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.

 

Will there be a third testament add to the Christian bible in the future?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: defiythelie

The Mormons already have claimed that they have a new testament of Jesus Christ and it is called the book of Mormon. But it is not.




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: defiythelie

If the Bible is not relevant don't you think it would be extremely fake to write one which is?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: defiythelie

I think we are all expecting Revelation to come to pass. And until it does or doesnt? There is nothing to update.


Right



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: defiythelie

Not going to happen. A third testament would mean a whole new religion. It wouldn't be Christianity any more.

Besides, in over a billion people's opinion that Third Testament already exists. It's called the Qur'an.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: defiythelie

Not going to happen. A third testament would mean a whole new religion. It wouldn't be Christianity any more.

Besides, in over a billion people's opinion that Third Testament already exists. It's called the Qur'an.



Excellent point!

And and billions of people signed up



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: defiythelieWill there be a third testament add to the Christian bible in the future?
Well, the new covenant came because the old covenant failed. Since the present covenant is successful, there will be no third covenant.
edit on 15-5-2016 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: defiythelie

Not going to happen. A third testament would mean a whole new religion. It wouldn't be Christianity any more.

Besides, in over a billion people's opinion that Third Testament already exists. It's called the Qur'an.


As a sequel, it seems to have lost the franchise, perhaps it is more of a complete reboot?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Will the third testament be about how Man & Church have corrupted & prostituted the first two testaments?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: SmurfRider

What early Christians believed was far worse than modern Christians. They were far worse than modern day Islamic extremists today.


Of course everyone was far worse, so I'm not pointing at them and saying they were specifically the worst. Just that it was a barbaric time, led by barbaric people.


Humanity has always progressed. The good ole days myth is just nastolgia and wishful thinking. Sure it's always been sweet, if you were from the ruling class, but if you weren't....



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: defiythelie

Not going to happen. A third testament would mean a whole new religion. It wouldn't be Christianity any more.

Besides, in over a billion people's opinion that Third Testament already exists. It's called the Qur'an.


As a sequel, it seems to have lost the franchise, perhaps it is more of a complete reboot?


he he love the reference



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: defiythelie

Not going to happen. A third testament would mean a whole new religion. It wouldn't be Christianity any more.

Besides, in over a billion people's opinion that Third Testament already exists. It's called the Qur'an.


As a sequel, it seems to have lost the franchise, perhaps it is more of a complete reboot?



Oh oh!

Both left and right can recast their massiah!!

The right can go cast a warrior King, who hates the poor and government!!!



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes indeed. Exactly like the New Testament.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes indeed. Exactly like the New Testament.


Nah, it's a bit more like the Avengers Assembling after the Iron Man films.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
There are a great deal of New Testaments but you need them to be about your religion specifically so you have totally missed the mark on reading them.

I am writing my own Bible through the Holy Spirit called the new new new new testament.

Just kidding it is just called The True Testament.

The Word is going to reintroduce Reason and unite the divided Logos.

Then Wisdom will descend to rule with her love Logos and give birth to the Gnosis Child through sexual union. The Gnosis Child will restore the lost libraries of knowledge and teach the true history of the world and the Essence of the Unknown God and correct the false beliefs of the world through words and not miracles. They will know that he is telling the truth because they hear it and remember that they are from the Infinite and were not created spiritually by anyone but have existed for one instant less than the Creator who is Infinity and Infinite.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
We already have a third Testament- Worship Capitalism, Worship America, Worship the military, Worship guns, and liberals, scientists, sex and Socialists are bad, Amen.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: defiythelie

Not going to happen. A third testament would mean a whole new religion. It wouldn't be Christianity any more.

Besides, in over a billion people's opinion that Third Testament already exists. It's called the Qur'an.


As a sequel, it seems to have lost the franchise, perhaps it is more of a complete reboot?


Actually the Quran is a good third edition to the Bible. It is the same God and same basic beliefs with slight differences.

But the Bible itself is not consistent theologically so a few minor differences in beliefs is not a big deal.

Plus I am pretty sure that the author of the Quran had excellent knowledge of the NT and the Clementine writings of the Ebionites and Clements writings himself as the source of the fall of Iblis as Clement wrote the fall of Lucifer myth as having been orally communicated by Peter.

Pretty good chance that the Catholics created Islam as the universal church for Arabia and financed his endeavors. Mohammed was from a village of like 1000 people or something.

And they just de paganized Christianity. I don't see that as a reboot but a reform.

Christianity is the religion that doesn't know it's pagan and worships the sun as God on SUNday and celebrates Ishtar/Easter and Christmas or Tammuz birthday and worldwide pagan high holiday.

Basilica means serpent king.

Obelisks are pagan phallic symbols.

The only true followers of the historical society of the Nazarenes were all considered heretics even though they founded the church.

The only surviving Nazarenes are the Mandaeans of Iraq and they stop at John the Baptist. Jesus probably never existed in real life.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
The third Gospel is already being written a little bit at a time in the form of Superman comics and movies and TV shows. A thousand years from now, people will believe Superman actually existed, and will go to a big church with an "S" on top.

Superman is Christ the Warrior returned.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
The third Gospel is already being written a little bit at a time in the form of Superman comics and movies and TV shows. A thousand years from now, people will believe Superman actually existed, and will go to a big church with an "S" on top.

Superman is Christ the Warrior returned.


I think Ra's al ghul would make a great new devil. He can kick Batman's ass but not S man.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Parazurvan

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: defiythelie

Not going to happen. A third testament would mean a whole new religion. It wouldn't be Christianity any more.

Besides, in over a billion people's opinion that Third Testament already exists. It's called the Qur'an.


As a sequel, it seems to have lost the franchise, perhaps it is more of a complete reboot?


Actually the Quran is a good third edition to the Bible. It is the same God and same basic beliefs with slight differences.

But the Bible itself is not consistent theologically so a few minor differences in beliefs is not a big deal.

Plus I am pretty sure that the author of the Quran had excellent knowledge of the NT and the Clementine writings of the Ebionites and Clements writings himself as the source of the fall of Iblis as Clement wrote the fall of Lucifer myth as having been orally communicated by Peter.

Pretty good chance that the Catholics created Islam as the universal church for Arabia and financed his endeavors. Mohammed was from a village of like 1000 people or something.

And they just de paganized Christianity. I don't see that as a reboot but a reform.

Christianity is the religion that doesn't know it's pagan and worships the sun as God on SUNday and celebrates Ishtar/Easter and Christmas or Tammuz birthday and worldwide pagan high holiday.

Basilica means serpent king.

Obelisks are pagan phallic symbols.

The only true followers of the historical society of the Nazarenes were all considered heretics even though they founded the church.

The only surviving Nazarenes are the Mandaeans of Iraq and they stop at John the Baptist. Jesus probably never existed in real life.


You made several statements in this post that I would disagree with.

The first is that you stated that Allah, the god of Islam, is the same as YHWH Elohim, the God of the Bible. If you analyze the traits of both and what they condone and condemn, you will find that they are quite different, in more than just name, and despite the Islamic assertion that they are the same.

Similarly, the Qur'an suggests commission of acts of violence that would be regarded as sinful actions in the Bible.

The Bible does not have any theological inconsistencies that I know of. Most apparent inconsistencies are due to interpretative issues.

The author of the Qur'an was functionally illiterate but his brother-in-law was reportedly a Christian. Several stated assumptions (like the one that the Gospels made mention of Muhammad by name) are entirely incorrect. The author's only source texts, upon which he based his ideas of the Christian faith, were not the canonical books of the Bible.

The fall of Lucifer was from Ezekiel 28 & Isaiah 14, both about 700 years before Clement of Alexandria, so he couldn't be the source of the story.

Also, the Ebionites were a pre-Gnostic group that the real Clement of Alexandria opposed. It is only pseudo-Cementine writings that have been suggested to be Ebionite. These pseudo-Clementine writings date from hundreds of years after Clement and so he could not have written them.

The idea that the Catholics created Islam, a religion that opposes Christianity, in a region outside the Roman Empire, in a time when the center of the empire was moving northward, away from Arabia, is just laughable.

Muhammed was born in Mecca. It has been estimated that the population in about 570 AD, when he was born, was in the tens of thousands. It definitely was the richest of the three major centers at that time and so likely had a significant population.

As Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, it didn't have any pagan roots. From day one, Jesus spoke of the God of the Old testament, YHWH Elohim, as being God, despite there being so many pagan gods to choose from in the area and at the time. The New Testament writings are fairly clear that they did not regard pagan gods as anything more than fiction and worship of them as sinful.

Christians worship God on "the Lords day", the day Jesus arose from the dead. It wasn't until later, under the Emperor, Augustus, that the 7 day calendar week was established and Sunday made the first day of the week (also the month of Sextilis was renamed August in the same reform). The Christian day of worship just so happened to coincide with the Roman Sunday.

Easter took its name from a Germanic goddess, Ēostre. Yes, the English name is pagan in origin but the Christian celebrations and tradition are not. The name Easter, for the Paschal period, is also only used in the English speaking world due to our Anglo-Saxon origins. The non-English world calls it by other names, like Resurrection Sunday or Pascha. Since Christianity did not originally speak English, the origins of what we call Easter, was not pagan.

Christmas, December the 25th, is offset from the Roman Saturnalia by a number of days (17th December to 23rd December), so the assertion that it was the Roman pagan feast re-named is inaccurate. The choice for December the 25th has to do with a calculation of 9 month incubation period being added to the date when Mary was visited by the angel who told her of the pregnancy. This date was known because Zechariah, her uncle, was high priest and entered the Holiest of Holies in his duties - date affixed and definite on the Jewish calendar.

In Ezekiel 8: 14-15, worship of Tammuz, a Canaanite god, is clearly described as an "abomination". There is no mention of a birthday for Tammuz prior to the Christian era. The only early references to significant dates for Tammuz refer to the summer solstice (which oscillates around December 21st and 22nd) and refer to the death of Tammuz. So again, there are no pagan roots to Christmas.

The whole "Sol Invictus" cult only received 'official' status as an acceptable Roman cult 274 years after Christ, under the Emperor Auralian. Again there is no pagan root for Christmas.

The word Basilica is from the Greek βασιλικὴ στοά or Royal Stoa, the tribunal chamber of a king. It has nothing to do with Basilisk (βασιλίσκος) which means 'little king' and was ascribed to a mythical serpent.

The Greek for Obelisk, ὀβελός obelos, means "spit, nail, pointed pillar". To think that an angular pillar with a pyramid on top represents a phallus requires a particularly twisted view of Biology.

The Nazirite vow, which appears in Numbers 6:1-21, and which defines a Nazarite, existed some 1,500 years before Christ. Jesus was called a Nazarene because He had taken a Nazirite vow and also lived in a town called Nazareth. The Gnostic Gospel of Philip claimed that Nazara means "the truth". It doesn't.

The Aramaic "manda" means "knowledge," as does Greek "gnosis". So the Mandaeans are just Arabic Gnostics. Most scholars believe that the Mandaeans are descended from pagan Nabateans but modified their beliefs to accommodate Gnosticism and Islam. They also reject Abraham and Moses as false prophets, as they do with Jesus, so they are hardly anything to do with Nazarenes (either the town or those who have taken the oath).

I give your post an 8.3 on the Dan Brown BS scale.

edit on 19/5/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
In Romans chapter 3 verse seven Paul says this.
For if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie to his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Basically Paul says it's okay to lie for god. It's okay to lie when you are perpetuating the Jesus myth. Why believe any of it when the writer that most of modern Christianity is based on admits to lying for religion.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join