|
Post by snow on Jan 27, 2018 15:46:12 GMT -5
Admin, not sure if this is the right spot for this, so feel free to move it appropriately if necessary.
I have been reading the bible from front to back, again, and there are a few things that jumped out at me. One is just how many books that were left out of the Canon by the RCC. Here is a reference to them and I was wondering if anyone had read them?
Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer. (1 Chronicles 29:29.)
Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? (2 Chronicles 2:29.)
So were they not considered important to include in the OT. Does anyone know? Here are all the ones I know of that are alluded to in the bible but not in the bible.
• THE BOOK OF JASHER • THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF SOLOMAN • THE BOOK OF NATHAN, THE PROPHET • THE BOOK OF GAD, THE SEER • THE BOOK OF SHEMAIH, THE PROPHET • THE VISIONS OF IDDO, THE SEER • THE PROPHECY OF AHIJAH • THE BOOK OF JEHU • A PRIOR EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS • A PRIOR EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS • THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE LAODICEANS • THE BOOK OF THE PROPHECIES OF ENOCH • THE SAYINGS OF THE SEERS (ACTS & PRAYER OF MANASSEH) • THE EPISTLE OF JOHN TO THE CHURCH RULED BY DIOTREPHES
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 16:12:17 GMT -5
Admin, not sure if this is the right spot for this, so feel free to move it appropriately if necessary. I have been reading the bible from front to back, again, and there are a few things that jumped out at me. One is just how many books that were left out of the Canon by the RCC. Here is a reference to them and I was wondering if anyone had read them? Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer. (1 Chronicles 29:29.) Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? (2 Chronicles 2:29.) So were they not considered important to include in the OT. Does anyone know? Here are all the ones I know of that are alluded to in the bible but not in the bible. • THE BOOK OF JASHER • THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF SOLOMAN • THE BOOK OF NATHAN, THE PROPHET • THE BOOK OF GAD, THE SEER • THE BOOK OF SHEMAIH, THE PROPHET • THE VISIONS OF IDDO, THE SEER • THE PROPHECY OF AHIJAH • THE BOOK OF JEHU • A PRIOR EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS • A PRIOR EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS • THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE LAODICEANS • THE BOOK OF THE PROPHECIES OF ENOCH • THE SAYINGS OF THE SEERS (ACTS & PRAYER OF MANASSEH) • THE EPISTLE OF JOHN TO THE CHURCH RULED BY DIOTREPHES you can read the apocrypha at any library your next to there are about a dozen or so books left out of the OT and over 200 left out of the NT...a long time ago i read the apocrypha and a few of those books left out of the NT...the apocrypha have a ring of truth to them however a lot of the NT books just don't sound right and have contrary doctrine...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 27, 2018 17:31:57 GMT -5
Admin, not sure if this is the right spot for this, so feel free to move it appropriately if necessary. I have been reading the bible from front to back, again, and there are a few things that jumped out at me. One is just how many books that were left out of the Canon by the RCC. Here is a reference to them and I was wondering if anyone had read them? Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer. (1 Chronicles 29:29.) Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? (2 Chronicles 2:29.) So were they not considered important to include in the OT. Does anyone know? Here are all the ones I know of that are alluded to in the bible but not in the bible. • THE BOOK OF JASHER • THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF SOLOMAN • THE BOOK OF NATHAN, THE PROPHET • THE BOOK OF GAD, THE SEER • THE BOOK OF SHEMAIH, THE PROPHET • THE VISIONS OF IDDO, THE SEER • THE PROPHECY OF AHIJAH • THE BOOK OF JEHU • A PRIOR EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS • A PRIOR EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS • THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE LAODICEANS • THE BOOK OF THE PROPHECIES OF ENOCH • THE SAYINGS OF THE SEERS (ACTS & PRAYER OF MANASSEH) • THE EPISTLE OF JOHN TO THE CHURCH RULED BY DIOTREPHES you can read the apocrypha at any library your next to there are about a dozen or so books left out of the OT and over 200 left out of the NT...a long time ago i read the apocrypha and a few of those books left out of the NT...the apocrypha have a ring of truth to them however a lot of the NT books just don't sound right and have contrary doctrine... Well, the Bible itself contains contrary doctrines. e.g. David and the Northern kingdom Hebrews.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 27, 2018 17:38:46 GMT -5
Admin, not sure if this is the right spot for this, so feel free to move it appropriately if necessary. I have been reading the bible from front to back, again, and there are a few things that jumped out at me. One is just how many books that were left out of the Canon by the RCC. Here is a reference to them and I was wondering if anyone had read them? Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer. (1 Chronicles 29:29.) Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? (2 Chronicles 2:29.) So were they not considered important to include in the OT. Does anyone know? Here are all the ones I know of that are alluded to in the bible but not in the bible. • THE BOOK OF JASHER • THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF SOLOMAN • THE BOOK OF NATHAN, THE PROPHET • THE BOOK OF GAD, THE SEER • THE BOOK OF SHEMAIH, THE PROPHET • THE VISIONS OF IDDO, THE SEER • THE PROPHECY OF AHIJAH • THE BOOK OF JEHU • A PRIOR EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS • A PRIOR EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS • THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE LAODICEANS • THE BOOK OF THE PROPHECIES OF ENOCH • THE SAYINGS OF THE SEERS (ACTS & PRAYER OF MANASSEH) • THE EPISTLE OF JOHN TO THE CHURCH RULED BY DIOTREPHES you can read the apocrypha at any library your next to there are about a dozen or so books left out of the OT and over 200 left out of the NT...a long time ago i read the apocrypha and a few of those books left out of the NT...the apocrypha have a ring of truth to them however a lot of the NT books just don't sound right and have contrary doctrine... I have not read that, and I should. I know it exists. Thanks for the reminder Wally. I knew there were a lot left out of the NT, but wasn't aware that they left so many out of the OT. I knew the Catholic bible includes some books the Holy Bible doesn't. Here is the list I found: 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras) 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras) Tobit Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva) Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 – 16:24) Wisdom Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach) Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch) Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90) Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13) The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14) Prayer of Manasses (Daniel) 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees I read the Maccabees a long time ago. I came away with the thought that they were just a group that wanted power but they weren't in the David lineage. I probably should go back and read them now because I have read so much more I might read them in a new light. That's one reason I've started to read the bible through again. Missed stuff as I'm sure most have.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 27, 2018 17:41:31 GMT -5
you can read the apocrypha at any library your next to there are about a dozen or so books left out of the OT and over 200 left out of the NT...a long time ago i read the apocrypha and a few of those books left out of the NT...the apocrypha have a ring of truth to them however a lot of the NT books just don't sound right and have contrary doctrine... Well, the Bible itself contains contrary doctrines. e.g. David and the Northern kingdom Hebrews. This is true. A lot of the problem with the first 5 books is that they are taken from many different earlier sources and then patched together. Many authors and not much of an understanding what the earlier documents said.
|
|
|
Post by friend on Jan 27, 2018 18:01:22 GMT -5
Well, the Bible itself contains contrary doctrines. e.g. David and the Northern kingdom Hebrews. This is true. A lot of the problem with the first 5 books is that they are taken from many different earlier sources and then patched together. Many authors and not much of an understanding what the earlier documents said. very interesting topic will drop in and read any comments concerning sincere searching of doctrine and truth and hope and faith if it’s true , if it’s important, why didn’t the Gideon’s include It in their gospel story (left in motel rooms worldwide) ?? just wondering..
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 27, 2018 19:15:48 GMT -5
This is true. A lot of the problem with the first 5 books is that they are taken from many different earlier sources and then patched together. Many authors and not much of an understanding what the earlier documents said. very interesting topic will drop in and read any comments concerning sincere searching of doctrine and truth and hope and faith if it’s true , if it’s important, why didn’t the Gideon’s include It in their gospel story (left in motel rooms worldwide) ?? just wondering.. It's a Protestant Bible society.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 27, 2018 20:17:28 GMT -5
We've been reading the Apocrypha, and when I was wondering, like snow, why those books were left out, I found the following explanation that I copied this from somewhere - can't find the source, and I don't know if its true, but found it interesting:
The Apocrypha in Christianity
At the time of Christ, two versions of the Jewish Bible were in circulation: a Hebrew version and a Greek version. The Greek version is known as the "Septuagint" (or "LXX" for short), after the legend that 72 translators, working independently, came up with identical Greek translations. Since most of the early Christians spoke Greek, this is the version they used and which became incorporated into the Christian Bible.
The Apocrypha continued in common use among Christians until the Reformation, when the Hebrew canon was chosen as the Protestant Old Testament. Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to use the Septuagint. The Catholic Church officially declared its choice at both the Council of Trent (1546) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70).
Today, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians use the Septuagint as their Old Testament and include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. The Apocryphal writings are called deuterocanonical by Catholics and anagignoskomena by the Orthodox. The Catholic Church officially declared its choice of the Septuagint at both the Council of Trent (1546) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70).
Protestants, however, use the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and exclude the Apocrypha. The reformers rejected the Apocrypha because it was sometimes used as a basis for certain Catholic doctrines and because the Jews have never included it in their biblical canon.
The only theological significance of the acceptance or nonacceptance of the Apocrypha is that the Books of the Maccabees support prayer for the dead, which Protestants do not accept.
References 1. "Apocrypha,"Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Religions, 47. 2. "The Time Between the Testaments," NIV Study Bible, 1432. 3. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 2nd ed., 193.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 28, 2018 14:16:27 GMT -5
We've been reading the Apocrypha, and when I was wondering, like snow, why those books were left out, I found the following explanation that I copied this from somewhere - can't find the source, and I don't know if its true, but found it interesting: The Apocrypha in ChristianityAt the time of Christ, two versions of the Jewish Bible were in circulation: a Hebrew version and a Greek version. The Greek version is known as the "Septuagint" (or "LXX" for short), after the legend that 72 translators, working independently, came up with identical Greek translations. Since most of the early Christians spoke Greek, this is the version they used and which became incorporated into the Christian Bible. The Apocrypha continued in common use among Christians until the Reformation, when the Hebrew canon was chosen as the Protestant Old Testament. Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to use the Septuagint. The Catholic Church officially declared its choice at both the Council of Trent (1546) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70). Today, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians use the Septuagint as their Old Testament and include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. The Apocryphal writings are called deuterocanonical by Catholics and anagignoskomena by the Orthodox. The Catholic Church officially declared its choice of the Septuagint at both the Council of Trent (1546) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70). Protestants, however, use the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and exclude the Apocrypha. The reformers rejected the Apocrypha because it was sometimes used as a basis for certain Catholic doctrines and because the Jews have never included it in their biblical canon. The only theological significance of the acceptance or nonacceptance of the Apocrypha is that the Books of the Maccabees support prayer for the dead, which Protestants do not accept. References 1. "Apocrypha,"Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Religions, 47. 2. "The Time Between the Testaments," NIV Study Bible, 1432. 3. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 2nd ed., 193. That could be. It makes sense that if the Catholics saw something they could use they would include it. I wondered why the Maccabee's were included but that becomes clearer because the Catholics also believe in prayers to the dead. I suppose that's likely the case with all the gospels that got left out of the NT, they didn't support Catholic belief so they got turfed. And destroyed whenever possible to protect the church's beliefs. Thankfully the Coptic Christians saved their documents that we found and now form the Nag Hammadi Library. Gives another look at what the various Christian sects believed in the early days of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by friend on Jan 28, 2018 14:42:55 GMT -5
We've been reading the Apocrypha, and when I was wondering, like snow, why those books were left out, I found the following explanation that I copied this from somewhere - can't find the source, and I don't know if its true, but found it interesting: The Apocrypha in ChristianityAt the time of Christ, two versions of the Jewish Bible were in circulation: a Hebrew version and a Greek version. The Greek version is known as the "Septuagint" (or "LXX" for short), after the legend that 72 translators, working independently, came up with identical Greek translations. Since most of the early Christians spoke Greek, this is the version they used and which became incorporated into the Christian Bible. The Apocrypha continued in common use among Christians until the Reformation, when the Hebrew canon was chosen as the Protestant Old Testament. Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to use the Septuagint. The Catholic Church officially declared its choice at both the Council of Trent (1546) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70). Today, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians use the Septuagint as their Old Testament and include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. The Apocryphal writings are called deuterocanonical by Catholics and anagignoskomena by the Orthodox. The Catholic Church officially declared its choice of the Septuagint at both the Council of Trent (1546) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70). Protestants, however, use the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and exclude the Apocrypha. The reformers rejected the Apocrypha because it was sometimes used as a basis for certain Catholic doctrines and because the Jews have never included it in their biblical canon. The only theological significance of the acceptance or nonacceptance of the Apocrypha is that the Books of the Maccabees support prayer for the dead, which Protestants do not accept. References 1. "Apocrypha,"Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Religions, 47. 2. "The Time Between the Testaments," NIV Study Bible, 1432. 3. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 2nd ed., 193. That could be. It makes sense that if the Catholics saw something they could use they would include it. I wondered why the Maccabee's were included but that becomes clearer because the Catholics also believe in prayers to the dead. I suppose that's likely the case with all the gospels that got left out of the NT, they didn't support Catholic belief so they got turfed. And destroyed whenever possible to protect the church's beliefs. Thankfully the Coptic Christians saved their documents that we found and now form the Nag Hammadi Library. Gives another look at what the various Christian sects believed in the early days of Christianity. book publishing was very expensive pre-printing press era. Writing books like bible or apocrypha books would be printed on demand basis. If there was no demand for the text it wouldn’t get copied. If you paid to get it copied, you might have second thoughts About why you paid so much for a book that wasnt relavant to salvation? JMT.
|
|
|
Post by friend on Jan 28, 2018 14:49:04 GMT -5
Oh, and if you were catholic , you were out of the Book market, as they didn’t allow non clergy to even read ( much less own ) their own bibles . It was a fatal sin to do so , even into the 17 th century !! 😲
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 28, 2018 15:01:44 GMT -5
That could be. It makes sense that if the Catholics saw something they could use they would include it. I wondered why the Maccabee's were included but that becomes clearer because the Catholics also believe in prayers to the dead. I suppose that's likely the case with all the gospels that got left out of the NT, they didn't support Catholic belief so they got turfed. And destroyed whenever possible to protect the church's beliefs. Thankfully the Coptic Christians saved their documents that we found and now form the Nag Hammadi Library. Gives another look at what the various Christian sects believed in the early days of Christianity. book publishing was very expensive pre-printing press era. Writing books like bible or apocrypha books would be printed on demand basis. If there was no demand for the text it wouldn’t get copied. If you paid to get it copied, you might have second thoughts About why you paid so much for a book that wasnt relavant to salvation? JMT. Yes it was a lot harder and definitely more time consuming. However, is everyone comfortable just letting the RCC decide which books were relevant to salvation? What if they had an agenda to suppress the very thing that will save you by making sure you never got to read it. You can bet the RCC had an agenda and wanted their version of belief to be the only version. They went to a lot of trouble to try and get rid of the books that didn't meet with their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 28, 2018 15:07:26 GMT -5
Oh, and if you were catholic , you were out of the Book market, as they didn’t allow non clergy to even read ( much less own ) their own bibles . It was a fatal sin to do so , even into the 17 th century !! 😲 True. They rightly knew that if the masses could read the books they would have a lot of questions. And, that's exactly what happened didn't it. Even today many Christians only know what their pastors/preachers tell them from the pulpit. Not many actually read the bible. I know with my family when I quote some scripture that they don't agree with they are amazed when I show them where I got it in the bible. Priests and other clergy don't preach about the horrific actions of the OT God in church on Sunday. They don't teach the contradictions etc. So people who don't actually read the bible don't really know what is in it, just what they hear about on Sunday. I remember growing up and reading the OT and it ultimately paved the road towards me being an atheist today. When I asked the workers and my parents about what it meant and why there were so many horrific things God ordered done they told me the OT was just 'types and shadows' of what was to come. The NT and Jesus I guess they meant. Was never sure what was meant by types and shadows. Has anyone else heard that phrase and do you know what it meant? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 28, 2018 15:27:05 GMT -5
I have been reading the bible from front to back... How far have you read up to? Are you reading it in chronological order? Makes a lot more sense if you read it that way. The book "The Story" is printed in several Bible versions. We have 3 versions and are reading through it, along with maps and also history. It presents the Bible as a "seamless story from beginning to end...Condensed into 31 accessible chapters, The Story sweeps you into the unfolding progression of Bible characters and events from Genesis to Revelation. Using the clear, accessible text of the NIV Bible, it allows the stories, poems, and teachings of the Bible to read like a novel. And like any good story, The Story is filled with intrigue, drama, conflict, romance, and redemptionwww.amazon.com/Story-Continuing-Selections-International-Version/dp/031095097X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517171019&sr=8-1&keywords=the+story
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 28, 2018 15:42:42 GMT -5
I have been reading the bible from front to back... How far have you read up to? Are you reading it in chronological order? Makes a lot more sense if you read it that way. The book "The Story" is printed in several Bible versions. We have 3 versions and are reading through it, along with maps and also history. It presents the Bible as a "seamless story from beginning to end...Condensed into 31 accessible chapters, The Story sweeps you into the unfolding progression of Bible characters and events from Genesis to Revelation. Using the clear, accessible text of the NIV Bible, it allows the stories, poems, and teachings of the Bible to read like a novel. And like any good story, The Story is filled with intrigue, drama, conflict, romance, and redemptionwww.amazon.com/Story-Continuing-Selections-International-Version/dp/031095097X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517171019&sr=8-1&keywords=the+storyI'm not very far in, just started Genesis 25. I have a lonnng way to go. But I am reading it with a hope that I can verify what apologists are talking about, what atheists write about etc. I always question so I like to make sure that what others are claiming are actually true and not taken out of context to make a point. I find that happens so I like to check and see what surrounding verses say, to get the clear context, not just the verse given to make a point. I don't know anything about chronological order. I don't know how one could establish that knowing that the first five books in the bible are just a combination of earlier stories written by unknown authors. How do you date that well enough to put them in order. However, I haven't heard of the book you mention so it sounds interesting if not for any other reason to see how they think anything in the bible can be read like that. I did think about writing of my thoughts on here as I went through each chapter. I thought Nathan's idea that Cain was born because the devil impregnated Eve to be interesting especially given this verse. And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain and said I have gotten a man from the Lord. It certainly wasn't from the bible that Nathan got the idea that Cain was the seed of the devil. At least not based on that verse.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 28, 2018 15:48:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 28, 2018 16:00:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the links Cherie. I just went to our local library page and did a search for the book 'The Story'. The first title to come up was 'The story of Snow: the science of winter's wonder'. I just had to laugh at the chances of that!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 28, 2018 16:11:07 GMT -5
CherieKropp Okay, found it in our library system so I have requested it. Thanks for the suggestion. I like your timeline link too.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jan 28, 2018 16:22:09 GMT -5
book publishing was very expensive pre-printing press era. Writing books like bible or apocrypha books would be printed on demand basis. If there was no demand for the text it wouldn’t get copied. If you paid to get it copied, you might have second thoughts About why you paid so much for a book that wasnt relavant to salvation? JMT. Yes it was a lot harder and definitely more time consuming. However, is everyone comfortable just letting the RCC decide which books were relevant to salvation? What if they had an agenda to suppress the very thing that will save you by making sure you never got to read it. You can bet the RCC had an agenda and wanted their version of belief to be the only version. They went to a lot of trouble to try and get rid of the books that didn't meet with their beliefs. You're correct, the RCC burned a lot of Vaudois history and Old and New Testament scriptures. The RCC wants to be the ONLY TRUE church on earth. What they say and teach is the gospel Truth. believe it or burn to death. During the Dark ages, ONLY the priests can read and interpret the Bible, the rest of RCC believers were forbidden to read it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 28, 2018 16:34:13 GMT -5
Yes it was a lot harder and definitely more time consuming. However, is everyone comfortable just letting the RCC decide which books were relevant to salvation? What if they had an agenda to suppress the very thing that will save you by making sure you never got to read it. You can bet the RCC had an agenda and wanted their version of belief to be the only version. They went to a lot of trouble to try and get rid of the books that didn't meet with their beliefs. You're correct, the RCC burned a lot of Vaudois history and Old and New Testament scriptures. The RCC wants to be the ONLY TRUE church on earth. What they say and teach is the gospel Truth. believe it or burn to death. During the Dark ages, ONLY the priests can read and interpret the Bible, the rest of RCC believers were forbidden to read it.
Yes they tried to wipe out all other belief that was different from them. No question. Even within their church they tried to wipe each other out. The two sides of the trinity debate killed each other within the church. It is sad that people can't have a belief and let others have their beliefs without having to pay with their lives for having a different belief from the more powerful side.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jan 28, 2018 16:47:52 GMT -5
You're correct, the RCC burned a lot of Vaudois history and Old and New Testament scriptures. The RCC wants to be the ONLY TRUE church on earth. What they say and teach is the gospel Truth. believe it or burn to death. During the Dark ages, ONLY the priests can read and interpret the Bible, the rest of RCC believers were forbidden to read it.
Yes they tried to wipe out all other belief that was different from them. No question. Even within their church they tried to wipe each other out. The two sides of the trinity debate killed each other within the church. It is sad that people can't have a belief and let others have their beliefs without having to pay with their lives for having a different belief from the more powerful side. The RCC among themselves.... should have stayed with the early Church father understanding of the TRINITY, then there would NOT have been any killing through the years. Constantine's decision was correct they should have side with pro-Trinity..... Too bad the next hundreds and thousand year the RCC have added so much false doctrines to the early fathers belief on the TRINITY that it was NOT the same.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 28, 2018 16:54:52 GMT -5
Yes they tried to wipe out all other belief that was different from them. No question. Even within their church they tried to wipe each other out. The two sides of the trinity debate killed each other within the church. It is sad that people can't have a belief and let others have their beliefs without having to pay with their lives for having a different belief from the more powerful side. The RCC among themselves.... should have stayed with the early Church father understanding of the TRINITY, then there would NOT have been any killing through the years. Constantine's decision was correct they should have side with pro-Trinity..... Too bad the next hundreds and thousand year the RCC have added so much false doctrines to the early fathers belief on the TRINITY that it was NOT the same.
I blame that on the fact that it's a concept that no one understands, never mind them. That's why I don't believe in any supreme being. You'd think that if something is so important and he's all powerful, that he should be able to clearly communicate what he means without all the endless interpretations man likes to add to things.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 28, 2018 19:27:39 GMT -5
CherieKropp Okay, found it in our library system so I have requested it. Thanks for the suggestion. I like your timeline link too. Glad to hear it. It should be easier reading than the way you were doing it.
|
|
|
Post by friend on Jan 28, 2018 20:37:18 GMT -5
Oh, and if you were catholic , you were out of the Book market, as they didn’t allow non clergy to even read ( much less own ) their own bibles . It was a fatal sin to do so , even into the 17 th century !! 😲 True. They rightly knew that if the masses could read the books they would have a lot of questions. And, that's exactly what happened didn't it. Even today many Christians only know what their pastors/preachers tell them from the pulpit. Not many actually read the bible. I know with my family when I quote some scripture that they don't agree with they are amazed when I show them where I got it in the bible. Priests and other clergy don't preach about the horrific actions of the OT God in church on Sunday. They don't teach the contradictions etc. So people who don't actually read the bible don't really know what is in it, just what they hear about on Sunday. I remember growing up and reading the OT and it ultimately paved the road towards me being an atheist today. When I asked the workers and my parents about what it meant and why there were so many horrific things God ordered done they told me the OT was just 'types and shadows' of what was to come. The NT and Jesus I guess they meant. Was never sure what was meant by types and shadows. Has anyone else heard that phrase and do you know what it meant? Thanks. wonder if I can grasp what it is that bothers you the most? it could be that our ignorance of the non-recorded events, could cause a lot of questions? from what i understand , there were some very terrible rulers that operated out of human pride and did not seek after God’s council . God only operated with one Plan, that was to have fellowship with His creation, Noah understood this and taught his family. But before you buy into this understanding, you need Confidence that the scripture isn’t contaminated? The original Hebrew Scriptures was around long before Alexander the Great conquered Israel (etc), and as the conquering King , he requested a written history of their country (In Greek) , thus the Israelites gathered 70 ( or 72?)linguistic Scholars that knew both Hebrew and Greek , and they proceeded to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew (original) into Greek for Alex the great . This translation is known as the Septuagint? and should be as reliable as the Hebrew , imo
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 29, 2018 13:24:24 GMT -5
True. They rightly knew that if the masses could read the books they would have a lot of questions. And, that's exactly what happened didn't it. Even today many Christians only know what their pastors/preachers tell them from the pulpit. Not many actually read the bible. I know with my family when I quote some scripture that they don't agree with they are amazed when I show them where I got it in the bible. Priests and other clergy don't preach about the horrific actions of the OT God in church on Sunday. They don't teach the contradictions etc. So people who don't actually read the bible don't really know what is in it, just what they hear about on Sunday. I remember growing up and reading the OT and it ultimately paved the road towards me being an atheist today. When I asked the workers and my parents about what it meant and why there were so many horrific things God ordered done they told me the OT was just 'types and shadows' of what was to come. The NT and Jesus I guess they meant. Was never sure what was meant by types and shadows. Has anyone else heard that phrase and do you know what it meant? Thanks. wonder if I can grasp what it is that bothers you the most? it could be that our ignorance of the non-recorded events, could cause a lot of questions? from what i understand , there were some very terrible rulers that operated out of human pride and did not seek after God’s council . God only operated with one Plan, that was to have fellowship with His creation, Noah understood this and taught his family. But before you buy into this understanding, you need Confidence that the scripture isn’t contaminated? The original Hebrew Scriptures was around long before Alexander the Great conquered Israel (etc), and as the conquering King , he requested a written history of their country (In Greek) , thus the Israelites gathered 70 ( or 72?)linguistic Scholars that knew both Hebrew and Greek , and they proceeded to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew (original) into Greek for Alex the great . This translation is known as the Septuagint? and should be as reliable as the Hebrew , imo The Hebrew people spent a lot of time either in captivity or under the domination of other more powerful countries. That's one reason we see such a diversity of older myths in their first 5 books I guess. There was a time when even the Hebrew people were not 'one people', and when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the 1st temple, he also took quite a few into captivity in Babylon. During their time there they wrote a lot of what we now see in the bible, and, that's one reason why many of the stories are similar to earlier Sumerian stories. Noah, Tower of Babel, the Creation story etc. Your right that there were many translations of the original writings of the Hebrew people and I'm sure much of the meaning was lost in the interpretation and that's shown itself to be true. The fact that the Christian religion only relates to 10 of the commandments given to the Jews is an example of things that were changed, though not lost. I'm not sure if anything really bothers me about it all. I like learning and I see the inconsistencies because I have read different versions of earlier writings and I'm familiar with some of the earlier stories that I see bits and pieces of in the Hebrew scriptures. I like seeing the way things transformed into what we now have. In some cases the original isn't very recognizable in modern Christian belief.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 29, 2018 15:32:45 GMT -5
Oh, and if you were catholic , you were out of the Book market, as they didn’t allow non clergy to even read ( much less own ) their own bibles . This is simply untrue. Prior to the printing press the common person could not afford a hand crafted bible and probably coun't have read it anyway. Just more BS. PS - What is a 'fatal sin'?
|
|
|
Post by friend on Jan 30, 2018 8:28:01 GMT -5
Oh, and if you were catholic , you were out of the Book market, 😲 Just more BS. PS - What is a 'fatal sin'? “blasphemy” (as far as most citizens were concerned, public education (reading/3 R’s/etc) was quite common for all English? )
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 30, 2018 12:05:14 GMT -5
Just more BS. PS - What is a 'fatal sin'? “blasphemy” (as far as most citizens were concerned, public education (reading/3 R’s/etc) was quite common for all English? ) No, you said: Oh, and if you were catholic , you were out of the Book market, as they didn’t allow non clergy to even read ( much less own ) their own bibles . It was a fatal sin to do so , even into the 17 th century !! This is simply incorrect. This is your claim to 'fatal sin' that you were making. Can you back it up? In the time before the bible was readily available due to the printing press (mid 1400's) to the common people the vast majority could not read. Even after the educational reforms implemented by Edward VI the majority of children worked rather than attended schools out of necessity. Is it possible you meant 'mortal sin', a very Catholic term, instead of 'fatal sin' but could not bring yourself to admit you were wrong about that as well?
|
|