Theory of Beginning of Life and "God"

[alexander]

Oh lastly i wanted to note that if you think that you are a Christian and that you are following Chist's teachings, think again, Crist was Jewish, and what he taught back in his time was to follow pure Judeism, thus his Jewish following, you are only following what people decided to make Christianity, what it evolved into by the will of Kings, Knights and Church Leaders...

[alexander]

But if you read the gospels you will see it was the Jewish church leaders who had him crucified because he (Jesus) told them they did not know the scriptures

how is that a "but"? As I have said, Jesus preached pure Jedeism, parts where Moses wasnt included, the very basics. Ofcourse he told the authorities that they did not know the scriptures, they were basically trying him for not being the "puristic Jew", so he wasnt following their religion, instead he said that it was them that were mistaken in trying to convict him because they did not know the scriptures, his defense makes perfect sense...

[Hawkens]

You're kinda right about the Judeasm thing. We are technically a cult of Judeasm. Christian means little Christ, and Christ is greek for Messiah.... We follow the Jewish messiah.

 

You're not right about the kings and knights and crap. When Luke wrote his gosple it was only a few years after the ressurection.

 

They crucified Christ because he claimed to be God.

[alexander]

You're not right about the kings and knights and crap. When Luke wrote his gosple it was only a few years after the ressurection.

did you read the post above? I never doubt that Luke wrote the gosplel, the problem is that it just got eddited by people that needed it to make their country stable, or make people follow them without having to draw much support, or to encourage their army (that is how Marry Magdalene became a prostitute from Crists wife, and that is one of many things in early Christianity that lead to belittleing of women power and making men dominant for 1500 years, you know, women were worshipped by the early religions right (in a way, since they posessed a gift to bare a child women were a lot more respected then men, who do not posess that power and thus were beleived to be a little divine)? Do you also know that the act of sex was made shameful by the church on purpose (perhaps someone can tell me what purpose that would serve...)? Do you know that sex was beleived to be the only way for a man to complete his soul, and one of the only ways to communicate with God, by uniting as one with a woman?)

And for the last time, Christ did not claim to be God, he was made divine by the Council of Nicaea in 325AD, after Lukes death, those things got added to the Bible to make people beleive that Christ was divine...

[Hawkens]

What are you talking about???

 

Christ not only claimed to be God....He is God.

 

The Bible has only been translated, never edited. THey still have to old text and they still read and translate new versions of the Bible from the old text. How could anyone add anything without somebody calling them on it. The Bible has been unchanged since it's existance.

 

I would like you to visit http://www.ctsclan.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=37 and post what you posted here, since I'm not an "expert" on the Bible. They will set you straight or at least give you a better debate than I could muster since alot of them have spent their lives studying the Bible.

[alexander]

What are you talking about???

 

Christ not only claimed to be God....He is God.

 

The Bible has only been translated, never edited. THey still have to old text and they still read and translate new versions of the Bible from the old text. How could anyone add anything without somebody calling them on it. The Bible has been unchanged since it's existance.

 

I would like you to visit http://www.ctsclan.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=37 and post what you posted here, since I'm not an "expert" on the Bible. They will set you straight or at least give you a better debate than I could muster since alot of them have spent their lives studying the Bible.

 

It is called the New Testament, why do you again claim me to be a storyteller? You know, thats the problem with all yall crazy overly religious folks (not that big with regularly religious people), you dont accept the facts when they are given to you, what I posted above has scientiffic evidence as well as historical artifacts backing it up (well maybe with an exception of me forgetting to mention a few names), its been written before and will be written by many more historical scolars who have spent their lives looking at the history of Bible instead of just accepting what is written in it by PEOPLE.

 

I never argued the Old testament, infact it is perhaps one of the best preserved (in content sense) historical scriptures, but anyone who has actually read the bible will see that all of my references are about the New Testament. If you know anything about religions, you know that many different religions accept the Old Testament, all Christian religions, Catholicism, Judeism, Islam and any of the subgroups of each of the main categories. The problem is that there is no Jesus in the Old Testament except for a few references to a Messiah. And the book wasnt even formed 2000 years ago.

 

But the New Testament is a completely different story:

 

The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Hebrew Testament (early Christian communities were primarily Jewish). In this way, the books considered authoritative revelation of the New Covenant were not hammered out in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but in the secret worship sessions of lower-class peasant Christians. While an episcopal hierarchy did develop and finally solidify the canon, this was a relatively late development.

 

In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was no New Testament canon that was universally recognized. Nevertheless, by the 2nd century there was a common collection of letters and gospels that a majority of church leaders considered authoritative. These contained the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (all 2nd century), held these to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures as being divinely inspired. Other books were held in high esteem, but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament apocrypha.

 

One of the earliest attempt at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, who rejected the entire Old Testament, all but one gospel (Luke), and three of the Pauline letters. His unorthodox canon was rejected by a majority of Christians, as was his gnostic theology. Around 200 the Muratorian fragment was written, listing the accepted works. This list was very similar to the modern canon, but also included the Wisdom of Solomon (now part of the Deuterocanonical books) and the Apocalypse of Peter. The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted by all at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. Even today, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than their traditional order for other Christians.

So as you can see, the Bible has been altered on quite a few aoccasions for the first 4 centuries, and its not even 2000 years old, nevermind not being changed for so long...

And it has been translated on many occasions, from gospells written in Hebrew and Greek to Greek and Latin spoken in Rome to Old English to what we currently spealk, this gives the current version that any of us can read at least 2 translations.

 

Lastly here are some more names I forgot to mention:

 

Athanasius - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius

He was the guy who was declared bishop after Constantine and he was one of the biggest supporters of the divinity of Jesus, perhaps one of the more influencial figures of the time.

 

Arius - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius

He was one of the 3 people that disagreed with the Council of Nicaea about making Jesus divine. He was a theologist and disagreed with the Council's decision and formed the controversy that made the church form the Nicene Creed.

 

Oh and I'd argue that a lot of the people on that forum spent their lives studying the Bible, I can see a few from reading through http://www.ctsclan.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=33474&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=160 The problem is that they are once again, just like yourself, they study the bible, not so much the history of it, but they just accept whats written in the New Testament, extremely religious, its like beleiving in Harry Potter and arguing what really happened when Voldemort attacked young Harry based on the accounts of Hagrid, Dumbledore and Sirius Black, and me saying tha it is fiction, extremely religious people are otherwise unwilling to accept facts on the basis that it makes everything that they beleive in not true... Find a historical forum, then I'll be happy to join...

[Southtown]

did you read the post above? I never doubt that Luke wrote the gosplel [of Luke], the problem is that it just got eddited by people that needed it to make their country stable, or make people follow them without having to draw much support, or to encourage their army...

And then the biggest parenthetical statement I've ever seen... :rolleyes:

 

(that is how Marry Magdalene became a prostitute from Crists wife, and that is one of many things in early Christianity that lead to belittleing of women power and making men dominant for 1500 years, you know, women were worshipped by the early religions right (in a way, since they posessed a gift to bare a child women were a lot more respected then men, who do not posess that power and thus were beleived to be a little divine)? Do you also know that the act of sex was made shameful by the church on purpose (perhaps someone can tell me what purpose that would serve...)? Do you know that sex was beleived to be the only way for a man to complete his soul, and one of the only ways to communicate with God, by uniting as one with a woman?)...

Are you attempting to critique Christianity by evaluating other religions? And the worship of women, the Sun, love, cows, etc. all suggest that people wanted more of the physical counterparts. The Hebrews who ticked Jehova off at Mt. Sinai by worshipping a cow also complained of not having meat (Numbers 11:4-15) in the desert. Funny how people of other religions worship something that they desire and pray to anyone with control to give it. My god calls that "idolatry." I call it foolishness.

 

And what evidence have you shown to state that Jesus was married? And what evidence shows that the bible belittles women? People being bad, whether religious or not, is evidence that the bible is correct when it says "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23-26) and need the forgiveness of a merciful god.

 

And for the last time, Christ did not claim to be God, he was made divine by the Council of Nicaea in 325AD, after Lukes death, those things got added to the Bible to make people beleive that Christ was divine...

Wiki is not scientific, and it doesn't suggest any editting of the NT, anyway. It says "letters" were considered "authoritative" and gained a "gradual acceptance" by church leaders.

“

In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was no New Testament canon that was universally recognized.

Nevertheless, by the 2nd century there was a common collection of letters and gospels that a majority of church leaders considered authoritative

.

” — Wiki

First, they were letters and not books. The "books" of the bible were not written as you understand it. Letters between believers (namely those who actually knew Jesus) were considered trustworthy and harmonious with the OT. The "letters" were not forced on churches, they gained gradual acceptance, probably after some pretty "religious" scrutiny. (You know how hard it is to get believers to listen to you.)

 

And second, the letters were not "eddited", they were added or removed based on global consensus. What verification method could be more valid than that? And what evidence do you claim to show the letters were "eddited" rather than wholly added/removed?

[alexander]

And what evidence have you shown to state that Jesus was married? And what evidence shows that the bible belittles women?

it is called common sense... follow me through on this one:

Established:

Jesus was a Jew

He was raised a Jew

His family was Jewish

He taught pure Judeism

He was he was in his thirties when he was Crucified

Ok that established, how much do you know about Judeism (especially about Early Judeism and early world Civ) would determine your response to your own question.

I dont calim Marry Magdalene to be Jesuses wife, but he was married, great scolars have expressed that as well, take for example Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper", you should really spealk to a person who specialises in symbology and iconography, but that person just to the left of Jesus (from our view) is infact a woman, you can also see a woman on the last suppers by Jean Fouquet and Albrecht Durer. That said, read "The Woman With The Alabaster Jar", classic that revolutionized Christian scolarship.

 

eddited

i hope i never said edited, more of propaganda really, manipulating the truth, but look at where it got Hitler huh? (killed is not what i'm describing here, his political career as the most powerful ruler of the 20th century)

[alexander]

By the way, I wasn't the one who argued this point with you in the first place.

that was aimed towards hawkens

 

oh and the testaments overlap, yes, but not repeats of each other...:

the old testament or the hebrew scriptures is a really old book that was written before Jesus who is the subject of the New Testament which is also called Greek testament, and is more about Jesus, but they do infact intersect in many places, thus similar but different...

 

Are you attempting to critique Christianity by evaluating other religions?

No, not really, but if you have read my posts above, there are a lot of pagan symbols in christianity and that is why i constantly refer to paganism in my posts, Jesus was Jewish, so hense some Judeism, and the others are more of reference and to prove my point then anything else really...

My god calls that "idolatry." I call it foolishness

lol :)

And what evidence shows that the bible belittles women?

not bible, christianity does, but for a reason, you see the main apeal of the religion had to be done for the soldiers, for if your soldiers dont beleive your religion, they didnt fight for you back all the way when sharp crude objets were used to slice the enemy, the churh had to make the image of an all powerfull man to keep their men motivated, so they had to change the image of women in the bible and thats how you get to Eve and Magdalene. How can I show this? Try to read about Opus Dei's view of women, you'll know what I mean by church belittling woman power in the past...

[IrishEyes]

This thread has strayed way too far off topic.

Please start new threads, and continue your discussions in them. Might I suggest a thread about how different books were added to the Bible and why? Or a thread about the different Councils that helped with canonization? Or possibly one that goes a little more in-depth about some of the "Da Vinci Code"-esque claims about Jesus? These all seem to be very interesting, and have garnered some heated responses from both sides of the debate. However, nothing in the last few pages responds to the first post, really.

Thread will close in 12 hours.

Thanks, guys!!

[C1ay]

Christ not only claimed to be God....He is God.

 

The Bible has only been translated, never edited. THey still have to old text and they still read and translate new versions of the Bible from the old text. How could anyone add anything without somebody calling them on it. The Bible has been unchanged since it's existance.

Why don't you prove some of the baseless drivel you keep spewing?

[Guest loarevalo]

I don't think a get the point of this thread (Quetzalcoatl's question), but here it goes:

 

No serious cosmologist would assert that the Big Bang was the absolute beginning. Actually, I suppose is reasonable to think that there was no beginning - in any case, String Theory says the Universe is periodic. Why say that there is a beginning, if it's pretty well accepted that God has no beginning or end (or as it says somewhere "my course is an endless round, without beginning or end")?

 

God is a form of life (the perfect form of life), so if God existed before the Big Bang, then life existed, and life is without beginning or end. Obviously, life didn't begin here on Earth. If God created man on Earth, then God himself is life and/or he brought life from somewhere else.

 

If inert matter is eternal (or whatever is not life has always existed) why not think that life is eternal also?

[alexander]

Oh, yeah about the Big Bang, could it have really happened if the research shows that all the masses are still accelerating away from the center of the universe?

[alexander]

Or possibly one that goes a little more in-depth about some of the "Da Vinci Code"-esque claims about Jesus?

this discussion really does seem "Da Vinci Code" esque doesnt it, well, the author obviousy did quite a bit of research for the book too, no? and although i wouldnt quite agree with all the points made there, majority remains fact, so thats another source that supports my side... yeah I'll make a post in continuation of this discussion called something along the lines of "Crazy Bible origin and Jesus's bio discussion thingy continued"...

[alexander]

perhaps ii should go to physics section for a propper discussion on the big bang....

[Southtown]

Sorry, I'm four months late, but I can't help it. Awesome stuff, Alex, I was going to attempt a post regarding Christian beginnings, very close to what you've done. A couple of points, though.

 

The problem with the Bible is that it doesnt even teach you what you think it teaches you.

. . .

The time of Roman empire has passed, but back when Rome was the main power, it would only make perfect sense to modify the bible and make people do whatever it is that you wanted them.

In light of the rest of your post, it seems you mean that the Bible was reconstructed to be paganistic, but believers carry one unawares. Is that so? Because, I see it as people carrying their bibles unaware of its contents, fed fat on oral traditions, from their weekly spoon-fed interpretations of the text. That the bible was preserved nearly exactly, and that altered copies were simply incapable of overtaking every original.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/4616-conservative-biblical-interpretation-post72392.html

 

Textual criticism sheds light on the schism of scripture between Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. Also, the Vatican purposefully and publicly contrasts themselves with scripture to show that their authority over the church dominates that of the holy writ. Their not hiding behind tainted copies, at least not anymore.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/4537-vatican-official-refutes-intelligent-design-post72784.html