Originally posted by Oceanborn
But it's not included even in the New Testament. It's not in mine and I've also read that in general it's not included.

I'm gonna look up for english sources about it.

EDIT: I saw that it was a part of a bible and that's why some adopted it as a part of the New Testament.
I assume I don't need the sources after all since it's not really a part of NT.

Just because something does not appear in the King James (or whatever contemporary Bible you hapen to use) does not mean it was not considered canon at the time it was written. The Codex Sinaiticus is one of the oldest intact Bibles in the world (being one of the four oldest) and seeing that their are differences between those four it is obvious that a contemporary Bible has gone through a significant amount of editing since the time that Barnabas was written. Who is to say, from a modern standpoint, that it is inaccurate when trying to compare it to a contemporaneous Bible? You just happen to be using one that other men have determined you are going to use.

Originally posted by KSigMason
Don't forget that good ol' Furka Cross.

Good point. It only muddies the waters further.

Originally posted by Oceanborn
I was talking about the NT. The epistle is not included.

There are many books not in the current New Testament that were in very early Bibles and many of the Epistles were highly regarded by early Christians.

The current Bible can be analogous to a film. The studio releases what it feels best will 'sell', while the director's cut, which containes all the apocryphal texts, is the more 'complete' version and closer to the original vision. It may not having the pacing and there is obvious redundancy but these books existed well before the codified Bible you presently have and should not be ignored.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Oceanborn
I was talking about the NT. The epistle is not included.

There are many books not in the current New Testament that were in very early Bibles and many of the Epistles were highly regarded by early Christians.

The current Bible can be analogous to a film. The studio releases what it feels best will 'sell', while the director's cut, which containes all the apocryphal texts, is the more 'complete' version and closer to the original vision. It may not having the pacing and there is obvious redundancy but these books existed well before the codified Bible you presently have and should not be ignored.

edit on 8-2-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

You're talking about pseudepigrafa and non-christians.

In one hand KsigMason wants to present the cross as something "mystical" and in the other hand you ignore the New Testament which is the Word of God and yet praise false scriptures (oh,and also say that God and satan are working together.Remember the "discussion" we had last time?That's what I'm talking about).

Funny thing is that the discussion didn't even start like that. A random user posted about the pentagram and now that it's debunked you guys are going nuts.

Originally posted by Oceanborn
You're talking about pseudepigrafa and non-christians.

How could early Christians be 'non-Christians'? One of them obviously wrote The Epistle of Barnabas and others wrote the other apocryphal texts.

In one hand KsigMason wants to present the cross as something "mystical" and in the other hand you ignore the New Testament which is the Word of God and yet praise false scriptures...

'Praise false scriptures'? Is that what you call it when someone cites a historical text?

(oh,and also say that God and satan are working together.Remember the "discussion" we had last time?That's what I'm talking about).

Where have I ever said that 'God and Satan are working together'? I do not even believe in Satan. What 'discussion'?

A random user posted about the pentagram and now that it's debunked you guys are going nuts.

'Nuts'? So when people point out that there are additional texts that did not make the cut for the Bible you currently read this is going 'nuts'?

Originally posted by Oceanborn
What is included in the NT wasn't based on flipping a coin.

No one said it was but it was determined by men with an agenda.

So are your nonsense which I'm obviously tired of.
The pentagram got debunked,we started with the cross. We're talking about christianity and you're avoiding NT (but everything else is great by your standards).

Then maybe you can show me in any of the other early Bibles (as I did with the Codex Sinaiticus) where it discusses the object on which Christ was crucified. I did not use the New Testament as it is not in there.

By "explain" you mean parrot other people's interpretations? No thanks.

By 'parrot other people's interpretations' you mean use the Jewish Scribes and Historians that you choose to ignore? Then yes.

I bet he loves your ways.

How could a fictional entity love anything I do?

The NT irrelevant with christianity... *sigh*
In the other hand,the cross was relevant with the discussion,huh...? Don't bother.

You really enjoy getting hysterical about things, huh?

I never said it was irrelevant about Chrisitianity, only that it was irrelevant to the point I was making. Get a grip.

I didn't reply to the OP,what were you reading?

Try reading it and you may learn that the topic was not Christianity. I just happened to reply to a point you attempted to make with inaccurate information.

I haven't read all of the replies, but I understand
5 as power over material things. And because of the golden mean
that's found in a pentagram also, regeneration.

5 over the cube (4) of Earth.
6 is solar and represented by the Hexagram.
Two triangles or pyramids in 3D.
Top triangle is red representing male energy, electric descending from heaven.
Bottom triangle blue representing water, Earth, Female magnetic energy.
Hence the red and blue Masonic degrees of separation. Or Target red and Walmart Blue.
Or Texaco Red and Chevron Blue. They are EVERYWHERE. Banks love 5 pointed stars.
Again power over material. Mars energy power etc.

Originally posted by Oceanborn
You shouldn't be talking about agendas.

I did, and they had one.

So let's use anything since it's not in the NT,let's throw logic out of the window.

What is logical about using the New Testament when it does not have the reference in question?

Wow...you didn't even put up a fight with that. Let me know when you can read the scriptures without "assistance".

I can read Latin and some Greek without help. I am not ashamed to admit that I cannot read Hebrew and must rely on accurate translations from scholars who have studied it. Why is this a problem? Should we only rely on the English translation which in some cases is four languages removed from the original writings?

You're the expert about him,remember? Check the that thread again.
You didn't share your knowledge though,I guess it's a secret.

It still does not make your boogeyman real for me.

I'm just getting pissed off because you're screwing around.
I have one guy telling me about the meanings of symbols where he picks and choose when the symbols have a meaning and when they don't and while I'm waiting for him to finally make up his mind I have you wanting to talk about christianity while you don't want to use the christianic scriptures. Since they don't have what you'd like them to have you start bringing in the discussion anything you can think of.

I am not talking about Christianity. I am talking about a specific point you made regarding the shape of the cross and how there is only one somewhat contemporary reference to it in Biblical times. What can you not understand about this? Are you being purposefully obtuse?

Yes but I didn't derail the thread.It was a single comment to make things clear and now I have you guys bringing up new ones with the more absurd of ways. Making up rules as the discussion keeps going.

That's pure trolling.

I think it is trolling to insist someone is talking about one thing when they keep telling you they are not.

Originally posted by Oceanborn
We were talking about the christian cross.

Which is described in the Epistle of Barnabas.

You know what,have it your way. Say every single nonsense that pops up in your mind,in the end you're only gonna fool the ones who want to be fooled anyway. I had enough of this.

Typical repsonse from someone with nothing really to say or without any supporting evidence. If you disagree with what I cited put forth your own citations.

Reply to:

KSigMason
AugustusMasonicus
Oceanborn


Please stay on topic or take your bickering to another forum or U2U.

What does any of your posts have to do with the symbolic meanings of 5 or 6?

Nothing? That's what I thought . . .

OK I just had to throw this in. Perfect example of demons copying God and mocking him "before"(dimension of time, IK some people have a hard time understanding time is a dimension not a law) God revealed certain things. What did the Pagans in Egypt say about the fish again? And what are we?

I'm done looking at esoteric crap. Every single time it is full of stuff that clouds true wisdom. We are fishers of men.

After a bit of research and thought I have realized numerology does not play into Christianity, save a few key numbers like 13. Many numbers in the Bible are hyperbole though.

Anyways esoteric "knowledge" truly does corrupt. It took a bit of looking at it to realize how it does it though.

BTW the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalen are both fraudulent. Especially the Magdalen one, that is just demonic in nature. Do not read it. It is literally demonic (which most Gnostic text seems to be).

eta: the Gospel of Thomas distorts parables of the Lord and corrupts true wisdom with prideful assertion. I would prefer not to provide examples, but back to the topic of fish. Compare the parables of fishing in the true Gospels and the fraudulent Gospel of Thomas. You see now?

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Anyways esoteric "knowledge" truly does corrupt. It took a bit of looking at it to realize how it does it though.

No it doesn't.

BTW the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalen are both fraudulent. Especially the Magdalen one, that is just demonic in nature. Do not read it. It is literally demonic (which most Gnostic text seems to be).

I've read it and it's not demonic. How are they fraudulent? The "accepted" Gospels have been mistranslated, edited, and revised over the centuries. The Council of Nicaea chose what books would go in the Bible, not God.