The Bible Is A Forgery

page: 3
61
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Without Pauls teachings - as you state - no Christianity.


I assume that you intended this for me, but this is, once again, not what I said.

It is abundantly clear that the message of Christ was to go to the Jews first, and once they'd been exposed to it, to the rest of the world. This is proclaimed both in the Old Testament and in the Gospels. You're implying that Paul came up with the idea and, thus, saved Christianity, but that's not accurate -- Paul was told what his mission was by Christ, in fulfillment of scripture.

As for Christianity dying out (as it likely would have) in the absence of Gentile inclusion, well, that's not what happened, is it? Seems to me that, if an omnipotent and omniscient being had planned things out, it would be far more likely to go that way than what happened to the Gnostic Christians, eh?




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 



1) I never said the Romans wrote the Bible - I said they constructed the Bible - in that they decided what texts went into making the Bible, and what texts did not, before the Bible became the Bible


Absurd lie. The "Septuagint", or the Old Testament was translated into Greek over 300 years before Jesus was born. That's half of the Bible right there.



The Old Testament has nothing to do with Christianity.

Its a Jewish Judaic text, not a Chritstian text.

Only the New Testament and Gnostic Texts should be in the Bible - not texts from Judaism.


Ummm, you said this:

"I said they constructed the Bible"

The OT is the first half of "THE BIBLE". You claimed "The Bible" is a Roman forgery in your OP. This is absurd considering Moses wrote the Torah 2,000 years before the birth of Christ.

The OT is important because Jesus fulfilled over 108 detail-specific prophecies for the Messiah with His birth, life, death and resurrection. And the OT was finished and translated into Greek (Septuagint) 300 years before Christ was born.

YOU said "the Bible".



Try and get your head round this - The OT has nothing to do with Christianity.

Christ never said he was the Jewish Messiah.

The OT was included in the Bible by the romans who produced the Bible after Constantines council of Nicea in 325.

The oldest surviving Christian Bibles are Greek manuscripts from the 4th century; the oldest complete Jewish Bible is a Greek translation, also dating to the 4th century. The oldest complete manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic text) date from the Middle Ages.[5]

During the three centuries following the establishment of Christianity in the 1st century, Church Fathers compiled Gospel accounts and letters of apostles into a Christian Bible which became known as the New Testament. The Old and New Testaments together are commonly referred to as "The Holy Bible" (τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια). The canonical composition of the Old Testament is under dispute between Christian groups: Protestants hold only the books of the Hebrew Bible to be canonical; Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox additionally consider the deuterocanonical books, a group of Jewish books, to be canonical. The New Testament is composed of the Gospels ("good news"), the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles (letters), and the Book of Revelation.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are many bibles each based on who made them.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Do not confuse Gnosticism with Christian Gnosticism. Gnostics who were not Christian would have dismissed the Christian Gnostics as heretics, and not believed that Christ was the Divine Messenger. The texts of Nag Hammadi are more than just Christian Gnostic works, and neither do they represent the whole of Gnostic literature and teaching.


Correct, Justin Martyr was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Justin died wearing the robes of a pagan priest.

"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." ~ Historian Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Without Pauls teachings - as you state - no Christianity.


I assume that you intended this for me, but this is, once again, not what I said.

It is abundantly clear that the message of Christ was to go to the Jews first, and once they'd been exposed to it, to the rest of the world. This is proclaimed both in the Old Testament and in the Gospels. You're implying that Paul came up with the idea and, thus, saved Christianity, but that's not accurate -- Paul was told what his mission was by Christ, in fulfillment of scripture.

As for Christianity dying out (as it likely would have) in the absence of Gentile inclusion, well, that's not what happened, is it? Seems to me that, if an omnipotent and omniscient being had planned things out, it would be far more likely to go that way than what happened to the Gnostic Christians, eh?


Actually it was for the other guy.

How was it abundantly clear the message was for the Jews ?

The Gnstic Gospels state that Christ did not preach to 'Jews' he preached to those who would listen to him where he lived and out of those people he chose only the most wise to hear the Gnostic teachings.

Paul had a vision on the road - if that makes what he said true - then christians have to accept that it could also have happened to Mohammed.

Personally I think Paul had sun stroke and Mohammed was schizophrenic.


I think that in a fallen world, as Christ preached, ruled by an evil demiurge - Jehohav / Yawheh- the christian religion being adopted by the most evil and murderous empire in history - The Roman Empire - tells us that it was the false religion.

The murders and wars undertaken in the name of Christ by christianity prove that the evil god was victorious - not the lamb of god.

The religion of the Gnostics would have ushered ina world of peace, not war.

The evil god of the OT is not the god of christ.

The religion of christianity worships Yahweh / Jehovah / Yaldaboath - and is the false religion of a false and evil god .

The proof, as they say, is in the blood soaked pudding.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Without Pauls teachings - as you state - no Christianity.


I assume that you intended this for me, but this is, once again, not what I said.

It is abundantly clear that the message of Christ was to go to the Jews first, and once they'd been exposed to it, to the rest of the world. This is proclaimed both in the Old Testament and in the Gospels. You're implying that Paul came up with the idea and, thus, saved Christianity, but that's not accurate -- Paul was told what his mission was by Christ, in fulfillment of scripture.

As for Christianity dying out (as it likely would have) in the absence of Gentile inclusion, well, that's not what happened, is it? Seems to me that, if an omnipotent and omniscient being had planned things out, it would be far more likely to go that way than what happened to the Gnostic Christians, eh?


Actually it was for the other guy.

How was it abundantly clear the message was for the Jews ?

The Gnstic Gospels state that Christ did not preach to 'Jews' he preached to those who would listen to him where he lived and out of those people he chose only the most wise to hear the Gnostic teachings.

Paul had a vision on the road - if that makes what he said true - then christians have to accept that it could also have happened to Mohammed.

Personally I think Paul had sun stroke and Mohammed was schizophrenic.


I think that in a fallen world, as Christ preached, ruled by an evil demiurge - Jehohav / Yawheh- the christian religion being adopted by the most evil and murderous empire in history - The Roman Empire - tells us that it was the false religion.

The murders and wars undertaken in the name of Christ by christianity prove that the evil god was victorious - not the lamb of god.

The religion of the Gnostics would have ushered ina world of peace, not war.

The evil god of the OT is not the god of christ.

The religion of christianity worships Yahweh / Jehovah / Yaldaboath - and is the false religion of a false and evil god .

The proof, as they say, is in the blood soaked pudding.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
The OT was included in the Bible by the romans who produced the Bible after Constantines council of Nicea in 325.


This is part of a silly story perpetuated by Dan Brown. The Council of Nicaea had nothing, zero, zilch, to do with the content of the Bible, which, as you've been told at least twice in this thread, was largely determined long before Constantine was even born. The Council of Nicaea was convened to find a consensus regarding the nature of Christ, most importantly, whether he was a creation of the Father (the claim of Arius) or one in essence with the Father.

Spoiler alert...

Arius lost.

If you're a follower of Arius, then you're justified with having a beef against Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. But if you're the sort who gets his "facts" from works of fiction like The Da Vinci Code, sorry, history is against you.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
The OT was included in the Bible by the romans who produced the Bible after Constantines council of Nicea in 325.


This is part of a silly story perpetuated by Dan Brown. The Council of Nicaea had nothing, zero, zilch, to do with the content of the Bible, which, as you've been told at least twice in this thread, was largely determined long before Constantine was even born. The Council of Nicaea was convened to find a consensus regarding the nature of Christ, most importantly, whether he was a creation of the Father (the claim of Arius) or one in essence with the Father.

Spoiler alert...

Arius lost.

If you're a follower of Arius, then you're justified with having a beef against Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. But if you're the sort who gets his "facts" from works of fiction like The Da Vinci Code, sorry, history is against you.


The first Christian Bible in existence is from sometime in the 4th century.

Therefore to assert that the Christian Bible existed as the Bible before the 4th century, and before the first council of Nicea, is impossible and unprovable.

I have zero interest in Dan Brown.

I am open to all the ideas in all the Gnostic Texts - I am not interested in flase statements that the Bible alone represents the word of god or the definitive works of Jesus and that the Gnostic texts are all false.

edit on 17-5-2011 by leejohnbarnes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
If someone posted this already, sorry for the repeat: rebuttal



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 



Try and get your head round this - The OT has nothing to do with Christianity.


The OT has everything to do with Christianity. Jesus fulfilled over 108 detail-specific prophecies from the OT with His life, death, and resurrection. Every detail, ever ritualistic ceremony, every appointed feast day in the OT pointed to Jesus Christ. The OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed.

Without the OT you have no Christianity.


Christ never said he was the Jewish Messiah.


Absolutely stupid on an unparalleled level. Every time Jesus referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" is was a DIRECT reference to Daniel Chapter 7 for the Messiah, the "Moshiach Nagid". (Messiah the King)


The OT was included in the Bible by the romans who produced the Bible after Constantines council of Nicea in 325.


The Biblical cannon was completed and distributed around the churches in Jerusalem and Asia 150 years before Nicea. Nicea was convened to address the Arian Controversy concerning the deity of Jesus Christ. And even when people claim that Jesus wasn't worshiped as divine until Nicea that's blatantly false. Nicea wasn't convened to decide if Jesus was divine or not, but was convened to decide how to define His deity!

You're one of the most ignorant person to church history I've ever encountered in all my time discussing Church History and Christianity.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 



The first Christian Bible is from the 4th century.

Therefore to assert that the Bible existed as the Bible before the 4th century is impossible.



Misconceptions
 

The Biblical Canon

Main article: Development of the Christian Biblical canon

A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all. The development of the Biblical Canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, perhaps as early as 150 years before the council. Later in 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Little else is known, though it has been speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists.


The First Council of Nicea ~ Wikipedia



Wrong again pesudo-scholar.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
The OT has everything to do with Christianity. Jesus fulfilled over 108 detail-specific prophecies from the OT with His life, death, and resurrection. Every detail, ever ritualistic ceremony, every appointed feast day in the OT pointed to Jesus Christ. The OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed.



= total rubbish. The Bible was written to ensure Christ fitted those facts.


Without the OT you have no Christianity.

= with the OT you have Judaism.

Christ never said he was the Jewish Messiah.


Absolutely stupid on an unparalleled level. Every time Jesus referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" is was a DIRECT reference to Daniel Chapter 7 for the Messiah, the "Moshiach Nagid". (Messiah the King)

= He was the Son of Man, we all are.

He didnt say he was the Jewish Messiah did he - in fact it could be argued he was specifically repudiating that he was the messiah by reaffirming his simple humanity.



The OT was included in the Bible by the romans who produced the Bible after Constantines council of Nicea in 325.


The Biblical cannon was completed and distributed around the churches in Jerusalem and Asia 150 years before Nicea. Nicea was convened to address the Arian Controversy concerning the deity of Jesus Christ. And even when people claim that Jesus wasn't worshiped as divine until Nicea that's blatantly false. Nicea wasn't convened to decide if Jesus was divine or not, but was convened to decide how to define His deity!

= RUBBISH - the EARLIESTearly copy of the CHRISTIAN BIBLE comes from the 4th century. You cannot say ' the christian Bible was around 150 years before Nicea - as there is ZERO evidence to assert that fact. You can only say that the earliest christian Bible comes from the 4th century, after the first council of Nicea.



You're one of the most ignorant person to church history I've ever encountered in all my time discussing Church History and Christianity.


= And you are the most idiotic and dogmatic dolt I have ever met in my wanderings discussing religions.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
How was it abundantly clear the message was for the Jews ?

The Gnstic Gospels state that Christ did not preach to 'Jews' he preached to those who would listen to him where he lived and out of those people he chose only the most wise to hear the Gnostic teachings.


Then why was he in Judea?

Think, man, think! Approach it logically, even if you don't understand the philosophical and theological points that underlie it.

Why would the Divine Messenger be born a Jew, live the whole of his life in Judea, and die on a cross in Jerusalem? He didn't preach to the Jews? Apart from a handful of Roman soldiers and politicians, he had no one else to preach to!

And, again, the Jews were people who were deadly serious about their faith. If you went in there and started claiming that their God was an incompetent bumbler, as the Gnostics said, your life expectancy would be measured in minutes. No Jew would listen to that, much less say it.


The religion of the Gnostics would have ushered ina world of peace, not war.


Again, I think that you should spend a bit more time with the texts that you think you're supporting. The Gnostic Christians believed that there were three types of people -- the Gnostics, who had a piece of the Divine Spark in them, the Christians (the proto-Orthodox ones, like Paul) who recognized Christ a being special, even if they didn't understand why, and then everyone else, who were pretty much hopeless and worthless.

Gnosticism has, at its very heart, an elitist core that makes Judaism look inclusionary by comparison. That is not the road to peace, sorry.


The evil god of the OT is not the god of christ.


The Gnostics viewed the demiurge as being evil because he took the perfect intelligible world and made a lousy copy, creating the sensible world, and then proclaimed himself the proud ruler of it. In other words, it wasn't the results that made him wrong, it was the act of doing anything in the first place.

Unless you buy into the Greek notion that material existence is the inherent evil, the Gnostics' view of creation and the creator is not really defensible.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Just so you get the point clearly ;


Of course there were fragments of biblical texts floating around before the 4th CENTURY BUT THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN BIBLE IS THE CODEX SINAITICUS.

WRITTEN AND PRODUCED UNDER THE ORDERS OF CONSTANTINE !


en.wikipedia.org...

Date of the codex

The codex was written in the 4th century. It could not have been written before 325 CE because it contains the Eusebian Canons, which is a terminus post quem. It could not have been written after 360 CE because of certain references to Church fathers in the margin. This means that 360 CE is a terminus ad quem.[10]

According to Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus was one of the fifty copies of the Bible commissioned from Eusebius by Roman Emperor Constantine after his conversion to Christianity (De vita Constantini, IV, 37).[57] This hypothesis was supported by Pierre Batiffol,[58] Gregory, and T. C. Skeat believed that it was already in production when Constantine placed his order, but had to be suspended in order to accommodate different page dimensions.[37]

Frederic G. Kenyon argued: "There is not the least sign of either of them ever having been at Constantinople. The fact that Sinaiticus was collated with the manuscript of Pamphilus so late as the sixth century seems to show that it was not originally written at Caesarea".[59]

www.readwriteweb.com...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Judaism was (and still is, mostly,) an exclusive religion


That is incorrect. Heres some of the ancient sources that speak of Jewish proselytism or at the very least "influence" of the Roman populations by making them forsake the state worship of the Roman gods and becoming what theycall "G-d fearers"

Horace:

" When i find a bit of leaisure, I trifle with my papers.
These are on of those lesser frailties i speak of,
and if you should make no allowance for it,
then would a big band of poets come to my aid -
for we are the big majority --
and we, like the Jews, will compel you
to make one of our throng.

Many scholars take the last line of ths satire to refer to "strong Jewish missionary activity in Rome"

Cicero:

"another debate dealt with the proscription of the Egyptian and Jewish rites, and a sensation edict directed that four thousnd descendants of enfranchized slaves tainted with that superstition [Judaism] nd suitable in point of age, were to be shipped to Sardinia and there employed in supressing brigandage. "if thy succumbed to the pestilential climate, it was a cheap loss". The rest hd orders to leav Italy, unless they had renounced their impious ceremonial by a given date"

Seneca (as reported bu Augustine):

"But when speaking of the Jews, he [seneca] says: "Meanwhile, the customs of this accursed people, have gained such influence that they are now recieved throughout the world. The vanquished have given laws to their victors". He shows his surprise as he says this, not knowing what was being wrought by the providence of God. But he adds a statement that shows what he thought of their system of sacred institutions. "The Jews, however are aware of the origin and meaning of their rites. The greater part of the people go through a ritual not knowing why they do so"

Domitian:

"Besides other taxes, the fiscus Iudaicus was administered with the uttermost vigor. Persons who were either living a Jewish life without publicly acknowledging it or, concealing their origins, did not pay the tribute that had been imposed on their people, were prosecuted. I recall being present in my youth when the person of a man 90 years old was examined before the procurator and a very crowded court, to see whether he was circumsized"

Cassius Dio:

"And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavius Dimitilla, who was a relative of the emperor. The charge brought against him was that of atheism, a charge of many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death and the rest were atleast deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, contrary to what you think these historians/poets speak for themselves. Jewish beliefs had infiltrated Roma Pagan society and values and this was a bane to the Roman authorities, as it challenged more than just their religious beliefs, but their whole way of life (which included their power)...

More importantly though, Judaism allows converts when the person is SINCERE. It doesnt just go seeking converts. In the past if there were many converts it was due to the fame and reknown of the Jewish people and their religion. But that isnt possible today thanks to the demonizations of the Christian religion.

So one who is "chosen" isnt chosen by birth, but by inclination of spirit. If one yearns for truth, and yearns for G-d he is led to Judaism and becomes as equal a Jew as one born a Jew, as the Torah emphasizes many times.

" you shall treat the Ger the same as the Citizen - there shall be one law for all"




The Romans cut the Jews a lot of slack, particularly in the area of religious observances, because they were so stubborn and unyielding about their faith


Huh? Umm.. 70 CE the ROMAN emperor Vespasian led by his son and general Titus destroyed the Jewish temple. In 135 CE, according to Cassius Dio, during the war [ the bar Kobha rebellion] 580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed. And millions of other over the following centuries were exiled from the land.

Ya...Thankyou Rome for showing the Jews slack.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Jails are always closed yet full, while temples are always open yet empty.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 




Sorry, but you have been totally exposed as an idiot.


Actually, you have Sir. You've shown the history of the Biblical texts that originated from Alexandria, Egypt. Not the Byzantine text, or "Majority Text". (Textus Receptus) The reason there are older versions dating to the 4th century is because most of the early church saw the Alexandrian texts as corrupt and were NOT using them!

What would have a better chance of surviving for 1,000 years? A text used weekly/daily in the church or a text that was rejected by the majority and sat on a shelf collecting dust? Older = better is a fallacy of logic!



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.



KJV Controversy



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Of course there were fragments of biblical texts floating around before the 4th CENTURY BUT THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN BIBLE IS THE CODEX SINAITICUS.


The Old Syrian text of the bible that originated in Antioch, Syria was translated into Old Latin in 150 A.D. It's the "Majority Text", or the Textus Receptus manuscript the King James Bible was translated from. In case your math is as good as your history:

150 is earlier than the 4th century A.D.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Of course there were fragments of biblical texts floating around before the 4th CENTURY BUT THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN BIBLE IS THE CODEX SINAITICUS.

WRITTEN AND PRODUCED UNDER THE ORDERS OF CONSTANTINE !


Please stop citing Wikipedia. It is not a reputable source, apart from a place to send people for an overall introduction to a topic, which we are far beyond.

While it is true that the earliest known copies of the New Testament post-date the establishment of the Canon, as well as the writing, this is understandable in the context of historical texts (there were no copy machines, not really any "books" -- lots of scrolls and codexes). But we have text fragments and historical evidence sufficient to say that the Gospel of Luke that existed in 500AD, for example, wasn't much different than the Gospel of Luke that existed in 90AD.

I would reference you to this page: The Development of the Canon of the New Testament which gives an overview of the books of the New Testament and some that were rejected, along with citations by a number of Church Fathers who preceded Constantine. Irenaeus, for example, who died in 203AD, accepted pretty much the whole of the existing works, except for a couple of epistles, and added 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas.


Sorry, but you have been totally exposed as an idiot.


I think that you will find that name calling doesn't really further your arguments on ATS. We try to rise about the juvenile here.





top topics
 
61
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join