Will the world end in 2012?
- Thread starter ino
- Start date
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by SWAlchemist
... As for the Bible, remember there are certain books that were originally in it that were ignored and left out because they were contradictory or contained themes that leaders believed should not be probed.
Not really.
The Canon was fairly well established early on. Some churches used other writings, but those were discussed among the churches and weeded out at the various Councils. Once the "Bible" was assembled books were not removed later.
The Canon required several things from the writings being assembled.
*Authorship-Did an Apostle (as they witnessed the resurrection) or close relation to an Apostle write it?
*Was the book accepted by the early church?
*Was the writing consistent with other Scripture (including OT teaching)?
Understand that the "canonization" first began to be discussed when cults and heretical teaching began to spring up. The early church fathers understood an "official" list needed to be formed to prevent unauthorized teachings to seep into the church.
Again, I'm not arguing about the validity of the teachings of the Bible. I'm just tryin to clarify the way the Bible came to be.
... As for the Bible, remember there are certain books that were originally in it that were ignored and left out because they were contradictory or contained themes that leaders believed should not be probed.
Not really.
The Canon was fairly well established early on. Some churches used other writings, but those were discussed among the churches and weeded out at the various Councils. Once the "Bible" was assembled books were not removed later.
The Canon required several things from the writings being assembled.
*Authorship-Did an Apostle (as they witnessed the resurrection) or close relation to an Apostle write it?
*Was the book accepted by the early church?
*Was the writing consistent with other Scripture (including OT teaching)?
Understand that the "canonization" first began to be discussed when cults and heretical teaching began to spring up. The early church fathers understood an "official" list needed to be formed to prevent unauthorized teachings to seep into the church.
Again, I'm not arguing about the validity of the teachings of the Bible. I'm just tryin to clarify the way the Bible came to be.
mfp1016
Member
Originally Posted by HappyVac
No. Don't believe any of that "Universe Aligns" crap. The Universe aligned no more than 5-10 years ago...as I remember it passed rather uneventfully...
I think the planets might have aligned, but no universe. We don't even have a plot of all the celestial bodies, thus how would we know if they lined up?
No. Don't believe any of that "Universe Aligns" crap. The Universe aligned no more than 5-10 years ago...as I remember it passed rather uneventfully...
I think the planets might have aligned, but no universe. We don't even have a plot of all the celestial bodies, thus how would we know if they lined up?
ino
Member
journeyman is right. I've had more than a few classes on the subject, researched evidences, etc. and I've found that people who claim the bible was written later are trying to pass off the gospels as the gnostic gospels, which were written later and rejected because of that and the fact that they were written by people who rejected the real facts of the bible.
Of course, that's OT, I suppose. lol. Alienz rulz dudez!
Of course, that's OT, I suppose. lol. Alienz rulz dudez!
notsonoob
Member
A lot of gobbly-gook referencing the biblical book of revelations... so I dug up this read. According to this in reference the book was written during the plight of the christians during the roman campagns of the first century...
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/revelation.html
I also read one back about hte supposed "HOLLYWOOD" version of Christ.
Yes, Christ was probably closely related to a Palastinian or a Jordanian by sight. But the white, fair skinned, blue-eyed Christ" is the European - Anglo-saxson version of Christ. Through the presumed arrogance of the churches in England and the Vatican, that the devine could not look like a heathen, but exactly as the chosen divinity of themselves. That is why GOD looks like an old white man in refrence drawings within itself, as also the views of the artisians of the times in their art.
I think the Hollywood version of Christ would look something more like the Terminator....and he kick's butt too!
As Christ looks upon John at the river and says....
"YOUR CLOTHES....GIVE THEM TO ME....NOW!"
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/revelation.html
I also read one back about hte supposed "HOLLYWOOD" version of Christ.
Yes, Christ was probably closely related to a Palastinian or a Jordanian by sight. But the white, fair skinned, blue-eyed Christ" is the European - Anglo-saxson version of Christ. Through the presumed arrogance of the churches in England and the Vatican, that the devine could not look like a heathen, but exactly as the chosen divinity of themselves. That is why GOD looks like an old white man in refrence drawings within itself, as also the views of the artisians of the times in their art.
I think the Hollywood version of Christ would look something more like the Terminator....and he kick's butt too!
As Christ looks upon John at the river and says....
"YOUR CLOTHES....GIVE THEM TO ME....NOW!"
m0nk
Active Member
Originally Posted by NOTSONOOB
A lot of gobbly-gook referencing the biblical book of revelations... so I dug up this read. According to this in reference the book was written during the plight of the christians during the roman campagns of the first century...
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/revelation.html
I also read one back about hte supposed "HOLLYWOOD" version of Christ.
Yes, Christ was probably closely related to a Palastinian or a Jordanian by sight. But the white, fair skinned, blue-eyed Christ" is the European - Anglo-saxson version of Christ. Through the presumed arrogance of the churches in England and the Vatican, that the devine could not look like a heathen, but exactly as the chosen divinity of themselves. That is why GOD looks like an old white man in refrence drawings within itself, as also the views of the artisians of the times in their art.
I think the Hollywood version of Christ would look something more like the Terminator....and he kick's butt too!
As Christ looks upon John at the river and says....
"YOUR CLOTHES....GIVE THEM TO ME....NOW!"
A lot of gobbly-gook referencing the biblical book of revelations... so I dug up this read. According to this in reference the book was written during the plight of the christians during the roman campagns of the first century...
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/revelation.html
I also read one back about hte supposed "HOLLYWOOD" version of Christ.
Yes, Christ was probably closely related to a Palastinian or a Jordanian by sight. But the white, fair skinned, blue-eyed Christ" is the European - Anglo-saxson version of Christ. Through the presumed arrogance of the churches in England and the Vatican, that the devine could not look like a heathen, but exactly as the chosen divinity of themselves. That is why GOD looks like an old white man in refrence drawings within itself, as also the views of the artisians of the times in their art.
I think the Hollywood version of Christ would look something more like the Terminator....and he kick's butt too!
As Christ looks upon John at the river and says....
"YOUR CLOTHES....GIVE THEM TO ME....NOW!"
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Crashbandicoot
I gotcha . I'm just saying that christianity is so self serving in the fact that there is no other explination to anything and that the bible is the first and last word . there has to be some kind of higher power some where there was a begining and at some point there is an ending . But if we say OK there is a "god " a higher power . Than where did god come from ? Everything has to be born of something . What was there before god ? Who or what created god ? and at that whos to say that he/she has the final say ? God ? No offense to anybody but I just dont see it as truth and I sure don't believe that such an all mighty being thats capable of such greatness has a plan for us and that plan consisted of letting us play on this earth for a few thousand years . Seams kind small and short winded when you think about it . you know in the grand idea of the world yeah bad things happen and there is suffering . But when you think about the size and posabilities of the universe the suffering we see is nowhere near what could be posible at the hands of a being as powerful as the creator of the universe . To think that holy land can only mean one little strip in the middle of a desert is kinda small and narrow veiwed . What if the holy land means the whole planet earth or our solar system , galaxy ? What if there is evil out there far greater than any man can imagine at this point . As limitless as the all mighty power is there has got to be more to it than our tiny little existance .
So to go back to the main point of this thread do I think 2012 is the end of the world ? NO just like 2000 nothing will happen . Calanders are our own febel atempt to understand time and space . They mean nothing in the bigger picture .
But that is the whole concept and basis behind a God or diety. any of them. God in all forms of religion no matter which is an entity that is the beginning and the end. Hence the term "god". This is the basis, a supreme being that is the begin all and end all of everything. At some point there has to be a beginning, and to say what is before that is never ending. Means things just always were without a "god" in play.
Case in point, Take science, we can break down life into cells, protons, nuetrons and what ever, but using your line of thinking there would have to be something before that....why?
I gotcha . I'm just saying that christianity is so self serving in the fact that there is no other explination to anything and that the bible is the first and last word . there has to be some kind of higher power some where there was a begining and at some point there is an ending . But if we say OK there is a "god " a higher power . Than where did god come from ? Everything has to be born of something . What was there before god ? Who or what created god ? and at that whos to say that he/she has the final say ? God ? No offense to anybody but I just dont see it as truth and I sure don't believe that such an all mighty being thats capable of such greatness has a plan for us and that plan consisted of letting us play on this earth for a few thousand years . Seams kind small and short winded when you think about it . you know in the grand idea of the world yeah bad things happen and there is suffering . But when you think about the size and posabilities of the universe the suffering we see is nowhere near what could be posible at the hands of a being as powerful as the creator of the universe . To think that holy land can only mean one little strip in the middle of a desert is kinda small and narrow veiwed . What if the holy land means the whole planet earth or our solar system , galaxy ? What if there is evil out there far greater than any man can imagine at this point . As limitless as the all mighty power is there has got to be more to it than our tiny little existance .
So to go back to the main point of this thread do I think 2012 is the end of the world ? NO just like 2000 nothing will happen . Calanders are our own febel atempt to understand time and space . They mean nothing in the bigger picture .
But that is the whole concept and basis behind a God or diety. any of them. God in all forms of religion no matter which is an entity that is the beginning and the end. Hence the term "god". This is the basis, a supreme being that is the begin all and end all of everything. At some point there has to be a beginning, and to say what is before that is never ending. Means things just always were without a "god" in play.
Case in point, Take science, we can break down life into cells, protons, nuetrons and what ever, but using your line of thinking there would have to be something before that....why?
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Krista921
lol you cant look jewish its a religion
Yes and No; in actuality the religion came from the "Jewish" people.
The ethnic and religious aspects are closely related, but not the same. You can convert to "judaism" (the religion) and you can be a non-practicing Jew (ethnicity).
lol you cant look jewish its a religion
Yes and No; in actuality the religion came from the "Jewish" people.
The ethnic and religious aspects are closely related, but not the same. You can convert to "judaism" (the religion) and you can be a non-practicing Jew (ethnicity).
reefreak29
Active Member
Mathew 24:36
1Thes 5 :1-3
Rev 22:20
Mathew 24:40-42
end of discusion in my book
1Thes 5 :1-3
Rev 22:20
Mathew 24:40-42
end of discusion in my book
S
swalchemist
Guest
This is my opinion only so you can argue the point or believe what you will but there are huge sections of the early writings that would comprise what would eventually become The Bible that are changed and or missing. Meanings were changed, sections deleted to convey what ever the powers that be at the time required. Early religion was about control simple as that. The church in those days held more power than any branch of govt. Some of so called "Gnostic" text do indeed pre-date the accepted Bible may be hard for some to believe but it's just scholarly fact. There is much that we do not know that has been hidden behind the vails of religion IMO Truth is this, unless you have access to the original manuscript, the whole manuscript and can translate it you really have nothing to go on except faith and what you have been told. By the way there is nothing wrong with that IMO, I think you should be free to believe what ever you want as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others to believe as they want and always know that it is not wrong to ask questions which you are told never to ask. Still a great Thread guys!
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
LMAO!!!
ya espcially because of this: "like labor pains upon a pregnant woman,and they will not escape. "
laugh at God all you want , no skin off my back
LMAO!!!
ya espcially because of this: "like labor pains upon a pregnant woman,and they will not escape. "
laugh at God all you want , no skin off my back
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by SWAlchemist
This is my opinion only so you can argue the point or believe what you will but there are huge sections of the early writings that would comprise what would eventually become The Bible that are changed and or missing. Meanings were changed, sections deleted to convey what ever the powers that be at the time required. Early religion was about control simple as that. The church in those days held more power than any branch of govt. Some of so called "Gnostic" text do indeed pre-date the accepted Bible may be hard for some to believe but it's just scholarly fact. There is much that we do not know that has been hidden behind the vails of religion IMO Truth is this, unless you have access to the original manuscript, the whole manuscript and can translate it you really have nothing to go on except faith and what you have been told. By the way there is nothing wrong with that IMO, I think you should be free to believe what ever you want as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others to believe as they want and always know that it is not wrong to ask questions which you are told never to ask. Still a great Thread guys!
That's not historically accurate in any fashion. For the first 300 years the Christian church was under heavy persecution. To say it was more powerful than the Roman Empire is absurd.
The Gnostic gospels do not pre-date 90AD. Sorry, that is not scholarly fact. The Bible was "canonized" after some of the gnostics gospels appeared. As I posted earlier, that is one of the key reasons an official "Bible" was compiled.
This is my opinion only so you can argue the point or believe what you will but there are huge sections of the early writings that would comprise what would eventually become The Bible that are changed and or missing. Meanings were changed, sections deleted to convey what ever the powers that be at the time required. Early religion was about control simple as that. The church in those days held more power than any branch of govt. Some of so called "Gnostic" text do indeed pre-date the accepted Bible may be hard for some to believe but it's just scholarly fact. There is much that we do not know that has been hidden behind the vails of religion IMO Truth is this, unless you have access to the original manuscript, the whole manuscript and can translate it you really have nothing to go on except faith and what you have been told. By the way there is nothing wrong with that IMO, I think you should be free to believe what ever you want as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others to believe as they want and always know that it is not wrong to ask questions which you are told never to ask. Still a great Thread guys!
That's not historically accurate in any fashion. For the first 300 years the Christian church was under heavy persecution. To say it was more powerful than the Roman Empire is absurd.
The Gnostic gospels do not pre-date 90AD. Sorry, that is not scholarly fact. The Bible was "canonized" after some of the gnostics gospels appeared. As I posted earlier, that is one of the key reasons an official "Bible" was compiled.
S
swalchemist
Guest
LOL Stray you have a great way of summing it all up
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by NOTSONOOB
Hmm..yeah...I guess...
Coming from a bunch of people who thought that we are the center of the universe...to bad...we are not.
Actually the bible in the OT refered to the planet as being a sphere, and orbiting the sun. Just got overlooked by scientists of that time.
Hmm..yeah...I guess...
Coming from a bunch of people who thought that we are the center of the universe...to bad...we are not.
Actually the bible in the OT refered to the planet as being a sphere, and orbiting the sun. Just got overlooked by scientists of that time.