# Did ancient Mayan's believe in Christ?



## Truthspeaker (Feb 9, 2009)

The Kukulkan pyramid is a monument to a great bearded white god who came among his people for a time then promised he would return at the end of days. The description of this Kukulkan bears a remarkably familiar tone to Christ's alleged visit to the Nephite people. 
Mayan civilization is estimated to have arisen in 500 BC. Was this the ancient Nephite civilization which arrived in the Americas in approximately 590BC?


----------



## Dr. T. Sanchez (Feb 10, 2009)

You call it corn. Our people call it "maize".


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Dr. T. Sanchez said:


> You call it corn. Our people call it "maize".



I will have to agree with you.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 10, 2009)

i think it is possible...sure seems like parts of their prophesy relate to such in a contorted kind of way...


----------



## Anguille (Feb 10, 2009)

They did human sacrifice, didn't they? Catholics eat the body of Christ and drink his blood.   
Hmmmmmmmn!  Better posthumously baptize them all, Truthspeaker.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Care4all said:


> i think it is possible...sure seems like parts of their prophesy relate to such in a contorted kind of way...



I think there is an explanation here. The book of Mormon claims both things have happened. It claims ancient Jews in 600BC fled from Jerusalem and brought with them Hebrew and Egyptian writing systems with them.
It also claims Christ visited in 34 AD when he came to the temple, administered to the people and promised to return again.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 10, 2009)

What if the people of South America brought it to your people instead?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 10, 2009)

I doubt it.  More likely, spanish conquistadors were busy fluffing up the story about their initial interaction with the natives while mormons are busy looking for anything that validates their beliefs.  After all, if it WERE the case that jesus was a south american god who promised to return.. well.. I guess he pretty much left a bunch of natives hanging, eh?


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 10, 2009)

The book of morman was all one mans imaginings.

Its has no historical basis.


----------



## del (Feb 10, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> The book of morman was all one mans imaginings.
> 
> Its has no historical basis.



kinda like your posts.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 10, 2009)

File:Gdp20-40.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there is some historical basis for you del.


----------



## del (Feb 10, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> File:Gdp20-40.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> there is some historical basis for you del.



 you can cut and paste!

i'll alert the media


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Anguille said:


> They did human sacrifice, didn't they? Catholics eat the body of Christ and drink his blood.
> Hmmmmmmmn!  Better posthumously baptize them all, Truthspeaker.


About Human Sacrifice in 421 A.D.
Interesting that you brought that up. about 400 years after Christ is rumored to have come there was a great war that raged in the which the general named Mormon described the depravities of the war:
And it came to pass that the Lamanites did take possession of the city Desolation, and this because their number did exceed the number of the Nephites. And they did also march forward against the city Teancum, and did drive the inhabitants forth out of her, and did take many prisoners both women and children, and did offer them up as sacrifices unto their idol gods (367). (Mormon 4:1314)

about caniballism:
9:7 And now I write somewhat concerning the sufferings of this people. For according to the knowledge which I have received from Amoron, behold, the Lamanites have many prisoners, which they took from the tower of Sherrizah; and there were men, women, and children.   
9:8 And the husbands and fathers of those women and children they have slain; and they feed the women upon the flesh of their husbands, and the children upon the flesh of their fathers; and no water, save a little, do they give unto them.    "The husbands and fathers ... feed the women upon the flesh of their husbands, and the children upon the flesh of their fathers."  
9:9 And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue --   
9:10 And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.  

Rings a familiar bell doesn't it?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> What if the people of South America brought it to your people instead?



My people? I don't understand your question.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Shogun said:


> I doubt it.  More likely, spanish conquistadors were busy fluffing up the story about their initial interaction with the natives while mormons are busy looking for anything that validates their beliefs.  After all, if it WERE the case that jesus was a south american god who promised to return.. well.. I guess he pretty much left a bunch of natives hanging, eh?



Well, uh.... there were no mormons until 1830. So they weren't busy doing anything back in the Cortez days.
Cortez definitely didn't fluff any of his stories. In fact the spanish burned 99 percent of the records of the Maya after they conquered them because the strange Heiroglyphs were considered devil worship and heretical writings.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

QUOTE=Truthmatters;1037818]The book of morman was all one mans imaginings.

Its has no historical basis.[/QUOTE]

 You could say that it is one man's opinion, but the historical evidence is mountainous.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 10, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > They did human sacrifice, didn't they? Catholics eat the body of Christ and drink his blood.
> ...



So said the Golden Salamander.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 10, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt it.  More likely, spanish conquistadors were busy fluffing up the story about their initial interaction with the natives while mormons are busy looking for anything that validates their beliefs.  After all, if it WERE the case that jesus was a south american god who promised to return.. well.. I guess he pretty much left a bunch of natives hanging, eh?
> ...



Do you have evidence to offer of that?  I mean, I'd hate to act like a user who can post above and beyond modly sarcasm but, i'm afraid i'm going to need you to cite your source.


Careful though.. If you copy a whole sentence you MAY inflict the wrath of the Selective Squad so.. post at your own risk.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Well I am not sure what evidence you want me to cite. I won't bother citing the historical beginning of the Mormon church in 1830. It is known.
I watched this peculiar show on history channel in regards to the Kukulkan and the temple he came to and the manner of writing of the ancient mayans and what the spaniards did to the vast amounts of records they found. Here is the show. It takes a while to watch it buy you will find it interesting.
GUBA - Decoding The Past - Mayan Doomsday Prophecy


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Forgive my ignorance of what the hell a Golden Salamander is.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 10, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Forgive my ignorance of what the hell a Golden Salamander is.



You don't know about the hoax in the 80's? Momon elders bought a phony story and a letter lock stock and barrel from a forger. 
Salamander letter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_"The letter was deemed authentic by experienced document examiners, a  testimony to Hofmann's superior forgery techniques. The letter also seemed to  support the opinions of Reed Durham, D. Michael Quinn and others regarding  "magical" aspects of Smith's religious experiences. [2] Hofman's  disenchantment with the LDS Church may have played a role in his selection of  subject matter to forge. The more sensational and controversial the subject, the  higher its potential market value, but in addition, the content would act to  cast suspicion on the LDS Church's origins, relieving Hofman of some burden of  his then failing faith."_


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > Forgive my ignorance of what the hell a Golden Salamander is.
> ...



Oh....I remember now, the phony certificate of professor Charles Anthon. It didn't fool anybody since the leaders of the church never validated it either. It took them a while to figure it out but no big deal.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 10, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Truthspeaker said:
> ...



Not according to Wiki and journalists reporting on the story. Tons of church decrees had to be purged.  References to the Golden Salamander apparently still pop up in old church brochures.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Har har, who cares, so the certificate was a fake, it doesn't matter. The forger was just trying to make a buck and he didn't permanently fool anybody. How bout the rest of the mountain of evidence eh. Is that the best you got? You better head for the dirtiest anti-mormon website and cut and paste something stronger than that.

How about the worlds foremost meso american archaeologist Michael Cohn,a non mormon, in his book, "The Maya", he makes it clear in chapter 2 on page 41 sixth edition. "There is little agreement among scientists as to who colonized the americas... Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia. Since there was no land bridge from Siberia to Australia but that continent must have been reached via maritime travel. Therefore the Siberian landbridge only theory is destroyed. It must be considered a possibility of maritime voyages from other parts of the world into the New World."


----------



## Amanda (Feb 10, 2009)

Why is it important either way what they believed?


----------



## Dr. T. Sanchez (Feb 10, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> The book of morman was all one mans imaginings.
> 
> Its has no historical basis.



You shouldn't make fun of Joseph Smith. Afterall, he DID invent Utah.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Why is it important either way what they believed?



Well I am not trying to convert anybody but I just want people to open their minds to the possibility of Book of Mormon events being historically true. What they believed is important because it tells us more about history and where we came from and how things got to be the way they are. It is fascinating to me to watch Indiana Jones or the actual uncoverings of ancient knowledge that has not been seen for millenia.

Aren't you at least curious about these things. Or are you too cute for that


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Dr. T. Sanchez said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > The book of morman was all one mans imaginings.
> ...



He did say they would eventually be built up as "a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains."


----------



## Amanda (Feb 10, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it important either way what they believed?
> ...



I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the Book of Mormon. My faith, while Christian-esque and rooted in Baptist tradition is fairly unconventional. I think anything that get people closer to the ideal of God is a good thing. I just don't see how it matters what ancient people believed.

If you look at Christianity and other religions that preceded it closely you'll see many parallels. I think that the idea of God is a little more universal and inclusive than a lot of people may believe. But whether or not any particular people believed any particular thing doesn't seem all that relevant to me. Maybe my cuteness is getting in the way...  LOL


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...



touche,
Now I don't intend for this thread to be really religious. I want to have much more of a historical and scientific discussion. We can have more of a religious discussion on my religious threads. 
I just think that the book of mormon as a historical document would prove to be fascinating in it's claims in light of recent historical and archaeological findings. It could be just chalked up to a coincidence but it is fun to speculate isn't it?


----------



## Anguille (Feb 10, 2009)

Amanda said:


> I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the Book of Mormon. My faith, while Christian-esque and rooted in Baptist tradition is fairly unconventional. I think anything that get people closer to the ideal of God is a good thing. I just don't see how it matters what ancient people believed.


Like those of the Reagan era?  JK  

I'm curious what you mean by your church being unconventional. You've mentioned that before.


----------



## Amanda (Feb 10, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the Book of Mormon. My faith, while Christian-esque and rooted in Baptist tradition is fairly unconventional. I think anything that get people closer to the ideal of God is a good thing. I just don't see how it matters what ancient people believed.
> ...



Not my church, my personal faith. I'm not sure I want to go into all that much detail as I have no intention of having a debate about what I believe. Basically, I see God as unconditional love rather than a guy with a beard. I have grey areas where I'm not really sure how things work but I have faith that if we try to reach the ideal that God represents we are doing the right thing.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 10, 2009)

Ah,  I like that you are a free thinker. Nice way to envision God. Thanks, I don't need to know more and understand completely why you would like to keep it private.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...



That IS my religion!!!! You and I think alike!


----------



## mightypeon (Feb 11, 2009)

You know, Christianity copy and pasted from a lot of other religions. Did it occur to anyone that a Cross looks a lot like an Ankh for example?
Similiarly, Apocalpytic rebirth thingies also happen in the Norse belief system. Baldr anyone?
Dont forget that the Maya were polytheists. That a big way off from christianity.

Different peoples will get similiar ideas about gods. The Norse Pantheon had parts that could be interchanged with the Greco-Roman one. Just as other parts of it were interchangable with any Native American one.  It is MUCH more likely to assume that the Maya (who lived in not exactly the most hospitable place of the world) would also gain some ideas about "glorious apocalyptic rebirths" in the same way the Norse did (and yes, Ragnarok is way older than Christianity). These similiarities come from Humans having similiar ideas and wishes, not from mystical spiritual contact that goes against Temporal causality.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 11, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> You know, Christianity copy and pasted from a lot of other religions. Did it occur to anyone that a Cross looks a lot like an Ankh for example?
> Similiarly, Apocalpytic rebirth thingies also happen in the Norse belief system. Baldr anyone?
> Dont forget that the Maya were polytheists. That a big way off from christianity.
> 
> Different peoples will get similiar ideas about gods. The Norse Pantheon had parts that could be interchanged with the Greco-Roman one. Just as other parts of it were interchangable with any Native American one.  It is MUCH more likely to assume that the Maya (who lived in not exactly the most hospitable place of the world) would also gain some ideas about "glorious apocalyptic rebirths" in the same way the Norse did (and yes, Ragnarok is way older than Christianity). These similiarities come from Humans having similiar ideas and wishes, not from mystical spiritual contact that goes against Temporal causality.



That is an intelligent statement. I must, however respectfully disagree. Sure the state of the Maya was polytheistic when the Spanish came along, but I think they were monotheistic originally when they first landed. Since they brought with them the equivalent of the Hebrew Bible up through Isaiah. Over time they became idol worshippers just like their old Jewish relatives and seemed to inherit a temptation for idol worship. 
Just IMO


----------



## mightypeon (Feb 11, 2009)

I disagree here, the general consensus is that the first colonisation of America happened over the Bering street.

According to the common modell for the first humam colonisation of native America, the whole thing happened about 12000 years ago, way before Judaism even existed.
Models of migration to the New World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mind you, the Baldr-Christus similiarities were something that the church heavily used in trying to missionarise Germanic and Norse tribes, something similiar was attempted with the Lithuanians (which was a bit more complicated, they did not have a "Jesus look alike" in their Panthenon, but Dievas or Perkunas  made some nice Jehovas too.) later on. In the end, it was the Polish crown(Krakau was well worth a mess too), a beautifull princess  and a good chance of vengeance against the Teutonic order which faciliated their conversion. If I would be a Spanish conquistador trying to missionarise Atzecs or mayans, I would also equate Christus with Quetzacoatl (although that guy would make a way better Satan than a Christus, flying snakes, human sacrifices and stuff), if that makes them more obedient.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 11, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> I disagree here, the general consensus is that the first colonisation of America happened over the Bering street.
> 
> According to the common modell for the first humam colonisation of native America, the whole thing happened about 12000 years ago, way before Judaism even existed.
> Models of migration to the New World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


I will disagree again in that the Bering Strait only dogma is to be reconsidered.

How about the worlds foremost meso american archaeologist Michael Cohn,a non mormon, in his book, "The Maya", he makes it clear in chapter 2 on page 41 sixth edition. "There is little agreement among scientists as to who colonized the americas... Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia. Since there was no land bridge from Siberia to Australia but that continent must have been reached via maritime travel. Therefore the Siberian landbridge only theory is destroyed. It must be considered a possibility of maritime voyages from other parts of the world into the New World."


----------



## Xenophon (Feb 11, 2009)

No.

The Christian faith was brought to the Americans by the Iberian powers.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 11, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> No.
> 
> The Christian faith was brought to the Americans by the Iberian powers.



Well the debate could rage on and on, but what I want to prove is the PLAUSIBILITY of the ancient Mayan civilization arriving close to 600 bc in the Meso American area via maritime voyage and setting up shop from there. They claimed to have dealings with Christ and the God of Abraham in the same manner as their fertile crescent progenitors. You have to admit, you can't rule it out.  From a debate standpoint, you may not agree with it but must accept the plausibility of this scenario.


----------



## Xenophon (Feb 11, 2009)

Actually you can rule it out because there is no sign of it.

Even if they had a moment of montheism that doesn't mean it was the Judean diety.

The Mormons created their religion in the 19th century in NY, they are hardly in a postion to make a claim they know what was happening 15 centuries earlier in America when there is no proof of it.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 11, 2009)

Most ancient cultures would destroy monotheistic sects, and for good reason. It wasn't their belief that none of the other gods existed that brought this on, it was because of their aggressiveness toward those who didn't conform to this idea. So their elders saw the threat to the development of humanity and often eradicated them by force. Kind of like preventing what we have today.


----------



## mightypeon (Feb 13, 2009)

Several things with the "Naval Maya" theory would not work at all:
1. If the maya were able to traverse the Atlantic, why are there absolutly no indications of the shipbuilding one needs to do that? Traversing the Atlantic or the pacific is something totally different from reaching Australia from Southeast asia, where one can more or less island hop. Are you aware of the resource and technological sophistaction that is needed to traverse the Atlantic? Besides, how would the Maya just dissappear from Europe without any of the high cultures of this time (Egyptians, Babylonians, parthians, Carthagians etc.) mentioning it? Any Eurasian civilisation with the ability to traverse oceans would have had a significant impact on its neighbours.
2. Genetically, Mayas(not really Mayas, native inhabitants who did not intermix with Europeans after the Spanish came) have more in common with native Siberians than with any other Eurasian people. This is a strong argument for the land bridge theory.
3. Again, if the maya would have been Ocean fairing, why would they settle in Yucatan of all places?  Cuba f.e. is/was much more hospitable. And it would have been reached earlier assuming they would come from the east.

The boats available at that time where early forms of Triremes, Biremes or simpler rowing crafts. This boats do not cross Oceans, especially not without a set of logistical bases in places like the Azores or Cape Verde. Even the Spanish, who were much more advanced than the mayas when it came to shipbuilding, heavily relied on the Atlantic bases to faciliate their American explorations.


So, assuming the Mayas came from Eurasia in biblical times means:
1. A civilisation got advanced enough to develop ocean faring capacities without anybody noticing this civilisation, in fact said civilisation did not intermix with any other civilisation in the area. Apart from the Jews who converted them(although they arent exactly the most proselytising faith iirc), without  the Jews mentioning this conversion in any of their sources, and without the civilisation in question mentioning it either.
2. Said civilisation did not exploit its total technological superiority in naval matters at all. (For ways to cleverly use Naval superiority, consult the history of the British Empire, or the history of Athens/Carthage/Syracuse)
3. Said civilisation than packed up and embarked wholesale on a highly dangerous journey to settle in one of the worlds most inhospitable places for large groups of persons.
4. Said civiliation than completely forgot its ocean faring capacity, without ever mentioning it again and spend the rest of their time with building pyramids and looking at the sky.

This theory does not meet Occams Razor.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 13, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Actually you can rule it out because there is no sign of it.
> 
> Even if they had a moment of montheism that doesn't mean it was the Judean diety.
> 
> The Mormons created their religion in the 19th century in NY, they are hardly in a postion to make a claim they know what was happening 15 centuries earlier in America when there is no proof of it.



Well thus far, I have shown evidences and you have just said"there is no proof". where are your links, where are your sources. It sounds like you are clinging to the old Smithsonian dogma that is irresponsible at best.

As per evidence I have shown, Eurasian maritime voyages pre-Columbus have been proven not only possible but likely. Answer this, how did Jade wind up in the tombs of mummies in Egypt? How did Hebrew writings pre Columbus wind up on walls of Caves in the US? How did Egyptian style embalming happen in the Kentucky caves pre-Columbus. How did silk wind up in America pre-Columbus? Heiroglyphs? Pyramids?  Bedouin Arabic traditions like oath bound covenants of honor and nomadism? Hey it doesn't "prove" anything but it does make the scenario claimed PLAUSIBLE.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 13, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Most ancient cultures would destroy monotheistic sects, and for good reason. It wasn't their belief that none of the other gods existed that brought this on, it was because of their aggressiveness toward those who didn't conform to this idea. So their elders saw the threat to the development of humanity and often eradicated them by force. Kind of like preventing what we have today.



Interesting statement. This is exactly what happened to the Nephite nation as they were destroyed at last by the Lamanite nation. The monotheistic Nephites were annihilated by the vast armies of the pagan Lamanite idol worshippers in 421 AD.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 13, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> Several things with the "Naval Maya" theory would not work at all:Ah... this is refreshing, at last a person who presents rational thought process. Each of your point deserves a quality answer. And I am delighted you brought up such legitimate points.
> Actually there are. In present day Khor Kharfot lie the remains of a strange nomadic group which built a ship in it's harbor and left remains of said construction. Paintings on rocks of a ship. An old ship dock. My theory is that the "Maya" as we call them today had their origins in Ancient Jerusalem around 600 BC. Due to large amounts of political pressure from Babylon and Egypt and the persecution of prophets of the day, see Jeremiah and "other many prophets" mentioned in the Bible, Lehi, a rich Bedouin Arab Jewish trader who made his living in the spice trade camel routes between Egypt and Jerusalem, fled with his family and an a few friends southeast not far from the coast of the Arabian peninsula and through the desert wasteland. This journey led them to a small paradise they called "Bountiful". Which I believe is present day Khor Kharfot. Here there is plentiful honey and fruit to this day. There is also timber to build ships. It is uninhabited today because of the extreme difficult access by land or sea. After a time, they set sail from Khor Kharfot after building a ship.They claimed in 1st Nephi chapter 18:2 Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men.
> 
> The theory proceeds that they were led from the Oman peninsula to approximately the coastal region of highlands Guatemala in approximately 590 BC. The rest of the account is given in the Book of Mormon and their religious, secular and cultural practices which led to the development of the Mayan nation as discovered by Cortez.
> ...



  Tell me what you think of the red answers.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 13, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Most ancient cultures would destroy monotheistic sects, and for good reason. It wasn't their belief that none of the other gods existed that brought this on, it was because of their aggressiveness toward those who didn't conform to this idea. So their elders saw the threat to the development of humanity and often eradicated them by force. Kind of like preventing what we have today.
> ...



Here's a bit of logic for you: The Book of Mormon is an idol. The cross is an idol (though mormons don't use it). The angel Moroni is an idol. The bibles are idols. Idol is not just a pagan god, or a heathen god, or a druidic god ... it's something you worship without asking questions.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 13, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Well I don't think there is anything wrong with idols at all. They are just inanimate objects and can make beautiful artwork. The problem is worshipping them. The reason you aren't supposed to worship them is because a person is superior to an inanimate object. 

As to the BOM being an idol.... I guess you could call it that, but it's more acurately described as a book with pages that contain information. 

Interesting to see the definition of the word Idol:1: a representation or symbol of an object of worship ; broadly : a false god
2 a: a likeness of something b) obsolete : pretender , impostor
3: a form or appearance visible but without substance <an enchanted phantom, a lifeless idol &#8212; P. B. Shelley>
4: an object of extreme devotion <a movie idol> ; also : ideal 2
5: a false conception : fallacy

I would say the red definition is accurate concerning your statements, but not the others.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 13, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Truthspeaker said:
> ...



The flaw with the English language is that there are so few words and so many definitions for each word ... and many words share partial definitions. I have no idols myself, I worship nothing that I can see or touch in reality, simply because I can destroy or create it therefore I am it's god and if it had intelligence it should be worshiping me.


----------



## Xenophon (Feb 13, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Actually you can rule it out because there is no sign of it.
> ...


Not 'clinging' to anything, there is no proof whatsoever that Christ visited the new world or that someone brought them the Jewish faith.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 13, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 13, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



Proof is such an interesting word: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion.

There is nothing that will force someone to change their mind on the issue. Only evidence to lead people to draw their own conclusions. There is plenty of evidence to support my theory, but just because it doesn't convince you doesn't mean it should be dismissed when you don't have a better argument.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 13, 2009)

TruthSpeaker ... what happened ... how the hell did you start making sense?


----------



## editec (Feb 13, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Actually you can rule it out because there is no sign of it.
> ...


----------



## Xenophon (Feb 13, 2009)

Frankly truth, you are trying to simplfy a diverse culture, and say it had influence from the outside when it did not.

The Mayans in fact had a more accurate calender then the west did for several centuries, was that because someone gave it to them, or did they acchieve it on their own?

As was common in all mesoamerica cultures, they routinely practised human scarifice, if they believed in the hebrew god how could they reconcile this practise to it?

The Mayans were in fact polythic, believing in a complex aray of gods and goddesses that actually blend into one another depending on the age you are studying.

All of these things are factual, it may be fun to speculate that visitors from afar, either from africa or europe or even the stars (as some people thought 30 years ago), but the fact is there is no proof of any of those things.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 13, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Frankly truth, you are trying to simplfy a diverse culture, and say it had influence from the outside when it did not.
> 
> The Mayans in fact had a more accurate calender then the west did for several centuries, was that because someone gave it to them, or did they acchieve it on their own?
> 
> ...



Many people still cling to this, they have as little faith in humanity as those who want to say all our accomplishments are because some god told us.


----------



## Xenophon (Feb 13, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Many people still cling to this, they have as little faith in humanity as those who want to say all our accomplishments are because some god told us.


They were fun books to read when I was 11 years old, and so many wanted to believe it.

I still remmeber the 'In search of' episode that postulated it, the 70s was was like that, full of fun pseudo-science.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 13, 2009)

editec said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 13, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Truthspeaker said:
> ...



Here is the flaw with your "priest" side of the argument. Priests never started as religious leaders as we know them, they were more like the high school teachers that specialized in philosophy.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 14, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Not according to the Bible. Melchizedek was an account of a High Priest who was definitely an authoritative religious figure, whom Abraham traveled to get a blessing from him. How about Aaron and the levitical priesthood which was passed down from Melchizedek and Abrahams lineage. This was long before the Nephites claimed to have left for the new world and became what we now know to be the Maya.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 14, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the flaw with your "priest" side of the argument. Priests never started as religious leaders as we know them, they were more like the high school teachers that specialized in philosophy.
> ...



The bibles are all books of myth. Science has shown that the earliest priests were nothing more than teachers and councilors.


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 14, 2009)

Priests were smart. They knew stuff.  But being smart they knew exactly what they should reveal to the ingorant and what they should keep hidden, their own secret knowledge.  If I can make a dove disappear in my hand and keep you in awe of my ability to do so, why the heck would I explain to you how I managed to move the dove from my hand into a large pocket in my trousers while you were busy watching me do something else to distract you?


----------



## editec (Feb 14, 2009)

The priestly class is TYPICALLY one of the first class structures found in nearly every early culture.

You are so completely ignornant of sociology and anthropolgy that you have been sold a notion that it took magic to two divrgent cultures to come up with the idea of a priestly class, hieroglifics and pyramids?!

Go start educating yourself, lad.

Your religion (I guess) is setting you up to believe in things that are not only wrong, but _so wrong_ that you end up looking like a complete fool.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 14, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Frankly truth, you are trying to simplfy a diverse culture, and say it had influence from the outside when it did not.
> 
> The Mayans in fact had a more accurate calender then the west did for several centuries, was that because someone gave it to them, or did they acchieve it on their own?
> 
> ...



Mayan culture is claimed to have been started around 500 BC. That's not my opinion, that's the history channel airing the notion. Watch the show " 2012 Mayan Doomsday Prophecy"

That being considered. The claim is that Lehi came from jerusalem in 600 BC. Is 100 years enough time to populate a society beginning with 27 people? You betcha. They had the only Pre-Columbian writing system known so far, which had familiar writing resemblances to Egyptian, which they called, "the reformed egyptian". They divided into two societies relatively early in their society's founding, one a monotheistic, the other a polytheistic. 
The two often had wars over a roughly 1000 year period of time and eventually the polytheistic Lamanites annihilated the monotheistic Nephites, sacrificing their victims, cannibalizing them, and destroying most of their religious writings. This is written of in the Book of Mormon, which was published by an uneducated farm boy back in 1830.

These things are common knowledge to us today but not to people back then. Either Smith was a phenomenally good guesser or he had posession of ancient records and translated them through divine means. He had no knowledge of geography or ancient languages, but somehow has not been proven wrong despite dilgent attempts to do so.


----------



## Xenophon (Feb 14, 2009)

Meso american culture begins in pre history, we seperate them into different groups, but they were here before 600 BC.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 15, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Meso american culture begins in pre history, we seperate them into different groups, but they were here before 600 BC.


http://www.ask.com/bar?q=when+did+t...st&ab=0&u=http://www.mayan-world.com/time.htm
Well somebody was here before the Maya were in the same geographic area, who I think were the Jaredites. The science which put together this timeline admits it is not concrete but an estimate and is freakishly familiar in every way to the book of mormon claims. 

they claimed to have brought writing with them from the old world in 600 BC. This site says writing was introduced approx. 700 BC. Close enough.The Nephites who employed the writings system claimed to have been annihilated in 421 AD. These people say the Mayan decline began around 400 AD......Interesting....They say the "Mayan" culture had it's origin around 2600 BC.  The Jaredites(Olmecs) claim to have come around that time and their civilization was wiped out around the time the Nephites(Mayans) were getting started......Starting to get weird yet? PotAto in one language PotAHto in another.

Doesn't "prove" anything but the evidence is starting to mount everyday. 

Also, vast amounts of meso-America remain unexplored.....

Just a thought.


----------



## editec (Feb 15, 2009)

*



 Did ancient Mayan's believe in Christ? 

Click to expand...

 
No.*


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 15, 2009)

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My response is: WHICH christ?

I know the ancient Egyptians had Imhotep. Please, do not confuse the movies which inaccurately portray the name.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 15, 2009)

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I contend there were times when they did and times when they didn't. Eventually the pagans wiped out the Christians in 421 AD.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 15, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



*rae* That's ... really ... not even close to fact. The Mayans had an organized religion, pantheonist but still highly organized. Also there is no evidence of a christian based religion anywhere here until much later, at least no real or hard evidence. All that exists is myth and theories from zealots justifying the occupation of the Americas and their mistreatment of the natives here.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Really?.....not even close?....no evidence at all?.....That simply isn't true. Maybe not evidence YOU will accept. But nevertheless it is still there. Let's talk about what happens when a society is wiped out. Assume for a second that the Nephites really existed:

1. As jewish custom had it, they built a temple and kept the law of moses within the temple which they said they built "after the manner of the temple of Solomon."
2. They interpreted the law as a type of things to come in that the Messiah was to be born in the meridian of time, that he would be the son of God and redeem mankind.
3. The Lamanites who believed that since they were the firstborn of Lehi, that they had a right to rule over the people. Because of bitterness they separated from the Nephites and outnumbered them, and eventually caused many wars between them. The Lamanites did not keep posession of the sacred records brought from Jerusalem. Nephi took them with him during the separation.
4. The Lamanites did not believe in Christianity anymore. They believed the Nephites robbed them of their property and birthright.(Brass Plates from Jerusalem).
5. The Lamanites became idolatrous and formed their own religious beliefs.
6. The Nephites kept records and Lamanites did not up until about 200AD.
7. Jesus was claimed to have come "to the temple in Zarahemla." He was kind benevolent and ushered in an era of peace that lasted about 200 years. He promised to return.(This is the story which very closely resembles the coming and promise to return of Kukulkan as told by the Maya.)
8. Shortly after this time, wars began again and the reign of the judges was destroyed and people broke up into different tribes of family and friends, each with their own class of rulers within the band. 
9. All Christians were lumped into a category called "Nephites" and the Nephites called all others "Lamanites" even though there was much mingling of the blood between the two. The Lamanites greatly outnumbered the Nephites and eventually a gruesome war took place during which the Lamanites sacrificed many women and children to idol gods. They fed the women and children while in prison upon the flesh of their fathers without other options for food.
10. The Nephites were hardened and gave up Christianity at this time as well except for a few individuals. The Nephites cannibalized their prisoners after raping and torturing them to death. The Nephites as a society were destroyed in 400 AD. The vanishing Christians were killed if detected. The last Christian Moroni kept the records that had been handed down on thin plates of gold or a gold-like metal such as tungsten. On this record he wrote of the destruction of the nephite society and the Christians. He wandered in the wilderness for 30 years to escape the hunts of the Lamanites. He eventually came to upstate New York where he buried the record found by Joseph Smith. 

11. If the last Christians were destroyed in a vicious war where the enemy not only killed the people but also destroyed their mostly paper records or melted their metal records, how would we have a record of Christianity today?
12. The answer lies in the clues that history has left us. In about 1000 AD, over 600 years from the decline of the Nephites, the Maya(a mix of mostly Lamanites and some Nephites by blood) as they were called at the time had become the ruling power as there had been many other wars from that time. As Moroni records in his last few words..."For behold, there is no end to the bloodshed, for the lamanites do fight among themselves and their wars have become exceedingly fierce, and no one knoweth the end of the war." This was after the Nephites had already been defeated.
13. I just watched the history channel last night and the show "Lost Treasures: The Aztec and Maya." it shows how their society came to be through "many wars between the tribes." They made it clear that there were "many different kinds of Maya." and they did not all get along. 
14. Yet one tradition seemed to have been passed down. The full remembrance of the coming of Christ had been either lost or misunderstood. But they remembered that someone had come from heaven with words of peace and benevolence. They called him Kukulkan at this point, but the languages had already changed a great deal from what they used to be. They had already changed a great deal during the time the Nephites were still alive as a nation in 400 AD. I don't know if you realize how much can change over the course of so many hundred years. 

15. But there sure are some freakishly familiar similarities that have been preserved if you ever actually read the Book of Mormon and pretend that it's a historical document that was produced in 1830.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 16, 2009)

Using your own myth as fact doesn't make it fact.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Using your own myth as fact doesn't make it fact.



Well it is your option to disregard the evidence. but on what basis I might ask?


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 16, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Using your own myth as fact doesn't make it fact.
> ...



As I said, it's all myth you are using, not fact. Basing anything on religious myth is not going to give you answers to history, all it does it stop you from seeking the true history. I have read (yes I read Ancient Egyptian) and can verify everything there, as well as point out the fact that the christian bible is completely inaccurate. I never learned Mayan so I have to take the word of archeologists and linguists on what they have found, but they are much more reliable than any other source, at least the ones without religious influence.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Just because I believe the book of mormon doesn't make it a myth. Especially when I have drawn parallels to make the story plausible. I think calling it a myth is a stretch seeing as a myth is generally regarded as fable. It might be more accurate from your standpoint to call it an "unproven claim." 
At least be fair enough to say the jury is still out on the subject. Because it hasn't been proven true or false yet.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 16, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Truthspeaker said:
> ...



Anything can be made plausible no matter how much of a myth it is, look at Notrodamus.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



At last, I win!!!!!! You have finally admitted that it is plausible. I'll take my ball and go home now


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 18, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Truthspeaker said:
> ...



 You know that Nostrodamus was no more scientific than Dr. Suess right?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



So what? Scientists aren't the only ones allowed to make intelligent statements. Everybody loves Socrates and his statements, and confucius, but they weren't scientists.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 18, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Truthspeaker said:
> ...



You really are just fishing to convert people, still a mormon, even when you are wrong.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



You obviously don't get what we Mormons are about. What's in it for me if someone decides to join the church as a result of my words? Nothing monetary, no popularity or power.
You don't get that we know that we absolutely cannot convert anyone. People make the decisions themselves after they get all the information they want.

I just want our side of the story to be out there.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 18, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Truthspeaker said:
> ...



That is the first intelligent thing you have posted in this thread. It's a side of a story, not historical fact, that you want people to just accept as fact.

Also, remember, I grew up Mormon, the first half my life was wasted in that religion. They do all they can to convert people. The reason is pretty simple, the more people who accept a myth as fact the more you can feel correct without proof. This is why real scientists debate everything, even their own facts and laws which were proven, because it keeps them thinking. To just accept one word for fact without questioning and ignoring all evidence to the contrary is a false sense of truth, and is nothing more than a lie.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



I never once said that you had to accept my side of the story. Please show me where if I did. I only said that you can't rule out my side being true because it is plausible. I can't prove beyond any shadow of a doubt scientifically that it is true, only show that it is a veritable option.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 19, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Truthspeaker said:
> ...



As I said, anything can be made plausible, even claims of doomsday from many have been shown very plausible. But facts do deny much of your original claim, you are choosing to ignore them or you have such a limited knowledge on them you are only taking one persons word for it without actually looking into it. One thing I know a lot about is Ancient Egypt ... because I studied it. With that study I also learned of the actual connections between the ancient cultures through seafaring which until recently was unbelievable. However, you also need to realize, the word christ is NOT a name, it's a title, much like lord or king. Many cultures had a word that meant almost the same thing, and many had at least one christ. Egyptians had one that was so well known that even today we use his mark (the Rx symbol for drugs) because of what he did for them. I know the Mayans had several christs in their lore as well, though the only one I know anything about is the same as Egypt, Imhtp (Imhotep being the theorized pronunciation). Though they had another name for him which I cannot remember. Imhtp also appears in many other lores since the rise and fall of Egypt, but his story has only one thing in common with the Jewish christ Jesus, healing the sick, however it is likely that the christ named Jesus was actually a very altered version of Imhtp because of the connection between the Greeks and Egyptians, when the Romans slaughtered the Egyptians they mixed the Jewish christs story with the Egyptians Imhtp as well to make their own, the one now in the christian bible.


----------



## editec (Feb 19, 2009)

*



			<H2>Definition of Rx
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Rx:* A medical prescription. The symbol "Rx" is usually said to stand for the Latin word "recipe" meaning "to take." It is customarily part of the superscription (heading) of a prescription. Another explanation for the origin of Rx is that it was derived from the astrological sign for Jupiter which was once placed on prescriptions to invoke that god's blessing on the drug to help the patient recover.


</H2> 
source


----------



## Truthspeaker (Feb 19, 2009)

Hey you've drawn your conclusions and I've drawn mine, we'll just have to see won't we.


----------

