reply to post by samaka
excerpt from post by samaka
Ok then so why can I find many contradicting aspects of evolution but I bet you can't even find 1 contradicting thing about the bible, that's even if
you ever read and understood the bible but you strike me like aperson that swears by google and picks and chooses what he wants to hear to his own
fitting of life.
See I was on your side on the evolution thing, but on this Bible thing? This is one of the subjects I have been researching for decades. I can give
you lots of contradictions in the Bible and the biggest one is it's origins. But lets set the main course aside until we get the appetizer and soup
out of the way.
Explain the word Elohim please. I will give you a start since I know this is not something any Christian gives any thought to. Elohim is plural for
God, as in Gods. It is still in the Bible despite the many edits, adjustments, translations and versions it has gone through. What does it mean and
why is it still there?
Explain Simon Magus. What is the Christian explanation. I am patient, you can wait a week until you see your minister again and ask him.
But maybe it would be better if you talked to a priest, and I will tell you why. I am re-posting an excerpt of an earlier post of my own because it
is a lot of typing and I just got off work.
excerpt from one of my previous posts
Now as to the bible... (oh here we go, first thing in the morning on my third day on this site!) In the fourth century AD the emperor Constantine - a
pagan Roman Emperor - made a deal with the Catholic Church. At the time the Catholic Church was a relatively smaller sect of the many, many Christian
sects at the time. And at that time there was no canonized bible, just a lot of loose scriptures floating around. The various Christian sects were
gaining in prominence and threatened the longevity of the then pagan Roman Empire. Constantine had the solution though.
The Deal; If the Catholic Cardinals and Archbishops would meet in Nicea and decide which books were to be included and which books were to be excluded
(These books came to be known as the Apocrypha.) Rome would produce - so to speak - the first canonized bible and recognize the Catholic Church as the
official church of the Roman Empire. Now most of us understand today that when someone is an editor he (they) will also make suggestions to the
author for changes, and knowing that being published probably depends on agreeing to these changes, most authors will usually agree to them. In this
case the authors of the various scriptures were no longer with us and this served to make the editorial process more smooth and much quicker. The end
result? We now have a Bible in which almost none of Jesus teaching - what he said - are reproduced, save a few parables. The nuns in Catholic school
told me that Jesus only taught in parables, but about thirty seconds consideration shows this to be highly unlikely. I mean would you drop everything
and follow someone who spoke only in riddles? No one followed Nostradamus, and his quattrains were nothing but riddles. Similarly there is no record
in the bible of where Jesus went between the ages of 13 and 30, though some compelling evidence exists that he went to India, and studied and taught
there during that time.
But the real problems with the Bible start when you consider what the Catholics did one year after they received this Roman stamp of approval. As I
said before the Catholics were a relatively small sect at the time, but once they were the official Religion of the now Holy Roman Empire the clerics
set about destroying all scriptures which had been excluded. That's right, they held book burnings for centuries on end, but they didn't stop there.
During the same time they hunted down and exterminated opposing Christian sects. Of course the guys in the red and black robes did not grab up the
sword and take to the streets murdering non-Catholics, they simply declared the next victims to be heretical and sent the Crusaders to do it for them.
This went along rather well - unless you were one who refused to convert of course - until the time came to deal with the Cathars.
In the case of the Cathars who had no weapons and kept no money for themselves, the Pope decided to send Saint Bernard - yes that's where the name of
the dog breed came from - to look them over and report back. Upon returning St. Bernard reported to the Pope that this was one of the most Christian
groups he had ever encountered and recommended they be left alone as they were truly doing God's work. Not to be swayed, the Pope sent the Crusaders
in, however there was a problem. The Knights Templar, who had been doing the Popes (plural) dirty work in this area for centuries, refused this job.
Why? Well, we will come to that.
Anyway, this was no hill for a climber, and the Pope - I keep trying to think of the Pope's name, I want to say Pope Innocent, but I don't think that
is right. This is all from memory this morning; coffee before bibliography, you know - was a climber in the true sense. The Pope simply contracted
another group of knights to do the job for him and this is what we know today as the Albigensian Crusade. When they arrived in the Langue Doc area of
what is now Southwest France the knights found that the Cathar's neighbors - who also were not armed - thought so highly of the Cathars that they hid
them away to protect them. No matter, the knights were there to do a job and they did it, they just killed everyone down to the last woman and child.
Indeed, if you go to the Langue Doc region in the southwest of France even today they still maintain that Jesus wife and his children landed there
shortly after the crucifixion and it was the descendants of the Magdalen and the Christ who formed not only the Cathars, but supposedly the
Merovingian Dynasty which is said to be the actual bloodline of Christ.
On top of that if you read the Sumerian story entitled the Enuma Elish which predates the Bible by a couple thousand years, you will see that it is
strikingly similar to the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible. So much so that it leaves the Adam and Eve version looking like the Reader's Digest
Abridged version. And though I forget the name now the story of Noah is also presented 2000 years before the Bible. Noah's real name was
To be fair, it has been an age old tradition that when a new religion comes into vogue it retains some of the elements of the old faith. This has
always been so, and it makes the transition easier for the flock. A look at England's attempt to remove the Christmas holiday long ago will show you
the truth of this practice very clearly.
So, are you Catholic? Because you are quoting from a book that was rewritten and corrupted by some Catholics with dreams of global power. And we
haven't even started on King James.
Final note, I am a Christian in that I believe in Christ, I am a Buddhist because I believe in the truth and purity of their message, and I am a
Taoist because I understand the idea of the One and know it to be true. All spiritual paths lead to truth, but lies cannot. What we see in the Bible
is not what Jesus taught, not if Essau was in India studying and teaching. (yeah, that was his real name.) I believe in reincarnation and think that
Essau the Essene did too, and taught it, but I also believe it because in my last life I was a NAZI. No one has told me this, I just feel it - hard
to explain in words. I am not a NAZI in this life, but I do have some negative karma I am working through from it, Oh, and Karma is another thing
which we Christians would believe if those Da**ed Catholics had just left things well enough alone.
I also know that every time we humans know we have things all figured out, we have a rude awakening coming our way.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Ittabena because: forgot to use ex-text to quote
edit on 30-7-2011 by Ittabena because: ex-text when I
meant to quote. Still new.