It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


how credible are THESE gospels???

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Slicky1313
ehhh, if its not for the Bible, I dont think anyone, or any documents really have been recorded about the past, like before the flood and the lives of individuals taken from no where but the Bible, cause these dudes only existed from the Bible text, where else?

Try looking at Babylonian religion. There are a lot of stories that were already in existence before they were put into the Bible.
For example, the story of the Garden of Eden has an earlier counterpart.

It's interesting that you should mention the Flood. Go take a look at the Epic of Gilgamesh.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:09 PM

Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

The Gospel
According to Thomas

It is obvious that these books are fakes, written by people trying to discredit the life of Christ.

The Romans had to tread carefully when they assembled all the scriptures together, as they did not wish to get the local Christian population off side. The scriptures they presented would have been taken as existing dogma by the 1/5 of the population that were christians at that time.

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:06 PM

Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." [End of Quote"]

This is Jesus teasing Simon Peter. I.E.; " Peter, if you cannot handle a woman in heaven, then we shall make her a Male"
How does a Woman become Male? she cannot. Jesus is poking fun at peters comment, and playing to his insecurity. What is a Living spirit? how does a spirit resemble a Male? Jesus was playing this to the hilt, and laying down a lesson for the Church. No wonder they excluded this book from the Bible.

Jesus specifically said on Many occasions; search the Truth YOURSELF. Dont take anothers word for what i have said, search it yourself. He knew what would happen when he was gone, and he was right. The Chruch comandeered his teachings and used them as justification to murder millions and subjegate half of his true church.

There is a Massive difference between what Jesus Actually said, and did, and what Others ( including the Church) teaches jesus said and did.

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by jupiter869
These gospels are very credible.

Many religious historians feel that the gospel of Mary is the very closest to what Jesus' actual teachings of non-violence etc. were.

So now we have to rely on what historians "FEEL". Truth and emotional disposition are two totaly different things How could they know if they weren't actually there to sit under his teachings. Unless you are trying to say the Holy Ghost lead them to believe this.

Then God would be a liar. Jesus didn't teach non-violence. Matt 10:34 Think not that I have come to bring peace, but a sword. Jesus Taught taught that we had to make a desicion. This desicion is so great that it goes against our very nature. In the Gospel of John the first chapter it says that Jesus is the bringer of light but man lives and thrives in darkness.

Men don't like light but they love darkness. So when God calls us, we have to make a decision that transends our very nature. The Holy spirit comes in to change us into children of light.

Light and darkness can't co-exist equally. There is a violence. The decision is so violent that, if you truly make the decision to follow him that your own family will turn against you. God calls for us to love him more than our own mothers, or anyone or anything in this world. So when he talked about peace it's the peace of a Holy God.

On the day of judgement God's not going to plea bargin with sinners, his justice is what brings peace. He doesn't keep peace(i.e compromising, making treaties, changing himself to make us pleased). He makes peace with a rod of Iron(Revelation 2:27 ,Revelation 12:5,Revelation 19:15 ). So don't think God is some little puupy dog thats going to play games. He is a Holy and Just God who takes care of bussiness.

Don't get me wrong, he's love, righteoussnes, and mercifulness. But he is a God of perfect balance, so he is also justice, and Holiness.

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 07:21 PM
well matther, mark, luke and john should not be credable and anything written within them should be thought of as truth. they contradict so much with each other, and on very rare occasions actually will all 4 agree on the same subject. if those books cannot be trusted and have many contradictions then why should the rest of the bible be trusted. in genesis it says that man was created after animals, then a few verses after says that animals were created after man. also with adam eating the forbidden fruit he should have died that day, however he lived until 930ish. i once said to my christian friend than the bible had many many contradictions, she said to me straight away that it didnot have any. well i read some of the bible and learned that there are and told her dont take your someone elses word for your should read your bible to. i wouldnt be surprised if most people sitting tonight at midnight mass don't even no the reality and history of their actual religion that the catholic church has changed so much over the years. not once is 'trinity' or the concept of 'original sin' derived from adam, those words do not appear in the KJV bible. yet all i here is the father, the son, the holy spirit...this was made up by the catholic church around 700 a.d and the original sin concept should not even be credible because in ezekiel it says only the original sinner is punished, the son does not pay for the fathers sins etc. peace out on this lovely xmas eve.

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by shmick25
It is obvious that these books are fakes, written by people trying to discredit the life of Christ.

Actually, the Catholic Church doesn't think them fakes, they just deem them not as credible.

First of all, they commended themselves by their tone of simplicity and truthfulness, which stood in striking contrast with the trivial, absurd, or manifestly legendary character of many of those uncanonical productions. In the next place, they had an earlier origin than most of their apocryphal rivals, and indeed many of the latter productions were directly based on the canonical Gospels. A third feature in favour of our canonical records of Christ's life was the purity of their teachings, dogmatic and moral, over against the Jewish, Gnostic, or other heretical views with which not a few of the apocryphal gospels were tainted, and on account of which these unsound writings found favour among heretical bodies and, on the contrary, discredit in the eyes of Catholics. Lastly, and more particularly, the canonical Gospels were regarded as of Apostolic authority, two of them being ascribed to the Apostles St. Matthew and St. John, respectively, and two to St. Mark and St. Luke, the respective companions of St. Peter and St. Paul.

This is a lengthy quote, but I couldn't figure how to condense it. The entire article is here:

New Advent is a good source, it is a Catholic encyclopedia.

[edit on 24-12-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 04:46 PM
matthew, mark, luke and john were written decades after jesus died. those 4 books were also written by people that didnt even meet jesus. they are not eye-witness accounts. there were also many many more books that were written along the same lines of those 4. however, when the bible was put together they chose those 4 to be the 4 opening books in the new testament. most of the rest of the new testament was written by the apostle paul, mainly acts and luke. none of the new testament seems to be eye witness accounts or even written while jesus was alive. when the predictions were made in the old testament they were not carried out or even came true. the only reason there is any truth in the predictions is because when the editing of the bible and the writing of the new testament books were done they were made perfect and made to fit inline with the old testament predictions.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in