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.

 

The "Gnostic" texts "heresy"? Old Testament God different then New Testament God? Roman church?.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
This has been bugging me a lot lately as I have read some of the main info. on the "Gnostic" texts and some could make sense to me even though a lot of it is said to be "heresy" by the Roman church as it has some radically different takes on things that did not agree with the Roman church's take on things back in the day.
Especially the part of the God of the Old Testament being a different and lesser God then the New Testament that Jesus called Father.
It does seem that the God of the Old Testament is a much more violent, jealous God then the ever loving "Father" God of the New Testament/Jesus.
Is it "heresy" like the Roman church exclaimed or could there be truth to the "Gnostic" texts?
I am hoping to get views from those of you on here that often comment on threads like this.


[edit on 30-7-2005 by GREGNOW]




posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Its about time someone brought this up. Yes you are right, Jesus taught a different God. The Jews believe in a God that required a blood offering. The True God does not require this. Listen to what he tells Isaiah. Ch.66 verse 3 " He that killeth an Ox is as if he slew a man. He that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dogs neck...." This here is a good example of the true almighty spirit. He does not require blood sacrifice. The Jews fear their God. The true God also sends his angels. he is of spirit. he has no form. but he sends his messengers.
notice john 8-44 what he tells the Jews. " You are of your father the devil...."
also notice... Davids sent to slew men women and children, but to save the virgins for himself.( ot) moses is told by God " thou shall not kill" this also is a good example of the two Gods. if one would take the time you would see this. why would God say thou shall not kill, but then send David to slew hundreds of men women children? Their are people that do not have eyes to see or ears to hear.
this is just a few examples.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I don't want to make this a thread talking bad about the Jews though. I do like the points you bring up though also.
The thing i am mainly talking about is that the Gnostic texts talk about the Old testament god being an "ignorant" God that came into form by a mistake of a female partner (of sorts) to the almighty God who is a spirit (the Holy Spirit?). The "ignorant" god then after coming into being thought himself to be the only God there was higher then any other beings as he was not aware of where he actually came from. They then say that Jesus was sent to give knowledge of this.
They also say in some though that Jesus was actually the "serpent" of Genesis that tried to warn man of things.
It is all a bit confusing as there were early Christian sects that believed all this but the Roman Church called them heresy and excluded their books from the main cannon that was made to form the Bible that the Roman church put together.
I am hoping there are those on this site that has more knowledge of all this and i want to hear there views on these things.
also i am not saying Jesus taught a different God. i am saying i am confused on things, because the Bible put together by the Roman church says that Jesus tought the same God as the Old Testament, but the Gnostic texts says different.
However to me there seems to be differences to the God of the Old Testament and New Testament, so i am trying to get views on all of this.

[edit on 30-7-2005 by GREGNOW]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
``

sure the Gnostic is considered a heresy- ->
As the roman church you cite as authority, is self described as being an 'Apostolic Church'- ->
which differs big time from the 'Orthodox' Church- ->
and both differ from Jewish antiquity and their Tribal G-d-....
which you are familiar with in the OT of Christianity...

?weren't the muslims also heretics in the crusader eras?

its just that right now, Gnostics are not seen as a threat
but that could change overnight...when they are lumped
together with the present scourge, i.e.... 'Islamofascists'



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GREGNOW
I don't want to make this a thread talking bad about the Jews though. I do like the points you bring up though also.
The thing i am mainly talking about is that the Gnostic texts talk about the Old testament god being an "ignorant" God that came into form by a mistake of a female partner (of sorts) to the almighty God who is a spirit (the Holy Spirit?). The "ignorant" god then after coming into being thought himself to be the only God there was higher then any other beings as he was not aware of where he actually came from. They then say that Jesus was sent to give knowledge of this.
They also say in some though that Jesus was actually the "serpent" of Genesis that tried to warn man of things.
It is all a bit confusing as there were early Christian sects that believed all this but the Roman Church called them heresy and excluded their books from the main cannon that was made to form the Bible that the Roman church put together.
I am hoping there are those on this site that has more knowledge of all this and i want to hear there views on these things.
also i am not saying Jesus taught a different God. i am saying i am confused on things, because the Bible put together by the Roman church says that Jesus tought the same God as the Old Testament, but the Gnostic texts says different.
However to me there seems to be differences to the God of the Old Testament and New Testament, so i am trying to get views on all of this.

[edit on 30-7-2005 by GREGNOW]
Yes.. You are on the right track. I did not mean to say anything bad about the Jews, what I am saying is that their God they followed was one you had to offer blood sacrifice too. The Jews are who they are, and I respect that.
Gen 1 you have Elohim, ( Gods) Gen 2-4 its Lord God. which simply means leader of the Gods. I say this would be the one that strayed away and demanded to be call the Leader.( took a third with him) He formed a man of the dirt.
Gen 3 you have a Lord, and then times Lord god. this clearly shows two different things going on. The truth has been distorted on purpose. The Serpent in the Garden, you are right, this is clearly the man of Galillee. teaching the way to immortality. ( parable of the sower clearly shows what happen)
as for loss of immortality " A Flaming sword to block the way to the tree of life"



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I have listened to several hours of gnostic speaches. I think they worship the sun. It made a lot of sense. But I still beleive in God.

They used a lot of chemicals and mushrooms to be spiritual.

Here is a very interesting link:

www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com...


[edit on 30-7-2005 by MauiStacey]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
MAUISTACY, i am really not sure you are correct in your post. Maybe you were part of a group that were calling theselves "gnostic" and did things there way.
I am talking about the real gnostics of early Christain sects and the texts they wrote which were at odds with the texts in the Bible put together by the Roman church.
I am pretty sure they did not worship the sun. It seems to me they talk about an ultimate spirit (the Holy Spirit?) that is above the God of the new Testament. Also i am pretty sure there is no mention of drug use in the gnostic texts.

CHASRAC64, a point you bring up is something i always wondered about also. It seems like there at times is more then one God in the Old Testament, like where in Genesis it says let US create man in OUR image. Which then makes me wonder about the Sumerian texts. Zach Sitchen and if there is then truth to them.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
This info helped me understand the two gods of the bible

www.mindtoysrus.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
here are a few of the quotes being referenced.

Hypostasis of the Arcons,

[ because of his] power and his ignorance [and his arrogance]
he said..., " It is I who am God; there is none [other apart from
me]." When he said this he sinned against [the Entirety]. And
a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power,
saying, " You are mistaken, Samael," which means " god of the blind"


On the Origin of the World
... he boasted continually, saying to (the angels)... I am God, no other
one exists except me." But When he said these things, he sinned
against all of the immortal ones... when Faithsaw the impiety of the chief ruler,
she was angry.... she said, "You err, Samael (blind god)." An enlightened,
immortal humanity exists before you.


Secret Book of John

in his madness ... he said, "I am God and there is no other God beside me,"
for he is ignorant of ... the place from which he had come.... And when he saw
the creation which surrounds him and the multitudes of angels around him
which had come forth from him, he said to them, " I am a jelous God, and there
is no other God beside me." But by announcing this he indicatedto the angels that
another God does exist; for if there were no other one, of whom would he be
jealous?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Thanks for the links and quotes. i guess my question now is how do we know though that this is the "truth" and not "heresy"? How can we know these texts were not forged or made up?
I have read where there was a lot of forgeries in those early days.
I ask because i have a lot of conflict insdie myself over all this.
The "Gnostic" texts seem to answer a lot of the conflicts i have had over things in the Bible the way it is presented to us by the Roman church from back in 300AD.
How can we know that the "gnostic" text speak the truth? Is there actually any way to know?
The truth is that if the "gnostic" texts are the "truth" then that would make a lot of the Roman churck's views on things and the current canon of the bible to actually be the "heresy".
I feel all of this is very sensitive when it comes to the sake of the soul knowing the "truth".
Any more help on all this?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
He chose Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the real deal and figured the rest were not. But he cannot be said to have been infallible, so unless God guided his hand, he might have missed some authentic accounts, like the 'secret book of John', the gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc. I have this crazy theory that the Joanna who the KJAV names as being with Mary at the tomb that morning, is John. It is not beyond imagination for the sex to have been changed, inadvertantly, or otherwise. The two names are very similar, in many languages. Maybe the scribes forgot, and assumed John was a man? thats what I think, it answers a lot. could be totally wrong, I don't know what happened.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I was asked to give my vierw on God as I interpret him from the bible.

I believe that God the Father, Son (word or Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are all one. John 5:7 says so. John 1:1 says that Jesus is God and is with God. just like I am with myself and I am myself.

Jesus was born of a virgin, that is very important to remember. if he was born because Joseph got Mary to conceive, that would not be good. see we are all born into sin because of adam, not eve. eve was deceived, adam was not deceived, you can find this in I Timothy 2:14.

this is the reason why Jesus was not born by means of sexual relations between Joseph and Mary.

Also remember that God is not limited by Time, Space or Matter. God can exist outside, inside, and throughout of all three. he is not limited by any.

Jesus did not talk about a different God than the God of Genesis he refered to the books of Moses a few times. and the books of moses talked about the creator, obviously Jesus is not talking about a different God.


But by announcing this he indicatedto the angels that
another God does exist; for if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous?


here is is talking about the gods that we make for ourselves. money can be made a god. anything that comes before God becomes a god to us. that is what he is refering to. basically it goes back to the first to commandments, do not worship any other gods and number two, do not make for yourselves any idols or images.

idols or images can be made into gods by the mind of men, also gods can be made up by the mind of men, God is telling us to keep him first and he is jealious when we dont put him first. basically he wants our undivided attention.

as for God being three in one, the best analogy I can think of that I have posted on another site is;

God is like 1 to the third power. 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
God is not 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

we try to think of him as the second example.

the second analogy I can think of is this;

God is like water.
water has three forms, Ice, Liquid, and vapor.
water can be in all three forms and it is still water.


EC



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GREGNOW
MAUISTACY, i am really not sure you are correct in your post. Maybe you were part of a group that were calling theselves "gnostic" and did things there way.
I am talking about the real gnostics of early Christain sects and the texts they wrote which were at odds with the texts in the Bible put together by the Roman church.
I am pretty sure they did not worship the sun. It seems to me they talk about an ultimate spirit (the Holy Spirit?) that is above the God of the new Testament. Also i am pretty sure there is no mention of drug use in the gnostic texts.
Greg, I would say that there is alittle truth in alot that has been researched. maybe not all, but there is truth out their and the only way to find this is to keep researching. There is a resond why they are finding these buried written text. They had to hide them from the one that are responsible for the deception. ( to keep them from being destroyed) so all truth is not lost. keep searching
CHASRAC64, a point you bring up is something i always wondered about also. It seems like there at times is more then one God in the Old Testament, like where in Genesis it says let US create man in OUR image. Which then makes me wonder about the Sumerian texts. Zach Sitchen and if there is then truth to them.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Greg, There is a resond why they are finding these buried scriptures. They were hid away to keep from being destroyed. There is a little truth in all you read. keep researching and the history of the church. This same system is at work and has been for centuries.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
'John 1:1 says that Jesus is God and is with God. just like I am with myself and I am myself.

Jesus was born of a virgin, that is very important to remember. if he was born because Joseph got Mary to conceive, that would not be good. see we are all born into sin because of adam, not eve. eve was deceived, adam was not deceived, you can find this in I Timothy 2:14.

this is the reason why Jesus was not born by means of sexual relations between Joseph and Mary.'
Evolution cruncher.

John 1.1 is supposedly identical to a verse in the Hindu Vedas. Since they both agree, it does add some more credibility to the quotes veracity. And then if you read the description of the scientific explanation of the beginning, which starts off with a one dimensional singularity which contains all creation as one, which is very similar a concept, you have three very similar accounts. But, from my research, it is unclear if the Vedas wrote it first, and were the original source for the quote, or the Bible is. I lean towards the Vedas.
Jesus 'may' have been born of a virgin.... or may not have, which is what I feel is more likely. That is very important for me to remember, just me though. The serpent as a bringer of enlightenment is a common theme. The thing that he promised would happen did, they became enlightened. So I fail to see where Eve was deceived. Adamae and Edenu have been cited as being Babylonian terms meaning earthling and paradise. They named the first God/human hybrid Adamae, in their texts. I am not sure who to credit with the source of those terms either.
Finally, I see the sequence of events leading to Jesus conception to be more likely to be from sex....between Joseph and Mary, and possibly kept quiet because they were only engaged, and not officially married at the time of the 'sin', which I see as no sin at all, just a cultural taboo of the time.
Pretty different views, for sure. I am by no means certain of any of my speculation, it is just my most plausible scenario. But you seem sure what happened, and I cannot see how that is possible.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
'anything that comes before God becomes a god to us. that is what he is refering to. basically it goes back to the first to commandments, do not worship any other gods and number two, do not make for yourselves any idols or images. '

evolution cruncher

So then the actual literal meaning of the words in the Bible is wrong? God didn't mean what he said? I find that hard to swallow. If he meant other than what the Bible says in Deuteronomy, as you seem to be saying above, by adding in the bit about him not meaning 'god' when he says 'god', but instead meaning 'not god, but a false god that we create', then why follow that up with a redundant commandment? You are saying that he didn't mean what he said, and that one commandment is don't worship things that are not god, but that you think are god, and then the next commandment is don't worship things that are not god , but that you think are god.
I find the concept that god meant what it says, what he wrote, and did not mean something that he didn't write, that echoes the very next commandment. That he would be redundant is hard for me to imagine, especially when that is not what is written.
That I am right is by no means certain, but I think the most likely meaning is what he wrote.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
You are so right on! Listen, About the Adam, Does this not mean Mankind? also about Eve, this name does not show up until chapter 4 of Gen.
so if a woman was taken out of man, and then Man is thrown out of the Garden ( Gen22-24 only says man) then gen chapter 5 you got that they were both called Adam=mankind. can you clear some this up.?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I say that God told Eve when Adam was created, "Men need to think that they were first, so let him believe that." And Eve agreed that that was best, but that She created Eve first in reality. All men are women at first in the womb, then they become male.
But the idea that the temple rooftop meetings between priests and Goddesses/Aliens in ancient Babylon led to a new hybrid species, us, may have happened. It is as possible as the bible account, and I think more probable, but by no means any where near certain to be correct. The Balinese say their king 400+ generations ago did the same, and the ancient carving depicting his ET partner, looks like the movie character ET was patterned on her. They could have been sisters. David Icke says that rh -ve blood is Martian, and blond hair and blue eyes are Martian traits. I'm Martian then. but he could be wrong.
Of course some of my post is meant to be light-hearted, which may not appeal to some, but I say that Spirit, or God, Gaia, or whatever, has a great sense of humour, and that life is too short to take too seriously. It is really more fun to have fun. Not having fun, is not fun. And I am glad that I chose to believe that eventually, better late than never.
The homo sapiens sapiens appear on the paleological scene around 200 000 years ago, in theory. but the dating of fossils, and immense time frame makes that a guess at best. But it does appear that Cro Magnons arrived relatively recently onto the scene, and quickly thereafter Neanderthals virtually disappeared, with only myself and a handful of other neanderthals left today. I also like the theory that Adam's rib story might be the attempt by the Goddess/God/Alien's to explain genetic engineering to the ancient earthlings, who had no word for genes, DNA, RNA, chromosomes, etc. They might have had to really dumb it down for us to get the general idea of the concept. Then our mistranslation of stewardship to mean dominion was a big ooooooops. Oh, you meant look afte the garden, not use it all up....ooops.

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   
GREGNOW.......

first of all People have to stop thinking that ROMAN stands and means ROMAN CATHOLIC of which is in Rome now and is the head of the church.
This was not so before 1054....There was no HEAD OF THE CHURCH.....Jesus Christ said He was and He was the cornerstone.......giving authority to His Apostles to Build the Church upon the faith of Saint Peter who recognized Jesus Christ as the Son of God/The Messiah that was prophesied ....to complete the CHURCH of the Old Testament(which was still in use ''sacrificial Law'' ) Jesus Christ had to fullfill the Old Testament Law ...On Sacrifice ......
25. Pascha (Passover) and the Exodus from Egypt........
QUOTE///Before the tenth plague, the Lord commanded the Hebrews to choose for each family a lamb that was one year old, slaughter it, cook it and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, without breaking any of its bones.
They were then to smear the blood of the lamb onto the lintel and doorposts of their houses. The Hebrews did as God commanded them........Law of God...to avoid the penalty all who listened were SAVED.......
www.orthodoxphotos.com...

Since Adam and Eve did sin......the CHURCH also broke away....Garden of Eden was that Church.....Only ONE LAW was given to Adam and Eve.....The Law was to abstain from that ONE TREE(Church commandments, as ancient as the Church itself — the commandment about abstention, i.e. about fasting.
"do not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"

So when the woman saw that the fruit was good, she ate ......quote///"The lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" — the holy fathers call this the "triple temptation," used by the devil at the dawn of ages in relation to Eve......more below

www.fatheralexander.org...


Why Did the Lord God Permit the First Man to Fall into Sin?



Almighty God, without a doubt, could have prevented the fall of the first people, but He did not wish to stifle their freedom, because it is not in His nature to distort His own image in man. The image and likeness of God is expressed in the free will of man.

more from here....
www.orthodoxphotos.com...



Especially the part of the God of the Old Testament being a different and lesser God then the New Testament that Jesus called Father.


Of the above quote , Which part of the God of the Old Testament is a different and Lesser God ,then the New Testament ?

The God of the Old Testament and the New Testament are both ONE and the same..The Old Testament is FULL of prophecy concerning the MESSIAH who is Jesus Christ ,The Annointed ONE....

All the Old Testament Prophets spoke of the MESSIAH.....the ANNOINTED ONE..

Jesus Christ mentioned Moses...




Jesus Christ names Moses as the author of Pentateuch: "If you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me" (John 5:46,
Mark 12:26; John 7:23). The Pentateuch itself depicts Moses as having written extensively (see Ex. 17:14, 24:4, 34:27, Num. 33:2, Deut. 31:24). Acts 7:22 tells us that "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.
" In the notes accompanying the text we observe a number of loan-words from Egyptian that are found in Genesis, a fact which suggests that the original author had his roots in Egypt, as did Moses.
Deuteronomy identifies the book's content with Moses: "These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel" (1:1).
"Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests" (31:9) may well refer to his writing of the entire book as well.
"Moses" name appears nearly forty times in the volume, and the book clearly reflects Moses’ personality.
The first person pronoun used freely throughout its pages further supports Mosaic authorship.
Both Jewish and Samaritan tradition are unanimous in identifying Moses as the author.
In the post-exilic writings the Law, or Torah, was often attributed directly to Moses (Neh. 8:1; 2 Chr. 25:4; 35:12).
Also Apostles Peter and Stephen Christ acknowledges Moses as the author of the book's content (Matt. 19:7; Mark 10:3-4; Acts 3:22; 7:37).


more here...
www.fatheralexander.org...

*************************

Chasrac64.....You say...



Jesus taught a different God. The Jews believe in a God that required a blood offering. The True God does not require this.


Again this is wrong.....Jesus Christ did not teach about a different God .....
The Blood sacrifice is ''of things to come'' the Sacrificial lamb in the Old Testament becomes Jesus Christ ....He is that ''Sacrificial lamb''..read the Old Testament Passover....which means quote/// "passing by," "passover," or "deliverance from misfortune" — the angel of death passed over the Hebrew dwellings....see above web site eg 25. Pascha (Passover) and the Exodus from Egypt....




The Jews fear their God. The true God also sends his angels. he is of spirit. he has no form. but he sends his messengers.
notice john 8-44 what he tells the Jews. " You are of your father the devil...


Jesus Christ was a Jew ....Did He fear Himself?
Jesus Christ tells these Jews '' "If God were your Father, you would love Me....You are of your father the devil...." (vss. 42,44)
..............
continues next verse/"...the desires of your father you want to do....there is no truth in him....But because I tell you the truth, you do not believe Me..." (vss. 44,45)
and continues.....
Why does He say this?
The devil was and "...is a liar and the father of it" (vs. 44).

The final form of opposition to the Lord is to dishonor Him. "...I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me" (vs. 49)
FROM .....(John 8:12-59)
quote ///“I have been telling you about Myself right from the start” or: “Didn’t I call Myself the Son of God — right from the beginning?
And thus I am He.” Continuing His sermon on the sad moral state of the Jewish people, the Lord explains that He has to do this, inasmuch as the One Who sent Him is the very truth, and He has to give witness to the truth that He heard from Him. ...............

The non-believers appeared to have understood the Lord’s words literally — of the natural, physical death — and again found a reason to accuse Him of being possessed: “Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead?”.....

The Lord answers that He is not glorifying Himself, but is glorified by His Father, Whom He knows and Whose word He fulfils.
He then shows His predominance over Abraham by, as though saying to the Jews: “Yes, I am greater than your father Abraham,
for I was the subject of his expectations during his earthly life, and upon his death, was the subject of his joy — in Heaven”: “he saw it and was glad.”

Referring to the Lord’s reference to Abraham’s earthly life, the Jews — here too — find incongruity with the aim to inflict another reproach on the Lord: “You are not 50 years old and You have seen Abraham?”
The Lord responds to this censure with a decisive answer, which would be understood even by the Pharisees that were blinded by their own hatred:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM,” i.e. “I am more ancient than Abraham himself, because I am — Eternal God.”

more here...
Conversation With the Jews in the Temple.
(John 8:12-59)
www.intratext.com...

Chasrac64




I did not mean to say anything bad about the Jews, what I am saying is that their God they followed was one you had to offer blood sacrifice too. The Jews are who they are, and I respect that.


Yes the Old Testament Prophets followed the Old Law....which was of Moses, which is the God of the Old and New Testament....God took Flesh and became man, so the Curse of the Old can be broken through the sacrifice of Christ who is the Lamb of the Old Testament........


parable of the sower clearly shows what happen)
as for loss of immortality " A Flaming sword to block the way to the tree of life"



Parable of the sower.

(Mat. 13:1-23; Mark 4:1-20; Luke 8:4-15).

QUOTE///
n this parable, the Lord envisages Himself as being the Sower, the seeds as His Divine Words and the soil upon which they are sown,
as the hearts of listeners.
The Lord cogently reminded them of their native fields — interrupted by a road running through them - of which some sections were overgrown with thorny bushes (brambles),
while others were covered with only a thin layer of soil.
The sowing is a magnificent example of the preaching of God’s Word, which, in falling on a heart, remains either sterile or brings forth a big or a small harvest — depending on its state...........
READ MORE.....
www.intratext.com...

Also ....A Flaming sword to block the way to the tree of life"

Read also....Flaming Sword after the Flood...
Quote///sword in its place” said the Lord to Peter, “for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” — of course, this is not a prophesy but merely a commandment of God's truth,
of a general nature: he who attacks another with the intention of killing or wounding him, deserves this himself.
This is the same thought that is contained in the commandment given after the Flood: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9:6).

also....
Her Divine Son: “yes, a sword will pierce through Your
come to bring peace but a sword” (Mat. 10:34); these words
the high priests with his sword and then runs away, who
moneybag and buying a knife (or sword), must obviously not be
shall we strike with the sword?” impatient Peter drew his
impatient Peter drew his sword an struck one of the servants,
Luke 22:51). “Put your sword in its place” said the Lord
Peter, “for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” —
sword will perish by the sword” — of course, this is not

Sorry if Ive mixed you up.....
go to the web site for better explanation.....Click on the right side for the exact verse ....which will give the exact explanation of the above short verses.......SWORD.
The Sword was that which drove Adam and Eve away from Paradise...
That is why Jesus Christ says He comes with a Sword.....

www.intratext.com...

GREGNOW.....



How can we know these texts were not forged or made up?
I have read where there was a lot of forgeries in those early days.


How can we know?
Read the Whole book .......The Bible....Beginning with a humble mind and as if God is talking to you.
Dont listen to other's or what is written by many that want the TRUTH not be known.
If you have ''read'' there were forgeries in THOSE EARLY days, then what makes you think that what you read TODAY is any better?
Gnostic teachings were around in the early centuries and now they have come back with a vengeance......so it is up to you solely to understand the WORD of God.
You have to make up your own mind and decide for yourself what that TRUTH is.
And before I forget, Gnostic teachings on the Da vinchi code........

Quote///The New Testament books were evaluated by those in authority on an on-going basis from the beginning. However the Council of Carthage made a local pronouncement confirming the authenticity of the 27 books of the New Testament. This was a local ruling.

The 5/6th Ecumenical Councils finally confirmed the ruling of the Council of Carthage...more here..
www.rocor.org.au...

As it is written........
There is none righteous no not one: (Rom. 3:10)
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23)
For He hath made Him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. (II Cor. 5:21)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)


AND....In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word [Jesus], and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (I Jn. 5:7)
God said undo Moses, I AM THAT I AM... (Ex. 3:14)

The Gospel of Saint John..chapter 1 :3
1/In the Beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God.
2/The same was in the beginning with God.
3/All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made.

Take care,
IX
helen

Sorry, I know long post.

[edit on 8/1/2005 by helen670]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Genesis 1: 27 states that God made man in his own image, male and female he made them. That could mean that the first people he made were androgynous, asexual.
Then Genesis 2: 7 states he made man out of the dust of the earth.
Then Genesis 2: 21 says he made a deep sleep fall over Adam, or basically anaesthetized him and performed surgery. Then the following verse he uses the surgically removed rib to create woman.
So, to my way of thinking, first he made asexual humans, then later made man and woman. Or he just repeats himself for some other reason, giving two different accounts of the same creation of man.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join