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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr_Suess

Again you will have to show me wear the church tried to be the government itself and not just a major influencing part. The verse used in the OP was proposed as meaning to subject oneself to the government not the church. What about the first three centuries of the christian church before the government of rome was christianized?


I need proof that this is what the church taught to its members. Otherwise you and the OP are making baseless assertions which show very little thought or time even given to the subject at hand.


You're suggesting we chase our tails. No thanks. The verse used was proposed as meaning to submit earthly things to the force of the government so as not to lose your soul. If you killed the taxman, it might be a just kill but you will suffer for that earthly justice in the next life. That's not how a good Christian will deal with that situation. Just submit, it's only money. That's what the Romans wanted. No resistance.

The Church was never the government, only a tool of the government. That that relationship evolved over time due to changes in Emperors and Popes, that's just politics. Jewish priests served kings, priests served pharaohs, this was continuation of a very familiar, time honored relationship. It was meant to be comfortable. Thus the tie ins with the Pagan celebrations in the early church. The Jesus cults were if not invented by the Romans outright, they were incorporated too into as another poster coined, Judaism-Lite. All the control of Judaism without the revolutionary tribal nastiness.

Everyone was welcome, everyone was made comfortable, everyone was made to submit, get in line, one set of rules. And willingly if at all possible. They were devious.




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by Flakey
The New Testament was altered in Nicaea.


*Sigh*

No, it was NOT!

The Council of Nicea had NOTHING to do with choosing the books of the bible - it's a common urban legend that is endlessly repeated on this web site.

But it's completely FALSE.
Please go read up on it.



K.


Yes, technically it was 40 years after but still of the era, that is why scholars delineate between pre-nicene and post-nicene version of the bible.

But you would rather focus on your "gotcha" argument than contemplate the true implications of the bible being selectively edited to serve the Roman empire's agenda.




Through to the mid-fourth century AD, there were twice as many sacred writings in circulation in Christendom as were ultimately canonized for the New Testament. Not until AD 367, forty-two years after the famous Council of Nicea, would Saint Athanasius begin sorting through and determining which works should be granted special status. Prior to that time, Christians had recognized only the Hebrew Bible as scripture, all other works being seen as expressions rather than as sources of faith. Out of political necessity, and for the sake of unity and order in the church, canonization was harshly imposed on the churches.


www.amazon.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 





The Church and the Empire were one in the same that's the assertion. Why would one give away the other? That's the point of my premise. Rome authored Christianity.


This shows a complete lack of any historical study what so ever. I am sorry but this just shows how little you have even looked into the history of the roman empire as well as the history of the christian church. I guess if you want us to we can close our eyes and ignore the first 300 years of history about the christian church before Constantine came along or would you now like to revise your assertion to say that those verse weren't added until the fourth century?




If you read through the thread you would see that this was brought up by another poster:


You realize that this is not a primary source and was written a hundred years after the council of Nicaea? Again this shows you didn't even take the time to verify the source. I am not sure why I should even take you seriously if you won't even check your facts. Poor scholarship.




Although not my find, I expect that is the way dissension was handled and thus none or scant little written evidence to be researched.


Actually I have sitting on my shelf 38 volumes of the writings of the early christian church for the first 800 years. Did you even look to see if there was primary sources?

[edit on (1/2/10) by Dr_Suess]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
To the Cesar - Cesar's is a philosophical statement and it is only useful to those who have decided to abandon the world. Maybe it was more suitable to those early Christians who would rather die than be enslaved. But Church changed that practice, and now Church owns both one's life and death (suicide is forbidden). So it became a political/religious statement.

You can see this from another story about Jesus and the rich man, when Jesus told him to give up his wealth to the poor if he wanted to follow his way, and the rich guy wouldn't do that. What can I say, the rest is history.

Now, Christians are considered the sheep, not philosophically advanced individuals who can wrestle with God on their own. Their morality and ethics are outside, in the form of a shepherd and pens. Their ability to advance spiritually is denied to them. It is a mockery of existentialism.

And for the guy who needs proofs, go get your proofs yourself. There's plenty of proofs only if you are sincere enough and have some courage to abandon your riches.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Originally posted by Dr_Suess

Again you will have to show me wear the church tried to be the government itself and not just a major influencing part. The verse used in the OP was proposed as meaning to subject oneself to the government not the church. What about the first three centuries of the christian church before the government of rome was christianized?


I need proof that this is what the church taught to its members. Otherwise you and the OP are making baseless assertions which show very little thought or time even given to the subject at hand.


You're suggesting we chase our tails. No thanks. The verse used was proposed as meaning to submit earthly things to the force of the government so as not to lose your soul. If you killed the taxman, it might be a just kill but you will suffer for that earthly justice in the next life. That's not how a good Christian will deal with that situation. Just submit, it's only money. That's what the Romans wanted. No resistance.

The Church was never the government, only a tool of the government. That that relationship evolved over time due to changes in Emperors and Popes, that's just politics. Jewish priests served kings, priests served pharaohs, this was continuation of a very familiar, time honored relationship. It was meant to be comfortable. Thus the tie ins with the Pagan celebrations in the early church. The Jesus cults were if not invented by the Romans outright, they were incorporated too into as another poster coined, Judaism-Lite. All the control of Judaism without the revolutionary tribal nastiness.

Everyone was welcome, everyone was made comfortable, everyone was made to submit, get in line, one set of rules. And willingly if at all possible. They were devious.


At this point, since you cannot support your assertion with any proof what so ever, I am going to bow out of the thread and leave you to your ignorance on the subject matter. It is too bad that the level of scholarship here has shown to be of a child like level.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


The sad part Mr. Death is I never once said that I disagreed with the OP, only I wanted some evidence from the early christian church as to what they were taught concerning those verses, but alas both you and the OP don't know how to actually research this topic. It is just sad to see.

peace out.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 





. 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.


The irony of it, one god man succeeding another with the sheeple terrorized with blasphemy laws, if anything this seems to strengthen the OPs argument.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by AshleyD
 





. 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.


The irony of it, one god man succeeding another with the sheeple terrorized with blasphemy laws, if anything this seems to strengthen the OPs argument.


There are actually two kinds of this two-sided ideas.

Man-God, like Alexander the Great, or Augustus Cesar, or Napoleon, or Stalin, or Hitler...

And

God-Man, like Christ, was supposed to be the opposite, based on the oldest concept, like Hercules or some other characters from mythology, but they all had to EARN their ascension to Heaven. Hercules had to complete 10 tasks to earn his ascension. Odyssey also had to earn it before he transformed into an image of Hercules and went to the land of Hyperboreans (as if ascending).

In both cases, (Cesar or Jesus) these characters were supposedly BORN with god-nature, none of them actually earned their divine souls.

In Christianity, we can see how saints earn their sainthood - by loyalty to God and resisting oppression from Cesar. But the verse from NT teaches us otherwise. It doesn't encourage Christians to oppose oppressors, unless it is suitable because of the political situation, like in the case of Jean d'Arc. Still, she was destroyed by the Church, after she helped the French win the war. Her direct contact with God didn't help her in the end. This also shows to what extent Church became a political tool, and it split into sects because it was a political tool. This renders much of the NT to uselessness.

Mother Theresa was pronounced a saint, but now there's plenty of noise about her being actually corrupt... It is politics, not religion. Or, religion is actually politics, nothing to worry about.





[edit on 2-1-2010 by DangerDeath]

[edit on 2-1-2010 by DangerDeath]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Hemisphere
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.


Yes,
the CoN dealt with the heresy of Arianism

No,
it did NOT have ANYTHING to do with choosing the books of the NT.

Did you think CHANGING the subject would fool anyone?
Cannot you admit you were wrong about the CoN?



Originally posted by Hemisphere
Did you read your own post?


Yes, did you?

I posted facts showing clearly that you claim is FALSE - but you just ignored it all and changed the subject.

You cannot admit you were wrong, can you ?




Originally posted by Hemisphere
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.


Plenty to see here :

I posted at length showing that the Council of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the NT at all.

This false claim is endlessly repeated on this site - we should rename this forum to:
"Nicea NT canon myth believers forum"

You can tell someone is a lighweight who has never studied the facts when they repeat this well-known, but false, urban legend



K.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
So much to know and so little of time. Feeling better btw. I myself have no knowledge of roman knowledge. I can only see things the way I see things and try to show you examples. if your with me or not than so be it.

Roman soilders were cruel to jesus. If roman were to create a Jesus figure to subdue the people than wouldn't they try to create a story on a more positive note on their side?

Also there is a letter of Herod to pontious pilot discussing Jesus. I will look for it.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Hemisphere
VIVIVI (Roman for 666)


Wrong again -
VIVIVI is not Roman for 666.
It's DCLXVI.

You just make it up as you go, without ever checking anything.


K.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
www.orthodox.cn...



I am in great anxiety. I write these things to you, that when you have heard them you may be grieved for me. For as my daughter Herodias, who is dear to me, was playing upon a pool of water that had ice upon it, it broke under her and all her body went down, and her head was cut off and remained on the surface of the ice. And behold, her mother is holding her head upon her knees in her lap, and my whole house is in great sorrow.
2. For I, when I heard of the man Jesus, wished to come to you, that I might see him alone and hear his word, whether it was like that of the sons of men.
3. And it is certain that because of the many evil things which were done by me to John the Baptist, and because I mocked the Christ, behold I receive the reward of unrighteousness, for I have shed much blood of others' children upon the earth. Therefore the judgments of God are righteous, for every man receives according to his thought. But since you were worthy to see that God-man, therefore it is appropriate for you to pray for me.




Pointious Responds to herod



1. Know and see, that in the day when you delivered Jesus to me, I took pity on myself and testified by washing my hands that I was innocent concerning him who rose from the grave after three days, and had performed your pleasure in him, for you wanted me to be associated with you in his crucifixion.
2. But I now learn from the executioners and from the soldiers who watched his sepulchre that he rose from the dead. And I have especially confirmed what was told me: that he appeared bodily in Galilee, in the same form, and with the same voice, and with the same doctrine, and with the same disciples, not having changed in anything, but preaching with boldness his resurrection and an everlasting kingdom.





Dear hemisphere. What the issue is without going further into abstract and unknown readings is that if the roman government did create it they did indeed create their ultimate down fall and were crushed beneath them for it.
[edit on 2-1-2010 by Jordan River]

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Jordan River]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by oliveoil
I didn't say that.


You said EXACTLY that!
Don't you even remember your own posts?

1st you implied they were written by eye-witnesses,
then when I pointed out they weren't, you said
"I didn't say that"
now you say :
"was indeed first hand"

Do you even know what your own argument is anymore?



Originally posted by oliveoil
I said that Matthew (who's account was indeed first hand)


Wrong.
G.Matthew was copied from G.Mark by someone who never met Jesus.

It was NOT 1st-hand, and contains NO 1st hand accounts.

Like I said :
Not ONE NT book was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.



Originally posted by oliveoil
And Mark (john mark, associate of peter) Authored his book.


Like I said :
Not ONE NT book was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.



K.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by ralphellis2
You are right.

Luke, Acts, and the Epistles, were all written by Saul (and he edited the others too). And also, Saul was Josephus Flavius.

But Saul-Josephus was a Jewish quisling (traitor) working for the Romans. Judaism had fomented many revolts, and its people were very divisive and separatist - they were not good Romans. So what Rome wanted was a Rome-friendly Judaism - Judaism Lite, or Simple Judaism as I call it.

Saul-Josephus created that new form of Judaism for Emperor Vespasian, and it was promoted by these Emperors (with Vespasian's cousin becoming

the third Pope). The persecutions we all hear about, were of the Nazarene - the original Church of Jesus. Rome wanted Judaism Lite, not a cult that promoted castration (Tossers of Testicles, as they were known).


Crazy crackpottery, supported by no facts, supported by no scholars.


K.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Originally posted by Kapyong
No official saying unto who have wrote matthew



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
There is unique authorship from Genesis to Revelation.
Bible was written by 40 men.
It has 66 books.

It is harmonious, coherent and contains a common theme.

It is historically accurate.

It is scientifically accurate.

It has unerring prophecies.

The Bible is as it says it is: The inspired word of God.

and the thousands of copies and copies of various scribed gospels attest to the accuracy of the translations.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by fmcanarney]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I hate to disprove people on my major theory such as this one.

Many of the 12, I honestly do believe by that time majority of the 12 had scribes that wrote the Gospels. And some have wrote it all with their own hand John, peter, luke come to mind. In ancient times scribes were professional at their task and created copies as well. Each copy had to been hand written (duh) so the likely hood that perhaps the stories were hand written by scribes which indeed would no be able to show any official authorship of the Gospels as the true 12. We may look at the letter of herod in a manner that claims to been created in the 6th century. Although, if a scribe was to make a copy of the letter six generations after the death of christ than the carbon copy test or whatever scientist use to figure the date would be obviously 6th century. Does this mean that the letter came to late? Maybe, maybe not. It just means that it was the copy of the orginal which was handed down.

John the apostle lived accordingly for about 99 years. So for the man to write it in 70-80 ad is possible if this theory was true.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Jordan River]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
Yes, technically it was 40 years after but still of the era,


Rubbish.
What happened 40 years later exactly?
Do you mean the festal epistle of Athanasius in 367?
He just happens to be the FIRST list that matches ours.

The process of canonization took centuries, as anyone who bothers to check the facts will find out.

Era?
Within the same era?!
Why can't you just admit you were wrong?

The Council of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the Bible!

Why does this site contain endless repeats of this FALSE claim?
Why doesn't anyone here ever check the bloody facts !?



Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
that is why scholars delineate between pre-nicene and post-nicene version of the bible.


Rubbish.
Another claim you just made up, without any facts.



Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
But you would rather focus on your "gotcha" argument than contemplate the true implications of the bible being selectively edited to serve the Roman empire's agenda.


No,
I'd rather focus on the FACTS!
Something completely foreign to you obviously.

The facts are crystal clear to anyone who bothers to check them -
the Council of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the NT.

You are wrong.

But sadly, you appear to be yet another poster who is completely unable to admit error.




Through to the mid-fourth century AD, there were twice as many sacred writings in circulation in Christendom as were ultimately canonized for the New Testament. Not until AD 367, forty-two years after the famous Council of Nicea, would Saint Athanasius begin sorting through and determining which works should be granted special status. Prior to that time, Christians had recognized only the Hebrew Bible as scripture, all other works being seen as expressions rather than as sources of faith. Out of political necessity, and for the sake of unity and order in the church, canonization was harshly imposed on the churches.


See?!
No mention of Nicea at all !

Showing I was right, and you were wrong.
Can you admit it ?


Athanasius was NOT the leader of the church, his word was NOT law.
He just HAPPENS to have the first canon that matches ours.




Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
www.amazon.com...


So THAT's the origin of your error !

He is referring to the 54 books before Nicea, not just the NT - he uses the phrase "Pre-Nicea New Testament" to mean all the Christian works before that time.

It does NOT mean the CoN changed the NT.
His book does NOT claim that at all.

So,
there we have it - you have misunderstood a title of a book, and based your argument on it, not realising you had it wrong.

Can you admit your error?


K.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Jordan River
www.orthodox.cn...


Jordan -
that book is a known forgery from many centuries later.


K.




[edit on 2-1-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River
Originally posted by Kapyong
No official saying unto who have wrote matthew


Scholars agree it was NOT by Matthew, for various reasons you can read here :
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


K.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join