Ramanisblog

Tag: Christ

  • The Bible Christ Shroud Of Turin, Myths

    There is a widely  held belief that the Christians were persecuted from The days of Christ and the point is stressed and reinforced by Christian Literature.

    The three facts(?)of Christianity.

    Christ did not exist.

    ‘The Christ myth theory (also known as Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is a range of arguments that question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth or the entirety of his life story as described in the Christian gospels.[1][2][3][4] The most sweeping version of the myth theories contends that there was no real historical figure Jesus and that he was invented by early Christians. Another variant holds that there was a person called Jesus, but almost all teachings and miracles attributed to him were either invented or symbolic references. Yet another version suggests that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament is a composite character constructed from multiple people over a period of time..

    Historical Evidence.

    The historical Proof for the existence of Christ is very thin.

    Jesus Christ.
    Christ.
    1. “Jesus never existed: The gospels describe a virtually, and perhaps entirely, fictitious person. There are no grounds for supposing that any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history.
    2. Jesus existed but little is known about him: There is enough historical evidence to conclude that Jesus existed, but the reports are so unreliable that very little can be said about his life and teachings with confidence.
    3. Jesus existed and we can know about him: Historical research can reveal a core of historical facts about Jesus, but he is often different from the portrayals in the New Testament. Many of the sayings and miracles attributed to him are likely to be myths.
    4. The gospels present a mostly historical Jesus: When the New Testament accounts are compared with other sources they provide a by and large reliable historical portrait of Jesus, and critical historiography should not rule out the possibility of supernatural occurrences.”

    So much for the founder of Christianity.

    The Bible.

    The Bible was composed nearly after three years after the death of Christ(?) by Constantine by assembling a Conclave of Cardinals   an analysis of over three hundred versions of the would be Bible and the one that would suit the policies of Constantine to consolidate his Empire was chosen.

    Not only that.

    Constantine too became a Christian Convert to hold on to his Kingdom.

    The New Testament , of  King James’s version was more of a retort to the Pope., because he did not give permission to King James to marry Anne Boleyn.

    “The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Córdoba in the Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east.[16] To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls. In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea (now known as İznik, in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the majority of delegates, particularly those of Asia Minor, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

    This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the Apostolic council having established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.[17] In the Council of Nicaea, “The Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.”[18]“

    Constantine also established the Church, the temporal Authority to consolidate his Kingdom.

    The Shroud of Turin.

    The Shroud of Turin, believed to be the cloth that was used to wrap the body of Crucified christ.
    The Shroud of Turin.

    The Shroud of Turin was believed to be  the cloth that was used to wrap the body of Christ after he was crucified.

    Carbon Dating established beyond doubt that the Cloth belonged to the 13th Century AD!

    ‘The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth commonly associated with the crucifixion and burial of Jesus Christ, has undergone numerous scientific tests, the most notable of which is radiocarbon dating, in an attempt to determine the relic‘s authenticity. In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of 1260–1390CE, which coincides with the first appearance of the shroud in France in the 1350s.[1]

    These results are generally accepted by the scientific community. This dating has been questioned by some, and doubts have been raised in particular regarding the representivity of the sample that was taken for testing.”

    This is how th early Christianity was conceived , more as a Political tool.

    Even the hunting down  of Christ and eventual Crucifixion was more of a Political Act, the charge was Sedition!

    Now onto the persecution of Christians.

    References.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

    Related articles

  • Why No Woman Pope?

    There has been no woman Pope  in the History of The Catholic Church.

    Christianity is touted to be a religion which treats every one equally, it is its USP.

    But no woman?

    Pope Joan.
    Pope Joan.

    There is also the controversy that Jesus Christ had left Christianity in the hands of Mary Magdalene.

    Why are women not allowed and what is so unique in Men ?

    In Hinduism, right from the Vedic Ages, there have been  many Rishis, like Gargi to Modern ‘Amma(Ma Anandmayi)’

     

    ” There has never been a female pope. There is a myth about a Pope Joan that in recent times has been revived, but which has been clearly rebutted by scholars.

    Wikipedia has a good outline of the Pope Joan myth here:

    – Roman Catholic Answer

    The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, if he is not a Bishop when elected to the Papacy, he is tonsured, ordained a lector, then an acolyte, then a deacon, then a priest, and finally consecrated a bishop. Up until the ninth century, bishops were never elected popes as bishops never moved out of their diocese. Regardless, he is always a bishop, and only a man can be consecrated a bishop, so, no, there has never been a female pope.

    – In the legend she was supposed to have been very talented, and, disguised as a man, to have risen through the church hierarchy to become pope, sometime in the Middle Ages.
    It has been a popular story since the thirteenth century, but no one has ever found any reason to believe it actually happened.
    Since there have always been women who felt they were really men, it is most likely that one was unmasked trying to become a priest. This would have started a rash of ‘what if she hadn’t been discovered’ stories, culminating in the Pope Joan myth.(wiki answers)

    Ordaining of Woman in Catholic Church.

    As more Protestant denominations, including the Church of England, have begun ordaining women, the Catholic Church’s teaching on the all-male priesthood has come under attack, with some claiming that the ordination of women is simply a matter of justice, and the lack of such ordination is proof that the Catholic Church does not value women. The Church’s teaching on this matter, however, cannot change. Why can’t women be priests?

    Answer:

    In the Person of Christ the Head

    At the most basic level, the answer to the question is simple: The New Testament priesthood is the priesthood of Christ Himself. All men who, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, have become priests (or bishops) participate in Christ’s priesthood. And they participate in it in a very special way: They actin persona Christi Capitis, in the person of Christ, the Head of His Body, the Church.

    Christ Was a Man

    Christ, of course, was a man; but some who argue for the ordination of women insist that His sex is irrelevant, that a woman can act in the person of Christ as well as a man can. This is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the differences between men and women, which the Church insists are irreducible; men and women, by their natures, are suited to different, yet complementary, roles and functions.

    The Tradition Established by Christ Himself

    Yet even if we disregard the differences between the sexes, as many advocates of women’s ordination do, we have to face the fact that the ordination of men is an unbroken tradition that goes back not only to the Apostles but to Christ Himself. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para. 1577) states:

    “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

    Priesthood Not a Function But an Indelible Spiritual Character

    Still, the argument continues, some traditions are made to be broken. But again, that misunderstands the nature of the priesthood. Ordination does not simply give a man permission to perform the functions of a priest; it imparts to him an indelible (permanent) spiritual character that makes him a priest, and since Christ and His Apostles chose only men to be priests, only men can validly become priests.

    The Impossibility of Women’s Ordination

    In other words, it’s not simply that the Catholic Church does not allow women to be ordained. If a validly ordained bishop were to perform the rite of the Sacrament of Holy Orders exactly, but the person supposedly being ordained were a woman rather than a man, the woman would no more be a priest at the end of the rite than she was before it began. The bishop’s action in attempting the ordination of a woman would be both illicit (against the laws and regulations of the Church) and invalid (ineffective, and hence null and void).

    The movement for women’s ordination in the Catholic Church, therefore, will never get anywhere. Other Christian denominations, to justify ordaining women, have had to change their understanding of the nature of the priesthood from one which conveys an indelible spiritual character on the man who is ordained to one in which the priesthood is treated as a mere function. But to abandon the 2,000-year-old understanding of the nature of the priesthood would be a doctrinal change. The Catholic Church could not do so and remain the Catholic Church.

    http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Women_Priests.htm

     

     

  • Mother Teresa Blog,Comment, Origin of The Bible.

    For my post ‘Mother Teresa, No Saint, Glorified Suffering Media Creation, I received a comment and i have sent a reply.

    I felt that the reply can be posted as a Blog for others also to know the story behind The Bible and the Role of Constantine.

    Emperor Constantine
    Emperor Constantine
    Eastern Orthodox icon depicting the First Council of Nicea
    Eastern Orthodox icon depicting the First Council of Nicea
    “hi,
    Thank you for your comments.
    My comment on the subject is based  on
    1.That the bible was compiled and not revealed ;
    2.It was compiled by Constantine after calling for a Conclave of Cardinals.
    3.They were asked to choose among some three hundred versions of the Life and preaching of Christ..
    4.Constantine chose one Text it would keep his regime in tact , in the wake of protests in his regime..
    He also wanted a temporal authority to control this Religion and ensured that he created one that would support the Regime.
    This is the origin of papacy.
    Now, why one should go by this ‘Beatification’ by a body is ,fist of all , Political by Nature?
    Mother Teresa is one who is by The Church and she was involved in Conversions and the medical Miracles are not.miracles?
    Kindly refer my posts on Christianity for more on Christianity.

    —

    Ref:Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 220,[19] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[20] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[21] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[22] and Evagrius,[23] Hilary of Poitiers,[24] Jerome[25] and Rufinus recorded 318. Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire except Britain. In Ethiopic Christian literature including both theFetha Negest and the Kibre Negest, the First Council of Nicea (Niqya) is traditionally referred to as “the three hundred and eighteen Orthodox Fathers”.

    The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons; so the total number of attendees could have been above 1800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.

    A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the Edict of Milan, issued in February of AD 313 by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

    The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar Timothy Barnes in his book Constantine and Eusebius.[26] Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.[27]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

    According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), (a bust of Constantine is pictured below) who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered “holy” and thus “the word of God” and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.

    http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm

    * The Comment may be seen on Mother Theresa post by me.

    Related articles

  • ‘Jesus’ Name Is Not Real

    Jesus is the name attributed the Founder of Christianity.

    Jesus means the ‘anointed’

    There other meanings ascribed based on the writings from the Old Testament and the New Testament.

    Most of the allusions given indicate that it is not the real name but allusions, which can be inferred from the com the context in which it was used.

    While the Old Testament was compiled at the behest of Constantine, The New testament was written to suit King James.

    So th name Jesus is not real.

    Jesus Name Origin.
    Jesus Name Orig

     

     

    References:

    Further information: Jesus (name), Holy Name of Jesus, Name of God in Christianity, and Yeshua (name)

    “Jesus” is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a hellenization of the Aramaic/Hebrew ישוע‎ (Yēšûă‘) which is a post-Exilic modification of the Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) under influence from Aramaic.[38] In the Quran, it is عيسى‎ (‘Īsa).[39][40]

    In the Bible he is referred to as “Jesus from Nazareth”,[Mt 21:11] “Joseph’s son”,[Lk 4:22] and “Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth”.[Jn 1:45] Before his death and resurrection, his followers may have begun to refer to him as the Messiah—”Christ” in Greek translation, the anointed one. After his death and resurrection, his followers regularly referred to him as both “Lord” and “Messiah”.[Ac 2:36] In his writings, Paul variously used both “Christ” and “Son of God“. Paul used “Christ” as if were Jesus’ name rather than a title. As an example, in Romans 6:4 he wrote “Christ was raised from the dead”. He most often referred to Jesus as “Jesus Christ”, “Christ Jesus“, or “Christ”.[41]

    The etymology of the name Jesus in the context of the New Testament is generally expressed as “Yahweh saves”,[42][43][44] “Yahweh is salvation”[45][46][47] The name Jesus appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus.[47][48] The first century works of historian Flavius Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus.[49] Philo’s reference (Mutatione Nominum item 121) indicates that the etymology of the name Joshua was known outside Judea at the time.[50]

    In the New Testament, in Luke 1:26–33, the angel Gabriel tells Mary to name her child “Jesus”, and in Matthew 1:21 an angel tells Joseph to name the child “Jesus”. The statement in Matthew 1:21 “you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” associates salvific attributes to the name Jesus in Christian theology.[51][52]

    “Christ” (pron.: /ˈkraɪst/) is derived from the Greek Χριστός (Khrīstos), meaning “the anointed” or “the anointed one”, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as “Messiah” (pron.: /mɨˈsaɪ.ə/).[53][54] In the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible (written well over a century before the time of Jesus), the word “Christ” (Χριστός) was used to translate the Hebrew word “Messiah” (מָשִׁיחַ) into Greek.[55] In Matthew 16:16, the apostle Peter’s profession “You are the Christ” identifies Jesus as the Messiah.[56] In postbiblical usage, “Christ” became viewed as a name, one part of “Jesus Christ”, but originally it was a title (“Jesus the Anointed”).[5(wiki)

     

    ..

    The intent of this article is to investigate the origin of the Greek name Jesus and its erroneous transliteration of the Hebrew name of our Savior Yahshua.  Our Saviour’s Name in Hebrew is    (read from right to left). The English name “Jesus,” which later employed the letter “J,” is a derivation from Greek “Iesous” and the Latin “Iesus” version.

    This name “Jesus” commonly used in Christianity today did not exist and would not be spelled with the letter “J” until about 500 years ago. This article will also discuss the grammatical errors involved in the transliteration of Yahshua into Greek and Latin, which radically changed the form of Yahshua’s name.

    http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Etymology_of_names

     

     

  • Jesus Born 24 December 4BC

    There have been a lot of papers on the date of birth of Jesus Christ.

    We now celebrate Christmas, the Birth Day of Jesus on 24 December.

    New Research indicates that Jesus was born on 24 December between  5 and early 4 Centuries  BC.

    This has been arrived at by calculating date on the basis of an eclipse of the moon just before Herod passed on. This occurred on March 12th or 13th in 4 B.C. Josephus also tells us that Herod expired just before Passover. This feast took place on April 11th, in the same year, 4 B.C.

    The Bible was compiled later, about 500 later by Constantine, with the help of a Conclave of Cardinals.

    While it seems alright to accept the date of Birth of Christ as authentic as this was compiled later,some 300 versions were prepared before one version was adopted.

    This is what we follow as The Old Testament.

    http://saccsivdotcom.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/on-what-day-was-jesus-really-born-a-new-testament-manuscript-expert-responds/

    Related:

    Monogram of Jesus.
    Ihs (Monogram of Jesus)

    “Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action – MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the “word of God” into existence. (I wish to thank Brian Show for pointing out in his rebuttal to this article that the final version of the Christian Bible was not voted on at the Council of Nicaea, per se. The Church leaders didn’t finish editing the “holy” scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine! This fact is revealed in the second counter-rebuttal to Brian Show’s first rebuttal to this article. This counter-rebuttal makes the following important statement and backs it up with FACTS – “Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use.” Of course, I’d like to express my deep appreciation to fellow Deist Peter Murphy for the great research work he did in order to write such a great counter-rebuttal!(deism.com)

    Constantine requests for The Bible.

    Jesus Christ.
    Jesus Christ.

    ‘have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practised in their art.[3]

    About accomplishing the Emperor’s demand:

    Such were the emperor’s commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form.[4]’

    (Bibles of Constantine)

    Related:

    Birth date of Pord Rama.

    As for as The Ramayana goes, external evidence is provided in the Puranas(means ‘ very old’) , Eighteen in Number( in Sanskrit) and in regional Languages of India, be it Tamil,Telugu,Kannada, Malayalam,Hindi,Bengali,Oriya,other languages .

    In addition Dialects of India have this spread through word of mouth.

    Though the versions vary in embellishments, the basic fact that there was a King called Rama , he had been sent to forest with his wife called Sita by his father who wanted to appease his wife(not Rama’s mother),she was abducted by a Chieftain called Ravana of Sri Lanka and he was killed by Rama , never varies.(History of The Tamils by P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar)

    Reference to the Ramayana has been made in Mahabharata, which is posterior to The Ramayana.

    One of the characters in The Mahabharata is Lord Krishna, whose palace has been unearthed off Gujarat coast , India.(please see my blog filed under(‘Videos)

    http://ramanisblog.in/2011/03/13/birth-date-of-lord-ramaroute-taken-by-him-to-sri-lanka-maps/

    Enhanced by Zemanta