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 True Authorship of the New Testament

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pasttheclouds
again out of context,
jesus said :

i will bring love and hate , i will bring war


This made it fine to serve as a soldier and die for the Empire.
The Empire that invented Christianity.




posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Jesus was not against the roman empire,
the empire was used as an example,
in the same way as babylon was used,
relgion forgets god accepted the babylon king,
and let him to capture jerusalem.
how can jesus be against himself ?

again, out of context



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Hemisphere
Who do you know was at the council?


The council RECORDED their decisions in a document that exists to this day.

You can read it here :
www.newadvent.org...
Have you READ that?
Did you even KNOW it existed?
Hmmm?

Guess what?
It contains NO mention of the canon of the NT at all.



Originally posted by Hemisphere
There are no certaintees in this.There is only "faith". And you think there was no fiction 2000 years ago?


Rubbish.
There is complete certainty.
We have the ORIGINAL decisions of the council.
We have numerous accounts of the meeting, including EYE-WITNESSES.

NONE of them mention anything about the books of the NT.

If YOU believe the Council changed the books of the NT - WHERE is your EVIDENCE?!

How do you account for the FACT that none of the canons of the meeting, nor the accounst of the meeting mention that?


FYI:
Here are the various accounts of the meeting :

* Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13. This mentions that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument.
* Socrates, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.8. This mentions that Constantine exiled Arius and some of his supporters for refusing to submit to the decisions of the council. It also quotes an letter by Constantine ordering the destruction of all works composed by Arius on pain of death to any found holding them, and referring to a similar past order regarding the works of Porphyry.
* Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21. This describes the results of the council. (Chapter 17 onwards describes the council). Constantine writes to all the cities ordering the destruction of the works of Arius and his followers, and the penalty of death for any who refused to destroy them. The letter is not quoted. There is also an anecdote where a Novatianist bishop is interviewed by the emperor. The bishop agrees to sign the creed but not to resume communion with the Catholics. Constantine tells him to get a ladder and ascend into heaven alone, then; but there is no mention of action against the Novatianists.
* Eusebius, Vita Constantini, Book III, ch.6ff. This describes the council without mentioning Arius and concentrates on the harmonisation of the date of Easter. Later it gives the text of an edict by Constantine against heretics and schismatics, 'Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, you who are called Cataphrygians', banning their meetings and confiscating their buildings. Eusebius goes on to say without quoting that a search was also decreed for their books in order to identify the heretics (although no details are given of what happened to the books).
* Eusebius, On the Feast of Easter/De solemnitate paschalis/Peri\ th~j tou~ pa&sxa e(orth~j, 8 (PG. 24.701) Checked. According to Quasten 3 p.339 the work is not extant but a substantial fragment exists in the Catena on Luke by Nicetas of Heraclea. The text of this appears in Migne, 24, cols. 693-706, and so, in Latin translation, which I have. It does not seem to exist in English, but a kind gentleman has made us a translation from the Greek, which is now online. As can be seen, chapter 8 does mention the decision of the synod about Easter, but says nothing of interest to us. The text contains no other references.
* Athanasius, De decretis synodis, A general discussion of some of the issues, rather than the acts of the council, and the arguments about whether the council exceeded what scripture says.
* Athanasius, Ep. ad episcopos Africae, 5.ff. More about Arius at Nicaea and against the Council of Sirmium.
* Epiphanius, Haereses or Panarion, 69, on Arius. Nothing more than we have from other sources. Since this text has only just been translated into English, it isn't in the online collection of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, so I've placed all the material online myself.
* Philostorgius, HE I.7, 7a. Checked. This writer is only extant in fragments in Photius and the Suida. Apparently he was an Arian, born in 368. There is an English version; E. Walford, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen ... also the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius as epitomized by Photius,[ONLINE] London (1855). However it contains nothing new about the council. I have a copy of this and hope to place it online sometime. It would seem to derive from a single MS. The Nicaea portions are now online.
* Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica 10,1-6 Checked. Only recently put into English: The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia by Rufinus, Philip R., S.J. Amidon (Translator), September 1997, Oxford Univ Press; ISBN: 0195110315. Reviewed in Journal of Early Christian Studies 7.1 (1999) by C.H.Gowans. I have now seen this, and this also has no discussion of the canon of scripture. (It does contain the fascinating description of the destruction of the Temple of Serapis at Alexandria). I just wish the volume was cheaper. There is a useful bibliography. The Nicaea portion is now online.
* Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia Concilii Nicaeni. This does not seem to exist in English, but is in J.P.Migne, Patrologia Graeco-Latina, vol. 85, cols. 1185-1360, in Greek and Latin. There are three books; book I deals with the historical events leading to the accession of Constantine, book II with the council and its canons, and book III with letters issued by Constantine to various persons. The work seems to date from about 480-500, so is rather late, and some of it appears to be fictionalised. The debates are given verbatim, and, as the introduction notes, issues that contemporary writers explicitly deny are an issue (e.g. the Holy Spirit, as seen by the pneumatomachoi in the 5th century) are given as part of the heresies of the Arians. However it still makes no reference to decisions about books of the bible. The work is said to use the now lost text of Gelasius of Caesaria, which continued the HE of Eusbius.

www.tertullian.org...


K.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


You have to put that into the context of the time that passage was penned. Remember, Caesar was believed to be a god-man. To actually distinguish Caesar and 'God' as two separate entities, like Jesus did in this passage, was blasphemy that could get one killed.

You should also look up some of the passages that refer to the Romans in some very unflattering terms.

Also, a constant theme in the New Testament is Christian separation from the world. That's all Jesus was saying. It was to show how 'we are in the world but not of it.' So give to the temporal realm as it is required but remember where your true home is.


All considered AshleyD. If you read up on the links you will find that the
writings were "superficially" anti-Rome to cement the uneducated believers.
This was all trickery and slight of hand. They couldn't tip their hand to the slaves.
The consequences were very evident in the story and very common at the time. Crucifixion.

They were and continue to be very good at what they do!



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
In a way you are right,
the bible was used by the roman empire,
as it is used, and rewritten, changed
by many institutions.

But the parables you used
are intended there to teach about god,
not to make the romans guilty of anything.

You try to relate, connect the teachings to an institution,
and on that is my reaction.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pasttheclouds
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Read your reply,
and tell em what is logic about that.

You cant understand a city
by studying a street without placing
it in context of the big plan.


I don't have to understand a city to know a building has fallen on me.
Where is your logic? You know the commoners/slaves were not reading the whole.
Just the scholars running the show and some were in on it and some were
tricked by it. Nothing has changed in 2000 years.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Your bit mate:


Constantine writes to all the cities ordering the destruction of the works of Arius and his followers, and the penalty of death for any who refused to destroy them.


Did you read your own post?
Death penalty for words. Seems a little harsh.
Those must have been some powerful words.
And no one stood up to Constantine? Surprise!

Nothing to see here, move along.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Just read Paul's letters and enjoy his twisted, manipulative mind and how much resistance he met.

NT is totally written to help herding Christians into Church and establishing total control over them.

Done by Romans and the rest of the divide and rule society.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pasttheclouds

In a way you are right,
the bible was used by the roman empire,
as it is used, and rewritten, changed
by many institutions.

But the parables you used
are intended there to teach about god,
not to make the romans guilty of anything.

You try to relate, connect the teachings to an institution,
and on that is my reaction.


We just disagree on institutions. I think you could always
see them in the physical world. But most did not due to
mental blinders provided by Flavius Josephus, a Jewish defector, and others.



"Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed' (John 20:26-29).


They thought so much of the words and experiences of Didymus
that they threw out his Gospel and kept this quote. That doesn't
strike you as strange?

Believe, because I said so. Maybe right enough for those who knew
Thomas but for us, 2000 years later? And this was not written for anyone
that knew Thomas. This was likely the only good line from a script penned
by a Piso (Thomas). And so no one knew an actual Thomas/Didymus/Shorty
and so no uneducated slave could disprove this statement. Yes master!
This guys work/Gospel just didn't make the final cut.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Hemisphere]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


You have to put that into the context of the time that passage was penned. Remember, Caesar was believed to be a god-man. To actually distinguish Caesar and 'God' as two separate entities, like Jesus did in this passage, was blasphemy that could get one killed.

You should also look up some of the passages that refer to the Romans in some very unflattering terms.

Also, a constant theme in the New Testament is Christian separation from the world. That's all Jesus was saying. It was to show how 'we are in the world but not of it.' So give to the temporal realm as it is required but remember where your true home is.


All considered AshleyD. If you read up on the links you will find that the
writings were "superficially" anti-Rome to cement the uneducated believers.
This was all trickery and slight of hand. They couldn't tip their hand to the slaves.
The consequences were very evident in the story and very common at the time. Crucifixion.

They were and continue to be very good at what they do!


Consider also that with the death of Nero, the Flavians ascended.
That was recorded to have been right around 69 AD. And so the
crucifixion of Christ is thought to represent many things including
the death of Nero by assisted suicide. His twelve Apostles thought
to represent the 12 Roman Gods. They were crucifying the old
administration. What a laugh riot that must have been in court!
The Roman elite did not follow their ancient gods or any god.
They were free and they enslaved others. By words.



"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."


That's not very subtle at all. Obey the words!



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


And further Ashley...




"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)


This statement was so important it took until John 1:1 to come out.
Not "In the beginning". You would think this point was the most critical
in all of the story lines and yet inserted some 70 to 80 years AD. That's
very late in the game because it was part of a game. A game to enslave
without force. The most efficient and economical means. I will convince
you to give up with words you will believe I did not write. Diabolical!

Most of the converts were not JEws and so the OT was an afterthought to
them in my opinion. The NT was written for the Gentiles and what better
a statement to start them off with than "and the Word was God". The OT
Jews did not believe this. It was not important in their book. It was critical
in the Roman book. There was no God, only the words. The words were God!



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Read through the article and the thread "Ireland Bans Blasphemy".
Those are very Roman tactics for keeping the masses in line.
The words and laws are God and you will all submit. Or be crucified
in one way (fines) or other. And you will go gladly to your martyrdom.
"The word is God."

You were getting closer to undressing us and so here's more words (laws).
You can't complain about their murderous invisible pal. Continue to follow
your pacifist invisible pal. Or else.

Rome is all around you.

"Veni, vidi, vici!" I came I saw I conquered.

VIVIVI (Roman for 666) What a laugh riot!

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Hemisphere]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Not simply words - interpretation. That is a maze into which people are thrown to be lost and without guidance. Words don't mean communication, they are the opposite. You can't rely on words, but lo! - there are the priests-shepherds to show you the light. And so, the word become light! What a cunning mind invented it! It is practically impossible to fight it off. The cobweb of language(s).



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pasttheclouds
you read the NT as religion does,

you select what you can use, and ignore what you can't.


What jesus meant when he said that was,


You interpret what you read like you are god himself.

So jesus, when are you coming back to save us all?



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil

Originally posted by Hemisphere

The True Authorship of the New Testament




Read the following Biblical verse:


And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

- Mark 12:17 KJV


I've always thought that only a Roman could have written that. Give to me, your oppressor, everything of earthly value and as for God? Give him those intangibles that will soothe you. Give God your soul, your prayers and your allegiance. Those have no value to the Caesars. You are slaves and we your controllers have given you a creed that will sustain you in your oppression and lock you blissfully into that oppression.

The NT is full of catch phrases that prescribe submission to tyranny.


Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. - Matthew 5:5 KJV


That's quite a promise and as I said the NT is a submission repository in my opinion. I am far from alone as many have suspected a direct connection between the Roman Empire and the authorship of the New Testament.


Yeah, Matthew and Mark did author each a book in the NT. Whats your point
Just another Bible-Hater trying to stir up trouble.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pasttheclouds

In a way you are right,
the bible was used by the roman empire,
as it is used, and rewritten, changed
by many institutions.

But the parables you used
are intended there to teach about god,
not to make the romans guilty of anything.

You try to relate, connect the teachings to an institution,
and on that is my reaction.



The writings were constructed to have double meanings. They were clever.
The Romans never thought any slaves would ever crack the code.
They were not intended to make the Romans guilty, they were made
to think what they did was an acceptable part of the process.

Remember Nero on the cross when he says:


(“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” LUKE 23:34).


If God can forgive them you can and will too! Carte blanche ba-by!
"The word is God".

Did they really throw Christians to the lions? A few for effect, why not.
Especially anybody that didn't swallow the pill. And so an upstart could
be called a Christian whether they were or not. I suspect the Romans
used everything to good effect and a public display works double.
Gets rid of opposition and threatens the still passive.

This is from Kapyong's post not yours. So allow me this luxury.


* Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21. This describes the results of the council. (Chapter 17 onwards describes the council). Constantine writes to all the cities ordering the destruction of the works of Arius and his followers, and the penalty of death for any who refused to destroy them. The letter is not quoted. There is also an anecdote where a Novatianist bishop is interviewed by the emperor. The bishop agrees to sign the creed but not to resume communion with the Catholics. Constantine tells him to get a ladder and ascend into heaven alone, then; but there is no mention of action against the Novatianists.


When I look at this I envision Doctor Evil (Constantine) from the Austin Powers movies and all his scoundrels gathered round the table. And Scott (Arius) insists on correcting Doctor Evil. (I hope you know this scene!) And after numerous instances of Dr. Evil shushing Scott he has finally had enough.

Dr Evil: Listen up now Scott I will decide what constitutes peace, love and understanding so help me that "New Guy". If you insist on correcting me I'll show you the way to everlasting life, if you get my drift.

Scott: Yes sir, your d*uchebagery, sir.

Dr Evil: WHAT WAS THAT? (Reaching for the ejector button)

Scott: I said yes sir, your EXCELENCY!

Pardon my irreverence but I hold no allegiance to Dr Evil and I suspect you of the same. I also suspect no one showed their meeting notes to Constantine. I also like the "take a long walk off a short pier" reaction to the Bishop.

All hearsay I know but that's everything we are working with.
Is Tom Clancy history? No way. But he did put stories to paper.
That was enough for the Biblical authors whomever they were.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LASTofTheV8s
Just another Bible-Hater trying to stir up trouble.

Just a "drive-by"? Nothing to contribute? Thanks for the insight.
I should surrender the position now. Wowee!


Not a "Bible-Hater" a people lover. I try my very best
not to slam people but you can slide through and stir
up crap. You are likely not even a Christian. They would
not stoop so low. I think you are likely a Roman.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by LASTofTheV8s
 


I give you this from your only thread started on ATS:




I Challenge All Vampires, Were-Creatures, OOBers, Hybrids, Reptiods, and anything else.

According to the threads on this site, half of the ATS membership has either Super Powers, Magic Origins, Spirit Forms, Alien Moms or the ability to become something "toothy".

If you are "real", extra scary, badass, more-than-a-human...

...Come and Get Some.

I figure that wherever I am, at least some of you would be able to find me with no help.

I'll be waiting.



And so no "Vampires, Were-Creatures, OOBers, Hybrids, Reptiods, and anything else" for your crack mind. Does that include "JE-SUS"? You have made the world and ATS a better place in my estimation. I mean that sincerely. You have identified an insulting lurker for the rest of us. Thanks for contributing.

Sorry to all the other posters pro or against my premise.
You've all been the best of the best. I salute you all!



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


You mis-interpret the first quote as only someone who is not walking in the spirit of God would do.

Get yourself saved first. Repent and believe on Jesus Christ as your saviour in your heart, and that will be a good first step to accurately reading the bible. Until then, you're just a heathen whose eyes are purposely clouded by God.

btw, the bible has more profound knowledge and wisdom in it than every single piece of humanly-written/created "artistic" work put together in ALL OF HISTORY (that's about 6,000 years for you flat-earth, evolutionaries lol).

So come to Jesus and start your mind-blowing journey to Truth.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DissentFromDayOne
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


You mis-interpret the first quote as only someone who is not walking in the spirit of God would do.

Get yourself saved first. Repent and believe on Jesus Christ as your saviour in your heart, and that will be a good first step to accurately reading the bible. Until then, you're just a heathen whose eyes are purposely clouded by God.

btw, the bible has more profound knowledge and wisdom in it than every single piece of humanly-written/created "artistic" work put together in ALL OF HISTORY (that's about 6,000 years for you flat-earth, evolutionaries lol).

So come to Jesus and start your mind-blowing journey to Truth.


"Mis-interpret"? I don' think so but just an interpretation. My interpretation. You don't make much sense. "Take the pill, fall for the scam and then you'll see why we believe?" Isn't that what you just suggested? Agree with my interpretation and then you'll agree with my interpretation?

I suspect if I did, I would but I wont. I don't need any "mind-blowing journey". My life, this one, is more than enough for me. You apparently thirst for much more. Good luck finding that. Thanks for stopping by. I love the name calling. You are another Roman or Roman sympathizer. Your laughter gives you away as a member of the council. LOL!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join