It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Colossians 1:24 What do you think it means?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I find that remarable as there is no proof.

1) Paul never went to Alexandria Egypt, the birthplace of Roman Catholicism.


Haha, Alexandria? I think you have this tits up. Alexandria was the enemy of Rome and catholicism and to this day they still carry on sporting their own pope, you know these people as the Coptic Christians. The Muslims gave them a hard time during the «Arabian Spring», burning down churches and beating the hell outta whoever were inside.


The only place where the Bible was re-written on animal skins for Emperor Constantine's approval. Which when he was presented these re-written copies legalized that branch of Supposed Christian religion in opposition to the true church who would not conform to Roman Catholic Rule/Roman Universal Church rule.


Where do they tell fairytales like this? You are lying out of your arse, you know this is lies.


2) Pauls letters are not cyphers to be deciphered. There is no mystery religion in true Christianity. It was the imposing of mystery religions that later claimed there were as to gain control of unsuspecting men who wanted more than just a clean/Holy life towards God through Christ Jesus.


Pristine BS




posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

you seem to know very little about History

Jerome wrote his version of the Bible from Alexandria



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Jerome's Vulgate, was an extension or an update of the «Old Latin» texts, but there is not single source of Jerome's Vulgate. It contains variants found in Western style, Byzantine and Alexandrian style texts, then again, this ain't my table, but please show some evidence that Emperor Constantine had any bibles made. At all. There exists only a rather odd mention of your bibles in Eusebius about Constantine ordering fifty bibles, but none, not a shred of these supposed bibles ever survived if they ever existed, and there are even quite a few scholars who doubt the authenticity of this part of Eusebius' overly positive eulogy dedicated to emperor Constantine, called Vita Constantini, or Life of Constantine. If you ask me, emperor Constantine never commissioned these bibles, and I doubt he ever had a single bible made. However, IF there were fifty bibles made by Constantine, Eusebius goes they were made in Caesarea, NOT Alexandria. Anyway, like I said, church history isn't really my table, I know too little about it.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

yeah he had those others with him in Alexandria Egypt when he worked on his version.

I never said Constantine had them made. I may have said a copy was presented to him and he legalized that Branch of Christianity in 315AD but never that he had commissioned that one be made.

There were two branches of the church on through Antioch (the East) and one threw Alexandria Egypt (the west).


edit on 15-2-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Utnappistjtim, I have to apologize though Jeromes Bible did come through the Alexandrian text line. You were correct it was Eusebius who wrote the text that was given to Constantine. I had my fact mixed up and I was in error.

Please forgive me for that oversight.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtimplease look at this chart that shows the two line that the Bible version come from. Read the side columns too. (click on the picture and then click again and it will enlarge even more. save the image for future reference.



This chart is done very well and it shows the Antioch line of texts and the Alexandrian line of text and which versions came form which.


edit on 16-2-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
oops dp.
edit on 16-2-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

That chart there can't be right. Caesarean type texts remains a proposition, when all the material is surveyed, there remains only a proposed text type (in addition to Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine) to explain certain variants that doesn't concur with said text types. There are no pure Caesarean texts found, just a handful fragment suspects originating in the last half of the first millennium, and some special wordings in texts belonging to the other types that cannot be sorted as either Alex., Byz. or Western type texts. You should check your sources. The chart there looks like something someone has pieced together without any real basis. Rather check out the text types referred to in text critical studies. Those are mostly Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western and Mixed —text types. Your Caesarean type texts would likely end up in the Mixed pack, since there are noe pure Caesarean texts extant.
edit on 16-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
oops dp.


LOL, sorry, I need some coffee. Accidental DP, oh well, I guess it can happen to anyone....


edit on 17-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join