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.

 

Why was the Bible censored?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
"If you want to understand why the Bible is what it is, I think it helps to look at early Christianity like you would any other religion that you have no emotional ties to. "


Wouldn't the Ebionites version make alot more sense than any other if you looked at it from the perspective of the above statement?




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Forgive me. All i read is the the title, and thought i'd chime in with an untainted word about my personal studies.

I seem to remember learning from numerous sources that in fact with the dawning of the printing press and mass production of the bible, it was written in a Royal fashion, and for nobility.

But, when the common people began to become literate, and more bibles were being made, i was influenced to believe that the nobility did not want the common people to have access to all the material in the bible.

So, in fact the bible that was first made available to the everyday common folk that did not exactly mirror the books among the nobility, (sons/daughters of the heavens), it was indeed edited.

Do i have a link, or source, or supporting material?

Nope.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Ungrounded rumors, the Bible wasn't censored. The main reason there were writings that didn't make the grade was because they were redundant. There really isn't a big conspiracy about the non-canonized writings, but it is a LOT more fun to make a conspiracy theory!


I blame it on the pope.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Ungrounded rumors,


You may indeed be correct.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   
THERE IS MUCH CONSPIRACY...

JUST LOOK AT THIS LINK!

www.eaec.org...



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   


3. They did not feel it was the word of God when the read it
4. Taught things that were thought to be not true


What mortal has the ability or the right to decided what is or isn't the word of God. Aren' they playing God by doing this? Who decided some of these things weren't true? Again, mortals playing God? If the Bible is the word of God and his followers, how could some mortal come along and say "oh, that's not true, let's not print it." It's more like it didn't fit into their agenda and that's why it wasn't printed.

And Thomas Crowne...I have to disagree with you. There is was too much evidence of a huge conpsiracy here for any intelligent being to believe otherwise.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
A common mistake is to confuse "the church of Rome" with the RCC.
The RCC is what came after the Constantinian buyout or more accurately
buy off. That is when the Emporer bought off/out the bishop of Rome , etc.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
How can anyone believe what's in this book if it was purposely censored so that some information and truths could be denied the public?

Thats not what happened. There were a lot of gospels and letters and texts floating around. Some of them were collected together and came to be called "The Bible". What is wrong with that?

For example, the Nag Hammadi library might represent a possible alternative to the modern bible, had it been more popular/accepted/whatever. Amoung those texts are things that you can see are 'biblical', like a claimed Gospel of St. Thomas, but also stuff like Plato's Republic.
Its a judgement call as to what makes up the 'cannonical works of christaity'. Some things were accepted, others rejected, each text has its own history.


negropolis
leaders. They created catholicism to avoid jewish revolts, but they are the very ones who killed Jesus. Their previous religion was zoroasterism

This is rather incorrect. The Romans had, if anything as a state religion, the worship of the emperor, and later christainity, not zoroasterism. There was a cult of mithras that was popular especially amoung the legions, however, the identity of this roman mithras with the persian mithra and a link to zoroaster is questionable.
The roman government didn't create catholicism. The roman government was gone long before catholicism came into existence.

Also, is it really sensible to say that the romans selected what is modern christianity, over the gnostic-paganistic versions of christianity? If anything it seems like they'd support gnosticism over the orthodoxy.


negropolis
www.eaec.org...
Roman Catholicism
Founder: Emperor Constantine

That right there shows that that article useless as a source. Its fundamentally incorrect.

Excitable_Boy
What mortal has the ability or the right to decided what is or isn't the word of God.

What do you suggest then, that every holy text be amalgamated into one super book? That the Iliad and Rig Veda and Gospel of St. Thomas and Gospel of Pontius Pilate and works of Confucious and the rantings of Charles Manson and the thoughts of Albert Pike should make up the Bible?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
the bible is just a old work of fiction.......why the world believes in a 2000+ year old book is beyond me......


take any novel from now....in 2000+ yrs i am sure everyone then will believe it to be gospel too....

imagine a god called "moby dick" who was attacked by the lord of evil "ahab". the God "Moby Dick" then dragged the bringer of lies"ahab" to the lowest pits of hell.

geese people are gullible.......


[edit on 11-1-2006 by Alpha Grey]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha Grey
the bible is just a old work of fiction.......why the world believes in a 2000+ year old book is beyond me......


take any novel from now....in 2000+ yrs i am sure everyone then will believe it to be gospel too....

imagine a god called "moby dick" who was attacked by the lord of evil "ahab". the God "Moby Dick" then dragged the bringer of lies"ahab" to the lowest pits of hell.

geese people are gullible.......


[edit on 11-1-2006 by Alpha Grey]


As I've said all along: Why believe in Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Pathagoras, Confucius, Alexander The Great, Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra...it's all fiction, right?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
As I've said all along: Why believe in Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Pathagoras, Confucius, Alexander The Great, Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra...it's all fiction, right?


Some or all of what we think about these is almost certainly in error.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Take what I'm about to say for what it is, I've taken about 4 years of Bible classes:

Many of the "censored" books were "censored" because

1. They did not correspond with the other books
2. They were fabricated
3. They were "too harsh" to be released to the public, I think that's only one book in the Bible that was "too harsh", and one of the popes censored that.

Now, "how do we know they were fabricated?"

Let's take the book of X (I forgot the name, but this was in the Da Vinci code, the 'author' was supposedly one of the brothers of the diciples)

It was "censored" because it was fabricated. We have proof. It has personal accounts of Christ and such, which contradict much of the old testament which predicts the coming of the Christ. Now, how do we know it's fabricated? It was written around 260 AD. Christ died around 33-36 AD. That would mean the Author would have to be over 200 years old in order to write what he wrote. Therefore it was fabricated. And mr Dan Brown said it was censored because it revealed that JESUS HAD A DAUGHTER! (No He didn't.)

And I've heard that King James took out some stuff from the Bible that he didn't like. But our current NIV (New International Version) Bible has everything he tried to take out.

Some other interesting things that King James took out which is seldom spoke of is an account that Moses saw two 'red flaming disks' in the sky.

Sorry that I can't recall the Book's name, I've been doing construction work for 5 hours, quite tired. (I'm a student, was just helping my mom's friend, I'm not a construction worker)

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Vinci]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci

It was "censored" because it was fabricated. We have proof. It has personal accounts of Christ and such, which contradict much of the old testament which predicts the coming of the Christ. Now, how do we know it's fabricated? It was written around 260 AD. Christ died around 33-36 AD. That would mean the Author would have to be over 200 years old in order to write what he wrote. Therefore it was fabricated. And mr Dan Brown said it was censored because it revealed that JESUS HAD A DAUGHTER! (No He didn't.)


All of the new testament was written much later in this same manner. I saw a show on the history channel that claimed that rabbis of his time were most likely married, so why couldn't he have had children? The ebionites were nazarenes that believed that Jesus was not the son of god born from a virgin mother nor did he die for the sins of the world. Yet they were followers of Jesus. Some other biblical facts that may shock you is that there is no hell and since all prophecies made after Christ's death are false that would make revelations a false prophecy. Is that too much history based in reality for you to handle? And I agree with the person who said that alot or some of the facts stated on here may be incorrect, but still alot of these issues remain and who cares if the small details are wrong if the main issues holds true.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
Take what I'm about to say for what it is, I've taken about 4 years of Bible classes:

Many of the "censored" books were "censored" because

1. They did not correspond with the other books
2. They were fabricated
3. They were "too harsh" to be released to the public, I think that's only one book in the Bible that was "too harsh", and one of the popes censored that.


Saying that books were censored out of the bible presumes that there was a time when certain books were used as scripture by Christians, and then someone removed them. I think we might reasonably ask for specifics: which books, and who did this?

It's all very misleading, in my view.



And I've heard that King James took out some stuff from the Bible that he didn't like.


This is untrue, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[edited to fix 'quote' code, it was in all caps and thus non-functional -nygdan]

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   


It was written around 260 AD.


BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP< PHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!
wrong. again your answer is skewed as is so often the case. this should read



The extant copy was written around 260 AD.
the original work dates from much earlier ,possibly from before the
writings of paul the assassin and heritic.




And mr Dan Brown said it was censored because it revealed that JESUS HAD A DAUGHTER!(No He didn't.)


Please provide evidence and verifiable proof for this statement.

I believe he had 3 children , 2 boys and a girl. The eldest boy ( Jesus Justus)
went to Britian with his Uncle Joseph Rama-Theo ( James) and is recorded in
history,song anf story as having walked englands shores.

Sarah/Tamar went to Gaul with the Magdalene and their traditions are still preserved today.

The 2nd son stayed in Palestine and upon the death of his Uncle ca. 66ad
assumed the title of Rama-Theo.

If you believe the collection of myth and fable known as the bible has never been changed or censored you are wrong. I have seen at least 2 changes
in my short life on this rock. ( barely half a century).



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
As I've said all along: Why believe in Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Pathagoras, Confucius, Alexander The Great, Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra...it's all fiction, right?



oh man.....ok fine...but do you WORSHIP those people?? we all know that Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Pathagoras, Confucius, Alexander The Great, Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra existed but is there a huge religion based on them or their works ??? NO !!

basing a religion on a book (fiction or not) is crazy, dangerous and dumb.

yet the sheep keep on coming........



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   


basing a religion on a book (fiction or not) is crazy, dangerous and dumb.

yet the sheep keep on coming........


Alpha Grey...but you believe in aliens.....greys. What is your belief based on and why is it not dumb? Are you not a sheep? Isn't your belief in greys crazy? If you answered no to any of these questions...why?

Personally, I think ANY religion is dumb. I have faith...that's all one needs.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
who said I believe in aliens?? I would like too...but until I see one myself...I refuse to believe in them.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by NEGROPOLIS

Originally posted by Vinci

It was "censored" because it was fabricated. We have proof. It has personal accounts of Christ and such, which contradict much of the old testament which predicts the coming of the Christ. Now, how do we know it's fabricated? It was written around 260 AD. Christ died around 33-36 AD. That would mean the Author would have to be over 200 years old in order to write what he wrote. Therefore it was fabricated. And mr Dan Brown said it was censored because it revealed that JESUS HAD A DAUGHTER! (No He didn't.)


All of the new testament was written much later in this same manner.


There's a difference, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc. Were all written several years after the Christ's death, and they were still alive.

I don't remember exactly what I heard at the lesson that day showing why Bible books were censored, (I'm very sorry, it was over a year ago) but the book of X was written 200 years, by an author who was posing as a one of the disicple's brother's. (He existed, but obviuosly could not of written that book)

Also keep in mind all of the New Testament books coincide with the Old Testament, this is what I believe is evidence of God.

Now is where I usually get yelled at, so please don't. But consider this:

The whole Bible has been around for atleast 1000 years (not counting the dead sea scrolls) and if the NT and OT contradicted eachother, the whole NT would of been destroyed, and considered false by millions of people within these 1000 years and it'd be documented. If you're about to say that Exodus or some book around that time period contradicts a book around, Luke, then you should consider this: They are thousands of years apart, and within Christian belief, a lot has happened where many of the old rituals spoken of in Exodus are invalid.

Where: In one of the book of the gospels it says that we don't have to sacrafice animals. Read that out of context with where in Genesis God asks Adam's sons to bring Him animals, Yes that would be contradicting, all out of context and meaning.

Anyway, take what I say for what it is. If you believe I am wrong, please state it nicely. I have feelings too



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
Anyway, take what I say for what it is. If you believe I am wrong, please state it nicely. I have feelings too


I wouldn't say you were right or wrong for we are having a discussion and I definitely wouldn't wanna hurt your feelings.

[edited to fix quote code -nygdan]

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Nygdan]




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join