This picture portrays Rand as Jesus

[Luckers]

I don't see that Jesus and Rand are anything alike. Jesus was a pacifist, a healer and a wise man... purportedly. Rand is a destroyer--by his very essense he unmakes and causes pain and destruction. He isn't fighting for humanity's sins, or anything like that. He's fighting for humanity. Jesus never fought anyone, his focus was on helping humanity heal itself, not protecting it from a big bad. And yes, i suppose you could argue that metaphoricall Jesus was fighting satan, and all that... but i dont see him losing a hand to satans posse, or any of that. No... Rands a soldier. Jesus was a healer. There is very little similar in them.

 

Additionally, the Da Vinci Code is not the only source on the theories suggested within. Anyone who has done some comparitive religion or religion studies has encountered those theories. Personally i think the Da Vinci Code was sub par. The characters were dull and shallow, the plot boring and predictable and the dialogue cheesy and borderline preachy.

 

To whoever it was who offered the Doctor against the editorializing of the bible--having studied extensively the editorialization of the christian bible--i wrote a paper on the insertion of pagan mythos into christian ideology--I can state that anyone claiming it didn't happen must have some amazing tricks of logic to back it up. The Syncretism of the Christian cult in its early days is well accepted in academic circles. Indeed, it is used in addition to the Syncretism between Buddhism and Bon religions of Tibet in showing new students how syncretism occurs.

[Jedimuppet]

I don't see that Jesus and Rand are anything alike. Jesus was a pacifist' date=' a healer and a wise man... purportedly. Rand is a destroyer--by his very essense he unmakes and causes pain and destruction. He isn't fighting for humanity's sins, or anything like that. He's fighting for humanity. Jesus never fought anyone, his focus was on helping humanity heal itself, not protecting it from a big bad. And yes, i suppose you could argue that metaphoricall Jesus was fighting satan, and all that... but i dont see him losing a hand to satans posse, or any of that. No... Rands a soldier. Jesus was a healer. There is very little similar in them.

 

Additionally, the Da Vinci Code is not the only source on the theories suggested within. Anyone who has done some comparitive religion or religion studies has encountered those theories. Personally i think the Da Vinci Code was sub par. The characters were dull and shallow, the plot boring and predictable and the dialogue cheesy and borderline preachy.

 

To whoever it was who offered the Doctor against the editorializing of the bible--having studied extensively the editorialization of the christian bible--i wrote a paper on the insertion of pagan mythos into christian ideology--I can state that anyone claiming it didn't happen must have some amazing tricks of logic to back it up. The Syncretism of the Christian cult in its early days is well accepted in academic circles. Indeed, it is used in addition to the Syncretism between Buddhism and Bon religions of Tibet in showing new students how syncretism occurs.[/quote']

 

Well as an example of a pagan christian intersection, consider Easter. Does anyone know why we have bunnies and eggs representing Christ coming back from the dead? It was the pagan fertility festival Ostara. One of the eight great sabbats? You might be familiar with some others...samhain (Halloween- All Souls Eve), Yule - Christmas, Imbolc - St Blaise's holiday - both with interesting throat imagery.

 

Anyone wonder why Ireland has St Brigit and a Goddess named Birgitte? There's also a persian god named Mithras. His symbol was both the sheep and the lion, and he rose from the dead three days after he was killed by his followers. Oh, and he was born in a stable :P This is several hundred years before Christ.

J

[Trib4l]

You must understand, I get a little concerned when I read topics like this, especially having dedicated several years of my life to the study of nothing but this subject (sans Rand).

 

I disagree with many of the views stated here, especially those claiming the addition of pagan traditions into the text - there are no widely supported views that even suggest that it happened. I am only aware of 2 academics who are commonly discredited in the community for what amount to pretty much baseless claims of pagan editorialization of any copies of the Christian Bible. Considering most modern translations - i.e. not the KJV - are translated literally from one of the earliest known Greek texts it would be hard to have done so.

 

Jedi - I apologize for the inferrence that you are poorly educated if you took it that way. It seems so many people are buying into the idea that these texts have been altered. I have had many people come through my door assuming that they now know 'the truth', after reading a horribly pathetic work of fiction.

 

So many original manuscripts of many of these books exist - that predate Nicea - and you'd be hard pressed to find much more than a 1% derivation between each copy. The same can be said for English copies of the OT when compared to the DSS. I know many people who were brought up through the Catholic School system - and almost all of them credit their education with some of the worst misconceptions they had about Christianity. Once again - no offense meant to you Jedi.

 

It sounds like we all have a pretty good idea of what happened at Nicea, with the less reputable books being replaced with those of larger circulation and texts that aligned with what the clear message has always been.

 

I suppose my discontent has been with the term 'pacifist' as it indicates a person who generally abhors conflict in general. While Jesus instructs us to strive for peace, conflict is not unexpected or necessarily frowned upon. For too long the world has been telling Christians that they should be inoffensive, non-confrontational, which is the exact opposite of what the clear message of the Bible is - spreading the news - whether people like it or not.

 

To get myself back on track - I agree that the image is more reminiscent of St. Patrick to me as well.

[Jedimuppet]

You must understand' date=' I get a little concerned when I read topics like this, especially having dedicated several years of my life to the study of nothing but this subject (sans Rand).

 

I disagree with many of the views stated here, especially those claiming the addition of pagan traditions into the text - there are no widely supported views that even suggest that it happened. I am only aware of 2 academics who are commonly discredited in the community for what amount to pretty much baseless claims of pagan editorialization of any copies of the Christian Bible. Considering most modern translations - i.e. not the KJV - are translated literally from one of the earliest known Greek texts it would be hard to have done so.

 

Jedi - I apologize for the inferrence that you are poorly educated if you took it that way. It seems so many people are buying into the idea that these texts have been altered. I have had many people come through my door assuming that they now know 'the truth', after reading a horribly pathetic work of fiction.

 

So many original manuscripts of many of these books exist - that predate Nicea - and you'd be hard pressed to find much more than a 1% derivation between each copy. The same can be said for English copies of the OT when compared to the DSS. I know many people who were brought up through the Catholic School system - and almost all of them credit their education with some of the worst misconceptions they had about Christianity. Once again - no offense meant to you Jedi.

 

It sounds like we all have a pretty good idea of what happened at Nicea, with the less reputable books being replaced with those of larger circulation and texts that aligned with what the clear message has always been.

 

I suppose my discontent has been with the term 'pacifist' as it indicates a person who generally abhors conflict in general. While Jesus instructs us to strive for peace, conflict is not unexpected or necessarily frowned upon. For too long the world has been telling Christians that they should be inoffensive, non-confrontational, which is the exact opposite of what the clear message of the Bible is - spreading the news - whether people like it or not.

 

To get myself back on track - I agree that the image is more reminiscent of St. Patrick to me as well.[/quote']

 

Fair enough.

J

[Luckers]

Trib4l,

 

I disagree with many of the views stated here, especially those claiming the addition of pagan traditions into the text - there are no widely supported views that even suggest that it happened. I am only aware of 2 academics who are commonly discredited in the community for what amount to pretty much baseless claims of pagan editorialization of any copies of the Christian Bible. Considering most modern translations - i.e. not the KJV - are translated literally from one of the earliest known Greek texts it would be hard to have done so

 

I too have spent quite some time studying this. There are many widely supported academic sources on the insertion of pagan mythos into christianity. Moreover, the original construction of the bible was highly selective. The King James Version, and subsequent similarity to Nicean and pre-nicean texts is not a valid argument because most of the editorialization took place in the original construction of the new testament. Additionally your assertion that only two discredited acedemics hold these views is fallacious. Most comparitive religionists hold these views... indeed, ive as yet to encounter one that didn't.

[Jedimuppet]

Trib4l' date='

 

I disagree with many of the views stated here, especially those claiming the addition of pagan traditions into the text - there are no widely supported views that even suggest that it happened. I am only aware of 2 academics who are commonly discredited in the community for what amount to pretty much baseless claims of pagan editorialization of any copies of the Christian Bible. Considering most modern translations - i.e. not the KJV - are translated literally from one of the earliest known Greek texts it would be hard to have done so

 

I too have spent quite some time studying this. There are many widely supported academic sources on the insertion of pagan mythos into christianity. Moreover, the original construction of the bible was highly selective. The King James Version, and subsequent similarity to Nicean and pre-nicean texts is not a valid argument because most of the editorialization took place in the original construction of the new testament. Additionally your assertion that only two discredited acedemics hold these views is fallacious. Most comparitive religionists hold these views... indeed, ive as yet to encounter one that didn't.

 

This is an incredibly interesting topic (especially to an old Catholic school boy), but maybe it should be in the debate forum?

 

I do take my share of the blame for egging the conversation on...

J

[Almearafan]

I took the quiz yesterday and ended up being compared to Egwene. Not a problem, but a little imasculating...LMAO. Even for me.

[Jedimuppet]

I took the quiz yesterday and ended up being compared to Egwene. Not a problem' date=' but a little imasculating...LMAO. Even for me.[/quote']

 

You can select sex :P Also, had you selected love interest, and that you were looking for a girl, it would have said Egwene.

 

I got her, too.

J

[Trib4l]

I too have spent quite some time studying this. There are many widely supported academic sources on the insertion of pagan mythos into christianity. Moreover' date=' the original construction of the bible was highly selective. The King James Version, and subsequent similarity to Nicean and pre-nicean texts is not a valid argument because most of the editorialization took place in the original construction of the new testament. Additionally your assertion that only two discredited acedemics hold these views is fallacious. Most comparitive religionists hold these views... indeed, ive as yet to encounter one that didn't.[/quote']

 

Are some of the widely supported views some of the 'articles' that you can find on Google? Most of what I could find were horribly inaccurate. What sources are you referencing? I'd honestly like to know.

 

One of the 'articles' I read actually claimed that the man, Jesus, never even existed. This is in contrast to historical evidence including estimated age, and date of execution kept by the Roman authority at the time. This same article claims that the OT is not filled with pagan mythos - only the NT, which is ironic, since more ancient cultures share the same creation story and stories of great floods than that of a "God-man". At least 10 of the articles I read linked Christian theology to some really interesting 'pagan cultures' and their beliefs, but failed to even look back at the OT and see that they were prophecied to happen.

 

I certainly won't deny the Catholic Church's attempts at uprooting pagan cultures by aligning religious holidays like Christmas and Easter, but beyond that it simply becomes supposition and theory. With efforts like these, it does make it easy for critics to start pointing fingers and suggesting there may be more at work. At this point I'm ready to say there's a point at which we'll all know the truth, and that's when we are dead.

 

From what I can tell is that most people come from two schools of thought. One school, prefers to try and out-think every challenge, problem, fact, etc... until they can winnow it down to the lowest common denominator. The second school prescribes to the idea that it really might just be that simple, and doesn't try and think around it.

 

I see that many people here are of the first school - which is fine. I'd suggest reading the book of Ecclesiastes from the OT. It might provide some insight as to what your efforts to disprove everything will bring you in life.

 

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. /rant

 

I had some fun results from that thing too - I also got Egwene before I selected the correct sex. After selecting male I received Elyas, with Brigitte as a love interest.

[Shaidar Haran]

Okay you guys are discussing this difference between Rand and Jesus and you are going way too in depth for me to understand but what i do understand is this, the main difference between Jesus and Rand is that when Jesus died his blood covered our sins and made us holy before God. He died to save our souls from Hell which happens after death. Rand, on the other hand,is only going to save Randland from the imminent threat of the Dark One, which by the way wont help much because the wheel will turn and the Dark One will just come back. As a final thought, John 3:16 a verse every kid learns at birth at sunday school says, "For God so loved the world that he sent his only Son that whosoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life." The Creator in WOT did not send Rand down from heaven, he is not a holy sacrifice, and from what the books have shown the Creator is more of an impassive being than a loving God

[Luckers]

No Trib4l, not google. I study Comparative Religion at Uni and one of the subjects we cover is the Syncretism of the early christian cult with other cults present in those days.

 

No, evidence that a man named Jesus existed is verefied. The most frequent contension is not that he existed, but that the contemporary conception of jesus did not. That he is in fact an amalgamation of several different preachers of that time. The most famous bit of evidence is that the 25th of december was not the birthday of the man named Jesus, but that of the man named Mithras, who preached a very similar ideology as Jesus. There are several other contemporaries of Jesus, whose follows under the the presure of Roman persecutuion joined together and formed a new sort of amalgamation.... it just happens that Jesus was the name that survived out of the various preachers. Thats what Syncretism is.

 

But if your interested in dicussing this, i suggest you start a thread in debates and discussion.

 

I find far more similarities between the Buddhist figure Quan Yin and Rand, then Jesus and Rand. Quan Yin is a soul who reached a level of enlightenment nessasary to achieve Nirvana, but chose to stay and aid others, and so her soul, is recycled again and again as Boddhasatra so that each time she might aid mankind. I refer to her as a she because when she sat at Buddha's feet she was a woman, currently she is a man, in the form of the Dalai Lama. She too was a sudo-ascetic (she walled herself off, distanced herself from emotion and passion, for such things pull you into the life of karma, and you can never escape into nirvana) like Rand. There is much more similarity to me between Buddhist philosophy, and the Wheel of Time, then Christian religion - note my distinction, for both Buddhism and in RJ's world ideas of existance are more philosophical then religious. The closest thing to religion in the Wheel is the Children, and even they, when not cast negatively, are not truely religious.

 

As a final thought, John 3:16 a verse every kid learns at birth at sunday school says, "For God so loved the world that he sent his only Son that whosoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life." The Creator in WOT did not send Rand down from heaven, he is not a holy sacrifice, and from what the books have shown the Creator is more of an impassive being than a loving God

 

Whilst i agree with your point... every kid learnt that? I was christian and i never learnt that. :lol:

[Trib4l]

Luckers - thank you for your time and consideration in your posts. That was very informative - I really wanted to get to the root of what it is you believe so that I can research it further.

 

I doubt I'll be starting a thread like that - they tend to attract the fringe and usually degrade into retarded, mud-slinging flamewars. I'm honestly surprised that it hasn't happened yet in this thread.

 

One of the things I was told in Seminary is that the 25th of December was selected by the Catholic Church because of it's proximity to the Winter Soltice celebrations held by certain cults at the time, even though Jesus' suspected birth date is closer to Passover/Easter because of Josephus' historical records.

 

I concur with your assesment of the similarities with eastern philosophy rather than western religion. I really began to feel this way when we saw the depth of swordplay and it's descriptions. The way character thoughts are portrayed lean that way as well. Once I saw the appearance of the Seanchan, and read their description, I felt was the lynchpin.

[Luckers]

Indeed. Did you know that Quan yin was in fact a name given by a chinese man who came up with sword forms? Her original name... was something i cant remember, heh. But ye, i definately think easter ideology plays a bigger part in the wheel then western.

[Inara]

that would be because it is much more excititing and not so recycled by other authors.

[Luckers]

Hmm... The Matrix is massively Buddhist... in fact, its studied for such at University. It's not that rare.

[Inara]

i didnt say it was rare, only that has not been used so much already by other authors.

eg, cs lewis and tolkien are godd examples of popular and overly 'copied' authors who dont really touch on any eastern mythology or theology.

in the western worl we are used to our own histories and stories, this is why most things that have been 'borrowed' from anything else feels so refreshing.

[Luckers]

Yeah i know. I wasn't disagreeing. Bad language, bad! heh.

[Inara]

sorry :oops:

still getting used to a new keyboard

i should have proofread it