Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The Bible - What To Believe?
porgie
Member Posts: 1,516
I recently converted to Christianity. I'm proud of my decision. However, I don't think that anyone who is a conventional evangelical Christian would find they agree with me on too much.
I find it relatively easy to question items in the Bible that is of widespread use in most of the evangelical churches. I know there are a some slight variations in that Bible even. But I find it sad to hear people quote it as if it is absolute fact without question.
Even amongst the folks who have studied the ancient languages there is disagreement to some extent or another on what the translations are. And even amongst those folks there are some scriptures where they almost unanimously disagree on what evangelicals use as translations.
The reason that I am prompted to write this is actually two reasons. The motivation first off was a show that I was just watching about Jesus. In it they were talking about Judas. Judas has long been thought of in evangelical circles as the betrayer of Jesus. But he wasn't. They had a Greek language scholar say that those are mistranslations. He even said it with a chuckle in his voice leading me to believe he was laughing at how crazy it all is. He said those Greek passages say that Judas was simply the one that handed him over, not took money as betrayal. In other words, Jesus told him to go to the high priests and turn him in. He told him to because Judas was the one disciple he called his "friend" and that he trusted enough to perform the task.
Now, here's my other motivation. I wonder if anyone who is an evangelical ever considers what they are doing? If this is a mistranslation, then why aren't you guys able to question this and other mistranslations and have it fixed? Why? Is it because tradition is too strong a factor? Or is it because if you question one mistranslation then the house of cards might come tumbling down?
I would think that people would want the truth to be told. But then again, I have seen all too often where the truth has been hidden.
Also, the church I attend welcomes, even encourages, questions like this. Our preacher will stand up and profess anything found by one of us to the whole during a sermon. It's not hidden, it's opened. Is this the case in your church? Or does that King James version of the Bible just keep on trucking along no matter?
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Comments
For example most people do not know of the councel of Nicea, where the new testament was constructed out of the gospels they liked the most, thus cannonizing christianity.
If you are christian and want to learn about the Bible, which it seems you do, may I suggest also reading the Gnostic Gospels, which are the gospels ommited from the Bible, or not known at the time.
How much you believe them is up you, but they are christian writtings that you won't see that often.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Now, that said, The whole Judas thing is a farce. Especially if you're talking about the gospel of Judas, which was written hundreds of years after the canon was finalized by a group of people known as the gnostics, I'll let you do your own research on them.
As far as the translation itself, all four gospels paint a picture of Judas that is very negative, and John's gospel even says that he stole from the funds of the disciples...Now I don't speak ancient Greek, nor do I have any of my teachers sitting next to me right now (that would be quite creepy) but I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that Bible scholars throughout time have simply ignored glaring mistranslations that Judas was actually Jesus' only real friend, and would instead paint a picture of him as a betrayer. All that said, I would like to see the sources for the claims made by the documentary that you referenced, if they seem at all valid I'll gladly cross reference them with some of my teachers when I get back from Spring Break.
As far as the translations used by most evangelical churches, you will find very few modern evangelical churches who use a King James translation. Most of them use NIV, NASB, or even an NL...The King James is actually the preferred Bible of the mormon church due to its many flaws in translations (makes it easier to distort the meaning to fit with their beliefs about who Jesus is).
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
For example most people do not know of the councel of Nicea, where the new testament was constructed out of the gospels they liked the most, thus cannonizing christianity.
If you are christian and want to learn about the Bible, which it seems you do, may I suggest also reading the Gnostic Gospels, which are the gospels ommited from the Bible, or not known at the time.
How much you believe them is up you, but they are christian writtings that you won't see that often.
You have non canonical texts (apocrypha) confused with Gnostic gospels. Gnostic gospels were not written until around the second century AD and are not even included in the Catholic Bible, which includes the Apocrypha.
In case you were wondering, in order for something to be considered canon, there are various requirements taken into consideration. These categories are things such as authorship, and whether or not the book is life changing.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Background on my education: Everyone at my school recieves a minor in Bible and theology, and some of my teachers are world renowned historians and archaologists who have appeared on various news programs.Now, that said, The whole Judas thing is a farce. Especially if you're talking about the gospel of Judas, which was written hundreds of years after the canon was finalized by a group of people known as the gnostics, I'll let you do your own research on them.
As far as the translation itself, all four gospels paint a picture of Judas that is very negative, and John's gospel even says that he stole from the funds of the disciples...Now I don't speak ancient Greek, nor do I have any of my teachers sitting next to me right now (that would be quite creepy) but I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that Bible scholars throughout time have simply ignored glaring mistranslations that Judas was actually Jesus' only real friend, and would instead paint a picture of him as a betrayer. All that said, I would like to see the sources for the claims made by the documentary that you referenced, if they seem at all valid I'll gladly cross reference them with some of my teachers when I get back from Spring Break.
As far as the translations used by most evangelical churches, you will find very few modern evangelical churches who use a King James translation. Most of them use NIV, NASB, or even an NL...The King James is actually the preferred Bible of the mormon church due to its many flaws in translations (makes it easier to distort the meaning to fit with their beliefs about who Jesus is).
All I can ask then, is how come none of your teachers were asked to be on the show? I'm not so naive to think that every documentary on television is one full of the most knowledgeable of experts, but they had a slew of people on there saying the same thing. And these were not theologians, but experts of the ancient Greek language. In other words, they had no bone to pick other than the mistranslation. I am much more inclined to believe what they say. Especially since they have studied other Greek documents even outside of religious texts and seen that word used in that same manner meaning "to hand over".
My preacher at my church tells us all the time that there are some old people in the church who don't want to let go. They profess to be experts but all they are are experts at keeping their jobs and at not looking for new knowledge. I think as more of these people fall off then things are changing. You can see it around you everywhere. People are beginning to question conventional texts, and I'm glad. I don't want to follow the wrong teachings. I want the questions to come up because I want the strong debate.
It doesn't worry me if a text in the Bible is found to be mistranslated. What does worry me is if it is not changed. This sticking to tradition formula freaks me out. To me, it's a sign that the leaders at the top don't want to let go of the stranglehold they have and the people at the bottom have become complacent. I don't think that's what Jesus would want from us. I think he wants us to seek his truth.
Oh, and that wasn't about the gospels of Judas. It was about the mistranslation of that word that is in today's Bible. I did a quick search and found something that explains it better than I maybe am. I hate quoting stuff from the Internet, so don't hold this against me. It seems so cheap as to these forums lately.
Judas is accused of “betraying” Jesus. Yet the Greek word paradidomi has another, less pejorative meaning: to “hand over” or “surrender”. Here I call as defence witness Professor William Klassen, a Canadian scholar at the École Biblique in Jerusalem. Klassen points out that the word paradidomi is used 59 times in connection with Christ’s death: 27 times it is translated as “hand over”; but on the 32 occasions the word is used in relation to Judas, it becomes “betray”. Biased translators deliberately bolstered preconceived assumptions.
Now, what's really funny is I decided to look the word up for my own translation. Here's what I found. Notice that it has the definition as hand over, but then when you get down to the translation in the Bible they actually in their own way admit that it was wrong by posting the translations that are in the Bible!!!!!!!!
Paradidomi - The New Testament Greek Lexicon
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Just out of curiousity, do you belong to a branch that doesn't believe in evolution?
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
All the fine points aside, the bible is about giving you a guideline for living your daily life, and helping strenghten your relationship with God. For some people, things like whether a word translates a "betray" or "surrender" makes or breaks a religion, but I don't think that's the spirit with which it was intended personally.
What really matters (imho) is how it guides you in your relationship with God. It's a very personal thing and ultimately I think you're going to have to decide for yourself which parts you believe and which parts make sense to you. It's about getting in touch with your spirituality and helping you live a life that is good. It's about knowing God loves you and watches over you, and how to connect with something greater than yourself.
Anyways, i'm starting to ramble on. My advice would be don't worry too much about every little translation as long as you're still getting the words with the spirit they are intended, and they help you in your life.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Now, that said, The whole Judas thing is a farce. Especially if you're talking about the gospel of Judas, which was written hundreds of years after the canon was finalized by a group of people known as the gnostics, I'll let you do your own research on them.
As far as the translation itself, all four gospels paint a picture of Judas that is very negative, and John's gospel even says that he stole from the funds of the disciples...Now I don't speak ancient Greek, nor do I have any of my teachers sitting next to me right now (that would be quite creepy) but I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that Bible scholars throughout time have simply ignored glaring mistranslations that Judas was actually Jesus' only real friend, and would instead paint a picture of him as a betrayer. All that said, I would like to see the sources for the claims made by the documentary that you referenced, if they seem at all valid I'll gladly cross reference them with some of my teachers when I get back from Spring Break.
As far as the translations used by most evangelical churches, you will find very few modern evangelical churches who use a King James translation. Most of them use NIV, NASB, or even an NL...The King James is actually the preferred Bible of the mormon church due to its many flaws in translations (makes it easier to distort the meaning to fit with their beliefs about who Jesus is).
All I can ask then, is how come none of your teachers were asked to be on the show? I'm not so naive to think that every documentary on television is one full of the most knowledgeable of experts, but they had a slew of people on there saying the same thing.
I watched it last night...they really only had one guy saying the thing about the improper translation of Greek. It was his sole basis for his theory as well, and he ignored every othe bit of context that we have about Judas, such as him stealing, as well as the messianic prophesies about the betrayal in Isaiah. And regarding my teachers not being in the documentary...I can't figure out if you're serious about this. My school is quite small and there are less than a dozen professors who teach the Bible and theology courses. Maraliyn Copeland (I don't know if that's the proper spelling of her name) has appeared on various news channels in the past during the whole James Cameron episode where he had claimed to have found the grave of Jesus and his family. Her expertise is not in ancient greek but rather archaology, though she is fluent in ancient Hebrew and Greek.
And these were not theologians, but experts of the ancient Greek language. In other words, they had no bone to pick other than the mistranslation. I am much more inclined to believe what they say. Especially since they have studied other Greek documents even outside of religious texts and seen that word used in that same manner meaning "to hand over".
It may very well mean "hand over" rather than betray, but that does not mean that it was not a betrayal. Once again, the overall context of the Bible, as well as the prophesies that preceeded Jesus' crucifixion should be taken into account, not just the translation of one simple word. Also, who Judas was does not change who Jesus was. The documentary made a point to talk about whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or on a tree, when really, what does it matter? The point is that he was put to death after living a sinless life, the means by which the sentence was carried out are largely irrelevent.
My preacher at my church tells us all the time that there are some old people in the church who don't want to let go. They profess to be experts but all they are are experts at keeping their jobs and at not looking for new knowledge. I think as more of these people fall off then things are changing. You can see it around you everywhere. People are beginning to question conventional texts, and I'm glad. I don't want to follow the wrong teachings. I want the questions to come up because I want the strong debate.
It doesn't worry me if a text in the Bible is found to be mistranslated. What does worry me is if it is not changed. This sticking to tradition formula freaks me out. To me, it's a sign that the leaders at the top don't want to let go of the stranglehold they have and the people at the bottom have become complacent. I don't think that's what Jesus would want from us. I think he wants us to seek his truth.
New translations come out all the time that seek to right the wrongs of old translations, why do you think the King James isn't used in very many churches anymore? It's because it is difficult to follow and has tons of mistranslations.
Oh, and that wasn't about the gospels of Judas. It was about the mistranslation of that word that is in today's Bible. I did a quick search and found something that explains it better than I maybe am. I hate quoting stuff from the Internet, so don't hold this against me. It seems so cheap as to these forums lately.
Judas is accused of “betraying” Jesus. Yet the Greek word paradidomi has another, less pejorative meaning: to “hand over” or “surrender”. Here I call as defence witness Professor William Klassen, a Canadian scholar at the École Biblique in Jerusalem. Klassen points out that the word paradidomi is used 59 times in connection with Christ’s death: 27 times it is translated as “hand over”; but on the 32 occasions the word is used in relation to Judas, it becomes “betray”. Biased translators deliberately bolstered preconceived assumptions.
Now, what's really funny is I decided to look the word up for my own translation. Here's what I found. Notice that it has the definition as hand over, but then when you get down to the translation in the Bible they actually in their own way admit that it was wrong by posting the translations that are in the Bible!!!!!!!!
Paradidomi - The New Testament Greek Lexicon
Once again, it could all very well be true, but it does not change he context, the messianic prophesies, or any of the other reasons that we have to believe that it was a betrayal rather than Jesus WANTING Judas to betray him. Let's look at this objectively...
Jesus told Judas to go and do what he had to do, the people in the documentary used this as proof that Jesus WANTED Judas to "give him over" and that Judas was actually just a man selected for a job. Let's remember for a second though that Jesus was the son of God, and that like God, he knew how all things would come to pass regarding his death and resurrection. Jesus did not tell Judas to go and do what he had to do because he was his friend an Judas was the man for the job, he told Judas to go because Jesus knew what had to be done, and he knew that Judas would be the one to betray him. To me, when I read that passage, it simply tells of Jesus knowing what was about to happen.
In addition to this, Mathew 27:3-5 says that Judas felt so guilty after he betrayed Jesus that he returned the money and hanged himself. Does that sound like the behavior of a man who was simply Jesus' friend doing the work that was given to him? Or does that sound like something that a person would do if they had just committed a sin so grievous that only death could be an escape from the pain that they have brought upon themself? It simply does not make sense that Judas Iscariot would kill himself if he was only doing what Jesus wanted him to. It's a HUGE issue that the documentary ignored all together.
PS. There is also an account of Judas dying in Acts, though the account is slightly different...in Acts he buys a piece of land with his money and then falls over death as his intestines spill out (lovely)
Though it's strange that the two means of death would be so different (possibly translation error there) It should be noted that in both cases it is said that he was overcome by his own wickedness.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Nobody needs to tell me about how the Bible and mistranslations can be used to hurt.
I was driven away from Christianity up until recently. I found so much turmoil in the messages I heard of myself going straight to hell for being gay. I found it utterly confusing and was saddened by it to the point of obsession. I can't describe how it made me feel. I am not exaggerating when I say that every minute of my days was filled with dread and despair wondering why God hated me so much to create me only to have no chance of ever being with him when I die.
Then I found the church I go to now. A church that openly challenges the scriptures that have been used (only recently in history I might add) to condemn me for the only type of love I am able to express. I am now a Christian and I love God with all my heart. I feel sad that todays Christians do not question these scriptures but instead let a human behavior guide them. We are all a little put off by people who are different than what we are used to or than what we are, but that does not make that other person wrong. It simply makes us all unique in God's way.
When I see my church go out and let people know that those scriptures aren't necessarily what they've always been taught, it's amazing even to see the weight lifted off straight peoples shoulders. I think a lot of straight people have that feeling of confusion when it comes to the message that todays popular church teaches them about gays. They don't see how the message matches up to Jesus message, and they especially don't see how the level of focus turned towards us is so warranted. I have tons of straight friends who meet me and my partner, see how happy and stable we are, and completely change their minds. Especially when they find out what kind of Christians we are. There are even some of my straight friends who have started going to my church with their own family. That's a big step to leave your own church, but I think it shows the level of discomfort their church was giving them in its mixed message.
--------------------------------------
Why believe a book that people wrote ages ago? Just made up stories......
Has there ever been any proof of "GOD"? no......
"Have faith" was just invented as a excuse to get outta any questions.
You think it's more believable that the universe and time just appeared?
--------------------------------------
You think it's more believable that the universe and time just appeared?
I think what a lot of people find hard to believe is following a book of ancient stories or an organization telling you what is right or wrong for you. It's not like any of us alive today were there much less have any of us experienced any kind of heavenly phenomenon. And man made and run organizations will always cause me to have a less than trustful eye towards them.We do have nature around us though. That to me is the best book to read. You can go outside, see how things work in nature, and draw conclusions from it. And those are first hand accounts. Not someone else's "visions" of what God is.
===============================
Believe every bit of it.
Even the parts that contradict the other parts.
Once you've exhausted your brain by doing mental gymnastics, then you can come into the light and accept 99% for what it is.
Metaphor.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
Very helpful in these kinds of discussions:
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
By the way, I feel that I should add this...None of what I write is in dispute of whether or not the people to whom my words are directed are Christians. The only time that I would dispute someone's Christian faith is if they have a view of Jesus or God that is contradictory to what a Christian actually believes (That being Jesus as savior of all, who died and was resurrected so that sins would be forgiven, if you believe that, then you are a Christian as far as I'm concerned) I'm not interested in arguing and nit picking the finer points of theology (though I will go on record as saying that Mormons are NOT just another branch of Christianity because they change who God and Jesus are). I'm merely trying to shed light on this whole Judas thing.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
At great cost to all of us, Jesus' private/Gnostic teachings were "outlawed" with the Roman Emperor Constantine's decision to make Christianity the state religion. For along with that decision came his command that all Christian bishops choose between Jesus' public/Orthodox and private/Gnostic teachings. In this way Constantine could unite the empire under one official church doctrine. His command was carried out at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) in the document Christians call the Nicene Creed and its shorter version, the Apostles' Creed. In effect, the Nicene Creed, which reflects Jesus' public teachings, became the one official doctrine of Orthodox Christianity, and in turn, made his private Gnostic teachings an outlawed heresy.
Soon after the Council, "an imperial edict ordered that all books by Arius [the principal advocate of Jesus' Gnostic teachings at Nicaea], and others like him, should be burned, and made concealment of such a book punishable by death." (2) Bishop Eusebius (260-340), Constantine's court historian, restructured all Biblical literature to coincide with the council's decision. In 325, Eusebius issued an "Ecclesiastical history [in which time was portrayed as] the battleground of God and Satan, and all events as advancing the triumph of Christ." (3) From that time on, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical history acted as the official supernatural model for future interpretations of Jesus' ministry. The intellectual character of Gnosticism was in conflict with Eusebius' supernatural model and was outlawed.Gnostic Christianity emphasized ones personal connection to Christ through what they called "gnosis." The experience of gnosis could range from what happened to Paul on the Damascus Road, to ones receiving enlightenment. Thankfully, the word "gnosis" wasn't given a precise meaning but obviously meant something more like insight or spiritual illumination rather than knowledge as just "fact" or "set of beliefs." Those now known as Gnostics (not named that until later in history) were not a church but more what we might call a theological perspective. They did have a few leaders, both male and female, and had various and diverse theologies. They did have some unusual beliefs. But that they didn't always agree with with each other did not present a crisis. (You will not agree with everything or believe all they said as well.)
Some leaders did write both Gospels and tracts that shared their Christian vision. Some of their Gospels contain the same sayings of the New Testament, but additional words and stories of Jesus stress the inward experience over belief. Some Gnostic writings went so far as to criticize items of belief like the virgin birth and bodily resurrection. They raised the importance and value of Mary Magdalene and women. Christ's intent was more spiritual than doctrinaire or ecclesiastical. Christianity was more about seeking Christ than "either you believe or you don't." But without a support system, not all believing alike, and having the Emperor Constantine against them, the Gnostic approach to Christianity was easily suppressed.
In contrast, to the Gnostics, the Orthodox (meaning 'right') believed their Church had the authority and wisdom to declare, even in written decree, what all Christians should believe. If Christians "believed" the same, Constantine said it would bring "harmony" to the church and Empire. Therefore the Bishops and Constantine, who financed the event, met in a village named Nicaea. The Nicene Creed became the official doctrine that was to define "Christianity." The vote was unanimous as Constantine exiled those who dissented! (Read Constantine's Sword.) Constantine ordered "heretics" and "schismatics" to surrender their church's properties to what was beginning to be called the catholic, or universal church (the Orthodox). Even though some have estimated nearly half of Christians were gnostic in their thinking, Orthodox Bishops (all male) and Constantine were able to tell the world exactly the correct interpretation of Christ and His intent. Constantine, a crafty and warring politician, was able to declare "officially" that those who agreed with him and his Bishops were the Christians. And, amazingly, understanding himself as the "vice regent of God", he and the Bishops were able to silence others like the Gnostics who saw the meaning and purpose of Christ differently.
Constantine's Council did help Christianity to be the state religion and one voice. Gaining state and ecclesiastical power, the patriarchal Orthodox Church was able to judge for Christ, for God, who was and wasn't a true Christian by what one "believed." Therefore the war cry against the poorly organized Gnostics, was "HERETICS."
If you want to know what to believe about the bible, just read it all, summarize it in 3-5 sentences. Then do the same with other abrahamic myths, islam, judaism, bah'ai(sp?) and zoroastrianism. These are all variations of the same myths. The overall meanings will be the same. Most of the other crap is meaningless traditions and junk picked up from pagan religions.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open.
Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
At great cost to all of us, Jesus' private/Gnostic teachings were "outlawed" with the Roman Emperor Constantine's decision to make Christianity the state religion. For along with that decision came his command that all Christian bishops choose between Jesus' public/Orthodox and private/Gnostic teachings. In this way Constantine could unite the empire under one official church doctrine. His command was carried out at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) in the document Christians call the Nicene Creed and its shorter version, the Apostles' Creed. In effect, the Nicene Creed, which reflects Jesus' public teachings, became the one official doctrine of Orthodox Christianity, and in turn, made his private Gnostic teachings an outlawed heresy.
Soon after the Council, "an imperial edict ordered that all books by Arius [the principal advocate of Jesus' Gnostic teachings at Nicaea], and others like him, should be burned, and made concealment of such a book punishable by death." (2) Bishop Eusebius (260-340), Constantine's court historian, restructured all Biblical literature to coincide with the council's decision. In 325, Eusebius issued an "Ecclesiastical history [in which time was portrayed as] the battleground of God and Satan, and all events as advancing the triumph of Christ." (3) From that time on, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical history acted as the official supernatural model for future interpretations of Jesus' ministry. The intellectual character of Gnosticism was in conflict with Eusebius' supernatural model and was outlawed.Gnostic Christianity emphasized ones personal connection to Christ through what they called "gnosis." The experience of gnosis could range from what happened to Paul on the Damascus Road, to ones receiving enlightenment. Thankfully, the word "gnosis" wasn't given a precise meaning but obviously meant something more like insight or spiritual illumination rather than knowledge as just "fact" or "set of beliefs." Those now known as Gnostics (not named that until later in history) were not a church but more what we might call a theological perspective. They did have a few leaders, both male and female, and had various and diverse theologies. They did have some unusual beliefs. But that they didn't always agree with with each other did not present a crisis. (You will not agree with everything or believe all they said as well.)
Some leaders did write both Gospels and tracts that shared their Christian vision. Some of their Gospels contain the same sayings of the New Testament, but additional words and stories of Jesus stress the inward experience over belief. Some Gnostic writings went so far as to criticize items of belief like the virgin birth and bodily resurrection. They raised the importance and value of Mary Magdalene and women. Christ's intent was more spiritual than doctrinaire or ecclesiastical. Christianity was more about seeking Christ than "either you believe or you don't." But without a support system, not all believing alike, and having the Emperor Constantine against them, the Gnostic approach to Christianity was easily suppressed.
In contrast, to the Gnostics, the Orthodox (meaning 'right') believed their Church had the authority and wisdom to declare, even in written decree, what all Christians should believe. If Christians "believed" the same, Constantine said it would bring "harmony" to the church and Empire. Therefore the Bishops and Constantine, who financed the event, met in a village named Nicaea. The Nicene Creed became the official doctrine that was to define "Christianity." The vote was unanimous as Constantine exiled those who dissented! (Read Constantine's Sword.) Constantine ordered "heretics" and "schismatics" to surrender their church's properties to what was beginning to be called the catholic, or universal church (the Orthodox). Even though some have estimated nearly half of Christians were gnostic in their thinking, Orthodox Bishops (all male) and Constantine were able to tell the world exactly the correct interpretation of Christ and His intent. Constantine, a crafty and warring politician, was able to declare "officially" that those who agreed with him and his Bishops were the Christians. And, amazingly, understanding himself as the "vice regent of God", he and the Bishops were able to silence others like the Gnostics who saw the meaning and purpose of Christ differently.
Constantine's Council did help Christianity to be the state religion and one voice. Gaining state and ecclesiastical power, the patriarchal Orthodox Church was able to judge for Christ, for God, who was and wasn't a true Christian by what one "believed." Therefore the war cry against the poorly organized Gnostics, was "HERETICS."
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. I'm done..you're intent in ignoring anything that I post about the Gnostics, and you're pulling random cut and paste articles out of nowhere...This is not how I'm going to talk about this subject.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well Draenor,
To put it politely. I am not too hip on misinformation. Thats groovy you want to debate the bible and or history of it. But honestly I am not going to debate on hearsay. So for your benefit concerning biblical omissions I will show just some in this link. While you make it out to seem as though it is not bad. I see it quite differently.
If you wish to see them visit www.theseason.org/omitted1.htm
Thanks!
You think it's more believable that the universe and time just appeared?
Who said the universe came from nowhere? Besides where did God come from? Surely if he could come from nowhere then the Universe could? I mean The Universe has always been there but just in a different form.... noone knows the truth anyways but I sure as hell don't believe in a God made up by man.
Friggin why believe in a God when the story of evolution and how the universe is created is a far more diverse and beautiful story and more interesting story. Have you ever watched Planet Earth and Blue Planet? It's like if that's what evolution and time can make then i'd rather believe in this theory than a God.
Catholics were responsible for writing the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Catholic Church doesn't "interpret" the Bible. They explain it.
Protestants can only "interpret", because they are not the author (guided by the Holy Spirit), and therefore, can only guess at the possible meaning of a chapter, passage or phrase, just as anyone can only guess at any author's intentions in any other book.
As the author, the Catholic Church is the only proper authority to consult in matters pertaining to the Bible.
Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters.
With the Church you have the Bible.
I am now going to burst your bubble and anyone who thinks that rewrite of the bible the racist Europeans used to subjugate blacks is BS. Here is some food for though long read....Enjoy.
The original and biblical Hebrews were black and there was never anyone in the bible called Jesus Christ lol. This bible you see today is a warped version of the real bible..the old testament which 15 century racist rewrote in there quests to subjugate the black man and take them away from the truth and to justified there campaign of slavery to the common folk of Europe..especially England..Portugal and the USA.
Real name of Jesus is..Yashua Bin Yosef and he is described in the bible and by eyewitness accounts by Romans to be Black. The bible describes him as being the lamb of god with his hair like lambs wool nappy.. and his feet black like burnt brass. The first roman depiction of Yashua was found in a roman church in AD530 and it clearly shows him to be of Negroid decent like all Hebrews and Israelite were at that time.
The jew that you see today are not the bible jew and hold no ancestral claim to the land they are occupying and before 1947 had never set foot in the holy land. They are descendants from Edomites and Khazer people. The edomite are descendant from Esau who was born ruddy (red) and hairy.This describes the white man who is all shades of red, and hairy, according to Gen 25:25; "And the first came out red all over like an hairy garment; and they called him Esau,"
Esau was the albino, Fraternal twin brother of Jacob, who was the father of the original Black Israelites. Rom 9:13 " clearly state "As it is written, Jacob have i loved, but Esau have i hated."
These Jew are not descendant of the house of Israel . they are descendants from the Idumeans who were conquered in 730-740ish AD and were forced to convert to the laws of Judaism, and then becoming Jews.
Let me explain a bit more about where these people come from then i will give you a history lesson on the real 12 tribes of Israel.
The continue, Biblical history relates that the descendants of Araham,namely Jacob(Israel) and his 12 sons and 70 wives in all , migrated from Canaan(which was a black negroid area in Iraq before arab invaders came and is near the city of Basra..go there to day and you will still find black descendants of Jacob as reported by US and british soliders) to Egypt, and during their sojourn,the children of israel multiplied from a family of 70 to a nation of well over 2 million people by the time of the exodus(remember bob marley's song..Exodus children of jah people.oh yeah .jah means god).
This massive number of people in such a short space of time could only have come about through intermarriage of Jacobs and the native Black Egyptian population. Each one of Jacobs sons became a tribal nation which made up the greater nation of Isreal. They were Reuben, Dan, Simeon,Gad,Levi,Asher,Judah,Naphtali,Zebulon,Joseph,Issachar and Benjamin.
All of Ham`s four sons and their descendant's ancient egyptians, Ethiopians,Somalis Canaanites and so on,settled in and around the continent of Africa ,including the so called middle east which has always been part of Africa.
The israelites are the descendants of Noah`s other son Shem through Abraham,who is the farther of Isaac who is the farther of Jacob who had the twelve sons mentioned above,who are the ancestors of the true israelite nation.
There empire was from the black sea to the Caspian, and from the Caucasus to Volga, was located between the two major super powers of that time....1. the eastern Roman Empire in Byzantium(Christian) and the followers of Muhammad(Islam) yes this war has been going on a long time lol, it didn't start with 9/11 country to belief its an old age conflict.
I mention Khazar jews ..well this third force of people or the khazar empire who were eastern european like the edomites did not want to except Christianity or Islam because they did not want to be ruled by the Roman Emperor, or the Caliph of Baghdad the two main super powers of that time. The khazar king instead chose to embrace the Jewish faith and ordered his subjects to do the same in 730-740 ad the Judaism religion became the official state religion of the khazar empire and they now make up 90% of the jews you see today on this earth..there`s is a stolen religion.
They began to practice circumcision like the original black biblical Hebrew and started giving themselves Hebrew names. They also studied the Torah and Talmud, spoke and wrote in Hebrew , observed Hanukkah, pesac and the sabbath, and synagogues and rabbis.
Lets look at some of the facts..
To understand what has gone on we have to go back ,way back to Noah and trace his offspring and where they Settled and who they were.
Genesis 5:32 clearly states that Noah was 500 years old when his wife Namah had 3 boys ,meaning he was 50 years old when his wife had triplets. His sons names were ..Ham..Shem..Japheth. Then in Genesis 7:6 it says Noah was 600 years old when the floods came meaning he was 60 and his sons were 10 years old. Genesis 6:9 then goes on to state " And these are the Generations oF Noah" What it means here is at that time Noahs genes had not been mixed with any other color/race of people and that is why god said he was perfect in generations.
Now this is where the racist like to twist it and tell you that Noah sons were of three different races lol..Black White and Asian..if you believe this can happen then you are probably a follower of the racist Europeans who spouted this shit in the 15 century to justify there connection to a book that has nothing whatsoever to do with WHITE Europeans..sorry but they were not involved in any of this till much later.
Now lets get back to Noah's sons and there descendants that make up the real 12 tribes of Israel. Genesis 10:6 continues by saying " and the sons of Ham (Sudan );.. Cush..(Ethopia), Mizraim (Egypt)..yes the original Egyptians were black and not the arab invaders you see there today ..Phut(carthage/Libya) yes if you go to libya today you will find many black people...and Canaan, who was cursed and settled outside the so called middle east. This family is traced through the bible in an unbroken chain to David, who Violated the law by marrying a Canaanite,which was strictly forbidden by God,who in Genesis 24:3-4 issued a command not to marry outside one`s own kindred so the perfect genealogy of the holy seed cannot be damage but he broke the law and did just that..
This can be seen in the Song of Solomon: verse 4..which changes from Negro to Mulatto, as a result of the unholy mixture. great isn't it..lol there is more to come..sit back and enjoy the ride..here is part of the song
"Thou art fair,thy hair is as a flock of goats" which means straight and wavy, not like a sheep which is woolly and nappy just like the person you love to call Jesse's was woolly and nappy like a lambs..hence the saying..the lamb of god. The song continues in verse 2 saying "lips like Scarlet" meaning reddish(white people lips.. " my beloved is white and ruddy," and verse 14 says, "his belly is as bright Ivory.". As you can see by this song..David who was black married a Canaanite(Iranian looking person) as explained in the book of Ezra 9:1-2, infected the holy seed which could no longer travel down the line of Solomon.
Solomon who again was black and descendants from ham(ethiopia) and who set up Jerusalem ,had an older brother called Adonijah(1 Kings 1:5) by David through a Negroid wife, called Haggith. Adonijah was denied his birthright and put into exile, but then he set up the kingdom of Judea to preserve the holy seed or tribe of Judah. Solomon and his army then forced these tribes that were called..Dina, Asher, Dan, Benjamin, Issachear, to migrate through Yemen into Ethiopia, spreading northward back to their original homelands in Africa.
This is where it gets more interesting lol..its a hoot isn't it..bet they never taught you this a prey meetings or school lol.
Not all of Adonijah people went with him back to africa,some stayed behind and set up the villages of Nazareth, Magdella and Galilee ,just to mention a few and if you go there today you will still find descendants from these people and guess what..they are Negroid people.
DNA has unmistakably reveled that the tombs containing the names and bodies of Mary of Magdalene, Martha and Lazarus in the village of Magdella where they lived were in fact Negroes.
Biblical Jews and Hebrews were a Black African people from the line of ham,and many of them still are especially in Northern Africa. These black Jews were ruthlessly persecuted by white Romans in the Roman- Jewish War in AD. 66. This war saw the end of the ancient original Black Jews(israelites-hebrews as a nation, with 1.1 million Hebrews slain, causing the entire lake of Galilee to turn red with blood and become littered with body's. Millions fled back to Africa to avoid destruction, but centuries later,their descendants were captured and sold into slavery in America and the caribbean by white European money hungry slave traders.
Black Israelite immigrants from northern and eastern Africa merged with indigenous groups in west Africa to become the Fulani of Futa Jalon, Bornu, Kamen and Lake Chad. Ashati, the Hausa,the B`nai Ephraim and Mavumbu all share their roots with black Hebrew Israelite.
The name Hebrew was inherited from Abraham(notice his name Abra..HAM WHICH ACTUALLY MEANS BLACK who came from Ethiopia and was black just like the blacks who live there today in 130 degree heat lol..heat that would bring a white persons skin serious cancer.
Gen.13:18, 14:13 1 Chron. 11:3-6)...states there were two tribes, Benjamin and Judah of the Ethiopian that inherited the name "Jew" (2 kings 16:6: 18:26).
Let me explain the word Jews just so you can get a grip with the meaning and what it entails.
The words "jew and gentiles covers all the people on the earth."jew" represents all Negroes who are referred to as Sheep in the bible and the word Gentiles represents all Straight haired people, who are referred to as Goats (rom. 9.24: Dan. 8:20-21.
Lets take a quote fro John and Matthew..
John 10:27. " My sheep hear my voice and i know them and they follow me"
Matthew 25:33." And he shall set the sheep on his right hand , but the goat on his left"
This goes back to Hams son who received a curse for going outside his tribe remember.. Gen 9:25, Ham`s son Canaan was stripped of all his lands, and identity, and language was to be given to the israelites starting with Abraham(Gen 12;5-7.
Gen 9:25-27 clearly states.."And God Cursed Canaan: a servant he shall be unto his brethren..and God said , Blessed be the God of Shem: Noah's other son and Canaan shall be his servant.
I could go on and on but hey ..i think you get the jest of it by now. The book and blond haired idol that you so worship is a lie,it never happened and the household names like..Moses ..Joseph and his multi colored dream coat were in fact stories about black people who lived in lands with 120 degree heat+ ..just this fact alone should tell you the truth about white european acting in plays about Jesus and Joseph are in fact bs. Charlton Heston in the 10 commandments is BS lol .
Did you know there have been 4 black roman emperors..
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch
If all these texts were supposed to be the word of God why aren't they all included? Is there anything in the Bible saying God put a cutoff date or does he state which books should be used/ignored? How are we to judge the word of God?
Its like ignoring parts of a car manual, assembling the car, then wondering why its not working right.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
You think it's more believable that the universe and time just appeared?
That is the question that well want an answer to, and here is my take on it, for now.
Either the universe and time just appeared, or God just appeared and created the universe and time.
By cutting god out of that equation I eliminate one step of "magic".
Besides, we are now within one billionth of a second away from the actual big bang in our research, we are not one step closer to god today then we were the day he was made up, probably the opposite.
As to the bible, or any ancient text of religion created to "guide" us?
They are ultimate tools of power for those who wield them.
Nothing more, nothing less, and they will be used like that until the day humanity rids itself of its greatest ball and chain.
Religion is like communism, a great idea on paper but utterly horrible as soon as you involve real people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------