http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm Look at the table above. Why are there no bible books written between 450 BC and 60 AD? I bet you there are, but they are not considered part of the canon. Any thoughts on this? nitro
Why would it take 5 to 9 decades for someone to mention or write about some saviour raising people from the dead, walking on water, etc? I guess that explains all the contradictions concerning the resurrection as well. Happy Easter.
Old argument. LOL. Plenty of books written, but the cannon rejected anything that didnt Deify Christ... Of course that is the simple answer. No thoughts on it. They did what they did, and even us Bible School Students (me) have accepted it, read some of the other books, even the Dead sea scrolls and it still doesnt change our opinion of Jesus (The Anointed) nor does it change my (our) relationship with God. Basically it is an arguing point that is pointless. Since when did a book make you love God more, or Serve Christ more???? Personally My expereince and his guidance (though unseen) is all the proof I need. The books that make up the "bible" should keep us focused on the #1 thing. Loving each other and living a Great life in the sight of God, and being his ambassadors and witnesses. To bad 70% of the church in America has forgotten that and only focuses on what they can get, not what they can give to others. Karl Marx was right when he said "Religion is the Opium of the Masses" and most of the modern Day preachers are the Dope peddlers. If you read the Gospels, thats NOT what Christ did. He brought Hope, forgiveness, Love and understanding. And all Paul wrote about was how to live.... and love (again simplified) There was so much love expressed in these books. Until we choose to Love others and not JUST ourselves.... Well you get the idea. I cant Kill you if I love you. I cant steal from you if I love you. I cant bang your wife if I love you. Why should I envy what you have. If I love you, I applaud you and then I become your student to learn how you did what you did.
Concerning the first 5 books of the bible. Moses didn't author any of those... he didn't exist. The Hebrews took the Moses story from Sargon of Akkad, who was thrown into the Euphrates in a basket sealed with bitumen and pitch, found among the reeds, and became a great leader. Pretty much word for word. Won't find these teachings in church either. Besides, how could Moses author books after his death? Absurd. Charlton Heston kicked ass though! Happy Easter.
There was a book written during that time period referred to as The Macabees, of course never canonized. It was about a group of Jews who tried to throw the Romans out but failed and commited mass suicide. Even though it isn't canonized I know of at least one church, a Baptist church in the eastern part of San Diego, that preaches it. I think the preachers name is David Jerimiah.
I believe you can find the book of Macabees in the Roman Catholic Bible. I used to have a copy of every bible produced/printed. Lost them back in 2002. I am now recollecting them, including every change of the Jehovah's witnesses Bible and various iterations of the Qu'ran. Unlike most "christians" who dont know the doctrine behind christianity, I dont find other writings challenging to my faith. They merely intensify why I believe what I believe. There was a song when I was a child, that we sang. One of the lyrics was... "Be an example unto them" In others words dont preach... Teach by your ways..... Not by your words.... I cant hear what your saying for what your doing.....
Here is an essay regarding the subject. I posted it before but the link is lost. That's about par for the course relative to what's happened. By the way, Christ is from the Greek psychological term that can apply to anyone, not just to me exclusively. Everyone, including you, will eventually attain the same level of accomplishment as myself. The first Gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas, were originally written in Aramaic. Don't you find it strange that not one complete original copy of my own words survived the rise of Christianity? Do you really think that could have been an accident? In many cases, Gospels were destroyed by the church never to be read again. The Gospel of Thomas was almost one of these. When Constantine made "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire, it meant that by law, any other religious or spiritual ideas were outlawed. So if your beliefs were not part of the rapidly developing doctrines of the new church, then you were an overnight heretic - which was a crime punishable by death. It was as thought your Congress suddenly passed a law saying all religious beliefs that are not exactly in line with the Christian Coalition are banned, and any disagreement by you is a crime equal to murder. As a politician, Constantine realized "Christianity" was already becoming the most popular religion in the Roman Empire, and he simply made the most of it for himself. He didn't do much of anything that was not calculated to increase his own power. Sound familiar? Getting back to my story...What passes for history is all revised history. Whether it's religious, natural, or political history, it is a story written by whoever wins the war. The novels that became the Gospels were written some twenty to sixty years after the letters of Paul, even though his letters appear later in the Bible. The Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke were all copied from earlier sources. Matthew and Luke copied from one common source, as well as the Gospel of Mark. Even though Mark was written before the other mainstream Gospels, it was second in the Bible because the politicos wanted to start with a genealogy that traced back to King David in order to fulfill a prophecy about a virgin birth...even though such birth would nullify the genealogy anyway. All the old, original scripture said about my birth is that "a young woman will give birth to him", meaning the Messiah. Practically all of the Christian religion was borrowed from earlier stories, including, but not limited to, some of the old copper Dead Sea Scrolls of the Essenes. Those coppers did not survive. Copying something does not make it true. And the fact that something wasn't copied very much doesn't make it false. Scholarship that gives credibility to stories and sayings based on how many different sources they are found in can be erroneous - especially if the original source for the copying was incorrect in the first place or that original source was changed by the copier and then lost or destroyed. A group of Biblical scholars has come to the conclusion that I probably only said about 20% of the things the New Testament quotes me as saying. Actually, it's less than that. And some of the things they think I said and didn't say, they've got wrong. Overall, Biblical scholarship is a flawed science. continued...
Getting back to my story... Matthew and Luke copied from a common source that scholars call a hypothetical "Q" Gospel - after a German word that means source. But Mark did not copy from this one. He had his own sources from a consensus of sayings. Regarding the Q Gospel, it was written by three of my brother James followers, and originally titled "Words of the Master". Over the next 40 years, as the original recorders of "Words" passed away, some distorted sayings found their way into their work. Included were saying of John the Baptist, and saying that some followers assumed I believed or falsely thought I had spoken. "Words of the Master" was written by three who heard what I had to say first hand in public...but not in private. Although they respected James, my heir apparent, they did not necessarily have faith in him or any other group to stick to some of the startling principles I had articulated. This is because James, although sincere and steady, was considered conservative, while I was considered radical...not in temperament, but in my teachings. I was anything but conservative. The Gospel of John was written later, when the split between the newest sects and Judaism had become more obvious. Around 400 A.D. , there was an effort, directed by Saint Augustine, to wipe out anything that didn't fit in with the churches' official beliefs. Done in the name of God, this book burning would have made the Nazi's proud. The Words of the Masterand The Gospel of Thomas were destroyed right along with virtually all of the existing Gnostic literature...even though they weren't Gnostic. After all, some of the saying did not sound very much like the church, so they must have been heretical! So, getting back to the story... Forty to eighty years after the Words of the Master was written, Mark, Luke and Matthew copied from it and other Sayings Gospels, kept what they liked, and threw out what they didn't, and then added to the mix these attractive stories, rumors and speculation that fit in with their religious dogma. Incredibly, even these were changed over the next few centuries. The ending of Mark was completely changed. Christianity as taken what is religious art and elevated it to the level of literal, absolute truth. It would be like going to look at Leonardo Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" and take it to be an absolute, literal record and historical picture of our last get-together before the Passion. For example, another brother - a jealous brother - has been added to my parable of the wayward - "prodigal" - Son. Also, I did not curse or kill any fig trees for not bearing fruit. I did not overturn tables in the temple. The Jewish Sanhedrin did not put me on trial during the passover. How could they? It was not allowable by their law, and they were not bonehead enough to pull a move like that...lest they incur the hatred of their own people. They were too clever for that. Give the Jewish people a break here. Rather, Pontius Pilate was just looking to make an example of somebody as a way of exerting authority during the passover. Mostly it was Romans making fun of me, not Jews, and not all that many either. Judas did not betray me with a kiss because it is not possible I could be betrayed. I did not suffer on the cross as has been imagined. On and on... These are just examples. If it were not for the finding of the Nag Hammadi collection - which included the Gospel of Thomas - along a river in Egypt in 1945, the world would not have much to go on as far as alternative glimpes of my gospel are concerned. The Gospel of Thomas is not the Holy Grail of spirituality. It will not bring you salvation and it will not train your mind to think along the lines necessary for you to attain your salvation. It does however perform three very important services for humanity: The first service this Gospel performs is that the world can finally see for itself that as Christianity became Christianity, it bore less and less of a resemblance to my original message. Second, it shows that the tone of my teachings were much more mindful and Eastern than the kind of running-away-from-the-mind, hard-core dualism of the West. These Western influences were brought in later. The third service is in the meaning of some of my sayings themselves. Although Thomas did not completely get my message, he does give a more authentic representation of the kinds of things I would say than the other Gospels. And these he heard directly from me. Out of the 114 sayings in Thomas, I said 70 of them, or at least something reasonably close. Another 44 were spuriously added by others later. Thomas includes some sayings - but not all - that I spoke to him in private...sayings you won't find in Mark, Matthew or Luke. Why would you expect to find them there? He was beheaded before he finished it. The ending would have included the parable of the prodigal Son. Parts of the Gospel of Thomas contains the scripture of the earliest form of Christianity, before there was even such a thing as a separate religion called Christianity. He was amongst the very first Jewish-Christian sects. Granted, there was diversity among the sects, but he was not alone in his impressions of me. Why do you think the church was so desperate later on to label his Gospel as Gnostic and heretical? It was because they did not want the members of the church to see what the earliest Christians were really like. Indeed, the church would do anything to hide the fact that some of its teachings are heretical relative to what I was teaching...not that they can't be forgiven. Once called "spurious" by the church, scholarship being what it is, they do not talk as loud as it used to. Christianity as you know it, fell to the old dualism of body-mind-spirit. Paul, its best popularizer, rejected the message that resurrection was for the mind, and chose to include the body in the equation. Rather, he chose to see it as real, valuable, purposeful, and God-given...needing only a glorified state to be a suitable home for the Sons of God. But I make it perfectly clear, no body is a worthy home for the Son of God who is limitless, and without form, made in the exact image of the Father. Paul did not know who or what Christ really is. If he did, he would not have described himself as a "bondservant of Christ". Jesus
THE RESURRECTION DID NOT HAPPEN. 4 story's. ALL contradict each other. When did everyone get to the tomb? Mark 16:2 - When the sun was rising in the day John 20:1 - When it was yet dark Who came? John 20:1 - Mary Magdalene alone Matt 28:1 - Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary Mark16:1 - Mary Magdalene, Mary Mother of James & Salome Luke 24:10 - Joanna, Mary Mother of James & other women Tomb open or closed? Luke - open Matt - closed Who did (whoever was there) see? Matt - An Angel Mark - A young man Luke - 2 men John - 2 Angels Inside or Outside the tomb? Matt - outside Mark, Luke, John - inside Matthew is the only one who notices a great earthquake as well. I guess the others didn't take notice. Christianity is based on this supposed event. If this took place, how could there be so many contradictions? This is catastrophic for the religion itself, would you not agree? One last prophecy that I do not believe was fulfilled: Matt 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. HAPPY EASTER ALL!
Actually, if you look closer, the agenda revolved around making me special and different from my brethren. This serves the interests of those who wish to empower themselves at your expense. I taught equality...mine with the Father, and you with me. But the world was not yet ready for this truth. My apostles were not yet ready for it, making themselves out to be something less, such as a "bondservant" of Christ. See here for the bigger picture relative to Paul. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89470&perpage=6&pagenumber=9 Happy Easter to jzlucas and all! Jesus