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 Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

page: 39
25
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


I've heard the theory that Paul actually had the wrong interpretation before, after all his encounter with Jesus seems fabricated (he was basically all alone on the road to Damascus).

But you seem to suggest that the prophets of the Old Testament contain some divine revelation, why? The Old Testament is filled with stories of an unjust and often wicked God, as is the Book of Revelation where God decides to torture the people on Earth just before sending many of them to an eternal punishment. And what of 2 Kings 2:23 where the prophet Elijah decides to kill some kids by getting bears to kill them, all over some bald jokes and verbal threats.

Paul might not be your cup of tea but most of his teachings do not involve going out to commit genocide or stoning people who work on the Sabbath to death. Although he is accredited with Colossians 3:22 telling slaves to obey their masters which is pretty questionable.

I'm still unconvinced that ANY of the Bible has ANY divine wisdom, earthly wisdom perhaps, coupled with primitive nonsense.




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
No proof



There are countless evidences for micro-evolution, that is, adaptations of species; scientists believe this also occurred as macro-evolution, the development of new species. There is also substantial evidence for natural selection, the survival of species that are best adapted to their environment. Evolution does not address the origin of life. Beyond that, it would certainly be difficult to show conclusively that evolution is the sole explanation for the development and survival or extinction of species.


Wiki answers



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Don't bring evolution in here again Randy, please go start a thread in the appropriate forum for that, or shoot me a U2U.

I'd like this thread to stay on topic as much as possible.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Most Christians point about Elijah and proof that he died revolves around the idea that in the Bible....Elijah is taken up by God, without walking through death.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 



LOL, So you're saying Jesus said John the Baptist "was Elijah raised from the dead"? Will you please provide chapter and verse where Elijah dies???????


Well, first of all, Sir, this is nothing to "laugh out loud" about.

Millions of Jews have already been slaughtered because of the pagan- Egyptian-Pharisaical doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

And that loss of life is nothing compared to what will happen during the "time of trouble".

In any case, it makes no difference what I say about this. It was Jesus who pointed out that John the Baptist was 'the Elijah who is to return'.

But it gets even worse: Mohammed was Elijah and John the Baptist 'raised from the dead'; as is very clearly implied by the Revelations in the Koran (although unbeknownst to most Muslim religious 'authorities'.)

As to where it says that Elijah died...

That's not my problem.

There are probably at least billions of people who have died and it has never been written down anywhere that they died or that they even lived. But if someone asks me whether someone from 600 years ago is still alive, I will conclude that, more than likely, no.

Even more important, if you read the question of the apostles quite clearly, the implication is that John the Baptist has to be Elijah returned (or 'raised from the dead') or it is simply not possible for Jesus to be the messiah.

I suggest that you read the passages for yourself; rather than through the filters of the Christian theologians.

(Oh, by the way, sorry for the continued underlining in a previous post. Have not yet figured out how to publish an edited version. I only get edit or preview choices.)

Michael Cecil
Epic Fail.

Point BEING:

ELIJAH NEVER DIED: He was taken up to heaven by God. Jesus said John the Baptist came in the SPIRIT of Elijah which when you do a Greek word study you'll plainly see that "spirit" simply means the ANOINTING that Elijah had. That's why when people ASKED John the Baptist if he was Elijah he said "NO".

The Word of God states PLAINLY that it is appointed unto man to die once then the judgment. God also says he will send His two witnesses to Israel during the tribulation to preach the gospel of Christ. that these two witnesses will have the power to stop rain, to call fire down from heaven to devour the enemies of God et cetra. These two witnesses will be the two individuals in scripture who have never died, Elijah being one of them.

The specific REASON I asked you to show me where Elijah died is this: It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Lord to have said John the Baptist is Elijah raised form the dead when the SAME word plainly states Elijah NEVER died!


Hellloooooo.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Paul might not be your cup of tea but most of his teachings do not involve going out to commit genocide...


Then you simply do not understand the implications of the doctrine of "vicarious atonement"; which is one of the most blood-thirsty doctrines ever devised by the 'mind' of man in opposition to the Revelations taught by Jesus.

The doctrine of 'vicarious atonement', requiring the deification of Jesus, and the demonization of "the Jews" as 'Christ-killers' and 'God-killers' led quite directly to the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.

The real-world explanation of the crucifixion is that Jesus contradicted the Pharisaical interpretation of the Doctrine of "resurrection". The power of both the Pharisees and Sadducees was threatened by this; so they had him eliminated.

It had nothing to do with "the Jews". It had to do with the Jewish religious 'authorities' preserving their wealth, their prestige and their power.

But Paul was a Pharisee. And his goal was to preserve the power of the Pharisees--perhaps the first religious double agent in history--so he destroyed the Teaching of Jesus by replacing it with the doctrine taught by the Pharisees, while claiming to be following Jesus. This is merely one part of the Big Lie that has afflicted this civilization for 2500 years.

Similarly, for when the Roman church slaughtered tens of thousands of Albigensians about 1200 years later, burning many of them alive in a church or at the stake.

Michael Cecil



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 



LOL, So you're saying Jesus said John the Baptist "was Elijah raised from the dead"? Will you please provide chapter and verse where Elijah dies???????


Oh, by the way, as to your quotation of Paul...

Not a good sign.

Paul was a Pharisee.

He believed in the doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave--just like the Egyptians; who were pagans (even worse than "heretics").

He turned the Teaching of Jesus on the "resurrection" upside down; which is why there are so many hundreds of millions of Christians, while Jesus said that the road to Life is "narrow".

Michael Cecil
Epic fail v 2.0

JESUS CHRIST is the "narrow way", meaning = the ONLY way. The highway to Hell is very BROAD, meaning the paths to it are innumerable.

Secondly, I never ASKED you anything about Paul, what are you smoking??



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
My bad, you said "quotation", I misread it as "question". I take the last post back as regards to Paul.

But you realize your theory has a big problem with Paul don't you? James, John, Peter and Luke (Acts) all agree 100% with what Paul wrote after his conversion to Christ. If Paul was teaching a heresy then his writings would have been challenged by James, John, Luke and Peter, they are not, in fact, the other apostles echo them in perfect cohesion.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

ELIJAH NEVER DIED: He was taken up to heaven by God. Jesus said John the Baptist came in the SPIRIT of Elijah which when you do a Greek word study you'll plainly see that "spirit" simply means the ANOINTING that Elijah had. That's why when people ASKED John the Baptist if he was Elijah he said "NO".

The Word of God states PLAINLY that it is appointed unto man to die once then the judgment. God also says he will send His two witnesses to Israel during the tribulation to preach the gospel of Christ. that these two witnesses will have the power to stop rain, to call fire down from heaven to devour the enemies of God et cetra. These two witnesses will be the two individuals in scripture who have never died, Elijah being one of them.

The specific REASON I asked you to show me where Elijah died is this: It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Lord to have said John the Baptist is Elijah raised form the dead when the SAME word plainly states Elijah NEVER died!

Hellloooooo.


Glad you presented these 'arguments' of yours as quickly as you did.

They are all in contradiction of the Teaching of Jesus, just like the teaching of Paul. Without the demonic doctrine of "vicarious atonement" there would have been no Holocaust.

The Word of God does not say "It is appointed unto man to die once, and then the judgement." Those are the words of Paul in contradiction of the Teaching of Jesus in describing the revelation of the memories of previous lives in his reply to the Sadducees.

With regards to John the Baptist being Elijah:

1) I don't care about any Greek words. If John the Baptist was not Elijah 'raised from the dead', then Jesus was not the messiah. You need to read the context of this reply in response to the question of the apostles.

2) Jesus was the messiah. John the Baptist was not. Jesus knew more than John the Baptist did. John the Baptist could not have said that he was Elijah unless he had received a specific memory that he had been Elijah. It was Revealed to Jesus, not to John, that John the Baptist had been Elijah.

3) If John spoke merely in the 'spirit' of Elijah, instead of being Elijah 'raised from the dead', then it could have been said, by the same logic, that Jesus was not really the messiah; he merely spoke in the 'spirit' of the messiah.

4) You have no rational argument whatsoever for the reply of Jesus to the Sadducees. Neither do you have any rational argument at all for Matthew 27:52. Neither do you have any rational argument at all for why the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead. It makes absolutely no sense unless he contradicted them at the level of Doctrine.

5) About Elijah "never dying". That was also said about Enoch. Both of them received the Vision of the "Son of man", referred to in the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls as the Vision of Knowledge" and in the Koran as the "Night Journey" of Mohammed. The rest of the explanation you would not believe anyway, so I won't even bother.

The doctrines of Paul are demonic; they resulted in the Holocaust.

And Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them", and the "road to life is narrow"--in other words, there just is not room for hundreds of millions of Pharisee-Christians.

Michael Cecil



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

JESUS CHRIST is the "narrow way", meaning = the ONLY way. The highway to Hell is very BROAD, meaning the paths to it are innumerable.

Secondly, I never ASKED you anything about Paul, what are you smoking??


You quote Paul in your signature. That is what I was addressing.

In any case, do you remember Jesus saying: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"?

Why did he say those things?

The "Way" is referred to in the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written by Jesus, as "the Way of Thy heart", which is a code word reference to the Revelation of the Memory of Creation (Genesis 2:7) and the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

"The Truth" refers to the Law, since this is what was the fundamental Truth to Judaism.

"The Life" refers to the Vision of the "Son of man", referred to in the Thanksgiving Hymns as the "Vision of Knowledge".

You are arguing 'above your pay grade' here.

Michael Cecil



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
My bad, you said "quotation", I misread it as "question". I take the last post back as regards to Paul.

But you realize your theory has a big problem with Paul don't you? James, John, Peter and Luke (Acts) all agree 100% with what Paul wrote after his conversion to Christ. If Paul was teaching a heresy then his writings would have been challenged by James, John, Luke and Peter, they are not, in fact, the other apostles echo them in perfect cohesion.


You fairly effectively convey the lies that you have been taught.

It is not your fault that you have been lied to.

But you do bear some responsibility for not questioning those lies.

Let's go to the words of Jesus himself in the Gospel of Luke, when he describes the "resurrection", in figurative language, as the revelation of the memories of previous lives. Let's start right there.

With regards to Peter challenging Paul, I suggest you read the Apocalypse of Peter found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. It deals very specifically with that issue.

(By the way, I hope you are aware that I have been studying the Dead Sea Scrolls since 1976 and the Nag Hammadi Codices since 1978, when I challenged the Chairman of the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame to a public debate on the Doctrine of "resurrection". I have yet to find even a committee of Ph.D. theologians--the Jesus Seminar in October, 1986--confident enough to think they can win in a debate with me. You may want to re-assess the probability of your success.)

Michael Cecil



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Hello Michael....

I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on some things that I have figured up...and what you might think about it.

In the OT....it seems that the word for 'Judah' became interchanged in the late OT with the word 'Jew'...and Im thinking, this was a trick, a people claiming themselves to a certain lineage of the family line that they were not of in truth.

All through the OT we see the family quarrels amongst the tribes and the larger family line of Abraham. We see pride and greed being a big issue for them all.

They all awaited a great teacher...some of them awaited the one that would take back the land of Israel and give it to the 'rightful inheritors' (I dont find this to be divine doctrine, but anyways...) ....

In the NT...I see Jesus, a man of the tribe JUDAH....talks against so many of the ways of man...and man did not like being told they have been wrong. To me, it seems that certain ones of these men....also did not like that this 'man' was of the tribe of Judah....if you truly werent of the tribe of Judah...mabey you would have jealousy towards the fact that a 'king of Judah' would really be the leader in providing the 'way'.

I personally think that the sign hung on Jesus's cross said....KING OF JUDAH.....and not....KING OF THE JEWS. I think this was added being a political agenda by a certain group in that a excuse was made to kill Jesus....later being made into a 'sacrifice' and a part of a 'divine plan'. When really, it was not a 'sacrifice to save people from their sins'.....he was killed out of jealousy towards the true tribe of Judah....and there was jealousy against this tribe long through history. Jesus didnt fight for his life.....because he understood this was not the life to fight for....he practiced, what he preached.

What do you think about the 'judah' thing....do you think that it could be possible that the sign was meant to say....King of Judah?

These are just thoughts...I dont claim them as facts of history.

LV



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Hello Michael....

I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on some things that I have figured up...and what you might think about it.

In the OT....it seems that the word for 'Judah' became interchanged in the late OT with the word 'Jew'...and Im thinking, this was a trick, a people claiming themselves to a certain lineage of the family line that they were not of in truth.


All of what you are saying here is a more or less trivial matter.

Jesus had to be eliminated because of the Doctrine that he taught in opposition to the teaching of both the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

But the issues you bring up touch on one of the reasons for that.

The Sadducees were more or less xenophobes and racists.

While the Pharisees were of a more liberal bent; they, too, held to a basic view of Jewish supremacy.

Now comes Jesus saying, "Well, you are a Jew in one life; but maybe you were an Arab in a previous life, or maybe you will be an Arab in your next life, or a Greek, or a Roman, or an Egyptian." (This would be like someone going to the Hindu religious establishment and saying "Well, you may very well be of the priestly class in this life; but that does not mean that you were not an 'untouchable' in a previous life and you may very well be an 'untouchable' in your subsequent lives. They would simply not appreciate being told such a thing.)

In other words, one of the implication of the Doctrine of "resurrection" was as a very direct attack upon even so much as a hint of racial or any other kind of superiority among the Jewish people.

The Doctrine of the Chosen people is a fundamental Revelation; but that Revelation has been turned upside down no less than the Doctrine of "resurrection" by both the Jews (one of the consequences of which is Zionism) as well as the Christians (the consequence of which is Christo-Fascist-Zionism).

So, in general, I don't bother myself with such considerations.

Michael Cecil



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I replied without reading ahead. My bad. So I dumped my post.



[edit on 7/12/2010 by texastig]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


If the word 'judah' started to be translated into 'jew' taking away its true identity...I dont find that trivial.

But appreciate your time and reply!



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil


Glad you presented these 'arguments' of yours as quickly as you did.

They are all in contradiction of the Teaching of Jesus, just like the teaching of Paul. Without the demonic doctrine of "vicarious atonement" there would have been no Holocaust.


Are you kidding me? Martin Luther and Charles Darwin had the greatest influence on Hitler, NOT Paul. Hitler didn't believe anything Christians had to say.


The Word of God does not say "It is appointed unto man to die once, and then the judgement." Those are the words of Paul in contradiction of the Teaching of Jesus in describing the revelation of the memories of previous lives in his reply to the Sadducees.


WHAT 'previous lives' are you talking about??? LOL Jesus is the Word, Jesus was present at creation, Jesus is eternal. What 'previous lives' did Jesus have?? Or are you denying Christ's deity?


With regards to John the Baptist being Elijah:

1) I don't care about any Greek words. If John the Baptist was not Elijah 'raised from the dead', then Jesus was not the messiah. You need to read the context of this reply in response to the question of the apostles.


Elijah never DIED! Read your scriptures dude. Elijah was raptured alive into heaven in front of witnesses. You explain to me how a man can be 'raised from the dead' who never died. Good luck.


2) Jesus was the messiah. John the Baptist was not. Jesus knew more than John the Baptist did. John the Baptist could not have said that he was Elijah unless he had received a specific memory that he had been Elijah. It was Revealed to Jesus, not to John, that John the Baptist had been Elijah.


LEARN your scriptures dude, you're greatly ignorant of what they say. The ONLY time the Word says Elijah will come before the Lord Jesus Christ is before His SECOND coming to Earth. It's in Malachi 4:5 ~

""Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord."

The "terrible Day of the Lord is His SECOND coming, when He comes as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. When he comes as the Lion of Judah and not the Lamb of God. Give me a break.

The Word ALSO plainly states, just as the GREEK confirms, that Jesus says John the Baptist had the spirit/anointing of Elijah. And what does the "angel of the Lord" say to Zacharias about the son (John the Baptist) he would soon have?? Lets just see:

"Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. 14"And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb. 16"And he will turn back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God. 17"And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord," (Luke 1:13-17).

Plainly says John the Baptist will have 'the spirit and power of Elijah'. Read your scriptures.


3) If John spoke merely in the 'spirit' of Elijah, instead of being Elijah 'raised from the dead', then it could have been said, by the same logic, that Jesus was not really the messiah; he merely spoke in the 'spirit' of the messiah.


No it can't. You need to provide SCRIPTURES to support your heresy, I don't need to hear your arbitrary opinions on the matter. Show me in the WORD that I'm wrong.



The doctrines of Paul are demonic; they resulted in the Holocaust.


So am I to assume you're going to refuse to provide me with ANY verses from either Peter, James, Luke, or John that agree that Paul was a heretic?? Because reading their books you can clearly see that they refer to Paul as a fellow apostle, not only that, their letters mirror the teachings of Paul. Let me know when you have some verses from them that refute the revelations given to Paul by the Holy Spirit. Take your time.


And Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them", and the "road to life is narrow"--in other words, there just is not room for hundreds of millions of Pharisee-Christians.


You can read whatever you wish into that verse, what Jesus plainly states that He is the ONLY way to God, that through Him alone a man must be saved. That's the "narrow way".... ONE way. Have you ever heard of a man called "Polycarp"?? He was John's disciple, he never once claimed Paul was a heretic and Jesus's most beloved disciple taught him.

Help me out here, starting to really feel like I'm casting my pearls to an old pig.


[edit on 12-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil


You quote Paul in your signature. That is what I was addressing.


Okay, you don't like Paul, what about Luke?:

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." ~ Acts 16:31

Maybe John?:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" ~ John 1:12

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." ~ 1 John 5:12-13

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." ~ John 3:36





You are arguing 'above your pay grade' here.


Appeal to Authority = Fallacy of Logic



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 
Wow, I really hope you plan to 'win the debate' with something other than arbitrary opinions and logical fallacies. List time I checked logical fallacies when used in part, render your ENTIRE argument invalid.






posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Michael Cecil


You quote Paul in your signature. That is what I was addressing.


Okay, you don't like Paul, what about Luke?:

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." ~ Acts 16:31

Maybe John?:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" ~ John 1:12

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." ~ 1 John 5:12-13

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." ~ John 3:36



You are arguing 'above your pay grade' here.


Appeal to Authority = Fallacy of Logic


OK.

With regards to John: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" ~ John 1:12:

Jesus explains in his reply to the Sadducees that the "sons of God" are the "children of the resurrection".

What that means is that they have received the Revelation of the "resurrection" referred to by Isaiah as 'sealed in the heart' (8:16); that Revelation consisting of the Revelation of the Memory of Creation (Genesis 2:7) and the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

You might also (not) want to read the Treatise On Resurrection, found at Nag Hammadi, written by one teacher to a follower of Jesus in which it is stated that there are 3 resurrections: the "physical resurrection" which is physical 'rebirth', the "psychic resurrection", which is the revelation of the memories of previous lives, and the "spiritual resurrection", which is the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and of the consciousness of man at the Moment of Creation (Genesis 1:27) prior to 'the Fall' into the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'.

In any case, it was the proto-Nazi Paul who deified Jesus; something that was specifically repudiated by the prophet Mohammed (who was Elijah and John the Baptist 'raised from the dead') in the Koran.

It you read Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of European Jewry, you will see that almost every single one of the laws that Hitler had passed by the Nazi government had previously been enacted by either the popes of the Roman church or the Protestant denominations; thus providing instantaneously their religious 'justification'; without which the Holocaust would not have occurred.

In any case, neither will I argue with you anymore.

You can read the notes on my webpage about the unsealing of the Seven Seals in the Revelation of John and draw your own conclusions:

after-the-false-peace.blogspot.com...

Oh, by the way, with regards to the Sources of my authority, I have two:

The Vision of the "Son of man" and the Revelation of the "resurrection".

There is not a book anywhere on the planet in which this Knowledge has been written down in the way that I am writing it.

Michael Cecil



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Garbage, you're parroting Gnostic teachings that have been rejected by the church for centuries. Even by the disciples of the 11 Apostles. You are the one deceived. You even had the gall to propose I read the Apocalypse of Peter which is universally agreed upon to have been written in the SECOND century, 150 AD.

Let me give you a brief history of your Gnostic heresies and who birthed them:

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." —Matt. 7:17-18

Please note the roots of corruption below:

I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.)

A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as "A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation." Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God's word.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" —Rom. 10:17

C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, "In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John."

("Which Bible?". ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191)

II. Tatian (150 A.D.)

A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr.

B. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism.

C. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels, thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20).

D. His. "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.

III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)

A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-"The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.")

B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.

C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.

D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.

IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.)

A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.

B. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.

C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).

D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid.).

E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

F. Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).

V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.)

A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.

B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).

These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.

C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).

D. He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.)

A. Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.

B. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.

HERE



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join