Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The religious GOD is a man-made idea


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Eddy_P

Eddy_P

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 06 July 2005 - 05:50 AM

The Australian researcher, Ronald Pegg, between 1996 and 2002 discovered evidence that "God" plus the associated Religious concepts were not based upon what we have been led to believe.

I wish to present some of his findings to your group to see how his discoveries affect the perception of God.

An 'omnipresent being', ie. the "God" of four of the world's religious groups (Hebrews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons) is known through different names such as JHWH, God, Allah, and Jesus.
But there is a more fundamentally basic classification of this omnipresent being known as "God" who is also mentioned in earlier Middle Eastern religious stories as "The Creation God" - or the God of the Creation Story.

The "Creation" story is mentioned in the Old Testament in Genesis and involves the "God" of which we speak.
But checking the original meaning of this word "God" in the lexicon of Strong's Concordance, we find that Hebrew word 430 is a plural word and means 'gods' in the ordinary sense. It comes from word 433 which means 'a deity'. So in the Bible where we see the word "God" written, it actually refers to just 'deities' (plural) - this is its primary language meaning. A secondary religious meaning is given as "specifically used of the supreme God", with third and fourth meanings of "occasionally applied by way of deference to 'magistrates'; and sometimes as a superlative; such as 'judges' and angels".

So in the Creation Story, it is ordinary gods that are being related. It was not until the Creation Myth (which was spreading around the ancient Middle East) began to be perceived as a 'religious story', at which time the secondary meaning kicked in - being the single Hebrew God - named elsewhere in the Old Testament as YHWH.

Therefore the use of the word "God" in the biblical Creation Story refers to 'gods' plural.

But during my investigation of these matters in 2005, I was advised that the Hebrews always knew that the word GOD was plural. I was told that "The Hebrews, long before Romans or Constantine, had 'the Holy Spirit' which they called the 'Shekinah' and is female in gender. The word Elohim in gender, is plural male, and singular female."

This ideas seems to link back more to the Egyptian Triad of gods - where there was the Father, the Mother, and the Son.

Then came Christianity, that through the Jesus Myth of the New Testament appeared to religiously explain this plural meaning of the Hebrew God.
You may note that I say "the Jesus Myth". I say this for the following reason:
On page 267 of the book The Atlantis Blueprint, (Rand Flem-ath and Colin Wilson, Little, Brown, and Company, Great Britain, 2000; ISBN 0-316-85313-5) it is reported that Pope Leo X, a contemporary of Henry VIII said; "It has served us well, this myth of Christ".

So we have a Pope knowing that the 'Jesus as God' stories are not true.
Finding out that a Pope knew this upsets some people.

In defence of their knowledge that the "God" of the New Testament refers to the Triad of gods - The Father, Jesus, and the Spirit - people who believe what is written in their Bibles immediately quote 1John 5:7-8, saying that, because it is written in the Bible that "testify…in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one…And there are three that testify on earth", this means that it is true that "God" refers to these three aspects - and thus confirms the original Hebrew plural meaning of God.

BUT what is written at 1John 5:7-8 is NOT original words.
In 1964 it was finally admitted by the Catholic Biblical Commission that the words 7- “testify…in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one"; 8-"And there are three that testify on earth:…and the” were an addition to 1John 5:7-8 in Jerome's Latin Bible, the 'Vulgate'.

The original words of 1 John 5:7-8 were "For there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
The addition was not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translations prior to the 16th century, and was only found in the Roman Bible written since the 11th century.
This passage was called "the heavenly witnesses" and the addition became known as the “Johannine Comma.”
On page 1928 of the Eight Translation New Testament (Tyndale House Publishers Inc, Illinois, 1974) an account of a fourth century Spanish heretic producing these words, with Erasmus including them in a Greek manuscript, is cited.

So no Greek manuscript contained the extra words, and only the Latin Vulgate Bible did - until Erasmus rewrote the text (which was then used as a basis for the King James translation in 1611).

For some reason the Roman Christian Church in the 11th century added the extra words to make it appear that the plural word "God" of the Hebrew story was related to their god 'Jesus' and the 'Spirit'.
A deliberate addition by the Roman Church is still contained in the KJV Bible, with English speaking people since then believing that the Christian triad of gods is biblically correct. Unfortunately this concept is not correct, and now shows up the misinformation about the plural identity of the Hebrew 'God'.
Finding this out upsets some people.

In defence of their knowledge that "The Father, Jesus, and the Spirit" have always been "one" (ie. the omnipresent being herein under discussion) Christians quote the four Gospels as being witnesses to Jesus Christ and the Spirit.

BUT the Gospels are stories written from between 58 and 120 AD, by unknown authors. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were given later when the Romans were 'translating' the Greek manuscripts. (The original first century Greek manuscripts are no longer available.)
The first to write about the "Jesus Stories" was the Roman citizen, Paul around 40-50 AD.
It was the Roman Church that made the additions in the 11th century, and as Paul was Roman who was previously killing Christians, questions have to be asked such as "Are the stories told by Paul and the Gospels accurate ?" and "Was Jesus and the Spirit originally part of the triad, or is that made up too ?".

A look at religious history books easily answers the second question.
In 325 Constantine at Nicaea adopted the decree that Jesus is equal with God, the Father.
Then in 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that the Holy Ghost is qual to God and Jesus.
In 405 additions to the Greek Bible at 1John 5:7-8 were made to make this Trinity appear biblical.

So declarations concerning the Trinity were made up to four centuries after the original stories were told - with deliberate additions made to the Bible to affirm their decrees.
In 431 AD at the Ecumenical Council in Ephesus, Saint Cyril of Alexandria affirmed that the Virgin Mary is 'Theotokos', mother of God. If you take the inclusion of Mary into account, on earth the ancient Egyptian triad concept is once again clearly seen in the Catholic religious icons of the Pope (Father), Mary (mother), and Jesus (son).

Summary:
A previous Pope knew that the 'Jesus as God' stories are not true.
The second and third individual parts of the Trinity were decreed by man - and are therefore not biblical.
In 1964 the Catholic Biblical Commission admitted that the passage that confirms the Trinity concept is an addition.

This all means that the Christian claims that the Hebrew plural God can be explained away as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are false.

This leaves the original meaning of the Creation God as 'ordinary gods' (plural).
This also negates the belief of "an omnipresent being" (ie. one of the ancient Religious Gods) being the source for the ancient stories.
ie. there is no GOD (He only exists in the minds of people who have believed the stories told by the various religious Churches).

So if the ancient biblical prophet Moses who documented speaking to "God" and mentions him in the Creation narration was not talking about a religious GOD as we have come to believe - who or what was he describing and to what was he listening ?

Something took the attention of Moses, and it had such an impact upon him that it made him write down what he saw and heard.

#2 Eddy_P

Eddy_P

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 06 July 2005 - 05:53 AM

The first question I am often asked is "Where in Strong's dictionary does it state that God just means "deities" (plural) ?

To discover the original meanings of the words from the 1611 King James Bible I use the printed book version of Strong's Concordance as modern electronic versions have been updated with newer meanings to represent our modern use of language and thus may have inadvertently changed the original meanings - and therefore may not represent what was originally intended.

Resource: Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, James Strong, Thomas Nelson Publishers, USA, latest edition 1996.

Physically checking the original meaning of this word "God" in the lexicon of Strong's Concordance, we find that Hebrew word 430 is a plural word and means 'gods' in the ordinary sense. It comes from word 433 which means 'a deity'.
A secondary religious meaning is given as "specifically used of the supreme God", with third and fourth meanings of "occasionally applied by way of deference to 'magistrates'; and sometimes as a superlative; such as 'judges' and angels".

The primary meaning is 'gods' (as in general deities) - it is the plural of deity.

- - - -

Then, in relation to the primary and secondary meanings of the Hebrew words as given in Strong's Lexicon, people often say "It all just depends on the context in which the word is used".

Yes it does.
The English meanings and therefore the contemporary religious Stories told about the Bible are from the context of the secondary religious meanings and not the primary meanings. ie. past religious scholars have interpreted and translated the words to fit in with the 1st to 4th Centuries Roman Church's ideas.

An Australian researcher has used the original primary meanings and found that the Bible was originally telling a quite different narration.

#3 Biochemist

Biochemist

    Eccentric Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2229 posts

Posted 06 July 2005 - 11:01 AM

The first question I am often asked is "Where in Strong's dictionary does it state that God just means "deities" (plural) ?...

You offer this like it is some sort of well-kept secret. The NASB version of the Bible translates Genesis 1:26 as "Lest Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness".. and has been used as one of the verses in support of the doctrine of the Trinity for centuries.

It is certaily legitimate to pick on any individual Christian doctine (like the Trinity, for example, which is an extrabiblical construct) but to use an Australian researcher and a single historical pope as a proof case is a little bit of a stretch.

The NASB version of the Bible had a couple of dozen Hebrew scholars working collaboratively to get a clean consensus translation. I am certain they are not always "correct" but to suggest that one other guy is somehow more insightful requires some source proof-text work.

#4 Biochemist

Biochemist

    Eccentric Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2229 posts

Posted 06 July 2005 - 11:06 AM

...The original words of 1 John 5:7-8 were "For there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."...

This is the exact translation in the NASB Bible. I am not sure I understand your point, except perhaps that the 1611 KJV transaltion is a little outdated.

#5 Biochemist

Biochemist

    Eccentric Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2229 posts

Posted 06 July 2005 - 11:09 AM

...The second and third individual parts of the Trinity were decreed by man - and are therefore not biblical....

I never saw a justification for the doctrine of the Trinity that used 1 John 5:6-8. It seems to me that you are refuting a straw-man argument.

#6 UncleAl

UncleAl

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1212 posts

Posted 06 July 2005 - 11:36 AM

There is a colony of ants by my front door that worships me every Thursday, including live sacrifices. They maintain faith that I - omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent - can gift them with a giant donut and thereby create everlasting paradise. A splinter group broke off in schism and worships me on Wednesdays. Each of them has cut off the distal segment of their middle right leg in obeisance.

I spray them with poison every now and again to lessen the nuisance.

#7 Biochemist

Biochemist

    Eccentric Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2229 posts

Posted 06 July 2005 - 03:59 PM

There is a colony of ants by my front door that worships me every Thursday, including live sacrifices...

Have you volunteered yet to live and die as an ant to show them your concern for theirspiritual well-being?
  • Chacmool likes this

#8 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 06 July 2005 - 08:40 PM

Have you volunteered yet to live and die as an ant to show them your concern for theirspiritual well-being?


Yes, He did. In fact, I am one of the ants that worshipped Him, and here is my testimony.

uncleAl split His being, part remaining the original God and part becoming God-in-the-exoskeleton. As an ant, uncleAl walked among us and taught us, such as His famous surmon on the (ant) mound. His miracles were many; He made the blind ants see, and even cast out demons: one time, He cast out a whole slew of them out of a single ant: they fled into a herd of nearby mites that then jumped into the river and drowned. During this time, uncleAl told me and His other disciples that there would come a day when He would have to give his life, to clense us ants of our sins. The day finally came: He was taken to a cross and six little thumbtacks were driven into his legs. When it was thought He was dead, one of the guard ants checked by jabbing a toothpick into His thorax, and the ooze came out and we all knew our Lord was dead.

uncleAl was buried and there was much weeping. But three days after his burial, me and some other ants went to His tomb and found it empty! Glory be to uncleAl, He had been resurrected! Later, me and a couple other ants were walking down an out-of-the-way and we saw someone - we weren't sure who it was at first, but lo and behold, it was our master uncleAl - alive! Or so the others said: I was still skeptical. So uncleAl told me to stick my front leg into the toothpick hole in his thorax: sure enough, it was uncleAl.

So yes, uncleAl did become exoskeleton and walk among His subjects; He did perform miracles; He did sacrifice his life on the cross; and He did arise from the dead. You MUST believe this for I saw it with my own eyes.

#9 IrishEyes

IrishEyes

    Reminiscing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2710 posts

Posted 06 July 2005 - 08:56 PM

I really could use a can of Raid right now. The damn ants are trying to bite my fingers!