... Riddle me that!

The truth is hidden in plain sight.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Yes, but we have traded our sight of the universe for comfort in blindness. Our temptations are too great to resist, and we blind ourselves to avoid the inevitable realization that WE are the ones who created this hell, and we're the ones who will have to fix it.

reply to post by Akragon

Jesus is a lie?

Well I won't go there...

However, after thirteen years of Catholic private school, I wondered why they taught one thing and did another all down through history - even in the classroom. Dad taught lead by example, and so did the Catholics, but then they provided one of the crappiest examples you could find - anywhere!

That sent me on a search, and I will not challenge anyone's beliefs here, through the different religions and systems of belief. I came across a Bill Murray remake of the old film "The Razor's Edge" and in it was mentioned "The Upanishads". I read it. I had read the Bible and The Book Of Mormon, so I decided it would only be fair to give equal time to possibly the oldest scripture in the world.

What I came away with was the understanding that we all have a spark of God in us. With that belief installed it is easier to be compassionate towards the little Meth head who was born with fetal alcohol syndrome, has no teeth and, and though never convicted is credited for burning down the local Police Station in town. In fact with this new found understanding in place is it not my duty to be compassionate with all people, even some of the worst of our society? Did not Jesus do the same?

Itta

reply to post by Ittabena


That's really the best lesson you could take away from it. But remember: without wisdom, compassion is more a burden than a blessing.

reply to post by WarminIndy

The entire New Testament was written before the creation of the Catholic church.

As a historian I must point out that you are completely wrong on this point.

The Catholic Church came about, the Eastern Orthodox split from them and then they were both summoned by the Emperor Constantine to the Councils of Nicaea (2) and the following Ecumenical Councils during which the contents of the Canonical Bible (New Testament), among other things were decided.

Since the Eastern Orthodox religions largest difference with Catholicism was the infallibility of the Pope, you may as well say the New Testament was written, or at least edited, by Catholics. None of the other factions which were still alive at the time were invited, or even recognized.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

That's really the best lesson you could take away from it. But remember: without wisdom, compassion is more a burden than a blessing.

Agreed. But I must point out that compassion does not mean trust, just compassion.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The entire New Testament was written before the creation of the Catholic church.

As a historian I must point out that you are completely wrong on this point.

Geez, where did you study history? Because your claims are about as wrong.

The Catholic Church came about, the Eastern Orthodox split from them and then they were both summoned by the Emperor Constantine to the Councils of Nicaea

No. The Great Schism came about in 1054 (over 725 years after Nicaea). It did not precede it.

and the following Ecumenical Councils during which the contents of the Canonical Bible (New Testament), among other things were decided.

No, no, no, no, no. The Council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with selecting the Canon of the New Testament, which had been set before 325AD.

Since the Eastern Orthodox religions largest difference with Catholicism was the infallibility of the Pope, you may as well say the New Testament was written, or at least edited, by Catholics.

Not Papal infallibility, but Papal authority -- specifically whether the Roman Church had the authority to modify the Nicene Creed (ironic, given your earlier error,) inserting the words "and the Son" when testifying to where the Holy Spirit proceeds from (the Filioque). Eastern Orthodox said no, it couldn't be reconciled, and thus the Schism.

None of the other factions which were still alive at the time were invited, or even recognized.

None of the other "factions" were Orthodox Christians, so why would they be?

I have had too much Fluoride to answer this much less understand or remember it 15 minutes from now!

It's actually "The way, the truth, and the life... no man cometh unto the Father but by me" I provided the rest because you failed to provide proper context. I'm not a fundementalist Christian, but I was raised to be one and have since gone my own way... so to speak. I'm not sure what your question is, because the entire verse in context is self explanatory.... the only WAY to get to heaven is through Jesus, or more specifically through accepting the salvation that Jesus offers by way of his sacrifice. Jesus represents TRUTH, and is the only true way to get to heaven. In regards to LIFE, this is more metaphorical, in that you are "born again" into a new life through salvation. I do realize that any answer you get will be considered wrong, because you probably consider yourself to be intellectually superior to someone like me that believes in the "Santa Claus for grown ups", but I'm bored and felt like feeding a troll today.

reply to post by Ittabena


Dear Ittabena,

The Catholic Church came about, the Eastern Orthodox split from them and then they were both summoned by the Emperor Constantine to the Councils of Nicaea (2) and the following Ecumenical Councils during which the contents of the Canonical Bible (New Testament), among other things were decided.

What we consider the New Testament today was compiled by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches; however, neither "wrote" it. They collected writings, often letters, that were sent from the apostles to various churches. The churches kept the writings, replicated them and when the Councils of Nicaea were convened, different churches brought their letters for consideration for inclusion. The letters and writings pre-dated the Catholic church. A Catholic might argue that Peter began the Catholic church and therefore the writings are contemporaneous with the church.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Ittabena

 

Dear Ittabena,

The Catholic Church came about, the Eastern Orthodox split from them and then they were both summoned by the Emperor Constantine to the Councils of Nicaea (2) and the following Ecumenical Councils during which the contents of the Canonical Bible (New Testament), among other things were decided.

What we consider the New Testament today was compiled by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches; however, neither "wrote" it. They collected writings, often letters, that were sent from the apostles to various churches. The churches kept the writings, replicated them and when the Councils of Nicaea were convened, different churches brought their letters for consideration for inclusion. The letters and writings pre-dated the Catholic church. A Catholic might argue that Peter began the Catholic church and therefore the writings are contemporaneous with the church.

That is absolutely correct. People assume that what we call the New Testament was written by the Catholic Church. One thing people must understand why certain books were not included in the canon, those books did not follow the same thought as other letters. For instance, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas was written long after Thomas the Apostle and nothing in it compares with the other letters in general theme or attitude. Those books that follow a general theme indicates those writers were thinking the same way.

There is no evidence either of any Gnostic Gospel written by any apostle or disciple. There is no evidence that any letter was corrupted either. They were well-preserved by the time of the Nicean Council and those letters were considered solid Gospel by that time in their churches.

The funny thing about Peter though, nothing in the Bible indicates he was a bishop in Rome. There is no reference whatsoever in the Bible that calls him that. There is no reference of Peter even being in Rome at all. There was no singular institution in the Bible that even remotely states "The Church", there were many churches in that time as there are now and each had their own letter. The church at Jerusalem was not the same church at Antioch...and so on. Each had their own bishop or pastor but not one person as their pope yet. That came later and Peter would not qualify, simply because he was not in Rome.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
The funny thing about Peter though, nothing in the Bible indicates he was a bishop in Rome.

I always kind of wondered about that, too. The Pope, who comes down from Peter, was always just the "Bishop of Rome", and one would think that, at least for the first couple of centuries, that would be a hard office to fill.

That said, Clement 1 places him there. As well, Ignatius' letter to the Romans references Peter in a manner that implies he had been there, and been in charge in some fashion.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by WarminIndy
The funny thing about Peter though, nothing in the Bible indicates he was a bishop in Rome.

I always kind of wondered about that, too. The Pope, who comes down from Peter, was always just the "Bishop of Rome", and one would think that, at least for the first couple of centuries, that would be a hard office to fill.

That said, Clement 1 places him there. As well, Ignatius' letter to the Romans references Peter in a manner that implies he had been there, and been in charge in some fashion.

I am reading those links, they are very interesting. But I have to ask, what is a Kalend of September?

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I am reading those links, they are very interesting. But I have to ask, what is a Kalend of September?

Remember the "Ides of March"? Meaning the 15th? The Kalends referred to the beginning of the month.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I am reading those links, they are very interesting. But I have to ask, what is a Kalend of September?

Remember the "Ides of March"? Meaning the 15th? The Kalends referred to the beginning of the month.

Very interesting. That seems to be a tradition that has gone out of favor. I will look that up. There are many traditions I think that people have forgotten and one would have to be from a certain region to even understand them.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The entire New Testament was written before the creation of the Catholic church.

As a historian I must point out that you are completely wrong on this point.

The Catholic Church came about, the Eastern Orthodox split from them and then they were both summoned by the Emperor Constantine to the Councils of Nicaea (2) and the following Ecumenical Councils during which the contents of the Canonical Bible (New Testament), among other things were decided.

Since the Eastern Orthodox religions largest difference with Catholicism was the infallibility of the Pope, you may as well say the New Testament was written, or at least edited, by Catholics. None of the other factions which were still alive at the time were invited, or even recognized.

edit on 31-7-2012 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)

The scriptures were in circulation long before 325 friend. The Council at Nicea just voted on which ones were considered for canon and the heretical gnostic texts that denied Christ's human side were voted down. There was already a Church in existence at Antioch before the H.R.E. came to be.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
The Council at Nicea just voted on which ones were considered for canon and the heretical gnostic texts that denied Christ's human side were voted down.

Argh! No!

The Council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with selecting the canon! This is a myth that was popularized by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code and it saddens me that it has found its way so deeply into the popular psyche that devout Christians have been taken in by the historical revision.

Nicaea was called to settle a division in the church caused by the Arian Controversy, which resulted from the teachings of Arius, who suggested a hierarchy in the Trinity, with the Son being lesser than the Father, and thus refuting the Doctrine of the Trinity. Nicaea served to determine, for all time, whether Christ was divine, "true God from true God."

In addition, Gnostic texts were never considered for inclusion in the New Testament by the Orthodox Church. They weren't rejected, they were never even considered.

This:

Teabing paused to sip his tea and then placed the cup back on the mantel. "More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion-Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them."

"Who chose which gospels to include?" Sophie asked.

"Aha!" Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. "The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great."
(Brown, Dan - The Da Vinci Code, pg 231)

is a complete fabrication, 100% wrong.

It always amazes me that even the most hardcore "christians" manage to mix up Nicea and Laodicea...

Not that its a big deal... its just amusing i guess....

Carry on guys... i've been enjoying this thread

reply to post by adjensen


Emperor Constantine made The Bible, before this, there were just many different texts about Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were writing that were not altogether, and people even had The Gospel of Thomas, but then they made The Bible and burned The Gnostic Texts and even killed Gnostic Christians for not believing in The Bible put together by Constantine.

He said that since he couldn't conquer with the sword, he'll do so with the cross. Rome wanted to rule the world and they needed to unify the religions, this is why The Bible has so many things in common with pagan religions, such as Jesus turning water to wine like The God Dionysus. Christianity was The New Age religion, and Rome was in control of The NWO.

reply to post by arpgme


Geez, I don't even know where to start with that. Pretty much everything that you've written there is false, demonstrably so, from historical records. There are records of the canonical New Testament before Constantine, there are records of what happened at Nicaea, and there are records showing the refutation of Gnostic beliefs and texts, in the time they were written (2nd Century). We know that the Gospel of Thomas was a 2nd Century forgery, as it was not written by the twin brother of Jesus, "Didymos Judas Thomas" and reflects Gnostic Christian beliefs that weren't formed until the 2nd Century.

These are demonstrable facts. If you wish to learn truth, rather than fiction, pick up a history book, rather than a popular novel, to conduct your research.