reply to post by Mividau
You ask some big questions, the answers to which it took me a long time to discover and understand. Right now I am preparing a thread on the Council
of Nicaea, the Ecumenical Councils that followed, the Canonized Bible - which resulted from these Councils - and the persecution of opposing
viewpoints by the Catholic Vatican. However at the moment I am in the middle of my work week and it is slowing me down - extra hours to cover
vacationing coworkers. Now there is a common belief that at the Council of Nicaea the Bible was edited
this is a false generalization which I
am guilty of as well. Now corrected from my recent research I know that the Council of Nicaea was only part of the process, but it was an important
part since it was through this first Council that Catholicism received it's endorsement from the Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine as the new official
religion of the now Holy
Before the fundamentalists begin to attack - no this is not based on Dan Brown's writings, or even the one
book from which he took the fiction
"The Davinci Code" from; Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This comes from reading many, many books over the course of many, many years of personal
historical research. The reason I became interested in history is unrelated to religion in any way. But once I was interested in history I needed to
understand the reason for the hypocrisy between the teachings of Catholicism and the actions of some of it's clerics and the actions of the Vatican
In order to understand the ideas you ask about I would suggest reading the books of Zecheria Sitchin who has done a lot of work on the ancient tablets
from the first civilization we have any akashic record of; Sumeria. These tablets have never fit into accepted archeological theories, and therefore
have been assigned storage in forgotten basements of museums around the world, and therefore the dustbin of history.
I should point out that I am a Christian. Mentioning the books of Sitchin will probably bring another wave of antagonism here so I thought I should
mention that I am a believer, but I am not a Catholic any longer!
. Nothing in the writings of Sitchin is threatening to the Christian faith in
that he is explaining things which predate Christianity by at least 3000 years, still some are threatened. I think the animosity from fundamental
Christians comes from the fact that he shows older and more detailed versions of the story of Adam (real name Adapa) and Eve, and the story of Noah
(real name Utnapishtam) and the flood. From studying history I can tell you that whenever a new faith has come along elements and stories from the
old faith are almost always incorporated into the new to assist us stubborn humans in making the transition. Also it should be mentioned that the
Sumerians gave us many things which we still use today, such as playing cards, signs of the zodiac, the symbol we use for the medical profession to
this day, and they even knew of Uranus about 5000 years before we discovered it. They accomplished this last without the benefit of lenses or
telescopic equipment of any sort.
I always wondered about the many gods of paganism and Zecheria presents a plausible theory and backs it up with evidence till sometimes you wish he
would just get on with the story.
As for the One, this is how I now think of God. And to understand it I would suggest starting with the Upanishads. (Here come the fundamentalists
again) It is said to be the oldest scripture on the planet, although it was handed down verbally through generations before it was committed to
print. It basically says - and I greatly summarize here - that there is a spark of God in each of us and that we should listen to the "small, still
voice inside of us which is the voice of God. Not very threatening huh? Still this and enlightenment have caused many to proclaim that the followers
believe they are God, this is a gross simplification and utterly untrue.
To continue to understand the idea of the One, I would also like to suggest you look at The Secret Teachings Of All Ages, by Manly P. Hall,
specifically the part on the Kabalah and what it says about the Sacred Geometry explanation for the origin of Creation. It is an unlikely source and
one that will get me jeered at, but I always remember what my personal hero Thomas Jefferson said, and I paraphrase from memory; Question literally
everything, including religion.
This part of the One is difficult to understand at first until you realize that it is merely rational thought applied to the Creation of the world.
Most of the time Christians will view God as a creature, complete with a personality and human failings, and the God of the Old Testament and the God
of the New Testament can be seen to behave completely different. The God of the Old Testament is a vengeful and fearful God who demands fear from his
followers and is quick to punish sins severely, while the God of the New Testament is much more forgiving and understanding and milder in comparison.
This always bothered me as well.
You are right to read the Apocrypha. Personally if someone or some group asks me to trust them and then hides certain materials (Apocrypha,
Psuedoepigrapha) from me, I want to know what they are hiding and why. God gave us a brain and rational thought. He would not have given this to us
if he did not intend for us to use them. The idea that he did not intend us to use them in the one are of faith is ludicrous and one that is solely
rooted in the Catholic Faith and the Ecumenical Councils which began with Nicaea.
One more note here; whenever I look up the Council of Nicaea it says near the top of the page that this was a gathering and meeting of all
Christendom, and yet, at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry it plainly states that this council was recognized by three groups; Eastern Orthodox
(sometimes called Greek Orthodox) Old Catholicism and New Roman Catholicism. No where are any other sects mentioned. Since the main difference
between Greek Orthodox and Catholicism is the recognition or lack of recognition of the infallibility of the Pope I feel that this does not represent
all of Christendom at all, what it represents is a power grab by Catholics. Their subsequent actions of persecutions of heretics (read other
viewpoints) and their literature through the Crusades, and the Inquisition not only bears this out, but are not actions of which any Christian can be
proud. Indeed, to my mind these actions were completely against the teachings of the group performing them.
I have more books which will help you on your search, feel free to U2U me. In fact, one book; Rule By Secrecy is by one of our honored members here,
and another personal hero of mine, namely Jim Marrs. In it he explains the Cathars and the persecution of this peaceful group at the bequest of Pope
Innocent III (Albigensian Crusade), despite the recommendation by Saint Bernard that these were among the most Christian people he had ever
encountered and that the Pope should in effect leave them alone. Instead they were murdered down to the last man, woman and child, and they were
unarmed and peaceful!
Hope this helps.