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.

 

Questions on the bible!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Can anyone help mewith this? I want to know why the vatican does not include ALL of the gospels and the full works of the writers?

It first came to mymind when i was watching stigmata, at the end the priest finds the scrolls under the altar, and the subtitles say that they where rejected entry into the bible!

I know that many other writings have been left out! Does anyone know why?




posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
The Protestant Bible leaves out even MORE books than the Catholic.

What books to leave out and what books to leave in were voted on in some conference(the name slips my mind but I am sure someone will know)

The Bible was put together by committee, thats why I think it is MUCH more important to try to understand the overall message than to get caught up in the arguements about minor differences



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
The Protestant Bible leaves out even MORE books than the Catholic.

What books to leave out and what books to leave in were voted on in some conference(the name slips my mind but I am sure someone will know)

The Bible was put together by committee, thats why I think it is MUCH more important to try to understand the overall message than to get caught up in the arguements about minor differences


They may try to give us the wrong information about Jesus, i.e, the one abut Mary Magdelane being Jesus' wife and there is only one story about Jesus showing his human side.

I am confident that he went crazy loads of times!



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by speight89
I am confident that he went crazy loads of times!


I dont really see how whither he was married or not or whither he jacked a car as a teenager really matters to the message. If you like those books add them to your research, no one is stopping you.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
No, Speight, He was not married, and there are no real books that suggest that. Some writings were also redundant, covering the same material, but not adding to the credibility. For example, if I rewrite an Antony Sutton book, have I brought anything new to the table, or have I simply rewritten a book?
Very good question that you've asked, though! Your brain is working excellently!



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
No, Speight, He was not married, and there are no real books that suggest that. Some writings were also redundant, covering the same material, but not adding to the credibility. For example, if I rewrite an Antony Sutton book, have I brought anything new to the table, or have I simply rewritten a book?
Very good question that you've asked, though! Your brain is working excellently!


I watched a program called "the davinchi code" the guy who presented it sayed that there was something going on with them and there is another thread in this forum, that does say that he was married. Its somewhere in the middle of the contents page on this topic



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
LOL! Why would you rather believe fiction than the Bible? Read the Bible and understand before you read some fictional trash and try to mix the two.
Does the Bible lead you to believe Christ was married or single?
The bride of Christ, is that to be a single woman or the Church? Hmmmm? It might be an idea to accept Christ, read the Bible and study with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and then use deiscernment when reading the other crap that is Satanically created to lead you astray. It'll help you greatly in discovering the truth.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Hmmm, you mean blind faith thomas? Sometimes it's difficult to look at things objectively when you have something as ignorant as blind faith stopping you at looking at anything else.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   


What books to leave out and what books to leave in were voted on in some conference(the name slips my mind but I am sure someone will know)


It's the Council of Nicaea.

Wikipedia - The First Council of Nicaea

Catholic Encyclopedia - The First Council of Nicaea



For example, if I rewrite an Antony Sutton book, have I brought anything new to the table, or have I simply rewritten a book?


No. But like they say, there are only so many stories -- just different ways of writing them. Sure, the apocryphal texts have the same "Big Picture" (though some would even argue it doesn't), but detail is important as well, especially when speaking of ethics and religious beliefs.



Why would you rather believe fiction than the Bible?


Some people view the Bible itself as fiction.



....use deiscernment when reading the other crap that is Satanically created to lead you astray.


I sincerely doubt that all the "other crap" is produced by Satan and or Satanists.

Wikipedia - Apocrypha



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
LOL! Why would you rather believe fiction than the Bible? Read the Bible and understand before you read some fictional trash and try to mix the two.
Does the Bible lead you to believe Christ was married or single?
The bride of Christ, is that to be a single woman or the Church? Hmmmm? It might be an idea to accept Christ, read the Bible and study with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and then use deiscernment when reading the other crap that is Satanically created to lead you astray. It'll help you greatly in discovering the truth.



LOL! This is absurd. Since when has the bible been a credible book of truth? The stories in the bible would make Harry Potter, The Dark Tower and other fictional books look ridiculous. Because "you" believe it does not make what others believe laughable.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
the bibles message , regardless of what you think is the truth, is that the bride of christ is the church. if some thing contradicts that, its not of the bible and probably from some gnostic sect.

God marries jerusalem
Eze 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

God remarried
Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Jesus head of his wife the church
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

parable of the wedding feast
Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
Mat 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

parable of the ten virgins
Mat 25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

and heres the killer (paul is talking to men and women here).
2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

so regardless whether you believe the bible, the addition of certain gnostic gospels that claim jesus was married would cause a glaring biblical contradiction, therefor they are ignored.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuTroll
Jesus head of his wife the church
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.


even as Christ is the head of the church

That does not say, as you do, that the church is Christs' wife, it says Christ is the head of the church, no wife about it.

Misfit



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
one thing to consider is that since judaism began (and christianity is simply a sect thereof) there have always been the canonical writings and the "others." now there may be many great spiritual truths to be found in these "other" writings, but their inherent fallibility is questionable to either a small or extreme degree. these books should not be "thrown out," but nonetheless they should also not be in that which is called orthodox. this concept should definitely molest the ideals of many evangelicals, but regardless, it is the truth and history of our church. reasoning along these lines also can lead to a better "spiritual" interpretation of scriptures instead of being ignorant in literalism.

daved
(i'm reformed... not evangelical)



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

even as Christ is the head of the church

That does not say, as you do, that the church is Christs' wife, it says Christ is the head of the church, no wife about it.

Misfit


so many are so quick to speak.

even as = kai hos (greek)

kai: and, also, even, both, then, so, likewise
hos: as, when, how, as it were, about

the only word that really brings up any good questions would be "about" in relation to the word hos.

in every instance where this word would be interpreted as "about" it is used to mean either "roughly or nearly" or to imply the general direction one might take in a path of movement.

what paul is doing here is using an earthly example to explain something very spiritual in a round about way. some things just simply can't be taught with perfection. nonetheless, your arguement is poor.

further...
Jer 2:32 Can a maid forget her ornaments, [or] a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.

it is not unfair for the analogy to be made that the elect are the bride of Christ. but to say that they will actually marry Christ and He'll be in a tux or whatnot is just silly.

daved



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
It's probably not exactly pre-meditated conspiracy on the human leaders of religion--they are unknowing, just like most of the population, but because they are 'respected' in religion, people either believe crazy and often, irrational stuff--and those who don't get turned off totally from even finding out--from those who believe the crazy stuff in addition to the sin-centered phobia-- which passes for religion (at least christianity, that is)--seems too oppressive to even care about.

Well, it's neither of those things--it's better and not even remotely like what you might think it is. I can guarantee that, because I know the truth is beyond any man's imagination. The 'truth' is stranger than fiction or the 'facts.'

Read the bible, read about physics, read ancient history of all sorts, forget the sensationalism like TV and Dan Brown-type novels---the small bit of truth therein isn't worth the confusion and misconceptions its buried in. There's truth in everything, but there's probably far more fiction and fantasy in the stuff they tout as 'Revealing truths about Jesus exposed after 2000 years!' than worthwhile truth.

Men that say they have the 'truth' and they'll even sell it to you for a mere $14.95 + tax--you can bet your right arm that they don't. Truth only reveals itself to those who won't sell it. Truth is something we are to find--not buy.

But lose all prejudices--of any time. You'll never find clarity with a pre-formed idea or opinion.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
so many are so quick to speak.

even as = kai hos (greek)

kai: and, also, even, both, then, so, likewise
hos: as, when, how, as it were, about

the only word that really brings up any good questions would be "about" in relation to the word hos.

in every instance where this word would be interpreted as "about" it is used to mean either "roughly or nearly" or to imply the general direction one might take in a path of movement.

what paul is doing here is using an earthly example to explain something very spiritual in a round about way. some things just simply can't be taught with perfection. nonetheless, your arguement is poor.

further...
Jer 2:32 Can a maid forget her ornaments, [or] a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.

it is not unfair for the analogy to be made that the elect are the bride of Christ. but to say that they will actually marry Christ and He'll be in a tux or whatnot is just silly.

daved


What the hell did all that have to do with my saying that the verse "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body" makes no mention of the church being Christs wife? [which is what this verse was presented as being referrance of]

Misfit



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
LOL! Why would you rather believe fiction than the Bible?


LOL! Why would you rather believe fiction than the necronomicon.


A book is a book, no matter how old or revered it is. You might as well start another Inquisition if you'd like to 'coerce' people into believing that crusty collection of books has any historical significance. The bible is jut like Dan Brown's book. It has cities, times, places and a few names that relate. But the story is a very nice piece of fiction.

If you like Jesus' teachings, then by all means, state the parables are good and wise in intention (I agree with the messages within the NT). But when you spout some 2,000 year old dusty collection of books, translated a zillion times (wrong most of the time), is the absolute and utter truth to a world where nobody cares to learn, don't be surprised when people brush you off.

I was once a Christian, how I left is of no concern. But part of the reason was how the other 'Christians' badgered normal, good, nice people who never hurt anyone. Christ didn't teach Death, Destruction, and Violence, he tought Peace, Understanding, and Love. I saw my fellow 'Christians' become 'Paulists', and it was disgusting. Stop tainting innocent young minds with fantastical galore like that.

-------------------------------------

As to the original poster. Yes, the first wave of groups considering what to canonize and what the ceremonies should be was called The Coucil of Nicea. But there were more meetings to come about what should/shouldn't happen within the religion that was CREATED by the romans to try and merge their falling empire.


Fallen One

[edit on 1/9/2005 by FallenOne]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
What the hell did all that have to do with my saying that the verse "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body" makes no mention of the church being Christs wife? [which is what this verse was presented as being referrance of]
Misfit


my statements were plain. Jesus isn't waiting for His church in a tux, but the verse (OF WHICH I PARTLY BROKE DOWN TO THE GREEK!), is clear in analogy. there are many other verses and parables relating the same.



Originally posted by FallenOne
Christ didn't teach Death, Destruction, and Violence, he tought Peace, Understanding, and Love. I saw my fellow 'Christians' become 'Paulists', and it was disgusting. Stop tainting innocent young minds with fantastical galore like that.


Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Mat 10:36 And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household.
Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Mat 24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of,
Mat 24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

to say that Christ did not speak of death and that he simply brought peace is a misnomer. although the core ideal that Christ brought was reconciliation of sinners to the Father, He by no means came to bring everyone cotton candy and a ride on the tea cups.
daved



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Groupies:

That R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Iesous") was married and/or had concubines is a distinct possibility but the gospels have been heavilly edited and are not pure history in the modern sense

"These things were written so that YOU MIGHT BELIEVE THAT IESOUS IS THE CHRISTOS..." in John's gospel.

It is interesting that the Talmud it states: "No man may be called "Rabbi" unless he is married"--written down around AD 400, but reflecting earlier oral laws many of which find exact parallels among the Dead Sea Scrolls...

His "married status" might have been more important since he was evidently of the house of David (cf: the writer of Hebrews in 7:14:" for it is evident that our Lord descended from Judah..." and also in Paul's authentic letters "concerning his son Christ our Lord made from the SEED OF DAVID accoding to the flesh in Romans chapter 1:3) .

And the Greek Gospels have Iesous being called Rabbi several times , and even Rabbouni ("my very own great one" on the lips of Miryam ha-Megadellah ("Mary Magdalene" lit. Mary the HairDresser) in chapter 20 of the 4th gospel--rather an overtly personal title for a woman to give him

The Gospel of Phillip states: "Miryam haMegadellah was known as the Consort of Iesous: for he used often to kiss her on the mo(uth): and his disciples said to themselves, Does he love her more than us?" followed by an extended sermon on the Mystery of the Bridal Chamber...

This Gospel codex was found among the books unearthed in a Gnostic Monk's Grave at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945 (this particular copy was written in the Ethiopic language, from around AD 340, but was gtranslated from a Greek version from around AD 160 and possibly from an earlier Aramaic one around AD 120), but was not voted in by the councils either in the west or the east.

The 4th canonical gospel tomb scene (John chapter 20) also includes the curious phrase in the Greek ("sir, they have moved the corpse OF MY HUSBAND and I do not know where they have laid him out !") The Greek phrase is HA PTOMA KURIOU MOU, which the KJV translates in Shakespearean fashion (1611: "the body of my Lord" in the sense that Juliet speaks of her new husband Romeo after the wedding "Saw You My Lord?")

It was customary of the nearest of kin (parents or wives) of the dead in Palestine, especially the Davidds, to oil the body and burn incense for them in the tomb. So if Mary the HairDresser was actually married to him (or perhaps a concubine?) it would be natural that she would want to know where the corpse was so she could begin the rites of burial by oiling the body before decomposition.

Typically in Palestine, human bodies rotted within 12 months in the heat, and the bones were then taken up and washed clean and placed in family ossuaries or "bone boxes".

The apparent bone box of the brother of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (who was called Yakkob bar Yosef haTsaddiq, or James the Just) was apparently found in Jerusalem a few years ago, still under scrutiny for authenticity...

Don't forget that the house of David (i.e. The Daviddic Dynasty) were dragged off into Exile in 587 BC by the Babylonians, with most of them killed off: but the straggling survivors remained in Exile all over the middle east for over 500 years by the time R. Yehoshua bar Yosef was born (c. BC 12).

The Davidds had good reasons to marry, and produce sons (e.g. Amos chapter 9: I shall raise again the Tabernacle of David, which is fallen...") and in order to restore the kingdom of Israel, the Davidds had to have sons ("e.g. Jeremiah: there shall not lack a king to sit upon the throne of David in that day...") to solidify their claim to the Throne of Israel (read 1 Samuel 21 when Jonathan's dynasty was in danger having been caught in bed with David: Do you imagine I do NOT know that you have (lit. "chosen to wed") the son of Jesse (i.e. David) to the confusion (the Heb. means "cross dressing") of your mother's nakedness, and to your own confusion? How will your DYNASTY be established if you persist in these acts?"

Saul the king was terror stricken by the fact that his son Jonathan was not busy making sons to sit upon the throne (Jonathan's only son was "lame in the feet" i.e. could not walk, and after David assumed the "throne" of the tiny clan kingdom in Hebron, he apparently adopted Jonathan's son..

"Iesous" did not seem to necessarily disparage marriage per se ("therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, so that the two shall become one bone...") although the author of Matthew's gospel (whoever he was) seems to think that men who castrate themselves "for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven" (i.e. "make themselves Eunichs" ) are somehow held in higher esteem than other members of the community, just like the Dead Sea Sect who called men who disowned sex (often "retirees with grandchildren") were called "Angels"-- -but also notice he realised that this kind of thing was not for everyone... "let he who is able to do this, perform it..." in other words, most men (even "Chrstians") don't have the B's to cut off their B's for the kingdom of heaven.....

Even the Essenes (Heb. Ossim, "doers" of the Torah, or Essenoi in Greek) had two orders, one married ("in the camps of Israel" i.e. in Jerusalem and the Galilee) and one unmarried ("at the Monastery of Damascus" i.e. Qumran): the earliest Christians were evidently part of this Essenoid movement (e.g. John the Baptist, who baptised Iesous as one of his disciples before he was beheaded) and also probably had married and unmarried members.

So whether "The Teacher" ( i.e. "Iesous") was actually married or not may never be known, but the evidence favours the possibility that he was married and did produce children, or tried to, before he was executed for Sedition during the reign of Tiberius during a failed coup attempt at Peach in AD 36 on the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of Pompey into Jerusalem (BC 63) when "The Times of the Gentiles is fulfilled...repent and believe the Good News of the Kingdom.. !!"

One has to remain open minded on this subject of his being married and not automatically think that everything in the "canincal" gospels is to automatically be taken at face value, especially since none of them match each other in terms of content or even dialogue (and even the earliest copies Greek MSS of the same gospels don't match each other very exactly !)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join