It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Blue Shift
IF this book was a piece of crap as you stated, it wouldn't have been quoted by anyone... The text wouldn't have held any importance in any religious establishment anywhere, and it simply would have disapeared
Originally posted by karen61560
So one would wonder why a jewish book of any age would be mentioning Jesus when theJews are still waiting for their mesiah and do not recognize Jesus as special in any way. Going out on a limb here and saying these two books never existed.
Jewish Christians, also Judeo-Christians, were the original members of the Jewish reform movement that later became Christianity.
Originally posted by LittleByLittle
reply to post by Celt1
Nice post . From my point of view: Do not follow only follow the teachings that have been created from description of the source. Go to the source and find out yourself. You have to seek to find in this game of hide and seek, and if you give up the seeking early without all your big questions unanswered then you will never find greater understanding and physical proof. Happy seeking.
Kings of Leon Radio Active
(video embed removed for space)
When road is carved up yonder
I hope you see me there
It's in the water, it's where you came from
It's in the water, it's where you came from
Books are not destroyed without a reason... perhaps it was heretical...
Originally posted by Celt1
"What does it mean that God is our Abba Father?"
While most people, at least those who do not irrationally deny the existence of God, would claim that all are “children of God,” the Bible reveals quite a different truth. We are all His creations and under His authority and Lordship and will all be judged by Him, but being a child of God and having the right to truly call Him “Abba Father” is something that only born-again Christians are able to do (John 1:12-13).
Understanding that not all people are children of God and that becoming a child of God only happens when you are adopted by God through faith in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:26) is important for understanding how and why God deals with people differently. If we are born again (John 1:12, 3:1-8), we have been adopted into the family of God, redeemed from the curse of sin and are “joint-heirs with Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:17; also Galatians 4:7). Part of that new relationship is that God now deals with us differently, which includes His chastisement when we sin (Hebrews 12:3-11). Because of that new relationship, Christians may sin, but they cannot be comfortable or content living a life of habitual, ongoing sin. If people are living a life enslaved to sin and are comfortable in that sin and without the chastisement of God upon them, then we know they are “illegitimate and not sons” (Hebrews 12:8). In other words, they are unbelievers.
The misguided but popular concept that all people are children of God and can truthfully call Him “Abba Father” is simply not true. Just as children do not choose to be adopted or choose who will adopt them, neither do Christians choose to become children of God. Instead, God chooses them. He predestines them “to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Ephesians 1:5), having been chosen by God from “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4).... It is life-changing to understand the full force of what it means to be able to call the one true God our “Daddy” and what it means to be joint-heirs with Christ.
Originally posted by LittleByLittle
reply to post by Celt1
I would gladly call both Buddha and Jesus my soul brothers and all the other messengers that have been sent. I do not have the same feelings for Paul because I do not like his views and understanding. If he has evolved further and lost his dualistic ideas that he preaches then fine.
The mysticism is, I believe, essential. I don't trust anyone who is entirely materialistic, but I run in panic from any view of God or worship which is.
The deeper you are prepared to go in the relationship, the greater will be your discernment of what is holy, and what is deception.
I stress this is only personal, but I feel "safe" or "secure" in spending almost all of my time in the Canon. I'm a weak enough Christian that I'm unwilling to give the non-Canonical books much more weight than pious meditations and comments. They speak to some, but my fear keeps me close to the Canonical shore. Of course, it may be quite a reasonable and proper fear.
Some books among the apocrypha are almost certainly equal in value to the standard books in the Bible, such as the Gospel of Thomas. Others are deliberately designed to subvert the Truth about Christ, such as the (blatantly false) 'gospel of Barnabus'.
I'm a weak enough Christian that I'm unwilling to give the non-Canonical books much more weight than pious meditations and comments.
Originally posted by Seede
James the Just held Bishopric till 63 AD when he was also murdered by the Pharisees of Jerusalem. His cousin Simeon son of Clopas succeeded the Bishopric duties of the Christian Church till Rome sacked the entire city in 70 AD and murdered the Jews by the thousands. It was then that the entire congregation fled Jerusalem to Pella ....
Because of the discovered in a monastery in Constantinople in 1883 and published by P. Bryennios, the Didache, called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, gives us insight of the of the Nazarene ecclesias in Asia Minor and Greece. In this land they treated the Hebrew Nazarene Ecclesia of Jerusalem with the same respect of authority that the Jewish synagogues did to the central Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Here we see that the Nazarene Sanhedrin was patterned after the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.
Yet was the Nazarene Sanhedrin a cosmetic facade of a bunch of Galileans who were wanna-be aspirants to be real temple leaders of Judaism? Most Christian historians are very quiet on the role of this dynamic and vibrant community of believers in the temple culture of Jerusalem. For what reason?
Is there a reason the Jewish nature of the Hebrew Nazarene Ecclesia has such a minor emphasis and role in the books of the New Testament? Were some of the books of history on the Hebrew Nazarene Ecclesia stolen or hidden so that the history of the Early Christian Church would not reflect its Jewish in nature? ... Is the diminutive role of the Nazarenes in the Book of Acts part of the historical compilation by the Roman Christian Church to affirm a historical history that would affirm the legitimacy of the ascendant Roman Christian Church?
Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Blue Shift
IF this book was a piece of crap as you stated, it wouldn't have been quoted by anyone... The text wouldn't have held any importance in any religious establishment anywhere, and it simply would have disapeared
oh really, then tell me how the teachings of Hubbard continue to this day?