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.

 

Should Christians do away with the Bible?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy
 


Honestly, I read that and am having a hard time making sense of it. I am just going to assume that you are confused but well intentioned and wish you well on your journey!




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy
 


Honestly, I read that and am having a hard time making sense of it. I am just going to assume that you are confused but well intentioned and wish you well on your journey!




So let me get this straight, because you are confused reading something, you are going to assume that I am also confused?........ Great deduction lol

Just like your message presupposes I will no longer be debating this with you either, I wish you well on your journey.

but aside from that I wanted to show some of the others the difference between the biblical scriptures and what the gnostic scriptures say about the creation of Adam .

I apologize in advance for the lengthy quotes but if I try to write this out or explain it any other way aside from quotes it'll require the people to read it and since most people don't leave this site to research I wanted to provide scripture to back up what I've been talking about.



"And when the mother recognized that the garment of darkness was imperfect, then she knew that her consort had not agreed with her. She repented with much weeping. And the whole pleroma heard the prayer of her repentance, and they praised on her behalf the invisible, virginal Spirit. And he consented; and when the invisible Spirit had consented, the holy Spirit poured over her from their whole pleroma. For it was not her consort who came to her, but he came to her through the pleroma in order that he might correct her deficiency. And she was taken up not to her own aeon but above her son, that she might be in the ninth until she has corrected her deficiency.

"And a voice came forth from the exalted aeon-heaven: 'The Man exists and the son of Man.' And the chief archon, Yaltabaoth, heard (it) and thought that the voice had come from his mother. And he did not know from where it came. And he taught them, the holy and perfect Mother-Father, the complete foreknowledge, the image of the invisible one who is the Father of the all (and) through whom everything came into being, the first Man. For he revealed his likeness in a human form.

"And the whole aeon of the chief archon trembled, and the foundations of the abyss shook. And of the waters which are above matter, the underside was illuminated by the appearance of his image which had been revealed. And when all the authorities and the chief archon looked, they saw the whole region of the underside which was illuminated. And through the light they saw the form of the image in the water.

"And he said to the authorities which attend him, 'Come, let us create a man according to the image of God and according to our likeness, that his image may become a light for us.' And they created by means of their respective powers in correspondence with the characteristics which were given. And each authority supplied a characteristic in the form of the image which he had seen in its natural (form). He created a being according to the likeness of the first, perfect Man. And they said, 'Let us call him Adam, that his name may become a power of light for us.'


So as you can see the OT and what the gnostic scriptures say are completely different, as the OT hardly tells the story at all, the gnostic scriptures explain much more that happened before the physical world was created.



"And when the mother wanted to retrieve the power which she had given to the chief archon, she petitioned the Mother-Father of the All, who is most merciful. He sent, by means of the holy decree, the five lights down upon the place of the angels of the chief archon. They advised him that they should bring forth the power of the mother. And they said to Yaltabaoth, 'Blow into his face something of your spirit and his body will arise.' And he blew into his face the spirit which is the power of his mother; he did not know (this), for he exists in ignorance. And the power of the mother went out of Yaltabaoth into the natural body, which they had fashioned after the image of the one who exists from the beginning. The body moved and gained strength, and it was luminous.

"And in that moment the rest of the powers became jealous, because he had come into being through all of them and they had given their power to the man, and his intelligence was greater than that of those who had made him, and greater than that of the chief archon. And when they recognized that he was luminous, and that he could think better than they, and that he was free from wickedness, they took him and threw him into the lowest region of all matter.


as we continue to read we see that Yaltabaoth became jealous of Adam because Yalta was tricked and then realized that Adam was superior to him although being created AFTER him.

and this next part is VERY interesting indeed.




"But the blessed One, the Mother-Father, the beneficent and merciful One, had mercy on the power of the mother which had been brought forth out of the chief archon, for they (the archons) might gain power over the natural and perceptible body. And he sent, through his beneficent Spirit and his great mercy, a helper to Adam, luminous Epinoia which comes out of him, who is called Life. And she assists the whole creature, by toiling with him and by restoring him to his fullness and by teaching him about the descent of his seed (and) by teaching him about the way of ascent, (which is) the way he came down. And the luminous Epinoia was hidden in Adam, in order that the archons might not know her, but that the Epinoia might be a correction of the deficiency of the mother.

"And the man came forth because of the shadow of the light which is in him. And his thinking was superior to all those who had made him. When they looked up, they saw that his thinking was superior. And they took counsel with the whole array of archons and angels. They took fire and earth and water and mixed them together with the four fiery winds. And they wrought them together and caused a great disturbance. And they brought him (Adam) into the shadow of death, in order that they might form (him) again from earth and water and fire and the spirit which originates in matter, which is the ignorance of darkness and desire, and their counterfeit spirit. This is the tomb of the newly-formed body with which the robbers had clothed the man, the bond of forgetfulness; and he became a mortal man. This is the first one who came down, and the first separation. But the Epinoia of the light which was in him, she is the one who was to awaken his thinking.

"And the archons took him and placed him in paradise. And they said to him, 'Eat, that is at leisure,' for their luxury is bitter and their beauty is depraved. And their luxury is deception and their trees are godlessness and their fruit is deadly poison and their promise is death. And the tree of their life they had placed in the midst of paradise.

"And I shall teach you (pl.) what is the mystery of their life, which is the plan which they made together, which is the likeness of their spirit. The root of this (tree) is bitter and its branches are death, its shadow is hate and deception is in its leaves, and its blossom is the ointment of evil, and its fruit is death and desire is its seed, and it sprouts in darkness. The dwelling place of those who taste from it is Hades, and the darkness is their place of rest.

"But what they call the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is the Epinoia of the light, they stayed in front of it in order that he (Adam) might not look up to his fullness and recognize the nakedness of his shamefulness. But it was I(Christ) who brought about that they ate."

And to I said to the savior, "Lord, was it not the serpent that taught Adam to eat?" The savior smiled and said, "The serpent taught them to eat from wickedness of begetting, lust, (and) destruction, that he (Adam) might be useful to him. And he (Adam) knew that he was disobedient to him (the chief archon) due to light of the Epinoia which is in him, which made him more correct in his thinking than the chief archon. And (the latter) wanted to bring about the power which he himself had given him. And he brought a forgetfulness over Adam."

And I said to the savior, "What is the forgetfulness?" And he said "It is not the way Moses wrote (and) you heard. For he said in his first book, 'He put him to sleep' (Gn 2:21), but (it was) in his perception. For also he said through the prophet, 'I will make their hearts heavy, that they may not pay attention and may not see' (Is 6:10).
"Then the Epinoia of the light hid herself in him (Adam). And the chief archon wanted to bring her out of his rib. But the Epinoia of the light cannot be grasped. Although darkness pursued her, it did not catch her. And he brought a part of his power out of him. And he made another creature, in the form of a woman, according to the likeness of the Epinoia which had appeared to him. And he brought the part which he had taken from the power of the man into the female creature, and not as Moses said, 'his rib-bone.'

Taken from www.gnosis.org...



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by sezsue
 


sezue my friend, be wary of what you have been told. The talk of a messiah was rife pre dating Jesus' birth, Everything around his birth is very heavily laden with conjecture. Eg Mary is not really known to have been from the line of David.
There is no record whatsoever of a census being taken in Bethlehem. Romans were meticulous book keepers, and there is no incling at all this registration call took place at this time, what they did I suspect was to create stories around Jesus that made him FIT the profile of the Messiah, this included he was born in Bethlehem. It is absolute fact that this reason for Bethlem birth never took place. Additionally, not one of the earliest documents pertaining to Jesus mention Bethlehem and Mary being from the line of David, rather this only came up about 200-300 years later.

I know this is hard to read, but it is true. Its kinda like a candidate running for president, the person that is projected during campaign is not really the person they truly are.

Most of those scriptures you have quoted when truly researched you can see someone tweaked with historical fact to make it fit the 'prophecy'.
I love JC's accomplishments, and I'm not saying he is or isn't the Messiah , but I have felt more comforatable researching and validating or denying what I have been told in order to make my own conclusions.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by zazzafrazz]


Hey zazzafrazz, thanks for your comments. BUT….first off, through all the research? you have done, you should know that Satan is a counterfeiter that tries to turn everything around so as to obscure God’s true plan for mankind, and it sure looks like he is being successful, thus all the myths that have grown up with Pagan religions that duplicate the Biblical story of Jesus!

Second, you assume I believe everything I have been TOLD. Maybe you don’t know that I was raised CATHOLIC, (BUT I am not a Catholic any longer) If you knew anything about it, you'd know that CATHOLICS don’t generally sit around studying or discussing the Bible, they have their own books that supplant the Bible in importance (like the Jewish Talmud supplants the Old Testament). In fact, through my STUDY, I got the impression that Bibles were not allowed in the hands of the regular people in the Dark Ages, and were not allowed to be translated into the common language. The fact that Martin Luther translated the Bible into the common language was a large reason for the Inquisition. (Along with another main reason I won’t get into here.)

Second, look at Luke 1:27,

To a virgin (espoused to a man whose name was Joseph,) of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

(I added the brackets to show how it is Mary being referred to as “of the house of David“, if Joseph was being named as the house of David in this sentence, there would have been a comma after the word virgin and after David, ie: To a virgin, espoused to a man named Joseph of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.)

I think you can see that the subject of the sentence was a virgin named Mary, of the house of David, espoused to a man named Joseph.

Third, there are a couple different thoughts about what Luke meant when he mentioned a census in Bethlehem as the reason for Mary and Joseph going there, too long to go into here but I can send you some links to some different views on that subject, suffice it to say that that I am satisfied to the fact that it DID happen pretty much as Luke wrote it, and Matthew’s version doesn’t really contradict the general story.

Fourth, the 200-300 year time frame is TOTALLY wrong, since Luke’s version was commonly thought to be written about 60 to 150CE according to wiki, and used many different sources for his information, including Josephus.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jdposey

You are right, and that's why I only read the King James Translation. I have a Catholic Living Bible also, and it starts of wrong right in the beginning, in Genesis, with the Ten Commandants. lol!!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
What's wrong with paganism exactly? I don't get why people are so against loving nature and whatnot. The judaic religions all label paganism as evil for some reason I dont get



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Eventually, someone will write a real spiritual awakening book, one filled with inspiration and compassion and acceptance and devoid of threats and eternal damnation and hate and bloodshed, and when that day arrives, a NEW kind of religion will be born, and the threatening ones will cease to exist.


Actually, this has already happened.
Interest is growing.
Over the next 100 years, the new kind will grow faster than the old kind grew in its first 300.

There is resistance however, among the readership.
Resistance splits the readership into two general schools of thought.
The same book is read in different ways, depending on motive.
Some are motivated by belief in and valuation of the things of the world.
They make the text fit their agenda.
So,
It's an example of what happened in the first 300 years of agenda based intepretation.
Over time...a million years perhaps, the intent of the author will prevail.

Christ!

[edit on 31-1-2009 by Christ!]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya
What's wrong with paganism exactly? I don't get why people are so against loving nature and whatnot. The judaic religions all label paganism as evil for some reason I dont get


The reason is that they are playing the blame game...shifting the guilt they feel for valuing the same things.

Both of the judaic religions idolize nature.
They justify it by claiming that it is the creation of, for example, "G-d", or, "G.d".
There's a reason they hide the big "O" in the name of their gOd.
Valuing the gOd of the big "O", and blaming others for worshipping the same thing affords them a bubble of unreality to play in.
It affords a temporary euphoria.


Christ!



[edit on 31-1-2009 by Christ!]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
We've all heard that Christians are following a censored document compiled over 300 hundred years after Christ .
Censorship meant we have lost the exact words of Jesus and are following an interpretation of a group of men who existed in a environment vastly different to current western acceptable cultural parameters.

How would we have interpreted the teachings of Jesus if we had a council of Nicea today? What conclusions would you come to? Would they be vastly different to the current new testament?
Would we include the writings of Paul who was not a apostle, avoiding all the end of the world fears he created to hook people into signing up?

Should Christians read the written word of Jesus found in the Gospel of St Thomas, the oldest document pertaining to his sayings written in Aramaic? Reading his actual words only and then interpreting what he said for yourself rather than relying on men from 1700 years ago?
users.misericordia.edu...

Bible is Doctrine. Doctrine means 'instruction' Indoctrinate means 'Teach uncritically' I don't know, but no one I've met in ATS in uncritical! So why not criticise what the men at Nicea said?

What Bible would we come up with today from his words only?

We'll stay clear of the Old Testament ...for now....
[edit on 27-1-2009 by zazzafrazz]


There are several books out that claim Jesus as the author.
I "buy" only one.
There is also a book out that claims the Holy Spirit as the author.
I "buy" it.


People will believe what they want based on their motives.
If their motive is to support the world and its ways,
they will not recognize authentic source.
Otherwise,
Authentic source can be recognized by those who are "weary" of untruth, unreality, and confusion.

Christ!



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
So let me get this straight, because you are confused reading something, you are going to assume that I am also confused?........ Great deduction lol


Well, you are right. The better word to have used was "angry"... coupled with the words "you are."

You are angry. And I am not going to carry on a discussion like that. I will respect you, but I expect the same if I am to carry this out.

I said confused not because I was saying your views are wrong.. that was your declaration to me, remember?

I said confused because I perceived you to be so upset that you could not properly put something together concerning your views that would be understandable to me. That was all.

Also, I was listening to your views, but you were adamently speaking about the book that I know VERY well (the Tanakh) and saying things that were absolutely not true concerning it and you didn't seem interested in hearing the Truth about my views.... so it was no longer a give and take; thus, I walked



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya
What's wrong with paganism exactly? I don't get why people are so against loving nature and whatnot. The judaic religions all label paganism as evil for some reason I dont get


We do not have that right to say you are wrong for worshiping another god. Some jews do and that is not their place.
What I speak out against is having a paganistic god based on the Tanakh when the Tanakh is not about pagan gods. I especially want to speak out when that pagan god is saying that others will go to a physical hell fire and burn as punishment for not believing in a man as god.

Blind faith is dangerous and the Tanakh clearly says that people perish without knowledge; NOT they perish in hell fire without belief in a mangod.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sezsue

There is a lot of scientific truth in the Bible, such as mentioning the stars, being like the grains of sand in their number, now our scientists have told us that their are BILLIONS of galaxies with BILLIONS of stars, and a lot more.


God said he would PRESERVE His word for us. He knew that modern people would one day be able to confirm the astonishing accuracy of it with SCIENCE.




I don't get it.

The bible often used metaphors; on a clear night in the northern part of the world you can see stars to the visible eye, which look unumerable, like the grains of the sands.

By confirming the bible with science how does this validate the young earth creation from the bible 6,000 year old earth? Science claims that earth is millions of years old, as opposed to the o.t.

I don't get it.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
............ delete post.

[edit on 1/31/2009 by PuRe EnErGy]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Cressida

The Bible doesn't say the earth is only 6000 years old, it doesn't say how old it is.

In Genesis, in the first book of the Old Testament, in the first line, it says:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is just stating what happened at the very beginning.

Then it says:


2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Because statement #2 is in a different paragraph, it would indicate to me that this is taking up the story at a later point in time than the first statement.

The earth could have been full of plant/animal/pre-human species, before being hit by some terrible cataclysm, which would account for the fossil record.

After all they have found sea fossils in the middle of desert areas and so on. Several cultures like the Clovis people just disappeared in an inexplicable way, we don't really know if anybody survived whatever last people-ending event that took place on the earth.

The Bible, among many other things, is a history of the earth since God created Adam.

It could have been created millions of years before Adam was created.




[edit on 31-1-2009 by sezsue] the earth, not the Bible


[edit on 31-1-2009 by sezsue]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy
 


I read what you wrote. I am not afraid to listen, I have learned to use discretion based on a person's approach.

I appreciate you taking the time. I know about the gnostic view and even went that way, but then I realized that it teaches things that are not common sense. I started getting moody and I felt trapped in myself.

There is some truth in it, just like Christianity, but one looks to a pagan god and the other denies the Creator and the ways He has established for our learning and growth process.

thus, the truth was very much watered down truth. I am here and to me, logic would say that I am here for a purpose and it is not to escape; it is to learn and grow by the interactions with those around me.

The knowledge of the gnostics is deceiving because it only focuses inward. There is much to say about ourselves in how we interact with others.

It makes much more sense to focus outward from the heart and as we learn to respect others, we are, in essence learning how to respect ourselves as well.

When one focus' only on escaping by going inward, they shut themselves off and become selfish and that does little to help those around us!


If we cheat others, we are cheating ourselves to. We have a mess in this world and it is by our own creation.. .thus, I am not seeking to escape, I am seeking to help!



[edit on 31-1-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
........ delete post.

[edit on 1/31/2009 by PuRe EnErGy]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
When one focus' only on escaping by going inward, they shut themselves off and become selfish and that does little to help those around us!


If we cheat others, we are cheating ourselves to. We have a mess in this world and it is by our own creation.. .thus, I am not seeking to escape, I am seeking to help!

[edit on 31-1-2009 by justamomma]


You've got it backwards. "Inward" is a metaphor that is inclusive of all that is real. All that is real is the true Self. You are looking outward at what is not true of Self for the experience of being special, which can only be experienced through a body differentiated from all others. That is the epitome of selfishness, in that, it helps no one's true best interests. The greatest help of all is to lay down individualized uniqueness...lay down the rationalizations why it serves some purpose...why interacting with puppets serves any purpose unless your purpose is to cut the strings.

The Kingdom of God is "within". It is not within a body. A body is a concept that is "beyond" the Kingdom, being totally fallacious and deceptive...not to mention self-willed, hence, selfish. That is why a body is not "in" the Kingdom, but rather, within a mind gone mad with guilt. The mind that makes bodies feels guilty because it senses that they destroy the Kingdom...if true. It believes they are true, so it believes it has destroyed the Kingdom, denies it, and hides it and shifts blame around.



Christ!



[edit on 31-1-2009 by Christ!]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
See what I'm getting at here is the direction these beliefs have taken people, the Tanakh & the NT are diametrically opposed to the message in the gnostic scriptures, there would be no churches, there would be no interest on money and the world would be an entirely different place IF people would have followed the revelation that Jesus brought with him, that message of the True Father.


Good point. A note on Thomas' sayings gospel. About 70% is authentic Thomas/Jesus. About 30% is added on later by wise guys and does not fit. Thomas was not included in cannon, nor the "Q" source, because by that time in the evolvment of the anti-gospel, they diverged too obviously from the direction it was headed.

Christ!

[edit on 31-1-2009 by Christ!]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christ!
All that is real is the true Self. You are looking outward at what is not true of Self for the experience of being special, which can only be experienced through a body differentiated from all others. That is the epitome of selfishness, in that, it helps no one's true best interests.


Is this a joke? Selfishness IS focusing on self and disregarding everyone else!

I do not need to make myself feel special. I am part of His creation... I am quite secure in that. I want to help mankind because it is .. *drum roll* ... the right thing to do!


Helping others is true selfishness? ... that is what I meant when I said the gnostic teachings are deceiving and they end up trapping you in anything BUT common sense. I found myself there too dude, and it was a trap! I just was blessed with common sense to see that.

Divide yourself from othes and you are cutting yourself off... A house divided against itself will not stand. I am not divided against myself inward OR outward! Like I said, the gnostics lack common sense and common courtesy. Thanks for proving what I said!




[edit on 31-1-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christ!

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
See what I'm getting at here is the direction these beliefs have taken people, the Tanakh & the NT are diametrically opposed to the message in the gnostic scriptures, there would be no churches, there would be no interest on money and the world would be an entirely different place IF people would have followed the revelation that Jesus brought with him, that message of the True Father.


Good point. A note on Thomas' sayings gospel. About 70% is authentic Thomas/Jesus. About 30% is added on later by wise guys and does not fit. Thomas was not included in cannon, nor the "Q" source, because by that time in the evolvment of the anti-gospel, they diverged too obviously from the direction it was headed.

Christ!



This isn't written in stone. It's a debate.


Date of Composition

Richard Valantasis writes:

Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as 60 AD or as late as 140 AD, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.[12]

Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time.[13]

Nevertheless, scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, approximately before or contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels .


Anyway I'm done, if I could delete all my posts I would.. this is useless.

[edit on 1/31/2009 by PuRe EnErGy]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Hmmm, interesting that you used the name Miriam.. seems to me that perhaps you have done a bit of research, no?


You are correct in that assumption, friend. Brainwashed early on by the Church, I went on a quest to find the Grail, as they say. Religions of the world are one of my favorite subjects, and it all begins with the Templars and the Holy Roman Church. It still astounds me that their brainwashing actually worked! But it did work, and for many, it still does. In may ways, I wish the truth was told to the Christians, but on the other hand......anyway, it is always good to questions one's faith, is it not?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join