TO FAITH...greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
Yet another thread to Faith...Zarove-- You never prove yourself right--therefore I do not feel compelled to respond to your claims that everything I post is wrong. You never prove that to be so. You simply deny every single thing I post.
You turned to this when you where cornered... its a chap and low blow Faith, and don say you have too hard a time with my posts, you answered me before...
Well, no offence but I disagree with your position and see no reason to think you are correct.
Other than the fact that you can check any mythology or religious history book and easily confirm what I say?
I say that Fortuna was indeed the Roman Mother goddess and Jupiter her son., and you not so! Well maybe you should prove yourself first.
OK.
Here are a few links Faith...
http://www.crystalinks.com/romegods.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_%28god%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/zeusmyth/ http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/roman.html http://www.pantheon.org/articles/o/ops.html http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/saturn.html http://www.pantheon.org/articles/j/jupiter.html http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/roman/jupiter.htm http://www.crystalinks.com/romemythology.html http://mythman.com/ http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/romrelig3.html
This enough for now, or need more?
AS TO FORTUNA, AKA Tyche... A Greek goddess, originally of fortune and chance, and then of prosperity. She was a very popular goddess and several Greek cities choose her as their protectress. In later times, cities had their own special Tyche. She is regarded as a daughter of Zeus (Pindar) or as a daughter of Oceanus and Tethys (Hesiod). She is associated with Nemesis and with Agathos Daimon ("good spirit"). Tyche was portrayed with a cornucopia, a rudder of destiny, and a wheel of fortune. The Romans identified her with their Fortuna. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/tyche.html
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/f/fortuna.html
She was the Daughter of Jupiter ( Zeus), not his mother. Or of OCeanus and Tythis... at any event she’s not the mother goddess... least of all is she the mother of Jupiter, that Honour goes to Ops, also known as Sybille, an in Greek as Rhea. She was he goddess of random chance, NOT the mother goddess of the entire Roman State, but the patron of mothers and gamblers... Especially gamblers. Want more Faith? http://www.godchecker.com/gotw/003_fortuna.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virilis
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Arc/3860/goddess/fortuna.html
http://www.dromo.info/fortunabio.htm Worse , she’s a Minor goddess. one wonders why this major important central character o the Faith of all of Romans, derived at from Babylonian Origins and whom received devotion as the sacred mother of the divine god-boy Jupiter, who was revered and worshipped as Catholics worship Mary ( who was indeed the same goddess Catholics worship to this day... as they use Her and merely renamed her…) is relegated to the roe of Minor goddess, and not seen as a prominent goddess today. Are all my sources wrong Faith?> Are only your sources, arrived at by mean of Hislop, correct and mine in error, though they read original sources such as Hesiod and Virgil? Now that I have shows what I have, and can guarantee you I have more, what have you?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004
The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them.-Proverbs 11:3
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.
Jupiter the boy, was worshipped in the arms of the goddess FortunaFrom Pompeii, vol. ii. p. 150.
The reader will remember that Jupiter, as "Jupiter puer," or "Jupiter the boy," was worshipped in the arms of the goddess Fortuna, just as Ninus was worshipped in the arms of the Babylonian goddess, or Horus in the arms of Isis (see Ch. II, Section II). Moreover, Cupid, who, as being the son of Jupiter, is Vejovis - that is, as we learn from Ovid (vol. iii. p. 179, in a Note to Fasti, lib. iii. v. 408), "Young Jupiter" - is represented, as in the above cut, not only with the wine-cup of Bacchus, but with the Ivy garland, the distinctive mark of the same divinity, around him.
*****************************************************************
I have links too Zarove
-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.
You have only oen soruce though... "The Two babylons" by Hislop.Likewise, "Jupiter Peur", or " Jupiter, the Boiy", makes no snece.
See, faith, jupiter merans " Jove the father", or "Father Jove" in LKatin.
So yyu have " Father Jove the Boy".
If your whole body of researhc consists of nothign ut Hislop and tose wh use Hislop, why on earth shoudk I consider your courses credble?
Nothign in Ancient pagan writigns suggest fortuna as a majopr goddess or Jupiters mother. Nothing in Hisotry reveals a Mother Goddess as centeal tot he ROMANrELIGION.
aLL YOU HAVE IS HISLOP, YOU HAVE NO VLAID SPURCES.
Let me expalins emthing , Faith. if you look at the raw myths, your sdimilarities dissapear.
so, do you have any soures not seekign to show a conneciton to Catholisism and Babylonian religion that say any of these htigns?>C an I read the myths of fortuna and Jupiter-Peur myself onlien sowhere, outsode of "The Two Baby;lons" and such works?
why nto link to a translted Greek MSS that has the accoint of these things?
Anythign faith, othe thsan Hislop?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.
Here's a link to what I believe is "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" By Edward Gibbon....where we see that it is mentioned that the Church finally condemed the Roman practice of worshiping Jupiter.But the hopes of Symmachus were repeatedly baffled by the firm and dexterous opposition of the archbishop of Milan, who fortified the emperors against the fallacious eloquence of the advocate of Rome. In this controversy, Ambrose condescends to speak the language of a philosopher, and to ask, with some contempt, why it should be thought necessary to introduce an imaginary and invisible power, as the cause of those victories, which were sufficiently explained by the valor and discipline of the legions. He justly derides the absurd reverence for antiquity, which could only tend to discourage the improvements of art, and to replunge the human race into their original barbarism. From thence, gradually rising to a more lofty and theological tone, he pronounces, that Christianity alone is the doctrine of truth and salvation; and that every mode of Polytheism conducts its deluded votaries, through the paths of error, to the abyss of eternal perdition. 17 Arguments like these, when they were suggested by a favorite bishop, had power to prevent the restoration of the altar of Victory; but the same arguments fell, with much more energy and effect, from the mouth of a conqueror; and the gods of antiquity were dragged in triumph at the chariot-wheels of Theodosius. 18 In a full meeting of the senate, the emperor proposed, according to the forms of the republic, the important question, Whether the worship of Jupiter, or that of Christ, should be the religion of the Romans. A The liberty of suffrages, which he affected to allow, was destroyed by the hopes and fears that his presence inspired; and the arbitrary exile of Symmachus was a recent admonition, that it might be dangerous to oppose the wishes of the monarch. On a regular division of the senate, Jupiter was condemned and degraded by the sense of a very large majority; and it is rather surprising, that any members should be found bold enough to declare, by their speeches and votes, that they were still attached to the interest of an abdicated deity. 19 The hasty conversion of the senate must be attributed either to supernatural or to sordid motives; and many of these reluctant proselytes betrayed, on every favorable occasion, their secret disposition to throw aside the mask of odious dissimulation. But they were gradually fixed in the new religion, as the cause of the ancient became more hopeless; they yielded to the authority of the emperor, to the fashion of the times, and to the entreaties of their wives and children, 20 who were instigated and governed by the clergy of Rome and the monks of the East. The edifying example of the Anician family was soon imitated by the rest of the nobility: the Bassi, the Paullini, the Gracchi, embraced the Christian religion; and "the luminaries of the world, the venerable assembly of Catos (such are the high-flown expressions of Prudentius) were impatient to strip themselves of their pontifical garment; to cast the skin of the old serpent; to assume the snowy robes of baptismal innocence, and to humble the pride of the consular fasces before tombs of the martyrs." 21 The citizens, who subsisted by their own industry, and the populace, who were supported by the public liberality, filled the churches of the Lateran, and Vatican, with an incessant throng of devout proselytes. The decrees of the senate, which proscribed the worship of idols, were ratified by the general consent of the Romans; 22 the splendor of the Capitol was defaced, and the solitary temples were abandoned to ruin and contempt. 23 Rome submitted to the yoke of the Gospel; and the vanquished provinces had not yet lost their reverence for the name and authority of Rome. B
-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.
Provign they worshipped Jupiter and this fell out of favour when Christianity became the stae rleigion is not relaly evidenc thta Jupiter was ever worhsiped as "Jupiter-Peur', neither does it prove his mother was fortuna, who was notmentioned int he article, and no where in this work was there any mention of a Mother-and-Child cult.This only conrms that paganism existed in rome, which i freely admit, but does not claim that Bbaylon was the origin, nor any otf the other claims that you have made via media of Hislop that we dispute.
Firthr, you use an Atheist who write a hisotyr largley derogitory to Christendom, and who lived in the 1700's, and who is larlgey seen as irrelevant to-day.
And even he fails to prive your case...
Only that Jupier was worhsiped, not that jupiter-Peur int he arms of hismother ofrtuna formed a Mother ansd Chidl cult of nay sort, and nothat babylon was the origin of such a cult.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.
Oh give it a rest Zarove--I am not a stupid woman!You are missing the point--entirely.
And I would add that this author was hardly an atheist.
Perhaps if you really want to find out about Roman pagan practices-- you could try reading his entire book?
You asked for an outside source unrelated to Hislop--and I gave you one.
about the author Edward Gibbon
-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.
Oh give it a rest Zarove--I am not a stupid woman!bUT YOU ARE FAILIGN TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS IN ANY CIVIL EXCHANGE AND PRIDICD VALID EVICNEE FOR YOUR CAUSE.
You are missing the point--entirely.
Am I?
The point is to show the clear link between babylonain rleigion and roman Catholisism.
This you have failed to do.
And I would add that this author was hardly an atheist.
Hde nonethelsss failed to support your claims...regafdless.
All that you have shown is that Jupiter was woshipped in ancien rome,and that his worhsip lost faovur withhte Advent of Christainity.
what tyu seem incapable of realising is that this was never in dispute. what I disputed was the Mother-and-Child cult, and the concept that firtuna was his mother, and a host of other claism spacific to Hsilop's case agaisnt roman Catholisism.
How does thi article cooberate Hislop's sacofic claims, beyind the geenral claim that rome accpeted hristainity as a sate rleigion, which was never under dispute?
does it een mention forutna? des it mention a Mother and child iamge?
what part of this article activly supports the spacific claism you made?
Perhaps if you really want to find out about Roman pagan practices- - you could try reading his entire book?
I alreayd have. However, can you do us all a faovur and acually SHOW wher ein Gibbins a Mother-and-child cult is mentioend? or else show where this was cnetral to th roman sttae rleigion when it was Pagan? Or form Gibbons wshere the Babylonain rleigion reached orme?
Claimign that rome worshopped Jupiter dosnt automaticlaly make Jupiter the Bo, in his mother, fortuna's,, arms the central theme of Orman religoon.
Privign that orme renounced Paganism for chrisainity doesnt prove much either.
I want the spacific claims of hislop veified, not the parts we all already agree ae true...
You asked for an outside source unrelated to Hislop--and I gave you one.
No you didnt. All you gave here was an article hat claimed that the worship of Jupiter fell out of faour when chrisyaintiybecame the state rleigion.
What gi have failed to do, and c ontinue to fail to do, is present evidnece for hislops spacific claims.
Thr is some truth to Hislop o no en woidl have beelived him. However, the fact that orme was at oen tme Pagan and that Jupiter was renoucned for christ des not automaticlalyconfirm the Mother-and- Child cult as the State rleigion of orme.
Again, Faith, can you show form any noinhislopian source the spacific claims made in hislop?
Higgins didnt support your claims, dispite to assumption that this is clear evicnece fr your case. all you have doen is shown that Jupiter wa worhsipped, a fact that I never disclaimed.
however, wher eis him mother, the Great Mother Goddess fortuna?
She isnt ebven mentioend in this atlce, nor are the eucharists of the Pagans, neither are the paan Popes, nothing.
Why are he spacific Cahtlicicm argumes void inthe artivle, and yet this counts as evidnece?
How is this evidnece of ehat you claim?
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=18962
This i abot Gibbons.
Read htis line form the encyclopidia.
His father sent him (1753) to Lausanne, where he was formally reconverted to Protestantism. Actually, he became a skeptic and later greatly offended the pious by his famous chapters of historical criticism of Christianity in his great work.
Now, faiht, do tell how Gibbosn supprots Hislop...
How does htis prove that the orman Sate Religion was evovled out of Babylonainism and that it was centred around a Mother Goddess holdiugn her son, Jupiter the Boy?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.
Probably Zarove is referring to this part of the page you linked, Faith: "The only charge that has ever been successfully brought against it is that it betrays an unfriendly animus to Christianity; but Gibbon had so little sympathy with the aims of . . . ." and then further reading on the 2nd page, it sounds as if he had a tinsy bias.
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 20, 2004.
More on Gibbons.http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran28.index.html
The man you descibe as "Ahrsdly an Athisg" also had a penchent for sensuality he often smuggled intot he footnotes.
He likewise often sneaked in critisism s of the christain faith.
His apostasy was a well known fact.
Much liek yoyr claim tat gibbons supports your case, when indeed no menton in bibbisn pasage above indicates the truth if hislops claims, your own claim that he was "Hardly an Atheist' is clalry falsified by reading the text itself.
Spekaign of which, I shll repeat my initial queatsion.
How sdoes htis article prove Hislop and his claim of Babylonainism as th orman sttae rleigoon and the Clt of the Mother and Child?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.
A Chistian by the name of Ralph Woodrow wrote a book called "Bablyon Mystery Religion" that was based off Hislop's work. He has since pulled it due to his convictions.
As Woodrow tells it, "For these and many other reasons, I pulled my own book, Babylon Mystery Religion, out of print despite its popularity. This was not done because I was being threatened in any way or persecuted. This decision was made because of conviction, not compromise. While my original book did contain some valid information. I could not in good conscience continue to publish a book against pagan mixture knowing that it contained a mixture itself of misinformation about Babylonian origins."
I'll let him explain further here. Its worth reading the whole thing. Woodrow explains his reasons for doubting Hislop quite well.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 20, 2004.
Another article by Woodrow on Hislop's Two Babylons located at his own web site: http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/babylon.htm
This guy seems like an intellectually honest fellow.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 21, 2004.
Link to the original book review by Ralph Woodrow at the Christian Research Journal published by CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE (CRI), an Evangelical organization. Article: DC187, 1999, Volume: 22 Number: 2
-- ("ask3332004@yahoo.com), December 21, 2004.
-------------Readers, Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.
If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:
http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum
This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.
Hope to see you there!
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 14, 2005.
-- ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 21, 2004.