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 ancient Greek book that sounds like the New Testament, but which doesn't mention Jesus.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
It's been around for more than 500 years in Europe, but the vast majority of people have never heard of it, let alone read it. Anyone who has read it is going to get some de ja vu when they go through it. This is the first time it's been put up on the internet in modern English as well:

www.orderofmelchizedek.com...




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
There was alot of syncretic cultural/religious tradition in 'Hellenized' society, so it's not uncommon to find Jewish or Christian themes in other texts. It's important to note that these texts are from the 2nd and 3rd centuries meaning that Christianity and Judaism were both well established religions therefore it would be no surprise at all if they stole bits and pieces from each other. It's no secret that alot of what 'Christians' believe today isn't even in the bible (in some cases it's expressly forbidden)
edit on 24-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
After reading a few paragraphs it does sounds a bit similar. So this was the original version of the new testament?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
If I were to guess it would have been a Christian writing from the Roman era when they were under penalty of death for practicing Christianity. Christ is referred to as a "King and priest after the order of Melchezidek". This was they could continue their worship and gathering together w/o alerting the Roman authorities.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
i had never read this literature, but it has already expanded my awareness...thanks OP...this for me is truly ground breaking....i love how it explains that the mind is the father...truly secret knowledge indeed!!!



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Okay, when I posted that above the link didn't work for me and I was guessing, now the link works and I give it two thumbs down. It has nothing to do with Jesus, the new covenant, or the Bible.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
There is another thread saying the same thing: The mind is supreme. However, the mind is part of existence, not apart from it. It is the limited scope of the mind that has so many confused, but that is the nature of the dancing dirt that was raised up from nothing. Worship false idols and you will become more lost than you were. Set your eyes on Life and you will live. We are dust, but Truth is alive and makes alive.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by MayorOfCydonia
 


It is also reminiscent of the Book of Enoch to me....just the short peices I have read anyway. I definately like it S&F for bringing it to my attention!

I love this stuff!!!!



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
There is another thread saying the same thing: The mind is supreme. However, the mind is part of existence, not apart from it. It is the limited scope of the mind that has so many confused, but that is the nature of the dancing dirt that was raised up from nothing. Worship false idols and you will become more lost than you were. Set your eyes on Life and you will live. We are dust, but Truth is alive and makes alive.


you make absolutely zero sense lol.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Some say Shakespere wrote the New Testament, but what do they know, I don't know I wasn't there.
Know this but ...the Old Testament was it wrote for you or against you?
Most western people reject the bile of the middle eastern racist drivel that flows in all directions , yet we are dictated to by a book that quite clearly states we are sub human. (Goyem .gentiles , the unclean,little dogs)
What a load of fools we are?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MayorOfCydonia
 


This material dates from 100 - 200 AD, so it doesn't come before most of the books of the New Testament.

It has been available in translation for a long time, and looking at the 'Order of Melchizedek' site I suspect that this posting may be intended to take us to the many daft things the 'Order' also publishes, including the David Icke line on reptilians, Cydonia, the Illuminati, and much more of the usual nonsense.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Okay, when I posted that above the link didn't work for me and I was guessing, now the link works and I give it two thumbs down. It has nothing to do with Jesus, the new covenant, or the Bible.


That's a relief ! Then its probably worth reading, as it hasn't been bowdlerised by the roman catholic church.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LexiconV

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Okay, when I posted that above the link didn't work for me and I was guessing, now the link works and I give it two thumbs down. It has nothing to do with Jesus, the new covenant, or the Bible.


That's a relief ! Then its probably worth reading, as it hasn't been bowdlerised by the roman catholic church.


If that's your litmus test then pull out a King James Bible.




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Have you ever read about this history of the bible? First of all, all of the oldest manuscripts of what was written in the new testament (there are no originals so their authenticity cannot be verified) are in languages Jesus would likely have not spoken (let alone written). There were thousands of gospels written in the hundreds of years after Jesus' death, most of these were eliminated in order to propagate the state sanctioned religion of Rome from which the modern bible is symptom of and modern 'Christianity' ultimately stems from. Many of the books in the new testament were written by a man who had never been witness to Jesus' ministry (paul). Paul's interpretation of Christianity directly contradicted the teachings of the apostles, and indeed some of the teachings of Jesus in the bible. Add to that the King James version with embelished language and prose, do not accurately represent the bible.

I don't understand how one can rationalise fundamentalism from a book that is not in it's original language, with so many errors and at best a dubious history and with it's likely thousands of additions and changes.
edit on 25-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Have you ever read about this history of the bible?


Yes, I have several books on the origins and histories of the various manuscripts. One of my more favorite biblical subjects of interest.


First of all, all of the oldest manuscripts of what was written in the new testament (there are no originals so their authenticity cannot be verified) are in languages Jesus would likely have not spoken (let alone written).


Jesus spoke Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.



There were thousands of gospels written in the hundreds of years after Jesus' death, most of these were eliminated in order to propagate the state sanctioned religion of Rome from which the modern bible is symptom of and modern 'Christianity' ultimately stems from.


LOL!!! Think about what you just said. For at least the first three hundred years of its existence, the church was marginalized and violently persecuted. Groups like that don’t have the political muscle to suppress anything, and they’re certainly not “the winners.” Yet no early Christian writers accepted any books as genuinely inspired except *surprise!* the same ones we accept today.

Modern Catholicism stems from Augustine and Rome, not Protestantism. that line follows Antioch, through the Byzantine Empire. There were not "thousands of books written. The last apostle to die was John and his last book "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" was written in either 95-96 A.D. John mentions who was emperor of Rome at the time of it's writing, that's a matter of historical record. James was martyred in Jerusalem, and is recorded in Acts 12:2. Paul was beheaded under the reign of Nero. Peter was crucified prior to 67 AD. none of the apostles books mention the siege of Jerusalem or the subsequent destruction of the Temple meaning they were written before 67 AD.


Many of the books in the new testament were written by a man who had never been witness to Jesus' ministry (paul).


Irrelevant, Paul says he received his doctrine frem Jesus Himself via personal revelation. Paul also mentions mentoring in Jerusalem with the 12 to make sure his preaching was correct and not in vain. (Acts, Galatians)


Paul's interpretation of Christianity directly contradicted the teachings of the apostles,..


Read 2 Peter 3:15-16. Peter endorses all of Paul's teachings in all his epistles, calls Paul a "beloved brother in Christ" and put's Paul's epistles on par with Old Testament scripture. That claim is utterly laughable. The council of Jerusalem is where Paul and the other apostles meet and discuss various things and they are all on the same page and even Paul rebukes Peter for legalism.


and indeed some of the teachings of Jesus in the bible.


Mostly when Jesus was teaching He was under the Old Covenant. Christ didn't institute the New Covenant until the last supper with the apostles. And after the Pharisees attributed Jesus's miracles to the power of satan Jesus refused to speak publicly in anything except parables.


Add to that the King James version with embellished language and prose, do not accurately represent the bible.


A Flesch-Kincaid test showed the KJB to be the easiest to read in 21 of 25 categories.


I don't understand how one can rationalise fundamentalism from a book that is not in it's original language, with so many errors and at best a dubious history and with it's likely thousands of additions and changes.


We know what the Bible really says because it was copied and re-copied so many times. Ask any scholar: The more copies there are of an ancient text, the easier it is to compare them and determine what the original said, and the Bible has exponentially more early copies than any other ancient text. Not only that, but the earliest copies date closer to the original than any other ancient text. Also, there being so many copies of the original makes it impossible for any group to “suppress” anything that they didn’t like.

edit on 25-6-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The most accurate (with regard to the oldest manuscripts we have) English bible would be the 'New revised standard version'.

We have NO original documents, we have no way of verifying the author of any of the books of the new testament, and words lose their meaning in translation. For example you cannot sufficiently translate Aramaic and Hebrew (the two languages we know Jesus, a humble carpenter, with very little education would have had knowledge of) into Greek, from there to Latin, then the 1000 years of abuse and destruction of other Christian sects who disagreed with the Romans, from then an already corrupted bible was translated into European languages like English etc. One cannot subject such a message to so much manipulation, and this is assuming every book in the bible including Pauls supposed witness of Jesus even after 'God-incarnate' Jesus died (that I really don't get, how can you believe God died?) was 100% true in it's original form, and then expect the truth to be intact.

What I said about the warring sects of Christianity was a reference to the Persecution of many of the Christians which began after Christianity was appropriated and became an authoritarian cult of Rome. Research the 'Ebionites' for example or the Arians who were visciously persecuted by the Church for their lack of belief in a trinity or Jesus' divinity etc.

Protestantism for the most part is a step in the 'right' direction speaking from the point of view of abandonment of some of the additions to the religion (many of which drew from greek and roman philosophy and pre Christian tradition such as the celebration of Christmas etc). However the accuracy of the bible is at best dubious. There was no complete bible or set of gospels for hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. Even in Europe some of the best preserved and most treasured holy books were incomplete, many only contained two or three of the books of the Bible. Up until then it was merely oral tradition and fragments of parchment, many unauthored (in that we have no clue who wrote the books of the bible) considering there was such vitriolic persecution of Christians at that time.

Some of the oldest known texts we still have, fragments of the bible are from the 2nd century, many of these contradict each other, say completely different things etc and it is the job of the 'biblical scholars' to assume and guess what the original said. Did you know the earliest account of Jesus' resurrection came from 40 years after the event? Historically speaking Christianity is a mess, it'd be different if Jesus penned the book, dictated it even, but what being a Christian means is putting your faith in people repeating stories they were told by people who were told stories by people who saw Jesus. Basically if you're a fundamentalist in that you rely on believing every word of the bible is true, then you're relying on the guesswork of scholars since no original text exists and there are conflicting accounts.


If you'd like to learn more about the textual history and criticism of Christianity I'd suggest reading some of Bart Ehrman's books (He was one of the foremost and most respected biblical scholars in the world until he started to reveal the truth about the dubious origins of the bible).
edit on 26-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 



The most accurate (with regard to the oldest manuscripts we have) English bible would be the 'New revised standard version'.


I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there. The idea that oldest = best is a fallacy. Much of the early church rejected the Textus Vaticanus and Textus Sinaticus that came from Alexandria as "corrupt". They began with Justin Martyr who was the first to mix Egyptian Mysticism and Greek Philosophy with Christianity. While the manuscripts that would eventually make up the Textus Receptus we being used quite extensively the Gnostic manuscripts from Egypt were getting little use. Anyone who has ever went to an antique store knows the best preserved item are ones that received little wear and tear.

The RSV was from the Greek work of Westcott and Hort, two men who were not believers and who labeled themselves as "heretics". Their work was done with the TS and TV Mss, they rejected the TR. What is also interesting to point out, many of the verses expurgated by newer modern translations, (or put into brackets and are questioned in the footnotes as later additions centuries later), are verses QUOTED in works by first century church fathers. Meaning, they were expurgated from the texts, not added in the 3rd and 4th centuries.



edit on 26-6-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




Anyone who has ever went to an antique store knows the best preserved item are ones that received little wear and tear.


And anyone who goes to an antique store knows the most valuable item is the oldest, the original. The newer generation knock-off is more widely available, obscures the finer details and lacks the character of the original. (I suppose that's a good analogy of Christianity)

I'm not here to try and wreck your faith or disprove Christianity. However I am trying to open your eyes to the very likely possibility that modern Christians are relying on a potentially flawed belief system, the holy trinity being one of these, among other things which have dubious origins. As well as that there is the problem with the possibilities of the bible missing books, the possibilities of the addition of verses, subtraction of verses and mistranlations. Translations of translations of stories told by people who were told stories by someone who witnessed Jesus Christ aren't going to be accurate representations of what was said 2000 years ago no matter how much care is taken. If the basis of the entire religion potentially has flaws, then in my honest opinion the religion is flawed from the outset.

As I said research Bart Ehrman and his criticisms of the bible and you'll understand that the historicity of the text, it's multiple authors and translations make it impossible to source, and impossible to verify.
edit on 26-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)


For the record I believe in God, but until theres any sort of verifiable evidence to suggest the bible even contains an accurate portrayal of the message of Jesus Christ then I cannot put faith in it.
edit on 26-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 

. . .or the Arians who were visciously persecuted by the Church for their lack of belief in a trinity or Jesus' divinity etc.
Arius was a hero in the eyes of the proponents of the Trinity, that is, up until political strivers, Athanasius being the apparent chief of them, ramrodded a re-cooked version of the Trinity to suite the notions of a pagan emperor who promised respectability for the Christian religion.
Then, the once heralded defender of the Trinity became the hated foe of the new salaried clerical class.
I should probably add the disclaimer that I am Arian, so get a little touchy on the subject and feel a bit outraged when Arius is being misrepresented.
As a further edit to this post I may want to add that, not to sound like Madonna, I did not just decide the other day to declare myself an Arian, I actually was born into, and grew up in an Arian church.

edit on 26-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Yes, but I was merely trying to illustrate the varying views of the early Church, many of which seem to make much more sense and seem more in touch with the bible than the commonly held 3 Gods = 1 God stuff. Arius' teachings of Jesus being subservient to 'the Father' etc are easier to comprehend than the modern notion of 'trinity' considering Jesus was the 'Son of God' etc.

Anyway I was just trying to give a brief example of some of the many groups who were persecuted by the established Church for all sorts of 'heresy', even though up until that point their beliefs were largely common amongst the Christian population.
edit on 26-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join