It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Question About The Bible

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 10:00 AM

Originally posted by spamandham
It's unfortunate Roger that some will read what you have snipped out of context and believe that to have actually been the meaning of what I wrote. You are by far the most evasive and dishonest poster I have run across on this site. What a waste.

The ethics you claim to value are worthless if you do not abide by them.

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Would you like to tell us honestly why you hate Christians?

I'll be happy to answer that after you tell us whether or not you've stopped beating your wife.

This seems to require no comment from me. It is unnecessary to make personal attacks on people, simply because they prefer their own views to yours.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[edit on 27/10/2005 by roger_pearse]

posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 02:48 PM
Well, with that worthless diversion aside... perhaps a return to the discussion of KJV inerrancy and the Roman Catholic Church can continue.

A specific example of likely corruption of the original texts is the book of Matthew. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew. However, according to Eusebius, the Ebionite version, known as Gospel of the Hebrews, omitted the first two chapters on the birth story, and also varied significantly in other aspects. It was also written in Aramaic rather than Greek.

The concensus dating for the Gospel of the Hebrews is late first to mid second century, roughly coinciding with the Gospel of Matthew.

The Ebionites rejected the virgin birth story altogether and believed Jesus to have been the biological son of Joseph, adopted as a son of god (not the son of god). The Ebionites also rejected the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and Jesus' death as atonement for sin.

According to Wikipedia:
Several modern scholars, including Hyam Maccoby, Robert Graves, Joshua Podro, Hugh J. Schonfield, Keith Akers, Benjamin Urrutia, and others, believe that the Ebionites, being led by the relatives of Jesus, probably were more faithful to the original and authentic teachings of Jesus than Paul was.

The Ebionites considered Paul to be a fraud, while Pauline Christians considered the Ebionites to be heretical. The Pauline sect is the root of the RCC. The modern Gospel of Matthew contains the first 2 chapters because Pauline Christianity came to dominate via political force.

If the RCC is the tool of Satan, then it is proper to conclude its root, Pauline Christianity, was also Satanic in origin. That puts the Ebionites on greater standing, and implies that the KJV is also the work of Satan as it contains the Satanically influenced version of Matthew, as well as 3 other false Gospels, and the Satanically influenced writings of Paul and his cohorts.

If the RCC was not always the tool of Satan, then this implies Satan took power at some point. But for Satan to take power implies that the Holy Spirit was not protecting the church from such corruption, which implies it was Satanic from inception - and you're right back to Paul again.

So, I can see no coherent way for the KJV to be considered godly if the RCC is the tool of Satan.

One last thing, ...

Here is Matthew 2:4
And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

Notice the glaring problem here that supports the Ebionite claim?

Here is Matthew 2:23:
So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

No such prophecy exists in the Old Testament, thus virtually seeling the lid on the Ebionite claim.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by spamandham]

[edit on 27-10-2005 by spamandham]

<< 1  2   >>

log in