It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by halfoldman
TextMy question was originally why the Kings James Bible had the Apocrypha from it's first edition in 1611 until 1885.
Humor, cynical humor. Nothing that you triggered.
Originally posted by MamaJ
I never assumed you were lacking anything.
Is it more realistic to accept what happens repeatedly in this reality, in my face, or to assume something counter-intuitive to what I have seen all my life? Every appliance I've ever had eventually breaks. People get old and die. I certainly don't want to go through that more than 1 time.
All you have is an opinion based on what you perceive reality is. What if younare wrong with your perception and opinion?
What we're taught now is that energy converts to matter, and it takes far more energy to convert the matter back to energy.Sooner or later the energy runs out.
I think I know energy never ends but what if im wrong?
That goes against the "steady state theory", lol. It's not about whether or not change is constant, it's about going off of what I see, or can find, so therefore I don't go past it--without at least admitting to living in the land of conjecture.
I think I know change is the only constant, what if im wrong?
then you look for data.
I think there is reincarnation, but what if im wrong and all there is ...is void.... Nothing?
I'm not talking about merely standing in the realm of opinions. I'm stating that we should look at the data and then apply concepts over it, and trying to figure if our conclusions (all that opinions are is conclusions--some better informed than others) have any grounding in reality. The concept of reincarnation without looking at the data of a decay-filled world is a bit dicey to me, due to the data on how this world falls apart without constant input. The assumptions that go for Reincarnation and Resurrection is that there is something incorruptible out there. Specifically the "soul". One has an outcome of a constant subjugation to decay ,and the other does not. I'd prefer to not be subjugated to decay, so sooner or later, I've got a choice to make--if I can get enough data on an "incorruptible" soul.
See what I mean? Opinions are just ..... Opinions.
Jesus took the keys of the kingdom out of the hands of the Jewish high priest and gave them to Peter, and through him, the Apostolic body. Nothing could be more "bound on earth" than the scripture they chose. With Christ's announcement that heaven would bind itself to their choices, it becomes a case-closed situation. The same cannot be said for Jamnia, however, because those decision occurred after the replacement of authority had already taken place. Christian binding appears exclusive. And once bound, Jesus said, scripture cannot be rejected.
In the New Testament, now divinely bound, is contained a chapter in the Book of Acts that unbinds the Hebrew covenant, nullifying the Old Testament that governed it. Because that, too, is bound in scripture, their decision in that regard cannot be rejected.
The situation with the Old Testament is far less critical. It was dissolved as a legal and binding document on Christians by Peter and Paul and the Twelve Apostles. See Acts 15. They unanimously agreed that from the day of their decision forward, the Old Testament had no authority to lay down rules for Christians outside of those defined by the New Testament. For that reason, the Old Testament is now, for Christians, a book of prophecy and history only. That applies equally to its Apocryphal works.
As far as the apocryphal books of the New Testament were concerned, none were chosen as scripture. The closest work was First Clement. It was written about 90 AD by the Bishop of Rome and was eliminated from contention only narrowly. One reason, it contained a prophecy stating that "across the impassable ocean other worlds" existed.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy
Ahh yes, so I have been messing the spelling up a hair. Oh well, the idea I havent been messing up however. And what you find "funny" I dont really care. The truth of the matter is for the next few weeks Im without the use of my PC and Im utelizing the website via my Droid Razr and Im not too inclined to type more than a few sentences on a touch screen phone. Sorry, but you're going to have to just deal with that fact that I have big hands and it sucks to type out more than a few quick sentences. You acted shocked that the Gnostics believed Christ wasnt really flesh and blood, that He didnt really die on the cross yada yada. If you're the expert now on DOCETISM (is that satisfactory?) then all apologies, dont Google anything. But at the same time dont act or post like this is all of a sudden new information to what they believed and how it's fundamentally antibiblical.
edit on 31-5-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)
My make believe invisible supreme being is more real than your make belueve supreme being. Nahnananah. Nanynanybooboo. REALLY? LOL
Originally posted by Screwed
Ohhh boy, you have just opened up a can of worms.
Christians are not GENERALLY a group who are open to their holy book or religion being challenged with facts
So, you have undoubtedly brought up a subject inspired by the devil to test their faith in God.
I am sorry for all of these facts being exposed.
I have known this for some time now and am poilte enough not to bring it up because
I don't want the devil working thru me in order to mislead the God fearing Christians.
Originally posted by Arles Morningside
Actually, a careful examination of both the Nag Hammadi collection and other sources reveal that 'Gnostics' held a whole diversity of views (the ATSers of their time) but one thing is certain with all 'Gnostics' and that is a 'Gnostic' is one who seeks Gnosis. That stood then and stands now. We are not properly looking at these materials when we look at them as a 'religion' in the usual sense or a 'closed cannon' or as something 'set in stone'.