Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OrthodoxyUSA said:The History Channel is a horrible example of true history.
I'm not sure what their agenda is.... but if they aren't showing something on WWII, I won't watch it....
Forgive me.....
GraceInHim said:I agree.. and it is sad that some people who do not know any better will believe the false words they teach..
I watch to observe the lies.. to see what others may see.. saddens what lies and untruths, especially about our Lord also..
OrthodoxyUSA said:All of the non-Apostolic ideas have a simular origin...
Whats a poor T.V. misinformed person supposed to do?
TURN OFF THE T.V................. and begin reading true history?
Forgive me....
Lfoxx said: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.
Good prediction - I think you are right.GraceInHim said:seems mysteries are better, they want more of... look at the Movie about the Divinci Book and also the pilgrameges to France.. and the movie will probably get an oscar compared to the Passion got nothing..
Lfoxx said:It has recently been brought to my attention...
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.
ps139 said:I disagree Uncle Ricky, about your last point. I think Christians should see the DaVinci Code, and read it too. Only those who are strong in their faith though. Because it is like a missle fired at the Church.
When this movie comes out, even more people will be talking about the claims it makes, since unfortunately, more people watch movies than read.
We as Christians need to be armed with a defense against those claims. If you are known as a Christian, people will come to you to ask about Christian things. Some people at work have come up to me asking about DaVinci Code, and I have been studying its claims and plan to read the book this weekend.
There are some great books and DVDs that debunk it. I recently saw one called "Breaking the DaVinci Code" by Grizzly Adams productions. It takes a good look at the claims, lays them out, discusses the consequences of the claims, and investigates. It's also good because it is not biased towards Catholics or Protestants, it's mixed.
Scripture says that we should be ready to give an account for our faith, and our hope. (1 Pet 3:14). The DaVinci Code takes Christianity to task, it essentially says that we cannot trust the Church or the Bible...and we need to be prepared to defend our faith. So many people can be mislead because of this, we should arm ourselves with the truth to see that this does not happen. It really is, IMO, a great chance for evangelization.
I have a Darwin fish on my car.
Luke tells us in Acts11:7-9 God gave Peter a vision that all animals were now clean to eat.
Jesus warned that there would be many false prophets coming after His death and resurrection.
And back to the Christian POV... if a book "should have been" in the Bible... then it is either already in, or a "should not have been, and isn't."
Lfoxx said: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, . . . .
When talking with an atheist you will need to begin from a secular point of view. You can make an analogy that what happened if someone was poking around Thomas Jefferson's house and found "lost amendments" that should have been in the Bill of Rights. Should they have been in there? It's not a question ofthat... they're not in there. The people who put together the US constitution made the decisions. (Ok the only difference here is that the Constitution can be added to whereas the Bible cant, but that's besides the point)OObi said:That's what I've always believed. Does anybody else agree with this method of verifying things? I find it very conclusive, but if I was talking with, let's say an atheist, I would have to tell them that literature that is not in the bible is not biblical because it is not in the bible. But then you can imagine what he would say to me. I've been looking for any other way to word it, or another method completly. Any ideas...?
ps139 said:...With the Bible, from a secular POV, it was solely the bishops of the early church who decided which books were in, and which were out. It is a settled matter,.
it was by no means meant to prove or disprove anything. but after considering the events leading up to the establishment of the canon, which undeniably began with constantine (according to the history i have readRdr Iakovos said: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.
that is the whole point, though. that tradition was (again, according to what i have read) aided considerably by the office of the emperor, to an extent that other beliefs were 'forbidden'.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.
you are correct in this assessment, and i retract the statement.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.
this may be a good idea, as i would love to hear this version of history. i am not speaking sarcastically, as i understand that several versions of every era of our recorded history have been written.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.
its not so much a conspiracy as it is a simple order of events. the arguements discussed at nicea greatly influenced the canon, as the cannon would have to reflect that creed, and not the other way around. one could argue that the creed is the basis for the bible, and those writings that even suggested ideas that in any way contradicted that creed were dismissed.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?
not necessarily, but only to admit that its influences may have been political.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,
people have been willing to die for many things troughout history. what better way to emulate christ, after all.creating and espousing lies that they willing suffered and died for .
unproven? we can't prove one way or the other. but it is not unfounded.As absurd as this underlying premise is, worse, it is completely unfounded and unproved.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?