What About The Doctrines That Were Changed In The Bible?

[Lfoxx]

It has recently been brought to my attention... well I pondered it but didnt do much research on the sub. My plan this year was for me to read the whole bible from start to finish but the other day my hubby and Iwere watching the history channel and it was on fogotten books of the bible. We looked into it and were amazed at what we found. There were so many doctrines that werent put in. We started off by reading the book of Thomas but then I came across an article that blew my mind.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_intro.htm

It talks about how An Irish clergyman, Rev. G. J. Ouseley claims to have discovered the Original Gospel from which the present Four Gospels were derived, which, he says, was "preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Tibet, where it was hidden by some of the Essene Community for safety from the hands of the corrupters.

It then goes on to say:
The Original Gospel, representing the teachings of Christ, the Lord of Love, taught harmlessness and compassion to all living beings, including both animals and humans. For reasons above stated, the Roman Churchmen at Nicea opposed these doctrines and eliminated them from the Gospels, which they radically changed so as to be acceptable to Constantine, who loved the red meats and flowing wine of his midnight feasts too much to accept a religion that prohibited these pleasures, which was a main reason why he so bitterly persecuted the early Christians who advocated these doctrines. For this reason the Church Fathers changed the Gospel in such a way that Love and Compassion were limited only to human beings but the animal expressions of life were excluded from receiving these benefits. But the savior of the Original Gospel, as Christ were represented to be, was a redeemer of the animal world, as he was of men, seeking to alleviate the sufferings of all living beings.

Im just cutting and pasting but it basically says that the commandment "Thou shall not kill" was also meant twords animals because they are helpless creatures and that God loves them too. It also has stories of how Jesus would come across people being abusive to thier animals and Jesus would tell them not to do so, and to treat their animals well. Apparently these stories were taken out because the king at that time liked to eat meat and didnt want to quit living his life the way he had done so. I myself am a real animal lover and was very moved by these stories and also couldn't believe that books were changed so drastically to change things the way the people at that time or rulers rather to thier living styles. It changed my outlook on alot becuase this is something that couldve easily been done. I know what some are already thinking. If Jesus was a vegetarian then what about the story where he had the fish and loaves of bread and fed thousands. Well apparently this story was changed and Jesus fed the people with 6 loaves of bread and 7 clusters of grapes instead.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_3.htm#Lection290

If this is the case theres so much that we are unaware of. I mean how many people or christians for that matter carry, wear, or even have as an emblem on thier car the fish from that story as a symbol. Please go to the links and let me know what you think. I mean why would this be made up.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_3.htm#Lection210

These stories of Jesus defending animals of course he would. Jesus was a wonderful, compassionate, and full of love. Animals couldnt be here just to be our food, or to be tortued for food.

 

[KerrMetric]

I have a Darwin fish on my car.

 

[Jipsah]

it was on fogotten books of the bible.

They mislead you right out the gate. The stuff they were on about was never part of the Bible, ever.

We started off by reading the book of Thomas

Which was written at least a hundred years after our Lord's departure, was not written by Thomas Didymus, and was never included in any canon of Scripture that I've ever heard of.

It talks about how An Irish clergyman, Rev. G. J. Ouseley claims to have discovered the Original Gospel from which the present Four Gospels were derived, which, he says, was "preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Tibet, where it was hidden by some of the Essene Community for safety from the hands of the corrupters.

Did flying saucers play any part in this tale at all?

The Original Gospel, representing the teachings of Christ, the Lord of Love, taught harmlessness and compassion to all living beings, including both animals and humans. For reasons above stated, the Roman Churchmen at Nicea opposed these doctrines and eliminated them from the Gospels

Nah, that's pure fiction from start to finish.

If this is the case

It isn't.

 

[Jipsah]

I have a Darwin fish on my car.

I once had a goldfish named Darwin.

 

[Scholar in training]

We looked into it and were amazed at what we found. There were so many doctrines that werent put in. We started off by reading the book of Thomas but then I came across an article that blew my mind.

Don't believe everything you read (or watch on the History channel -- they play a lot of conspiracy theories these days). Always verify, like the Bereans did.

In the case of the "Gospel" of Thomas, this book is not as reliable as the canonical Gospels are. It was written (at least in its totality) too late to be reliable.

It talks about how An Irish clergyman, Rev. G. J. Ouseley claims to have discovered the Original Gospel from which the present Four Gospels were derived, which, he says, was "preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Tibet, where it was hidden by some of the Essene Community for safety from the hands of the corrupters.

To be honest, this doesn't make sense. Why would there be a copy of the Gospel in Tibet? How did it migrate to the Essenes -- especially in such a short timespan?? After 70 A.D., the Pharisees were the major surviving sect of Judaism; the Essenes would not be in the picture, and in any case their "Gospel" would have arrived on the scene too late to influence the Apostles.

It then goes on to say:
The Original Gospel, representing the teachings of Christ, the Lord of Love, taught harmlessness and compassion to all living beings, including both animals and humans.

God is love, but Buddhism is very misleading in what it means by "love". According to the Buddhist, love means total non-violence. In Scripture, we see that the writers did not think this is the case; hence Jesus calling the Pharisees the "brood of vipers" as a legitimate and common rhetorical technique, because they heaped insult on the God-Man who is Jesus and could have led others astray. Throughout the Bible we see that God will use force if the situation calls for it - for instance, in the case of the Israelites, who attacked the warmongering Canaanites only after the Israelites had been attacked and had not responded with war for a long time themselves.

For reasons above stated, the Roman Churchmen at Nicea opposed these doctrines and eliminated them from the Gospels, which they radically changed so as to be acceptable to Constantine, who loved the red meats and flowing wine of his midnight feasts too much to accept a religion that prohibited these pleasures, which was a main reason why he so bitterly persecuted the early Christians who advocated these doctrines.

I don't believe that Constantine changed any doctrine, but the above is a peculiar reason for this web site to reject him as a Christian. I have not read many scholars who think that Constantine's meat-and-wine addiction made him change anything.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Hi Lfoxx. As Jipsah explained earlier, the TV special was misleading - books like the Gospel of the Holy 12, Gospel of Thomas, etc. were not “forgotten” books of the Bible. They were never a part of the Bible in the first place.

I don’t know much about the Thomas gospel, but I’ve read the Holy 12 (sometimes called the Gospel of the Nazarene), and if you take the time to read the entire thing I truly believe you will realize that it was not the source of the Fourfold Gospels. As you admitted, you “didnt do much research on the sub”, so I would read the book in full before considering disregarding the entire 2000-year testimony of the Church’s version of the Gospels in favor of believing what the History Channel tells you (although I do love the History Channel, by the way).

Tell you what, I’ll make it easy for you; I’ll provide a thumbnail list of teachings I found in the Holy 12 a few years ago that are completely at odds with what is taught in the known New Testament (Gospels and Epistles included). I’ll even provide the chapters and verses so you can reference them for yourselves.

1.) Jesus was originally named Jesu-Maria, The “Son who is the Daughter” (ch.2:2; 20:5; 76:10), the “Son-Daughter”(ch.37:10), the “two in one” (ch.44:14)
2.) Jesus taught reincarnation (ch. 37:2,7,8; 65:8,9; 66:10; 69:3)
3.) There was no Virgin Birth; God endowed Joseph with divine “seed”, enabling him to have premarital sex with Mary in order to conceive Jesus (ch.2:6; 2:10; 8:8)
4.) Jesus learned mysticism and Kabbalistic traditions from God (healing power of trees, herbs, and flowers, hidden secrets of precious stones, the powers of the letters, and mysteries of the Square and the Circle, etc.) (ch.6:12)
5.) God the Father is both male and female (ch. 64:2), the Lord’s prayer is the Father-Mother prayer, who is a “twofold Trinity” (ch.19:3; 50:8), a “Biune Trinity”(ch. 76:20)

So as you can see, these divergences from Biblical Orthodoxy are far from petty, and several of them strike at the heart of known biblical truth. And at least one example is pure heresy (the rejection of the Virgin Birth).

Now about the vegetarian thing; I too love animals, and many of the stories in the Holy 12 are very touching and gives a glimpse into God’s compassion for his creation. But the Holy 12 goes far beyond merely “defending animals” - the book actually teaches that eating animals are now forbidden for man. Killing or eating any animal for any reason goes against Jesus’ “New Ten Commandments”(ch.46:3; 76:6), and is a great wickedness according to God. Jesus rebuked men for eating animals (ch. 28:1-5). Again, I’m not talking about animal abuse or needless slaughtering….the Holy 12 teaches that merely eating animals is a sin against God, and that the only flesh we should ever eat is the Body of Christ through Holy Communion (ch.76).


So how does this new teaching in the Holy 12 reconcile with what the New Testament says about the issue? Luke tells us in Acts11:7-9 God gave Peter a vision that all animals were now clean to eat. Paul tells us in 1st Corinthians 8 that we are even free to eat the meat sacrificed to idols as long as we don’t cause our brethren to stumble. So who should you believe, Lfoxx; Luke and Paul’s testimony or some writings found by Rev. G. J. Ouseley?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Rafael]

Jesus warned that there would be many false prophets coming after His death and resurrection. If it can be thought of as a way to discredit the Bible and the promise of God to keep His truth for us by His own opower among men through the Holy Spirit, then it can be found and read about.
The Canon we have today is that which has stood the test of men who have had the Holy Spirit's guidance. The Bible says that in the last days there would be many forms of religion, but they would deny the power of God. So, can God keep the truth for us despite all the counterfeits to truth that make claims against the scriptures? Yes!
Check with each of those counterfeits, and you will see that they preach different gospels that those of the true Canon of scriptures. Here is what Paul said of these false doctrines or message:

Galations (NLT) 1:8 Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed.

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of religion, but turning their backs on the power of it: go not with these.


Ga (KJV)1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

There is unity and agreement in the true Canon of scriptures, and all those so-called gospels that didn't make the Canon have things that contradict the accepted texts that God is able to keep.

 

[Lfoxx]

I appreciate and respect everyones responses. It just made me happy when mostly I read about Jesus and his relationships with animals. In one of the other forums that I read that animals were more of this earth and wouldnt even be in heaven. I was so dissappointed when I read this. Anyway when I came across these writinfs about how Jesus defended the animals it brought peace to my heart. Even though everyones responses were against these stories it still brought me peace and I still believe that God, Jesus do have compassion and love for all creatures and that there will be animals in heaven. ( :

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Hi: Respect for life of all kinds is indeed taught in scripture- not by chapter and verse, but by precept upon precept. Scriptures describe humankind as stewards of this world and all in it.

But what of this alleged earlier 'gospel' that would seem to forbid the killing of animals and eating of meat ( in keeping with Essenic practices):
Firstly, to accept this alleged earlier proclamation, we will have to reject many pieces of the gospels, especially Jesus eating fish, as well as Paul's directions and the directions of the Jerusalem council regarding acceptable and unacceptable meat.

In other words, we would have to look at much of the NT as tainted and changed- based upon the account of this dubious source gospel.

Even if the so-called gospel was earlier, it would not prove it to be true or reliable.

There were and are groups of Christians who eschew the eating of meat. All Eastern Orthodox monks do so. I believe that this is a very honorable choice- even though all is good for food, we live in a time when most of us could easily live propserously without eating animals.

 

[ps139]

The revisionist and pseudo historical idea that Constantine and Nicea had anything remotely to do with the formation of the Bible canon is a modern myth.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Pure hogwash...

I'm sorry you (like I) had to experience what TV puts out.

PURE HOGWASH.

I could user stronger words... but I don't see how it would help....

Forgive me....

 

[imind]

this link provides an excellent discussion on thomas.

most people are wholly unaware of the history of christianity, and how many competing ideas existed before the 'formal gathering' of the books that the bible now contains.

personally, i believe the bible to be the work of man, as any serious study of theology will show.

The revisionist and pseudo historical idea that Constantine and Nicea had anything remotely to do with the formation of the Bible canon is a modern myth.

completely untrue, please provide evidence for this statement.

PURE HOGWASH.

I could user stronger words... but I don't see how it would help....

i, too, doubt that stronger words would help, but some evidence that your views are correct would certainly help.

 

[Jig]

the other day my hubby and I were watching the history channel and it was on fogotten books of the bible.

I saw this too. Interesting, but that's about it. Don't let the History Channel do your research. I love that channel, but you have to remember, they also do shows that 'prove' UFO's are real.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Pure hogwash...

I'm sorry you (like I) had to experience what TV puts out.

PURE HOGWASH.

I could user stronger words... but I don't see how it would help....

Forgive me....

We don't often agree....but in this case....

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

What happened to the words of Jesus, saying the gates of hell would not prevail against the church of God? Or was that "changed" to in order to satisfy Constantine? Did God think it good that His gospel should be hidden by buddhist monks for centuries?

Learn from the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others - who say that true faith and teaching has been absent for since near the creation of the Church and only now in our modern days brought back by Jesus.

Do we have access to this "original" manuscript, written in aramaic, so it can be verified and translated again and again? Or do we have to trust the words of one man to provide us the true religion?

I appreciate and respect everyones responses. It just made me happy when mostly I read about Jesus and his relationships with animals. In one of the other forums that I read that animals were more of this earth and wouldnt even be in heaven. I was so dissappointed when I read this. Anyway when I came across these writinfs about how Jesus defended the animals it brought peace to my heart. Even though everyones responses were against these stories it still brought me peace and I still believe that God, Jesus do have compassion and love for all creatures and that there will be animals in heaven. ( :

Truth is not about what you find comfortable, but about what is true.

Regardless, we will not live in heaven when all things are finished. The Scriptures say that there will be "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21:1). This new earth is where we will live, and it will include animals. It will not be the resurrected animals that have lived and died during these millenia that are passing. But there will be animals.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

this link (edited) provides an excellent discussion on thomas.

most people are wholly unaware of the history of christianity, and how many competing ideas existed before the 'formal gathering' of the books that the bible now contains.

The fact that there were competing views no more disproves the veracity of the claims of historical, orthodox, creedal, Trinitarian, biblical Christianity than an absence of alternatives would prove same.

It is true that very few people today know very much of anything about the history of the Church. Couple that with the prevailing mistrust of tradition and authority, and the net result is people willing to believe anything they read, see, or hear- except, of course, that which has been passed down through unbroken generations of faithful witnesses.

personally, i believe the bible to be the work of man, as any serious study of theology will show.

I wonder what you mean by "work of man." It is very clear that men wrote the words found in what you refer to as 'the bible.' It is clear that men over time also came to an agreement as to which texts contained the reliable and authentic writings of the Apostles.

Beyond that, if you are inferring that the scriptures were written by men, in the sense that you deny Inspiration- well, you've made a faith statement. Or rather, a statement of non-faith. You are welcome to do so, but your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's

Which leads me to the second part of your statement "any serious study will show." You are probably aware of the logical fallacy that you are employing here. Let us suffice to say that many who have given serious attention to studying holy scripture disagree with you. Many disagree with my conclusions also.

The revisionist and pseudo historical idea that Constantine and Nicea had anything remotely to do with the formation of the Bible canon is a modern myth.

completely untrue, please provide evidence for this statement.

You have couched your demand in such a manner that it cannot be satisfied- I presume this was simply an oversight on your part, and not a polemical device.

Constantine is a bit of an Urban Myth amongst certain Protestant traditions and skeptics. If you wish to debate what he did and did not do, where he influenced the Church and did not, I would gladly enjoin that debate- on another thread.

As for the kanona: the first list of 27 was put forth by Athansius, some 40 years after Nicea. Earlier lists, including the canon found on the fragment discovered by Muratori, include many of the 27. This list dates to early 3rd century.
So we have most of the canon present before Nicea and Constatine, and the same not settled until 80 years after Nicea.
So the alleged conspiracy of the "Roman Churchmen" at Nicea has no legs to stand on. Perhaps the conspiracy began with Justin, continued through Irenaeus, and found full blossom in Nicea?

We keep bumping into this conspiracy theory, which would have us see the Church fathers and mothers as retro-editors, engaged in wanton skullduggery and wholesale fraud, creating and espousing lies that they willing suffered and died for .
As absurd as this underlying premise is, worse, it is completely unfounded and unproved.

PURE HOGWASH.

I could user stronger words... but I don't see how it would help....

i, too, doubt that stronger words would help, but some evidence that your views are correct would certainly help.

Ditto. I assume that you will hold yourself to the same standard?

 

[albertmc]

The reason many have not heard of the so-called Gospel of the Holy Twelve (even those familiar with gnosticism) is because it is a fraud. The alleged discoverer never produced the Aramaic original nor could he even read Aramaic. He was a theosophist (a new ageist cult popular at the time) who claimed he translated the thing through visions he received. The whole thing sounds like the Mormons to me. Unlike the Gospel of Thomas which was an actual gnostic writing produced in the second or third century, this one has no lineage. You can read more here:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ouseley01.html

 

[stray bullet]

Some of the History Channel's programs have been very misleading on the nature of the Gnostic texts and what was not included in the bible. Titles like "Banned from the bible" and unrefuted statements like "other Christians texts of the time" have mislead audiences.

Gnosticism was a movement started by Simon Magus in the second century. In reading the Old Testament, he refused to believe that God was the Father of Jesus Christ. He created a religion, or sect of Christianity, which rejected the Old Testament and the God of Abraham. The Gnostics rejected God as the true God and believed he was sort of a 'bad' God and Jesus was the 'good' guy. They believed that God trapped man in his body and Jesus came to help liberate us.

Simon Magus' religion/sect/cult caught on within closed circles of Christianity. They began accepting some of the New Testament scriptures, while rejecting others (such as Paul's letters I believe). They began producing their own false Gospels, Acts, et cetera and circulated it among themselves.

The legitimate group of Christians, who did not follow Magus and followed the original apostles, their successors and the ancient, true teachings of Christianity never accepted the Gnostic Gospels and instead, relied upon the Old Testament, four Gospels, Acts, Revelation and the epistles.

When the Church finally formally canonized all these inspired texts into a bible, they did not 'change' the bible. They simply did not put in the Gnostic texts because they were illegitimate texts of another separate group of Christians that rejected the God of the Old Testament.

Gnosticism is a separate religion and its false texts have no place in the Christian bible, just as the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon has no place in the bible.

 

[stray bullet]

I saw this too. Interesting, but that's about it. Don't let the History Channel do your research. I love that channel, but you have to remember, they also do shows that 'prove' UFO's are real.

The problem with their religious shows is that they let whatever wacko say whatever misleading statements they want without letting someone from mainstream Christianity address or refute it. It makes for a more interesting program, in the way a conspiracy program is interesting, but it's not very intellectually honest.

 

[GraceInHim]

The History Channel is not a good reference for Bible words.. they also place Dan Brown's stuff, which by even if they do not agree with it entirely, why run it, to make vulnerable Christians or non to believe it and question it more.... look at the sales of the Books.. shame