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

a reply to: chr0naut

No, just about everything you said was just an attempt at engaging me in a debate when I just stated facts and there is nothing to debate.

Not to mention misled, wrong and a little naive.

Gnostic is an altogether incorrect term to describe any religion as it was used to designate a good 20-25 churches the Catholics disagreed with that never even used the term for themselves. It's an umbrella term for any heresy in the days of the early church including the Ebionites and the Nazarenes.

They are Mandaeans, their prophet is John the Baptist for thousands of years so just because they don't accept your religion you deem them Gnostic. Shows how little you understand history.

Which brings us to Lucifer, a non entity.

Schachar ( eosphorus or phosphorus) is the Canaanite goddess that erroneously got mistaken for pre fall Satan when it is a myth about a goddess with a twin named Shalim, (from where we get Salem and Shalom),and both have sex with El and have children.

Did Lucifer and God have sex?

a reply to: Parazurvan

The Lucifer references in the bible had nothing to do with a supernatural entity but a king.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I'm not expecting revelation to come to pass. John spelled out that the number of the beast was Nero and revelation was a commentary on the times he was living in.

a reply to: chr0naut

The word Lucifer didn't even exist 700 years before Clement and neither did the tradition of a fallen angel named Satan.

Jews never interpreted Isaiah 14:12 as referring to anything other than the King of Babylon.

They knew who Shachar and Shalim the Canaanite goddesses the whole time and do today. It is impossible to know the identity and origin of the goddesses and Interpret them as talking to or about Satan. Simply allegorizing an old myth to make a point to the King. And they are females, the planet Venus is always female.

The fact that every biblical scholar in the world knows this and you could read it on Wikipedia but somehow have never learned about the Lucifer fiasco is mind boggling to me.

So how am I to know that you were unaware of common biblical knowledge and have a serious debate with you?

Someone who determines for the Mandaeans the nature of their religion, who has never read anything besides what you just learned ten minutes ago no doubt, and knows nothing about the Mandaeans or what Gnostic means.

Gnostic/gnosis is simply knowledge of a spiritual nature.

The Greeks had a separate word for intellectual knowledge other than gnosis.

Clement of Alexandria wrote about what a true Gnostic is and it was very non dogmatic and more like proverbs. He was said to be very tolerant and accepting of the Greeks philosophy and did not shy away from the term but defined it in line with the principles of the gospel.


Gnostic means nothing to the Mandaeans. It is neither insult nor compliment as they care little about the outside world and have kept the tradition of John the Baptist alive for 2000 years. They would by virtue of John be considered Nozrim or Nazarene if not in name in truth and spirit.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
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.

Out of context quote, again.

Here's the full thing (from the Amplified bible): "Then what is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God [His very words]. What then? If some did not believe or were unfaithful [to God], their lack of belief will not nullify and make invalid the faithfulness of God and His word, will it? Certainly not! Let God be found true [as He will be], though every person be found a liar, just as it is written [in Scripture],

“That You may be justified in Your words,
And prevail when You are judged [by sinful men].”

But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? God is not wrong to inflict His wrath [on us], is He? (I am speaking in purely human terms.) 6 Certainly not! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? But [as you might say] if through my lie God’s truth was magnified and abounded to His glory, why am I still being judged as a sinner? And why not say, (as some slanderously report and claim that we teach) “Let us do evil so that good may come of it”? Their condemnation [by God] is just.

Well then, are we [Jews] better off than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks (Gentiles) are under the control of sin and subject to its power. As it is written and forever remains written,

“There is none righteous [none that meets God’s standard], not even one".

It is plain that he is posing a hypothetical and saying that the end does NOT justify a lie.

... and I suspect you are Gnosisfaith back from 'the world of the banned'.

a reply to: Joecanada11

Why are you telling me what I just said to someone else and for the second time (for them)?

Slow down and read the messages.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Parazurvan

The Lucifer references in the bible had nothing to do with a supernatural entity but a king.

I am going to quote you though because not everyone is aware of the facts about Isaiah and him talking to a Babylonian King.

They still think he was talking to pre fall Satan and don't realize that Lucifer is not a Hebrew concept in the OT or Tanakh, no such being exists and Ha Satan never fell.

a reply to: chr0naut

First off the amplified is the absolute worst translation you could use. It contains more speculation and words that werent originally found. Everything in brackets is pure apologetics and twisting to fix the true mess found within.

And I'm not gnosisfaith. Im just smart enough not to follow doctrine of a man who claims he had visions but never met Jesus and makes up his own doctrine.

a reply to: Parazurvan

I was doing it for their benefit not yours.

a reply to: chr0naut

Here's some more information about Paul who preached his own gospel.

Paul's reference that the Corinthians easily put up with someone else teaching them about "another Jesus" appears to be another reference, similar to Galatians ch. 2, where Paul believes the true 12 apostles were teaching about "Jesus," but that Jesus was different and distinct from the one whom Paul was teaching about. Sadly, Paul never sought to make sure that Paul had known the teachings of the true Jesus. Rather, Paul in Galatians 2 is proud he learned "nothing" from the 12 about Jesus, and it shows in his epistles -- for not once does Paul make any quotation of Jesus, or even a very close allusion to something Jesus said. The only exception is Paul quoted the liturgy contained in the last supper. And that perhaps is the only thing in common between the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of the 12 -- and Paul recognized that in 2 Cor. 11:4.

jesuswordsonly.com...

His messages were clearly different than those preached in the gospel and hence why I have left the faith. That and many other inconsistencies. You see it Jesus actually truly gave Paul his revelation it should match up with those teachings of the gospels. It does not match up however and when you realize that the whole story falls apart.

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: chr0naut

No, just about everything you said was just an attempt at engaging me in a debate when I just stated facts and there is nothing to debate.

Not to mention misled, wrong and a little naive.

Gnostic is an altogether incorrect term to describe any religion as it was used to designate a good 20-25 churches the Catholics disagreed with that never even used the term for themselves. It's an umbrella term for any heresy in the days of the early church including the Ebionites and the Nazarenes.

They are Mandaeans, their prophet is John the Baptist for thousands of years so just because they don't accept your religion you deem them Gnostic. Shows how little you understand history.

Which brings us to Lucifer, a non entity.

Schachar ( eosphorus or phosphorus) is the Canaanite goddess that erroneously got mistaken for pre fall Satan when it is a myth about a goddess with a twin named Shalim, (from where we get Salem and Shalom),and both have sex with El and have children.

Did Lucifer and God have sex?

I said nothing about Lucifer, except that the story originated from Isaiah and Ezekiel. I am well aware that the Latin translation of the name "Lucifer" did not exist in the original text (which was in Hebrew).

You are replying to an argument that is all in your head.

Your comments consistently ignore the concepts running through the entire Bible in favor of a few out of context verses that you interpret differently than the majority.

Would spiritual beings require a genetic combinatory process? My guess is, no.

The fact that you don't seem to be able to conceive of entities that are beyond sexuality, gender and other physical attributes might indicate the weakness of your fundamental proposition. Your idea of 'god' is cartoonish. A word of Marvel characters.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: chr0naut

First off the amplified is the absolute worst translation you could use. It contains more speculation and words that werent originally found. Everything in brackets is pure apologetics and twisting to fix the true mess found within.

And I'm not gnosisfaith. Im just smart enough not to follow doctrine of a man who claims he had visions but never met Jesus and makes up his own doctrine.

Oh, come on, pro-Gnostic, anti-Pauline, Lucifer is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church, the roots of the Bible are pantheistic and pagan, you only just joined a day or so ago, you like Marvel villains, you make sweeping and unsubstantiated claims, you never supply good supportive links from recommended sources, everything you quote is from the KJV, you reply to arguments that no-one proposed. I could go on...

Admit it, you are gnosisfaith/Parazurvan

I'm just waiting to be called a liar and for reference to Zoroastrianism. That would complete the profile, wouldn't it S.M.L.

a reply to: chr0naut

Because I made a reference to Paul's teachings being different from Christ? That's your evidence that I am gnosisfaith? Sorry man you've really got the wrong guy. I'm not pro Gnostic at all. I'm an agnostic atheist.

I joined in March and I've never made any comments about marvel villains nor have I made sweeping claims of any kind without sources. I do agree that Paul taught a different message than Jesus but I don't believe in God or Zoroastrianism or any of it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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

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.


Christians worship God on "the Lords day", the day Jesus arose from the dead. It wasn't until later, under the Empero

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.

I can't erase anymore. This is your rant about everything I said including " the fall of Lucifer is from..."

There is no fall of Lucifer, their is an oral tradition and an Arabic scroll that is Clementine in origin pseudo, Ebionite or otherwise. I mentioned clearly that there were multiple Clementine traditions from the Homiles and Ebionites but I guess repeating what I say makes you feel like you did...something.

Whether or not Catholicism had a hand in Islam is only something you would know if you read the Arabic Clementine writings and you haven't. The tradition borrows Jesus and the Virgin and prophets but yeah, its "laughable" to think. More like obvious.

Functional illiterate author? No, I think you are talking about Muhammad but a prophet speaks the words he is given and a scribe scribes. That is the Spirit so the author was either informed of Christianity and dictated or was a prophet but either way if you think the Arabs don't have Patriarch, Prophet and Messiah stories you are wrong as hell.

The Ebionites and Nazarenes both dwealt at Qumran with the Zadokites and Chasidim so they are interchangeable theologically and in association with locations in Egypt as well and Syria. In fact they called Qumran Damascus in addition to the Syrian Damascus.

And I don't care what farcical tale you are listening to, Nozrim was the word for Nazirite in the OT, at Qumran and in the modern Hebrew tounge a Christian is a Nozrim.

a reply to: chr0naut

And what are you arguing that Easter is not Ishtar? Your just wrong and the etymology is both obvious, known and provable.

Tammuz was the first Christmas also. Fact. The tree, mistletoe and yule log are all in the Old Testament and it is a historical fact that Tammuz was a ressurected Nimrod on the Winter Solstice at the same time as we celebrate Christmas they celebrated his birthday in our modern fashion.

Pagan Christmas Pagan Easter you just have not yet learned it for some miraculous reason despite the majority of informed Christians hip to paganization of Christ and not participating as the early pilgrims did. Christmas was illegal in Massachusetts in the colonial times, for a time. Easter too.

You really need to study history more if you are going to rant like that because you are just filling the screen with almost a commentary on my comments and you think you are arguing with me but every word you say backs up what I say and you are not aware.

Are you Mishnah-ing me? I sense an adversarial vibe but you are not refuting me because I know my facts. Your attempts are just falling flat and hot air.


It's really bizarre.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: chr0naut

Because I made a reference to Paul's teachings being different from Christ? That's your evidence that I am gnosisfaith? Sorry man you've really got the wrong guy. I'm not pro Gnostic at all. I'm an agnostic atheist.

I joined in March and I've never made any comments about marvel villains nor have I made sweeping claims of any kind without sources. I do agree that Paul taught a different message than Jesus but I don't believe in God or Zoroastrianism or any of it.

Apologies.

a reply to: chr0naut

All good I've witnessed the spectacle known as gnosisfaith and seen a few of his incarnations.

a reply to: chr0naut

Having a word that has a knowledge base in your religion doesn't make you a Gnostic.

Hinduism is defined as the search for truth
Greeks defined all religions as the search for truth.

You have crucified as the root of Christian do you crucify yourself?

Having a knowledge, wisdom or truth based religion is just smart. Mandaeans are followers of John the Baptist. Gnostic is an abstract term with no church claiming that title .

It isn't a religion or a type of religion but a sarcastic epithet used by Catholics mostly as a term to sum up every "heresy"

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: chr0naut

And what are you arguing that Easter is not Ishtar? Your just wrong and the etymology is both obvious, known and provable.

...

Because Easter isn't Ishtar. Scientific American: Anthropology in Practice: Beyond Ishtar: The Tradition of Eggs at Easter.

Kitab Al-Magall Arabic rolls of Clement

Mandaeans John-Book

Note: G.R.S. Mead the translator applies Gnostic to the term Mandaeans only because this sect was dubbed Gnostic by the church and is a Theosophist himself and clearly declares they have nothing to do with the "Gnostic" systems of anyone accepting no prophet after John. Or other than John.