For the love of Christ


Don’t get me wrong, I just wanted to have your attention.

Here is another gem by Celsus in the hope that you have found the previous provocative.

The Christians are most impiously deceived and involved in error, through the greatest ignorance of the meaning of divine enigmas. For they make a certain being whom they call the Devil, and who in the Hebrew tongue is denominated Satan, hostile to god. It is therefore perfectly stupid and unholy to assert that the greatest god, wishing to benefit mankind, was incapable of accomplishing what he wished, through having one that opposed him and acted contrary to his will. The son of god, therefore, was vanquished by the devil; and being punished by him, teaches us also to despise the punishments inflicted by him; Christ at the same time predicting that Satan would appear on the earth, and, like himself, would exhibit great and admirable works, usurping to himself the glory of god. The son of god also adds, that it is not fit to pay attention to Satan, because he is a seducer, but that himself alone is worthy of belief.

Celsus say this

evidently the language of a man who is an impostor earnestly endeavouring to prevent, and previously guarding himself against, the attempts of those who think differently from and oppose him.

He then concludes this particular argument by saying

it is fit, I think, that the devil should be punished, and not that men should be threatened with punishment who are culminated by him.

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

13 thoughts on “For the love of Christ

  1. Mordanicus says:

    “I just wanted to have your attention.”

    I’ll use a similar technique in a few weeks.

    Like

  2. It’s all orchestrated high drama! Read any book, watch any movie or TV show – would we watch for long if we just saw a happy family going about their lives? Hardly. To sustain interest, conflict is required.

    What greater conflict than a Protagonist and an Antagonist? Superman and Lex Luthor? Batman and the Joker? Tom and Jerry? Yahweh and Satan? High drama!

    Like

  3. aguywithoutboxers says:

    The devil and the savior, aren’t they both parallel? Which one is which?
    Every good tale or myth/legend needs an antagonist and a protagonist. One of the basic elements of culture. Nice selection, my friend!

    Like

  4. Here we have the ultimate showdown at the OK Corral – the son of Yahweh dukes it out with the son of Satan – get your peanuts, popcorn, Crackerjacks!

    Like

  5. “…they make a certain being whom they call the Devil, and who in the Hebrew tongue is denominated Satan, hostile to god”

    Just who is this fellow, Satan, anyway? Let’s see if we can seek him out – anyone interested in producing a long-running radio sitcom?

    Like

    • And never going bald –?

      Like

    • I briefly explained this to Ark, on another site, some time ago, because his nom d’plume is obviously Egyptian, but according to my research, Satan originally came to us from Egypt, an empire that periodically conquered the Levant, and with whom, most Semite tribes traded at one time or another.

      In Egyptian mythology, there were two brothers, both sons of RA – Set and Osirius. Set and Osirus married sisters, Isis and Nephthys – their own sisters, actually, with the idea of keeping this god thing all in the family, so to speak. Set ruled over the Southern red sand areas of Egypt, while Osirus ruled the Northern part, rich in black, fertile soil, nearer the Nile, so one can imagine a bit of, “Daddy always liked you best,” rivalry.

      One day, Set, sick of sand, killed Osirus, and to make sure he never managed to pull himself together, cut him into a thousand pieces and scattered those about the known world, which, at the time, was about a block and a half. Isis, Osirus’ wife/sister patiently gathered together all of the pieces, but for the longest time, couldn’t find one missing piece, aka, the family jewels. She finally found the missing piece and used it to impregnate herself, just prior to returning it to the newly-reconstituted Osirus, who, sad to say, did in fact once again become a whole person, but alas, because he was dead, though now intact, he was forced to spend eternity in the land of the dead.

      But Horus (the son of god – Osirus, that is) and Set contended with each other throughout the rest of Egyptian mythology.

      The Egyptian word, “ten,” or often, “tan,” meant, “Lord,” as we today would think of the title of a British Lord. Royalty was addressed by that term within their names, i.e., “Tutankhamun,” as most certainly, were gods. Lord Set, then, would have had his title follow his name, as in Set Ten, or Set Tan, and easily evolved to Setan, or Satan.

      Despite the fact that, by his behavior, Set was considered evil, a number of sculptures depict both he and Horus jointly crowning various Pharaohs, and an inordinate number of Pharaohs have the word, “set” incorporated as part of their names.

      One would also look to Egypt for the source of the scriptural word, “amen,” also known as “amon,” “amun,” and “ammon,” found often incorporated into the names of Egyptian Pharaohs, was a reference to the Egyptian god of life and reproduction, represented as a man with a ram’s head.

      The word, “mose,” as in, “Moses,” meant “baby,” and it’s amazing how often the word “mose” is used in the names of pharaohs, such as, “Thutmose,” son of Amenhotep III. It’s illuminating to learn how much Judaism owes to ancient Egypt.

      Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s