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.

 

Council of Nicea - NO reincarnation, NO books of the Bible

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
One thing I've never gotten about reincarnation: at the time of Christ there were only 200 million peple in the entire world. Today there a re 100 million more than that in america alone. Where did all the extra souls come from? It doesn't add up.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by GrandCourtJester]




posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
There are many more "souls" than there are people.....just because an entity is in the spirit doesn't mean it will want to incarnate. Many stay in the spirit form



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Hi LadyV,


Originally posted by LadyV
There are many more "souls" than there are people.....just because an entity is in the spirit doesn't mean it will want to incarnate. Many stay in the spirit form


I agree with that and would like to add that most souls in general are in the Spirit and not in a physical body.




posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I could be wrong here, but didn't Christ teach that you didn't need anyone to tell you about God? That he was in you? Also, isn't there some proof that Jesus was a fruitarian, never touching meat.

IMO from what I have read, I would think that if it were possible for Jesus to see what has happened to the seed he planted..... Or maybe it was his intent?

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34


HHHmmmmmmm



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
My memory is blurry right now, but I remember a show on educational television that talked of a pope in the middle ages who had naked little boys jump out of cakes and threw lavish parties that bankrupted the church. His way of raising money was to sell dispensation that absolved anyone of any sin merely for giving money to the church. This is the type of behaviour that totally nullifies the influence of the church in my eyes. I can no more believe the writings of men who do this than I can follow the writings of Charles Manson. Not to mention the Inquisition where charges were brought against people merely because the church coveted their lands and possesions and needed them conveniently out of the way. The Knights Templar come to mind here.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
I could be wrong here, but didn't Christ teach that you didn't need anyone to tell you about God? That he was in you?


His final words were a commissioning to go out and spread the word. Matthew 28:18 "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


Originally posted by Passer By
Also, isn't there some proof that Jesus was a fruitarian, never touching meat.


Matthew 15:10 suggest he didn't hold to any specific diet - "Jesus called the crowd to him and said, 'Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean', but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean." Then of course there's that incident of multiplying all the fish and bread to feed several thousands of people.


Originally posted by Passer By
IMO from what I have read, I would think that if it were possible for Jesus to see what has happened to the seed he planted..... Or maybe it was his intent?


Jesus is seeing what is happenening and is his intent all according to the will of God. He returns in Revelation. There are many quotes about God's plan, but my favorite is Jeremiah 9:11 "For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Hope this helps.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
My memory is blurry right now, but I remember a show on educational television that talked of a pope in the middle ages who had naked little boys jump out of cakes and threw lavish parties that bankrupted the church. His way of raising money was to sell dispensation that absolved anyone of any sin merely for giving money to the church. This is the type of behaviour that totally nullifies the influence of the church in my eyes. I can no more believe the writings of men who do this than I can follow the writings of Charles Manson. Not to mention the Inquisition where charges were brought against people merely because the church coveted their lands and possesions and needed them conveniently out of the way. The Knights Templar come to mind here.


This seems a little confused. Why do the acts of a medieval villain show that those who lived before him, and whose reputation he abused for profit, were liars?

The Templars were of course seized because Philip the Fair, King of France, wanted their (church) money. Does that mean that we should treat everyone not in the church as you suggest? Surely not?

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Seapeople
 


I could not agree more! The people that went for that famous conference have virtuall changed the world (either by adding or the refusal to add) books.
Deep in me, i have a feeling that there is something about christianity that some people feel it is best kept under the lid.
Emmanuel



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Iasion
 


hello i agree ive just been through this on another thread

www.belowtopsecret.com...

there is much evidence to say that the books as we have it were around way before this.

david



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Sain4god -

You've been shown many times that the Council of Nicea did not choose the books of the bible.

But,
you continue to repeat this false claim.

Why?
Don't you care that everyone sees you are wrong?


K.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Hinduism and Buddhism believe in Reincarnation.

I'm a cafeteria catholic and in the Apostles Creed I remember it stating "LIFE AFTER DEATH".

That could be interrupted as coming back to Earth in a new body & life!



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Iasion
 


Regardless of whether Nicea tampered with the Bible it is apparent that there are books which exist that did not make it into the final Bible including numerous Gospels that were tossed out. Further changes to Christian beliefs were made by the Romans.

My belief is that the moment Christianity became a State Sponsored religion it went from being about love and Jesus' teachings and became bastardized. The Romans and later people in power used it to uphold horrors untold, torture, genocide, forced conversions, inquisitions and the suppression of science.

The Nicea Council may not have called all the shots but that does not mean the Bible didn't change over time. I do not think reincarnation is explicitly mentioned in the Bible or that it ever was in any of the books though something like it might have been mentioned.

The Bible we ended up with is imperfect and contradicts itself, whoever it was that decided on what books made it in, even if they didn't cover it up, did a poor job as the book presents a wishy-washy bipolar deity half merciful and half genocidal. Even if reincarnation had made it into the Bible what difference would it make? Why cover-up reincarnation at all, what threat did it pose to those in power? How could it have posed any more threat than a Carpenter's belief that the meek would inherit the Earth and that a poor man's salvation was like passing a camel through the eye of a needle?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Iasion
 


Regardless of whether Nicea tampered with the Bible


The CoN had NOTHING to do with it.



Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Further changes to Christian beliefs were made by the Romans.


Really?
Please show some examples.




Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
The Nicea Council may not have called all the shots but that does not mean the Bible didn't change over time.


The CoN had NOTHING to do with choosing the books of the bible.


K.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Many holidays, such as the Festival of Saturnalia, would later become Christian holidays like Christmas. The celebration of birthdays was considered a pagan practice.

Constantine, the Emperor, was also responsible for the use of the Cross and the Cross is directly tied into Jesus' existence as a Solar Deity. I am not sure whether Jesus was a solar deity before or after the Romans but I imagine the Roman control over the religion helped further Jesus as a Solar Deity. The Cross is a symbol of the zodiac with four sections representing four seasons and typically a circle in the middle representing the Sun (or Son in the case of Jesus).

Later Saints, a Holy Trinity, and other aspects were added and played up to attract converts from various polytheistic peoples. Seems when they weren't oppressing or forcing people of other religions to convert they were altering their own religion to attract pagans. Things like altars were added to churches, lot's of Gold and rituals (Hail Mary's and the like).

I'm no expert (obviously) on what changes Christianity has gone through but regardless of how it has changed and who changed it it definitely went down hill after it became state-sponsored. Very few of the changes made seem at all related to Christ or his teachings.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

Constantine, the Emperor, was also responsible for the use of the Cross and the Cross is directly tied into Jesus' existence as a Solar Deity.


The use of the cross as a symbol by Christians had been in use since soon after the crucifixion and was widely associated with Christians 2 centuries prior to Constantine.

Eric



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
For all the ants in the world are together heavier then it's humans.

Reincarnation was thousands of years before and a little less after it around. You just have to walk towards the East and not the West.

Then, is every evidence on the Internet 100 % reliable ?!!

For example use a translation program to translate a text.
It always comes out with flaws and have of it what is right only is the translation of that single word. The context ripped to shreds !

And translation problems are the least of the problems.

Imagine what a evil corrupting mind can do with a text !



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The Council of Nicea
did NOT
choose the books of the bible.

Amazing that people keep repeating that false claim.

K.



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Ok you're right.

They did however chose what was left out.
If you are so convinced they didn't

Please convince me ?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Kapyong
 

Ok you're right.
They did however chose what was left out.


No they didn't.
Why do you say that?
Where is your evidence?



Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
If you are so convinced they didn't
Please convince me ?


(Well, why didn't you just read the thread, where I explain in detail?)

But, OK -

1.
Here are the minutes of the meeting - the canons of the Council of Nicea - an official church document, the formal decisions reached by the council :

www.newadvent.org...

If you read that official church record of the Council of Nicea, you will see NO mention of the books of the bible being discussed AT ALL.


2.
Here is a discussion including the historical accounts OF the meeting, some by people who were THERE :
www.tertullian.org...

If you read those references, you will see NONE of them mention the books of the bible being discussed at the council.


3.
This site discusses the formation of the NT :
www.ntcanon.org...

You will see there that the Council of Nicea did NOT play a part in choosing the books of the bible.


So, there we see clear and present evidence that the Council of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the bible in any way - they did NOT decide what was left out, they did NOT decide what was left in.

They did NOT discuss the subject AT ALL.

Why do YOU think they did, Sinter Klaas?

Did you hear someone say it, and believe it without checking the facts?
Like most people on this site?


K.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Thank you. for the links.

But it seems they do not back you up.

Edit. to ad.
What I think ? I think the churge offered tptb of the day an easy way to control the masses while using their spiritual believes as guidelines.

At the time of Nicea the whole thing got together uniting as a whole. Nothing more. Bad intentions do not have to be anonymous just one of them is enough to bring chaos, lies and deceit.
Oh... not by the council but at Nicea will work for me just as well.


The Apostolic Fathers seldom make express citations from New Testament writings. On the contrary we have allusions and reminiscences that are often difficult to identify and delicate to interpret. At most, the Apostolic Fathers disclose for this or that geographic area an amount of knowledge and use of several 1st century documents that later came to be gathered into what we know as the New Testament.

Because of delicate and easy to misinterpreted we relied on the apostolistic fathers ???
Documents were gathered in what later became the new testament ?




The exact meaning of the concluding words has been taken in a half dozen different senses. Two of the most popular are, that the pages had 'three or four columns of script', or that as the copies were completed, they were sent off for the emperor's inspection 'three or four at a time'. The astonishing thing is that Eusebius, who took care to tell us at some length about the fluctuations of opinion in regard to certain books, has not one word to say regarding the choice he made on this important occasion. Of course, 50 magnificent copies, all uniform, could not but exercise a great influence on great influence on future copies, at least within the bounds of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and would help forward the process of arriving at a commonly accepted New Testament in the East.


I'm sorry but doesn't the above text proof there were choices made.
And that they are made within the bounds of the patriarchate of Constantinople.( the powers that be those days even. You can most definitely rely on the tptb to be reliable.
)
It is a fact that one choice between two different options will mean one of them is left out.



Epistle to the Laodiceans


You tell me ?

I would also like to ad that evidence provided or found what is coming from the party which is already the one being questioned about it's part of the story is the truth. Is not really convincing.

Got any more ?
Oh and please point out exactly where and what. It isn't necessary for me to read the entire site.

Oh I failed to see any evidence supporting your point of view. Am I missing something ? Maybe...?



[edit on 21-3-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Sinter Klaas]




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join