying criminal activity, we possess an enormous amount of primary-source material from ancient Egypt, clearly pre-Christian, which iswhy my response to the various would-be ZG1.1 debunkers, including a nearly 600-page scholarlybook, Christ in Egypt, with almost 2,400 citations from over 900 sources, including abundant primary-source material in a variety of languages, both ancient and modern, as well as the works of highly credentialed individuals in relevant fields. What is "pre-Christian?"
In this debate, it is necessary to define what is meant by "pre-Christian." Requiring only"primary source" evidence "before the time of Christ," as debunkers are wont to do, is utterly unreasonable and shows a real lack of scholarship in the subject. When Christ was supposedly born-around 1 AD/CE, 4 BCE, 6 BCE or some other undocumented date that cannot be found in any pristine primary source-the whole world did not suddenly take notice and start following him and his new cult. Indeed, Christianity itself remained largely unheard of until the second century, with the bulk of the earliest Christian efforts taking place at the end of that century. In this same regard, the AD/BC dating, representing "Anno Domini" or the "Year of Our Lord" and "Before Christ" (or some other notation in another language meaning the same), was not even established until the 6th century, with the efforts of the Scythian monk Dionysius Exiguus, (c. 470-c. 540).
In Europe, the country of Lithuania did not become Christianized until the 14th century, meaning that until that time it too was pre-Christian. In some parts of the world to this day Jesus Christ and Christianity remain completely unknown, making those places pre-Christian. Just because something entered the historical record after the year 1 AD/CE does not mean that it is not pre-Christian and was therefore influenced by Christianity. In fact, it could be very well pre-Christian and completely uninfluenced by Christianity. Raising the Bar
The ZG "debunking" over the years has changed, with the bar being raised every time it is answered. First it was claimed that ZG1.1 and its sources simply fabricated the facts. When this assertion was shown to be false-and a reflection of the lack of expertise in the subject by the would-be debunkers-it was admitted that there were plenty of people making these contentions long prior to ZG but that they were evidently seized by some peculiar madness with no basis in fact. For example, in setting up his"requirements" one ZG "challenger" remarks:
Let me be very clear, Im [sic] not looking for what people SAY it says in the ancient literature. There is an abundance of that available. I want to know where these people are getting their information because I can find no historical record of these claims myself.
First of all, this person should be thanked for acknowledging that there is an "abundance" of people making these comparisons, because too many individuals on the internet repeat the falsehoods that I and others are "just making it all up." Secondly, when he admits he cannot find something, he is reflecting not that it isn't there but that he is not a qualified and capable researcher.
Thus, the first admission of ignorance of the subject matter-which did not stop "debunkers" initially from making one wrong claim after another, as if they were experts-was that the information was simply fabricated a few years ago by modern writers. The next claim was that it was fabricated by ne'er-do-wells years earlier, up to perhaps a couple of centuries.
When that widespread contention of reliance upon "19th century writers" was shown to be false, by bringing up far more ancient sources used by these earlier scholars, such as Philo, Plutarch, Justin, Macrobius and so on, the debunkers raised the bar again by claiming that these ancient sources are "worthless" and apparently likewise fabricated data. No matter how far back we go in time, therefore, the bar will be raised and the cry will be "fabrication."
Of course, no admission of the previous errors and oversights indicating the lack of real knowledge and expertise in the subject-or any apology for essentially calling the modern proponents of Jesus mythicism "liars" and"frauds"-has ever been forthcoming from this"debunking" crowd, as such honest admissions are not their strong points. And, naturally, in order to keep up the faith, regardless of how dishonest and lacking in integrity have been the previous efforts, the bar was raised again, this time by requiring pristine "primary sources" only approvable by the debunkers themselves. But what else can we expect from those who believethat a book-and that book alone-was written by the very hand of God? Any source we can dig up will not suffice, therefore, because all will be dismissed as "hearsay" written by men, not by God. To ignore ancient sources simply because their information was not recorded by the very finger of God constitutes poor scholarship, to say the least. Meanwhile, without any proof at all--not even any earthly corroboration--these same individuals willingly believe that the Bible was written by the very finger of God.
The bottom line is not whether or not Zeus himself left behind documentation of having impregnated the virgin Danae with a golden shower to produce Perseus, or a certificate proving Dionysus's mother Semele's virginity, butwhether or not these precedents existed in the pre-Christian world and could have been drawn upon by the creators of Christianity. Most assuredly, the major motifs in question that supposedly distinguish Jesus Christ and prove his divinity were in fact religious and mythological concepts long before his purported advent, regardless of whether or not they can be found in an authorized ancient encyclopedia guarded by Cerberus the three-headed dog for the past 2,500 years.
Encyclopedia Surfing
While clamoring for primary-source proof of the logical claim that supernatural events in the NewTestament and other parts of the Bible representnot "history" but myth, detractors rely on very little evidence for their own beliefs and convictions to the contrary.
For example, as part of the supposed"debunking" come remarks such as the following: "It only took me 15 minutes on the internet to debunk Zeitgeist." Well, if it only tookyou 15 minutes, and you used websites such as Wikipedia or those of Christian apologists, you have not studied the subject sufficiently by any stretch of the imagination. It takes years-decades-of serious study and research both in and out of a formal academic setting to master this subject, provided you even possess the appropriate skills to do such study and research in the first place. Just knowing how to study and research requires scholastic training.
Thus, scanning internet or other encyclopedias-"encyclopedia surfing"-or net forums and chat rooms will not suffice to make an expert of anyone, particularly when the petty efforts at "debunking" are plastered all over the net and are easily accessible to even the most illiterate and uneducated among us. The deeper research, however, is often buried under layers of fear and loathing, revealing a shameful recordof censorship based, once again, on religious fanaticism-the same fanaticism that today wantsto censor this information again with shrill cries, personal attacks and fallacious claims of"debunking." Such shallow dismissals do not constitute "credible research," and the truth about this matter is much more profound and interesting than a 15-minute perusal of the net will ever reveal.

unfortunately all the garbage up there is not even needed by 'believers in christ' lets see why;

1 corinthians 1:14-15;
21 [size=18pt]For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe[/size].

@rhymz

The Real ZEITGEIST Challenge
by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S
The following article is a response to the purported "debunking" of the first part of the original "ZEITGEIST" film. Because of its length, it is divided into several pages. I have also provided a free ebook containing the entire article , linked at the bottom of each page as well. Please also listen to my appearance on Peter Joseph's "Zeitgeist Undebunked" radio show.
Listen to internet radio with Peter Joseph on BlogTalk Radio
"And when we say also that the Word, who is thefirst-birth of God, was produced without intimate union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."
Early Church Father and Saint Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD/CE)
The hit internet movie "ZEITGEIST," purportedly viewed over 100 million times worldwide in a variety of languages, has stirred up much controversy over the past three years since its release by filmmaker Peter Joseph. As a source for the religious segment—"Part 1"—of the original, official version of ZEITGEIST, I have been aware of the dramatic reactions from thosewho are religiously inclined, particularly towardsChristianity, which ZG contends is a manmade contrivance based on Pagan and Jewish precedents. This part of ZG in particular draws the most fire, apparently because it is the most challenging to the faith.
Instead of welcoming this short digest of religious history that has the potential of providing much needed release from erroneous and deleterious belief systems, a number of individuals have become so flummoxed, distraught and challenged by ZG's revelations that they have gone on the warpath and created a series of dubious "debunking" articles and videos, including a "Zeitgeist Challenge" of their own, full of flawed logic and false contentions that have been addressed long ago but that I have also rebutted continually over the past few years whenever claims of ZG "debunking" or"refutation" have cropped up. My measures to demonstrate the overall factual nature of Part 1 of the original ZEITGEIST (ZG1.1) include an ebook, "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1," a video and an exhaustive study of the ancient Egyptian influence on Christianity called Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection .
I have also written several articles and appearedon a number of radio programs, although ZG1.1 appears to be so controversial that the mainstream media seem terrified to give air time to any serious expert in comparative religion and mythology who actually knows about the profound but often difficult-to-find research and factual evidence behind the film's major contentions regarding religious origins and precedents.
In any event, once more I step into the fray to demonstrate—as I have already done many times over the past decades—that a number of salient "modern" religious notions are in fact very ancient, that Christianity is largely a rehash of earlier religions and mythologies, and that acknowledging this past, without all the brainwashing and conditioning that causes intellectual dishonesty, blindness and hysteria, represents the real "ZEITGEIST Challenge."
Logical Fallacy No. 1: Straw Men
One of the most prominent "debunking" attempts raises the straw man that ZG1.1 is"unscholarly," accusing the "makers of Zeitgeist" of failing to list "original texts," besides the Bible, in defense of the film's claims. Firstly, m any of the "original texts" are found in a number of the sources Peter Joseph does cite, so this latter contention merely reflects the ignorance of the commenter in not knowing the subject matter in question.
Secondly, this 22-minute segment of ZEITGEIST was never meant to be a scholarly, exhaustive documentary on the subject. Although it does play the voices of certain individuals, there are no "talking head" experts in ZG1.1 with pristine credentials giving scholarly consensus at august universities, as we see in professional documentaries. ZG1.1 was not intended to serve as such; instead, it is a readily accessible and easily understandable digest of centuries of deep research and profound scholarship in the subjects of comparative religion and mythology. Such individuals in relevant fields with pertinent opinions do exist, however, and these scholarly assessments showing the true origins of religious thought are what I have spent the better part of the past two decades putting together in my works.
While ZG1.1 itself does not go through a list of its sources, Peter Joseph has created a "Sources" page on his ZeitgeistMovie.com website that carefully and thoroughly cites every contention in ZG1.1, a number of which were from my books,which include:
The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold
Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled
Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ
It is to these sources, then, that any serious student (and would-be "debunker" of ZG1.1 would need to turn.
As noted, I have also created several pertinent articles, ebooks and videos, along with an enormous, in-depth study specifically addressing the Egyptian/Horus claims in the film, which largely emanated from a list in my book The Christ Conspiracy (p. 115). These ZG1.1-inspired works include:
The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Was Horus Crucified? (Article)
Was Horus Crucified? (Radio)
The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor
The Star in the East and the Three Kings
Jesus as the Sun throughout History
Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST (and Religious History)
"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked? Acharya Responds(Video)
"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked? NOT!" (Blog)
ZEITGEIST Part 1 section at TBK Forum
Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions
Was Krishna's Mother a Virgin?
Metafysiko Interview of Acharya S
Here I will reiterate some of the same material, as well as steer the reader to my previous writings, where the "debunking" of ZG1.1 has already been addressed, thoroughly and repeatedly. I will also provide more fascinating information that has not been included in my other writings.
Logical Fallacy No. 2: Appeal to Authority
Some of the most notorious "debunking" of"ZEITGEIST," Part 1, has been largely by Christian apologists , although they infrequently identify themselves as such, as they apparently understand this admission will leave them open to charges of bias. In not a few instances, these would-be debunkers have also pretended not to be Christians, presenting themselves as"atheists," while appealing to other purported atheists, whose alleged expertise is flung aroundin order to drub ZG1.1 and its proponents. When apologists remark that "even so-and-so says so, and he's an atheist," they seem to be raising up the atheist as some sort of omniscient god whose word should be taken on face value because his unbelief must somehow make him an expert on the history of religion and mythology. If so, then we must also take as true and factual the atheist's declarations that there is no proof of a god. Apparently Christians and other theists, however, draw the line at the atheist's "expertise" on this point. The reality is that simply because someone lacks a belief in a god—the definition of "atheism"—he or she is not an expert on religion by any stretch of the imagination.
While these ZG1.1 "debunkers," whether theists or atheists, themselves frequently have no relevant credentials, they often harp on the supposed lack thereof by ZG1.1's sources. This"appeal to authority" fallacy could therefore be applied to them as well, as they are usually far less qualified to be writing about religious origins than a number of the film's sources, including lay Egyptologist Gerald Massey, an important analyst of the Egyptian claims as found in ZG1.1 and elsewhere about whom I write in my book Christ in Egypt , an excerpt of which can be found at the following link:
Who Was Gerald Massey?
In sum, the highly peer-reviewed Massey was farmore erudite, educated and qualified on this subject than the bulk of his detractors.
I too possess academic credentials from excellent institutions that are certainly relevant to the subject and sufficient enough to allow me to become an expert in the field of comparative religion and mythology. While this subject is extremely interesting and important, it isn't"rocket science" or brain surgery that requires a slew of advanced degrees to study, master and present the facts in a professional, scholarly manner without the bias and kneejerk reactions that lead the debunkers to make so many erroneous contentions. Expertise in this field nevertheless does require some skills that are not abundantly found in the general populace and are usually procured through education, suchas I possess, including the ability to research in a variety of languages.
I have been studying a number of languages in addition to English for nearly 40 years, starting inthe early 1970s. Not only did I study French, Spanish, Italian, German, ancient Greek and Latinformally in school/college, but I also taught myself modern Greek, as well as other languages, including Sanskrit, Hebrew and Egyptian, to varying degrees. I used Greek abundantly during my trips to Greece, where I did both undergraduate and postgraduate studies, including traveling extensively to archaeological sites throughout the country, serving as a teacher's assistant on Crete, and excavating at Corinth with the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Such language skills very much come with the territory of archaeology, history and religious origins, and without them no investigation of thesubject of ancient religion and mythology can be thorough, including any attempts at "debunking"ZG1.1. These skills are, of course, necessary for the study of ancient texts or primary sources

VIRUS! this write ups,(copied from another ones site) is just a manifestation of incompetence on your part, 'you lost your reasonings to harfull knowledge' Virus, and you are just abandoned to wallow in this stupidity, 'what a bunch of garbage up there'!

Y did God ask moses to construct a snake similar to d ones dt wz bitten d ppl of isreal n hang it so dat any1 dt luk unto it will be saved. Can't God savce dem direct?

again,God did not direct 'an act of worship to the snake' which would have been a double standard or superflous, and act of worship demands 'bowing or making supplications' as the catholics do to their Mary statue! the isrealites never bow nor recite anythithing towards the snake replica, and that situation was a brief and never innaugurated in the law or covenant talkless of being a standard that 'must be followed' so stop 'elevating your insinuation into a standard',now lets see Gods standard that was violated grossly by the catholics;

Exodus 20:4-5
4 [size=14pt]“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; [/size]for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Y dd God request for d building of d "ark of d covenant" manifesting his power n glory tru it. Y not give dem victory in battles straight frm heaven. We honour d mother of Jesus the saviour. Not idol

this is out of point, ark of covenant was the manifestation of Gods presence with the isrealites whenever there is war expecially on special occassions,4 men lift it on their shoulders in front of the congregation of the isrelites, all the direction 'in cubits' how it is to be constructed and operated were detailed by God and it was followed accordingly, but there was no such command as to rossary,and forbbiden idol worship of Mary statue in anywhere in the 'sacred scriptures' directing the erection of mary statue, anyyyyy? show me now pls! imwaiting

@Ubenedictus

it is a pity protestants are ignorant of how the bible came about. They need a little history class.

what history are you talking about,talking about cannon,scriptures etc i think i have contributed a lot on those treads, but something stands out,your (catholics)added unknown scriptures i.e the maccabees are 'not sacred scriptures' but rather are confirmed part of apocrypha!but rather the 66 books of the bible are all 'confirmed sacred scriptures' and the catholics own added scriptures like maccabbees and the rest unsacred scriptures 'taught contradictory things from the sacred scriptures'like purgatory! that violently contradict ezekiel 18:4 that 'soul that sinneth dies' but purgatory says they dont! but rather survives the body, God is not of confussion,but rather the catholics are 'bunch of confusionist' boxing theirself to a corner with 'pagan scriptures' associated with soul torture,...'test every spirit wheather they originate from God' was penned down as an instruction in the book of titus, and how do we test, its by comparing and reconcilling the truths in the bible,which catholics apocrypha was short of,but promote paganisn and idol worshiping!

@Rich4God

But God inpired Moses to build a statue

inspired?
what is inspiration? pls go back to school,to differentiate 'mere instruction' from 'inspiration'.............they are not the same pls!

Give him a job, since his suspension after the wrestling in the house of reps, he lost his respect tottally from from his colleague and even his ward, seeking for attention is another option,he is jobless and its worse because he needs no introduction as a tout or agbero! but seriously,the way the guy throws and direct his punchs,i admire it,a lot of training,but wrong to use such skill in the house.

@law-conffessor

@op, gud question. Catholics bowin to statue? Y did God ask moses to construct a snake similar to d ones dt wz bitten d ppl of isreal n hang it so dat any1 dt luk unto it will be saved. Can't God save dem direct?

1,Because God possess the exclusive power (unchallenged power) to give an order,without consulting anybody including catholics!
2,there was an 'emergency' that warrant the order!
3,There was a command directing isrealite to do so from God!and because God is 'a jealous God'(exodus) who does not permit anyone to give order without his permmission! the catholic erred by putting law into their own hands creating images without Gods consent and permmission! okay? he is unaccountable to anyone,and unquestionable!

Y dd God request for d building of d "ark of d covenant" manifesting his power n glory tru it. Y not give dem victory in battles straight frm heaven. We honour d mother of Jesus the saviour. Not idol

Gods exclusive power is unchallenged, but creating idols of mary without 'Gods command' is an embarrassement that bellitles God' catholics erred by putting the law in their own hands! ok?

@frank-c
pls read the last words of the last paragraph

“The data used in this report was presented by various stakeholders who made submissions to the Task Force in the course of our assignment at various dates, which have been disclosed in relevant sections of the report. Due to time frame of the assignment, some of the data used could not be independently verified and the Task Force recommends that the government should conduct such necessary verifications and reconciliations,” sources quoted the said letter from Ribadu.

''sources quoted the said letter'' there is no truth about the said-letter! 'unknown sources' remains invalid! but what i/we saw last friday really shows that some people are taking Nigerians for granted, Nuhu ribadu said it boldly that orasanye 'Never participated for even one day' in the assignment,and that he was busy travelling throughout until Mr president call for the report,the same day (friday)orasanye flew in from abroad,this is a person who is suppose to 'deputise'the c'mmitee chairman, and in the process,he got appointed into NNPC board,thereby showing that Orasanye if not only there to rubbish the report but to tell Nigerians 'that they can go to hell' it is a shame on an elderly man Orasanye with grey hairs to show his true color as a thief,an impostor,and a fool at whatever age he is now,fool for nothing.
Im proud of Ribadu's comment without fear that 'Oransanye should have resigned from the committee with that new NNPC appointment' but when someone does not have a shame, how will he show it?
As for Mr president watering down what happened between the duo, it shows that he is not in control,and his action shows how weak he is in the face of fact, maybe he wants it resolved internally,or he is sitting on a gunpowder that he dare not allowed to be touched,well time will tell.kudos Ribadu!

Rhymz abeg just remaim 'baba-ndagbe-jare' 'chop-alone' 'stay on your own' 'discuss-on-your-own' nobody gives you a damn! ehn!

@Mr Anony

Still waiting for you

.

is rhymz worth your time? can you see that he has engaged himself with a deadly 'virus' infection to such an extent that he could not differentiate a common textbook from a bible with more than 2000 yrs of existence and still valid and still the most circulated,agbaya-olodo rabata!