Also, it doesn't require the Bible to see that the past and the present are intimately connected through the control structures, which was the point of my post.
Except that it does. That is exactly what it signifies. That it signified that before the Catholic church appropriated it is not contested. You suggest that it signified something different for the Catholic church. I am saying it does not. I am trying to tell you that the Catholic church was created by and is run by the exact same people as those who used the obelisk for its original purpose. The evidence for that assertion is everywhere. Your apology was created by those with conflicts of interest.
What does that prove or negate?
You stated:
You either believe the Bible is a historical record or you don't.
My statement was to indicate that that is irrelevant (in the sense that it is an unnecessary requirement) to being able to see these connections between past and present. On the contrary, while I agree it is an excellent resource, it can interfere with that process, because in order to hold on to the belief that the Bible is absolute truth, every word exact as given to us by Source, you must ignore a great deal of evidence.
I told you what that one particular obelisk signifies for the Catholic church. The Catholic church is not pagan. It's topped with a cross and has been exorcized for a reason. Why bother if its all the same religion?
I am trying to tell you that the Catholic church was created by and is run by the exact same people as those who used the obelisk for its original purpose.
The Catholic church was started by Jesus Christ and while it may be infiltrated, that does not negate the fact that the Church is not pagan nor do we worship a pagan god.
That is impossible for anyone who believes that the Bible is, every word, absolutely true (as interpreted by the general Christian dogma). I have tried too many times to show people evidence and they refuse to even look in earnest. Too much cognitive dissonance. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.
Why bother if its all the same religion?
Controlled Opposition. You can't control a society without an adversary. You can however, easily control the entire world if you create different religions and set them against each other, each naming the others as "evil."
The Catholic church was started by Jesus Christ
The Catholic church (or rather, just The Church at the time) was started by the ecumenical council at the Nicene convention in 325 AD. The tenets held by the Catholic church (that are still held by all Christian religions today) were made into Roman Law at that time. Because there were several religions in the various regions, they combined numerous pagan and Christian beliefs into one single entity. This was done to ensure that everyone believed the same thing, making the Roman Empire easier to rule. In order to create certain beliefs, they had to leave out most of the books that were canon at the time (that list is not comprehensive). The entire concept of Trinity wasn't an agreed upon part of Christian beliefs until the Catholic church demanded that it be so (see the link on the laws). Jesus as the only Son of God wasn't a part of the tenets until that time. The Holy Spirit wasn't added as "the Trinity" until the next council in 383 (or whatever year it was).
By separating out Jesus from the rest of us (we are ALL the Children of God), this set up a hierarchy by which we could be ruled, with "Jesus, as God" at the top, and the Priesthood as the divine voice of Jesus. This was there from day one of the creation of the formal religion we call "Christianity." If you read all the stuff they left out, it paints a very different picture of what Jesus was really trying to tell us. Regardless, while the names have changed, we are still ruled by the same hierarchy today.
I'm pretty sure you didn't read what I wrote.
Also, it doesn't require the Bible to see that the past and the present are intimately connected through the control structures, which was the point of my post.
I read it a few times.
You opened with a false statement.
No, I have not been taught that the past and present are separate. I was taught there is nothing new under the sun.
And?
What does that prove or negate?
You made the claim:
Except that it does. That is exactly what it signifies. That it signified that before the Catholic church appropriated it is not contested. You suggest that it signified something different for the Catholic church. I am saying it does not. I am trying to tell you that the Catholic church was created by and is run by the exact same people as those who used the obelisk for its original purpose. The evidence for that assertion is everywhere. Your apology was created by those with conflicts of interest.
You stated:
My statement was to indicate that that is irrelevant (in the sense that it is an unnecessary requirement) to being able to see these connections between past and present. On the contrary, while I agree it is an excellent resource, it can interfere with that process, because in order to hold on to the belief that the Bible is absolute truth, every word exact as given to us by Source, you must ignore a great deal of evidence.
Prove it.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/basilica-of-saint-peter
I told you what that one particular obelisk signifies for the Catholic church. The Catholic church is not pagan. It's topped with a cross and has been exorcized for a reason. Why bother if its all the same religion?
The Catholic church was started by Jesus Christ and while it may be infiltrated, that does not negate the fact that the Church is not pagan nor do we worship a pagan god.
That is impossible for anyone who believes that the Bible is, every word, absolutely true (as interpreted by the general Christian dogma). I have tried too many times to show people evidence and they refuse to even look in earnest. Too much cognitive dissonance. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.
Controlled Opposition. You can't control a society without an adversary. You can however, easily control the entire world if you create different religions and set them against each other, each naming the others as "evil."
The Catholic church (or rather, just The Church at the time) was started by the ecumenical council at the Nicene convention in 325 AD. The tenets held by the Catholic church (that are still held by all Christian religions today) were made into Roman Law at that time. Because there were several religions in the various regions, they combined numerous pagan and Christian beliefs into one single entity. This was done to ensure that everyone believed the same thing, making the Roman Empire easier to rule. In order to create certain beliefs, they had to leave out most of the books that were canon at the time (that list is not comprehensive). The entire concept of Trinity wasn't an agreed upon part of Christian beliefs until the Catholic church demanded that it be so (see the link on the laws). Jesus as the only Son of God wasn't a part of the tenets until that time. The Holy Spirit wasn't added as "the Trinity" until the next council in 383 (or whatever year it was).
By separating out Jesus from the rest of us (we are ALL the Children of God), this set up a hierarchy by which we could be ruled, with "Jesus, as God" at the top, and the Priesthood as the divine voice of Jesus. This was there from day one of the creation of the formal religion we call "Christianity." If you read all the stuff they left out, it paints a very different picture of what Jesus was really trying to tell us. Regardless, while the names have changed, we are still ruled by the same hierarchy today.