BLOGS TEÍSTAS

Blogs para visitar

Hola ¿cómo están? Disculpen lo poco formal del titulado de este post pero, en Argentina cuando encontramos algo bueno y lo divulgamos a los amigos/as solemos ser informales al hablar. Aclarado el punto, pasemos a lo realmente bueno:

Cada tanto visito el blog Dios y Ciencia (ustedes pueden hacerlo clickando AQUÍ) cuyo contenido es sumamente interesante a la hora de hacer apología contra el ateísmo. En este mismo blog me encontré un tesoro. Su administradora posteó la dirección de la website de Manuel Alfonseca llamada Divulgación de la  Ciencia (click AQUÍ) que, al poco de leer,  me dejo agradecido por publicar tan buen trabajo y gratis. Sin dudas, Alfonseca es un maestro en el debate con el ateísmo. 

Recomiendo la lectura de ambas páginas. Por supuesto, si recién inicias en el cristianismo, convendría primero hacer discipulado, aprender teología básica protestante y luego si, encarar el estudio de filosofía y teología en profundidad para entrar ya de lleno, en las grandes ligas de la lucha espiritual. Pero si llevas algunos años en la iglesia, a no esperar más. Zambúllete de cabeza a la piscina de la apologética filosófica científica donde aprenderás cómo argumentar en defensa de Dios.

A continuación, dos imágenes de ambas sitios citados con un click para acceder, y un artículo firmado por Manuel Alfonseca y Juan Carlos Nieto. Rogamos a Dios que ambos autores no se ofendan por el posteo de un artículo completo. Simplemente queremos divulgar un poco más, sobre todo en la Patagonia, la existencia de ambos sitios para el bien de todos los creyentes.

Divulgación de la Ciencia

Para acceder, click AQUÍ

Dios y Ciencia

Para acceder, click AQUÍ

Preguntas a los ateos materialistas

By

Manuel Alfonseca

Juan Carlos Nieto

Existe una página web (ateo en 10 preguntas) que propone a los creyentes 10 preguntas que, en opinión de su autor, deberían plantearse y meditar profundamente, y si lo hacen acabarán convenciéndose de que sus creencias religiosas son absurdas y que lo mejor que pueden hacer es convertirse al ateísmo. 

La verdad es que, después de leerlas, nos parecen lamentables y opinamos que ningún creyente se puede sentir amenazado por ellas. Sin embargo, la lectura de esta página nos ha sugerido la idea de que este tipo de aportaciones es un arma de dos filos, pues el mismo procedimiento puede utilizarse para demostrar lo contrario de lo que quería conseguir el autor, también se puede ser escéptico respecto al materialismo. 

Por eso planteamos aquí algunas preguntas y ofrecemos el enlace a la página en cuestión, para dar al lector la oportunidad de comparar imparcialmente ambos enfoques y sacar sus propias conclusiones.

1.  Considere esta afirmación: Sólo existe aquello con lo que la ciencia puede experimentar. ¿Cree usted esto por alguna razón científica, o es para usted un dogma?

2.  Muchos materialistas piensan, como Steven Weinberg [1], que cuanto más comprensible parece el universo, más parece que nada tiene sentido. ¿Cree usted que nada tiene sentido? En tal caso, ¿por qué se levanta por la noche cuando su hijo está enfermo?

3.      La ciencia parece haber descubierto muchas cosas sobre el universo y el mundo que nos rodea, pero algunos pensadores materialistas, como Stephen Hawking [2], plantean que no es posible conocer la realidad que existe fuera de nosotros mismos. ¿Cree usted que los descubrimientos científicos son reales, o son construcciones mentales del hombre? Si fuese lo segundo, ¿por qué funciona la tecnología?

4.      La ciencia ha descubierto que la naturaleza está sujeta a leyes, que a veces son sorprendentemente sencillas si se expresan en forma matemática. Los filósofos materialistas piensan que no hay que buscar explicación a la existencia de las leyes, que simplemente están ahí, sin motivo alguno. ¿Está usted de acuerdo con esa afirmación? ¿Tiene razones científicas para creerla, o la cree sin motivo alguno? Es decir, ¿es para usted un dogma?

5.      Los procesos evolutivos en los seres vivos tienen lugar a través de una combinación de azar y necesidad. Los materialistas afirman que eso demuestra que en la evolución no puede intervenir el diseño. En los experimentos en vida artificial (una rama de la informática que simula mediante un programa el comportamiento de seres vivos) utilizamos una combinación de azar y necesidad paralela a la de la evolución biológica. Es evidente que nuestros experimentos están diseñados. Sabiendo esto, ¿sigue usted afirmando que la evolución biológica no está diseñada? ¿Tiene motivos científicos para creerlo, o simplemente es para usted un dogma?

6.      El materialismo afirma que no somos libres, que somos máquinas programadas, que siempre que actuamos o pensamos, no tenemos otra opción que hacer o pensar precisamente lo que hemos hecho o pensado. ¿Es usted materialista porque lo ha meditado bien y ha encontrado razones para adoptar esa postura, o porque está programado para adoptarla?

7.      Los materialistas afirman que en la naturaleza no existen más que causas eficientes, que no hay causas finales ni propósitos. Usted es parte de la naturaleza. ¿Cómo entonces puede usted tener propósitos, puede plantearse metas y trabajar para conseguirlas? ¿O todo eso es una ilusión? En tal caso, ¿por qué esforzarse por conseguir algo, si todo está decidido de antemano?

8.      ¿Es el hombre un animal más, como dicen los materialistas? Si se analiza bien el asunto, se ve que las diferencias entre el hombre y los animales son abrumadoras [3]. ¿Está usted seguro de que el hombre es un animal más? ¿Por qué lo cree? ¿Es para usted un dogma, o tiene razones para creerlo, aparte de que lo ha leído?

9.      Para llegar a la conclusión de que Dios no existe, ¿ha estudiado usted cuidadosamente la idea que tienen los cristianos de Dios? O bien, como Richard Dawkins [4], ¿piensa usted que, como Dios no existe, no tiene por qué perder el tiempo estudiando lo que otros dicen de Él? Con otras palabras: ¿La no existencia de Dios es para usted un punto de partida, un dogma?

10.  Uno de los filósofos ateos más serios e importantes del siglo XX (Antony Flew, 1923-2010) pasó en 2004 a la posición opuesta y publicó un libro [5] explicando qué le había llevado a hacerlo. ¿Ha leído usted el libro de Flew, o se guardará bien de hacerlo, no sea que pueda poner en peligro sus convicciones ateas?

[1] Steven Weinberg, The first three minutes, 1977, Basic Books.

[2] Stephen Hawking, L. Mlodinow, El gran diseño, 2010, Crítica. Véase http://divulciencia.blogspot.com/2014/04/el-gran-diseno.html

[3] Manuel Alfonseca, ¿Es el hombre un animal más? http://divulciencia.blogspot.com/2015/06/es-el-hombre-un-animal-mas.html

[4] Richard Dawkins, El espejismo de Dios, 2008, Espasa Calpe. Véase http://divulciencia.blogspot.com/2014/10/el-espejismo-de-dawkins.html

[5] Antony Flew, Dios existe, 2012, Trotta.

______

WHO WAS THE LOVED DISCIPLE?

By

Carolina Alfaro

It never comes into my mind to find out who was the loved disciple, until one sister in Christ asked me. I always considered that he was the apostle John. However, the task to relate this character to John – one of the sons of Zebedee and James’ brother- is complicated.

Who was the loved disciple?

This peculiar disciple appears in the John, in the last supper laying down against Jesus Christ’s chest and he is asking who of all of them will betray him (John 13:21-26); He is mentioned at the same time, standing near to the cross and separated of the rest, beside to the Jesus Christ’s mother (John 19: 26-27). Then, he is located next to Peter, running to the sepulcher the one that they found empty (John 20: 1-10).

Later, during the third and last Jesus Christ’s appearance – already resurrect (John 21: 20-22) – the rest of the disciples ask to Jesus Christ about the destiny of the loved disciple. Jesus answers in enigmatic way up to the point of, that among the apostles run the voice that he will never die (John 21:23). Probably, in some opinions, John 1: 35-40 is referring to the loved disciple the same as in John 18:15.

The task of identifying him sharps controversies. A feminist interpretation presumes him as a woman (Schniedeers, Sandra M (1998). Because of the woman’s testimony: reexamining the issue of authorship in the Fourth Gospel. New Testament Studies).

Others hold that he was one priest that follows to Jesus but he couldn’t be always present at the ministry of Jesus due his sacerdotal task. Hugh J. Schonfield, who postulates the theory, he suspects that it was somebody linked to the Temple, due the lack of information of the trips of Jesus Christ to Galilee in contrast with the abundance of records about the last week of life in Jerusalem. Beside John 18:15 seems to indicate that he had one friendly relationship with the high priest.

Others directly give up and state that we will never know if the loved disciple was John (see R.E. Brown (1966) The Gospel according to John, 2 vol. Doubleday (Garden City, Nueva York). This author accepted in first moment that John, the son of Zebedee and the loved disciple were the same person, but later withdraw  himself and he confirmed that the identity of the loved disciple will be always unknown.

What did the fathers of the church think?

Ireneo de Lyon (Adversus Haereses II, 22,5; Adversus Haereses III, ); Saint Augustine ( Comments in John LXI, 4); San Juan Crisóstomo, San Gregorio y  Beda identify him with John, The disciple of the Lord.

 “John, the disciple of the Lord that was laying down in his chest, edited in John when he lived in Ephesus”.

Ireneo, Adversus Haereses III, 1, 1

 “ All the priests that had met with john in Asia, the disciple of the Lord, give testimony that John had transmitted this, because he was with them until the period of Trajan”.

Ireneo, Adversus Haereses II, 22, 5

Since Ireneo de Lyon was admitted that the author of the forth gospel was the apostle John, the son of Zebedees. This statement was supported in unanimous way since the year 200 thru all the antiquity and it was affirm until the 18^th  century, when the critic deny that the gospel belongs to one apostolic source and it assigned to authors of the 2^nd  or 3^rd  century.

The most antique text that is conserve from the New Testament, one fragment of one page of the papyrus scroll codex date towards the 125 a.c. and that is conserve in the University of Manchester after it was found in Egypt, it contains some verses of John 18. There are another antiques fragments that allows deducing that the work of John had high regard among the first Christians. Justino Martir is referred to John as “one of the memories of the apostles”.

 The gnostic of the 2^nd century as Basilides, Heracleon and Valentino quote this gospel accepting that the author was John. In spite of this, the critics of the high critic don’t accept these evidences and they insist that the Gospel of John do not belong to him but it is work of some witness or someone else that helped him in his writing.

Marie-Emile Boismard said, one of the members of the Biblical School and French archeological of Jerusalem:

 “We already see in the first middle of the 2^nd century that many authors know and use the forth gospel: San Ignacio de Antioquia, the author of Odas de Salomon, Papias, San Justino, and maybe the same San Clemente de Roma: All this is prove that the gospel enjoy the apostolic authority already.

The first explicit testimony is from San Ireneo, toward the 180 ( ….) Almost around the same period, Clemente de Alejandria, Tertuliano y the canon of Muratori gives also formally the forth gospel to John the apostle. If it was possible to collect contrary opinion among the  2^nd – 3^rd. centuries, is the one that some reacts against the “spirituals” Montanism, who use the gospel of John with tendentious purpose.  

But this opposition is reduce to nothing, and, based in theological reasons, it doesn’t have any root in the tradition. “By the rest, there’s nothing in the same gospel that is opposed to this tradition: at the contrary. We already see that the gospel is presented under the warranty of one loved disciple of the Lord, eyeball witness of the facts that relate. 

Its language and its style express its origin demonstrably Semitic: It is seemed perfectly to the current Jewish habits, just like the Palestine topography in the period of Jesus Christ. It seems linked with special friendship to Peter, and Luke inform us that, indeed, it was the case of the apostle John.”

And if it was Lazarus?

The identification of the loved disciple with Lazarus from Bethany start by assuming that in any other place of the forth canonical gospel is indicating the identity of himself.

Who supports that was Lazarus, based their arguments in the chapter in which talk about the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany, in which is observed a triple indication that he was loved by Jesus in special way: “Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.” (John 11:3); “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” (John 11:5); “^Jesus wept.  Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!” (John 11:35-36).

To these texts is added the expression put in Jesus’ mouth to designate to Lazarus: “These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep…” (John 11:11). In the same line, Sanders thinks that Lazarus’ resurrection can have influence on the idea of the rest of the disciples that this man will never die. (John 21:22). (See Sanders, J.N. (1957).  «Who was the Disciple whom Jesus loved». En Cross, F.L. Studies in the Fourth Gospel. London (England): A. R. Mowbray. pp. 72-82).

By the manner in which is written the gospel, the writer was or in person witness of the facts or someone else wrote taking into account what the witness referred. (John 1:14; John 19:35; John 21:24). To the loved disciple is mentioned in the gospels as one person close to the apostles. This don’t dismiss that himself was the apostle.  

Was John the apostle?

Jesus during his ministry, gave the impression of having special treatment t to three apostles in peculiar: Peter, John and James (Marcus 5: 37,9,2;14,33). Well then: Peter could not be the loved disciple because is identifying as someone different. (John 13: 23-24; 20: 2-10; 21, 20). James the older is not as well since he was killed by order of Agripa I toward the  year 44 (Acts 12:2) In contrast with the loved disciple who by long-standing, it reaches the fame to be immortal (John 21:23).

This disciple had also, be close to the group near to Jesus. Participated in the Last Supper where it just have access the twelve disciples (Luke 22:14) ; It has close friendship with Peter (John 13: 23; 20: 2-9; Acts 3: 1-9; 4: 1-13; 8: 14-15). According to this detail, the loved disciple could be one apostle and between them, John.

John the apostle, just as the majority of the personalities of the first Christian community, do not verify the sources of the 1^st century that they weren’t the neo-testamentary written. The major part of the information about Apostle John comes from the application of the historic-critic method (that is, the scientific process of investigating the transmission, developing and origin of one text known as High critic). It is added to this academic contribution, the analysis of the document from the time of the fathers of the church, including written traditions and oral traditions that many times differ between them.  

The lutheran teologist Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) referred that the John gospel is one of the big Christians enigmas. The protestant chair Charles Harold Dodd (1884 -1973) thought in ensuring agreement that, John is the key to understand the primitive Christianity.  

Who was John?

In his beginning, he worked as fisherman for his father company Zebedees who procreate him with a woman called Salome. Before to met the Messiah, John had followed the sermons of John the Baptist. Then with Jesus already He goes with Jesus to Galilee and he was at the Wedding of Canaan. However, at this moment he wasn’t apostle. Therefore, he followed working in the lake as a fisherman for his father. Finally Jesus called him together with his brother Jacob (Matthew 4:21-22) for later Jesus gave him the naming of apostle. (Matthew 10:2).   

It seems to be that both are of strong character – typical of a fisherman- to that extreme that Jesus nicknamed his as Boanerges or son of thunder. (Mark 3:17). In their beginning they had a rebel behavior and provocative due that they had not being renovate by the grace. For example, John felt “Jealousy” reprimanding to one man who did exorcize devil in the name of Jesus without being part of the “team” (Luke 9;49), later, together with Jacob, they reveal their wishes to make rain fire from heaven on a Samaritan town that had denied to receive to Jesus (Luke 9: 52-56) and participated in a riot with mothers and women of the apostles to get the best place near to Jesus at heaven ( Matthew 20:20-24).

Passing the time, John was getting the preference of Jesus to the point that next to Peter were allowed to see the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:37), see the transfiguration ( Matthew 17) and the agony of Jesus at the Gethsemane’s garden (Matthew 26:37). Finally, John was in the Calvary mount next to Mary where the Messiah recommended them the care of his mother. (John 19:26-27). After the events of the Ascension passed some time in Jerusalem with the rest followers of Christ and together with Peter, he suffered prison. (Acts 4:19).  

Subsequently, he was sent to Samaria with Peter to help to Philip who was already preaching in that place. He was present during the first pursuits against of the Christians in Jerusalem and Paul refers that he saw him in that city after his returning of the first missionary trip (Acts 15; 6; Galatians 2:9). To John is attributed five books in the New Testament, the forth gospel, the Revelation and three Epistles. 

The Christian tradition says that this noble apostle was the one that do not suffered martyrdom and that he died of advanced age in Ephesus, the city where he lived after the arrival of the power of the Nerva emperor who gave him temporary liberty to the Christian to live their faith. Polycarp ensures that John stayed in Asia Minor till his death during the Trajan Empire. 

MAPUCHES y PROTESTANTES HOLANDESES - SIGLO XVII

Un episodio histórico poco conocido sobre la presencia protestante en Sudamérica

Por

Marc Pesaresi

_______________

En la Argentina se dice que los mapuches son "chilenos" o bien "que vinieron de Chile". En Chile algunos declaran que los mapuches son "argentinos", que llegaron desde alguna parte de Sudamérica transitando las pampas. Otros, que bajaron desde el norte por la costa pacífica, hasta establecerse en el sur de Chile y los contrafuertes andinos. No interesa a este artículo investigar el origen de los mapuches al cual muchos piensan que son "autóctonos" a la luz de los nuevos descubrimientos arqueológicos en Monte Verde, sino la razón por la cuál en Argentina se los llama "chilenos". 

Cuando se leen los informes de partes militares de la conquista de la Patagonia tanto argentina como chilena del siglo XIX, es curioso notar que los militares referían a las comunidades aborígenes como "chilenas" o "argentinas". ¿De dónde surge este modo de denominar que predomina en textos del siglo XIX y XX si estos pobladores son preexistentes a los españoles? En concreto, los mapuches -término que no aparece en la literatura e informes de los siglos XVII, XVIII Y XIX, son anteriores a al arribo de los españoles. De hecho, cuando los primeros ibéricos acompañados de negros y aborígenes aliados alcanzaron tierras al sur del Mapocho, estas personas ya vivían en el lugar desde hacía siglos.

¿Los mapuches son "chilenos?

Probable explicación al mote de "chilenos" con que los argentinos identifican a los mapuches

Hemos visto en otro artículo (click aquí para acceder) como los calvinistas holandeses, al interesarse en Sudamérica, alteraron en parte el desarrollo económico de la colonia portuguesa en Brasil. Gracias a la posesión de una impresionante flota de ultramar, los neerlandeses incluso pretendieron establecerse en el sur de Chile. 

En el intento procuraron una alianza con los pobladores locales a fin de enfrentar el poderío español. Durante su estadía, realizaron algunos estudios sobre las características de los habitantes del lugar a quienes llamaron "chilenos" quizás, por considerarlos pobladores de la Capitanía General de Chile.

Protestantes holandeses en el sur del actual Chile

Según Memoria Chilena (click AQUÍ para acceder a los documentos)  “siete grandes expediciones holandesas recorrieron las costas” de ese país. Los protestantes procuraban encontrar un paso alternativo que permitiera el comercio con las islas Molucas (descubrieron el Estrecho de Le Maire y el Cabo de Hornos) con el tiempo se interesaron en Chile y trataron de establecer una colonia en Valdivia utilizando la isla de Chiloé como base de operaciones. Desde allí sembraron la incertidumbre en las ciudades españolas y sus autoridades.

En 1643 la Compañía Neerlandesa de las Indias Orientales o Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) persuadió  a la Compañía Neerlandesa de las Indias Occidentales o West indische Compagnie (WIC) en un plan para navegar a Sudamérica y establecer una colonia en el sur de la Patagonia. En el proceso, la VOC consiguió el apoyo incluso del poderoso príncipe Juan Mauricio de Nassau-Siegen.

Con escala en Pernambuco; Brasil, donde ya existía una colonia holandesa; la flota continuó navegando hacia el sur con cinco embarcaciones y 350 hombres al mando del experimentado marino Enrique Brouwer, a quien secundaba el poeta, cartógrafo y marino Elías Herckmans.

La expedición tuvo problemas en el Cabo de Hornos debido al mal tiempo donde una nave debió regresar y el resto de los barcos; impulsados por los vientos y temporales; circunnavegaron la actual Isla de los Estados.

Mapa holandés de la costa de la Capitanía General de Chile

1635

Dominio Público

Protestantes en Chiloé

Finalmente la flotilla echó anclas en Chiloé donde, sin perder tiempo, el 20 de mayo atacaron y tomaron el fuerte de Carelmapu asesinando a algunos españoles en el combate y Castro el 6 de junio. Al poco tiempo, varios jefes locales se presentaron dando cuenta del maltrato español que habían recibido y proporcionando precaria asistencia a los visitantes. 

Conviene recordar que la isla ya había sido visitada en 1600 por Baltazar de Cordes, corsario holandés que se apoderó del lugar por un breve tiempo. Brouwer enfermó al poco tiempo y falleció. Su segundo se hizo cargo de las operaciones.  

Ocupación protestante de Valdivia

Entre el 24 de agosto de 1643 Herckmans desembarcó en Valdivia  que por entonces estaba en ruinas luego de un ataque aborigen en 1598. De inmediato procuró alianzas con los pobladores de la zona sin cuya ayuda nada se podría conseguir. 

Si bien en principio los llamados araucanos estuvieron de acuerdo en asistir a los holandeses con provisiones y guerreros en su guerra contra los españoles, cuando se enteraron que neerlandeses buscaban oro entendieron que iban a cambiar un amo por otro y decidieron dejar de prestar asistencia.

Fracasadas las negociaciones para una alianza araucana holandesa, los neerlandeses se decidieron el 18 de octubre marcharse del lugar no sin antes despedirse de los “chilenos” al día siguiente. Finalmente regresaron a Brasil el 28 de octubre del mismo año sin poder establecerse y con las manos vacías.

Un año más tarde llegaron los españoles, recuperaron Valdivia y al encontrar el cuerpo de Brouwer lo desenterraron y quemaron por hereje con la bendición de los curas  presentes. De la aventura de los protestantes por el entonces territorio católico y español nos queda un tesoro cultural: los holandeses, mientras estuvieron en la Capitanía General de Chile, se interesaron en el modo de vida de los pobladores locales, lengua y costumbres.

Mención de "aborígenes chilenos" en informes protestantes

Primer dibujo de una pareja local

Uno de estos protestantes; Georgius Marcgravius; fue el primero en realizar un estudio basado en los nuevos principios científicos sobre los araucanos  y de llamarlos “chilenos” para identificarlos en su “Historia rerun naturalium Brasiliae” publicada en Ámsterdam en 1648. Incluso proporcionó el primer dibujo de una pareja de araucanos.

Primer dibujo de una pareja araucana o mapuche

Obsérvese el atuendo femenino y masculino

Llama la atención el uso de espuelas por parte del varón y una variedad de vestido en la mujer

que deja un pecho al descubierto

Gentileza

Memoria Chilena

Conclusión

Para finalizar: si bien es cierto que en la actual Argentina son llamados despectivamente por algunos como  “chilenos”, este modo de identificar ya había sido utilizado por los protestantes holandeses a mediados del siglo XVII durante su presencia en el sur de la Capitanía de Chile. 

Memoria Chilena

Click AQUÍ

Fragmento de la obra de Marcgravius de 1648 traducida por Henckel

Donde se menciona por primera vez a los pobladores locales como “indígenas chilenos”

Bibliografía consultada

Anónimo; “Relación del viaje de Hendrick Brouwer a Valdivia en 1643”; Amsterdam; 1646; En "Opúsculos Varios" de J.T. Medina; reunidos por Feliú Cruz, Guillermo; Tomo III; Santiago de Chile; 1928.

Foto de Portada

Puerto de Valdivia en el siglo XVII donde se muestra el fuerte de los holandeses designado como "La Fortaleza". Memoria Chilena; Materia Valdivia (Chile); Mapas siglo 17.

MORMONS - JESÚS and QUETZALCOÁLt

Is it the same person?

Traducción

Carolina Alfaro

Christ at "America"

According a paint of the saints of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day or Mormons

Some Saints of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day don't have any problem when they compare to Quetzalcoalt - A god from Precolumbian Mesoamerica with Jesus. How do they dare to say that both are the same person, How is it possible?

Historical searching of the Mormon's white Christ.

Searching in the history

the white Crist from the Mormons

Some Saints; as we know the Mormons; they believe that Christ was in Americas bringing the Gospel. Since there's no a book that proves such historical tale beside their own saint books, they search and research archeological evidences among the Precolumbian American Civilization having the hope to find the way to validate their historical doctrine that they share.

They need to prove that it's for real that Christ was between the American native around 1000 years before the arrival of the Vikings to Labrador and 1500 years previous the Spanish conquest . Did Christ was in America? Nobody can prove such assertion.

However: it attracks attention that, in the task to search any mythological celebrity with similarities with Jesus, the Saints of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day focused their attention in the cosmological Aztec narrative and Maya in such cemetery of guardians of gods in which appears a weird god " bearded and white" named Quetzalcoatl o Kukulkan. 

 

Evidences from Mormon's book.

Website that has the intention to prove that

Christ was Quetzalcoalt

Click here (aquí)

How it was that this god becomes to be identified with Christ? due the color of his skin and part of the biblical story. Beside, It is fair to mention, the Pre-Columbian narrative " affirms" that Quetzalcoalt arrived from East and it was white and blonde.

We can do in an imagination exercise , to declare that our faith is good enough powerful, that this weird god with white skin and abundant pilosity was Egyptian, Hebrew, Phoenician, Carthaginian , Viking,Celtic  or from any other race. Using imagination everything is possible.

What Quetzalcoalt means?

Quetzalcoatl from Nahuatl: quetzalcōātl, snake with feather quetzalli, plumage; cōātl, snake is one of the gods from the Mesoamerican culture, main god of cemetery pre-Hispanic join to Tezcatlipoca.

The bronze snake in the Biblical   Judaeo-Christian story

and his relationship with the white Christ of the Mormons.

From where it comes the idea of the Mormons that Christ deserves to be equalize with Quetzalcoalt? According some theologist of Saints of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day, from the verse of  the book of Numbers 21:4-9, which prefigure to Jesus

⁴ Then they journeyed from Mount Hor by the Way of the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and the soul of the people became very discouraged on the way. ⁵ And the people spoke against God and against Moses: “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? 

For there is no food and no water, and our soul loathes this worthless bread.” ⁶ So the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died.

⁷ Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord that He take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. 

⁸ Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” ⁹ So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.

However: It is good to remark that the Mormons do not read the Bible but they add verses to another books that are sacred for them. As example they quote the above with 1 Nefi 17:41 from Mormon book which says:

41 And he did straiten them in the wilderness with his rod; for they hardened their hearts, even as ye have; and the Lord straitened them because of their iniquity. He sent fiery flying serpents among them; and after they were bitten he prepared a way that they might be healed; and the labor which they had to perform was to look; and because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished.

When they join together the Biblical narrate with what it says the book of the Mormons, the Saints of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days, they conclude  that Christ is Quetzalcoatl, the snake with feathers, Did Quetzalcoatl fly ? Well, Marc, what a question; it is obvious that yes, of course does it has feathers?

The reader had realize that there is a fundamental detail  in the last narrative. It says that the snakes that attack to the Hebrews during their traveling for the desert " did they fly?" . The Bible did not mention such as detail. It just said that they "burn" not in the sense of flamboyant but the fact of their bite. However: since; in order to fly it will be necessary to have wings and feathers, the Saints say in one of their website,refer  that the mythical Quetzalcoatl " snake with feathers" yes and only yes, it should be Jesus since the bronze snake that it's hanging in the shaft prefigures to Christ crucified.

The serpent was destroyed 

When Nicodemus visited to Jesus one night (John 3:1-15) during the chat the Lord referred to himself as the Messiah, he recalled to him the episode of the bronze snake that Moses raised up on the desert, as example to illustrate his job and death. Since Nicodemus was Israel master, he could not left the symbolism happen overlooked from that episode. Just like the snake was raised up for salvation, Christ has to die and to be "raised up from the cross" to save all the people that believe on Him. 

Christ was become in sin for us, he was raised up in the cross and he carried the curse that overwhelmed to the human being. Nevertheless, the snake was useful only for a determined period although, its symbolism, it is obviously  commanded to be destroyed. The Israelites had started to adore the bronze snake no matter the warning from God behalf. So, seen how serious was the issue, the king Hezekiah ordered to destroy it. (2 Kings 18:4)

One detail, as prefiguration of Jesus it does not mean that the snake will be the same Jesus. It was a representation of a future fact that the Israelites of the Exodus not even could understand. It was Jesus who explained later what it represented at its moment. 

Who was Quetzalcoatl?

There are a lot of explanation about Quetzalcoalt. Several authors " taught" who was that person making an interpretation from their own point of view but, they did not  allow to ask or talk to the native. Few of them believe that was a Viking. others, any navigator from the Mediterranean; some of them considered it as alien. Some of them presume as cosmic divine person, whose  characteristic was the love. They did not take into account that it could be American or albino. Among a lot of explanations we are left bewildered . Anyone has asked to the native who was Quetzalcoalt?  The History Channel says.

"The first adoration records to this god, date from the first century before Christ and it was expanded to all Central America until the 900 A.C. It was linked with wind gods, from Venus, from the dawn, from dealers and artisan, just like with the learning science and knowledge; for this reason it was patron of the priests.

It appears represented commonly by one snake with feathers, this express a widely concept settled with all the religions: the dualism of one supreme god with earthly features, invokes in a reptile body, and spiritual features, aforesaid  through the feathers.

In the Aztec mythogical, it is about a transgressive deity between the heaven and the earth, who created the human being, and whose name appointed to the maximum priestly title. In one  of the histories about Quetzalcoatl, it affirms that this was seduced by Tezcatlipoca (his heavenly antithesis) to get drunk and to sleep with celibate priestess ( it seems that she was his own sister); prisoner of this own regret for this action, he burn up by himself and he was become the morning start.

It is also appears in anthropomorphism representations as a white man and with beard, this cause the possibility that the natives confused to Hernan Cortes with Quetzalcoatl".

List of presumed similarities

between Christ and Quetzalcoalt

according

The Mormons

1. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl were recognized as creator of all things. (Mosiah 4:2; Saenz 1962:19, 40)

2. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl were born of virgins. (Alma 7: 10; Gamiz 95)

3. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl are described as being white or as wearing a white robe. (3 Nephi 11:8; Torquemada 47)

4. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl performed miracles. (3 Nephi 26:15; Sejourne 136‑137)

5. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl taught the ordinance of baptism. (3 Nephi 11:23; Irwin 1963:170)

6. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl prophesied of future events. (Ixtlilxochitl: 40)

7. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl were universal as opposed to just being recognized as local gods. (3 Nephi 16: 1; Sejourne 1962)

8. A great destruction was associated with both Christ and Quetzalcoatl at exactly the same time period in history. (3 Nephi 8:5; Ixtlilxochitl: 40)

9. The cross was a symbol to both Christ and Quetzalcoatl. (3 Nephi 27:14; Irwin 1963:165)

10. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl sent out disciples to preach their word. (3 Nephi 12:1; Wirth 1978:55)

11. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl promised they would come a second time. (2 Nephi 6:14; Sahagun 1:40)

12. A new star is associated with both Christ and Quetzalcoatl. (3 Nephi 1:21; Anales de Cuauhtitlan 7)

The Mormons that postulate this theory

Are they utilize a catholic misrepresentation about Quetzalcoalt history?

are they  support the doctrine that Christ was in America before Columbus?

Eduardo Matos Moctezuma

  

One of the things that we used to hear is that Quetzalcoatl was a person white skin and blue eyes. Not so far from the true. But How this idea rise up?

The monks from XVI century did try to find the reason of why the presence of the natives in this part of the planet looking for an answer from the Bible, concluding that they are part of the Israel tribes disperses. The above mentioned it is reinforced with the finding of crosses, with the seed of this thought was given. God had decided that one disciple came to spread the gospel before the arrival of the Spaniard.

Turning out that in the XVI century as Bernal Diaz del Castillo  mentioned that in Yucatan were found "sign of crosses" (Diaz del Castillo, 1943), the same information is repeated by Franciscan Lopez de Cogolludo in his History of Yucatan (Lopez, 1957). By the other hand, the image of Quetzalcoalt, a personality that did not accept human being sacrifice and he was celibate, all this was suitable for the idea of the monks to considerate that it was about one disciple

Monk Diego Duran says:" That venerable man,  the one is called Topiltzin [...] was according the native traditions a celibate and penitent priest, from whom it remembered his episode that seems to be miracles [...] this saint man was some apostle that God put in this earth" (Duran, 1967)

Lopez de Gomara add about Quetzalcoatl that was a virgin man, penitent, honest, calm, religious and saint; to Monk Bartolome de las Casas was white,tall with big bear. To  Monk Juan de Torquemada agrees that he was white, blonde and with beard. At the same time, it is given to him the knowledge of agriculture and other issues. 

In this way the bases are done to idealized the image of a human being that began from some native tales, added with some significantly needs of the monks to justify, according the Bible, his preaches in front of thousand of thousand of natives. But these ideas was not settled there, but brings serious repercussions.

Based on José Ignacio Borunda records, who had written his general key of interpretation from the Mexican hieroglyphics, in which established that the blanket from Juan Diego where it was captured the Guadalupana (Mexican Virgin)  but it was the dressing of Saint Thomas/ Quetzalcoalt, mount an attack against the Spanish in order to deny that they were the first to preach in the Nueva España, since that was done by the apostle century years ago, in the figure of Quetzacoatl."

It is clearest that the Quetzalcoatl with beard and blonde was just, a creation from the catholic priests whose, following an antique practice from missionary Catholicism, they took a tutelary aboriginal god, they changed the name y they saved the hard task to preach, convince and transform thousand of hearts from the people. It is for this reason most of the Catholics live a syncretism faith blended native gods with some judeocristhian practices.

The fact that Quetzalcoatl had been white, with beard and blue eyes " it is a historic lie that the monks from the XVI century created to provide an explanation to the deity and to incarnate to the apostle who came to preach" Moctezuma got upset about it.

Matos Moctezuma adds

""Quetzalcoatl maybe is the most god named  in the prehispanic cemetery. However, it is necessary  to see the double character that is with him: be a man and be a god.

It is well know that when a leader or cultural hero take a noted roll inside the society that belongs to, they are  idolized after their death. Examples like these, we can find a lot in several towns around the world. In this case it is essential to separate what belongs to the history and what belongs to legend. Quetzalcoatl is one of this figures.

First at all we must say that not all snake with feathers is, Quetzalcoatl necessarily. It is enough to remember the named Templo de Quetzalcoatl or the snake with feathers in Teotihuacan; the building of the snake with feathers in Xochicalco and the ofidio's image in the wall of Cacaxtla.

In all of them we can see the snake decorated with big feathers of quetzal. In Teotihuacan case we agree that the interpretation is given based on the sense of the water from the rain joined with the water from the earth (rivers, spring, underground water); beside that, it keeps relations with the power of the leaders.

Whereas, between the Mexican or Aztecs the attributes and characteristics of god goes transformed, related a little bit more with the wind, that is why it wears an oral mask with the shape of beak's duck .  Its temple is circular, which differs from the above mentioned, that have  square or rectangular floor. Let's see , who is this person and its importance in the center of Mexico's history

Antiques Chronicles told the history of Ce Ácatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl. Thus, in the Ce Ácatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl we read the following about the character:

Year 1 Cane. In it, it says about, it refers, Quetzalcoatl were born, it was called our prince, the priest 1 Cane Quetzalcoatl. And it says that his mother was the one called Chimalman. And thus, it refers in how Quetzalcatl was placed on his mother breast: she did swallow a precious stone.

After that he stayed  during four years in Tulancingo, he was brought to govern in Tula. In this place Quetzalcoatl built his houses and he made penance. As priest, he invokes the deities, to the supreme duality that take the highest bench in the new heaven. He lives in retreat and abstinence, he did sacrifice birds, butterflies and snakes. It is given to him the knowledge of many things".

In another part of the Anales we read:

" He discovered big natural wealth, jades, genuine turquoises, precious metal, yellow and white, the coral and the snail, the feathers of quetzal and the turquoise bird, feathers from red and yellow bird, the one from tzinitzcan y del ayocuan. Also he discovered all kind of cocoa tree, all kind of cotton. The Toltec was so big in all kind of creations.....

As much in the Anales as in the general History of the new things in the New Spain, from priest Bernardino de Sahagún, we can see how  someone started to conspire against Quetzalcoatl. A wizard named Tezcatlipoca, according the first version, he showed to him a mirror, and when he sees his face with big bags and sunken eyes, Quetzalcoatl, with big sorrow exclaim: " If the people from town sees me, had they run?"

The chronicles  coincide in the arrival of others wizards that invite to him to drink a ferment beverage. Quetzalcoatl gets joyful and drank already request to bring his sister  Quetzalpetlatl, that makes penance in the nonohualcas hill. Together they used to drink and they lie together.

When Quetzalcoatl comes to one's sense and he did cry and he started to go to east, looking for the read and black earth, the Tlillan Tlapallan where he "burned up", I asked to you, the reader, did you se any similarity between Christ and Quetzalcoatl? none. Unfortunately some white people do not allow that Mesoamerica people develop their culture by their own. They see them with eyes full of social Darwinism that it seems impossible the ability that they had to build what they built.

Conclusion

To affirm that one god from Mesoamerica is Jesus, it is difficult to accept it since it is compare no less with an snake with feathers who; to form the first human couple; he needs to ask cooperation to others gods; beautiful bones from woman and man. At the contrary the Christ from the Bible, does not request anything from others. He just creates according his will through him it was created everything. I asked myself How it can be called creator of human being to a deity which requires human bones existent already to form the human being? Contradictory.