Debate and Discussion

Jesus Barabbas
subcultured at 12:20AM, March 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
ever wonder if jesus christ and jesus Barabbas was actually the same person?

clues:
-barabbas or “bar abba” translates to “son of the father”
-he was a jewish militant who was a freedom fighter against the empire of rome
-what are the odds of two men with the same name to be captured and sentence to be crucified at almost the same time.
-In the gospels, shortly after being hailed as a king by the Jews, Jesus caused a commotion in the Jewish temple by overturning tables and swinging a lash (mentioned only in John) at people. which is highly incconsistent with how jesus was being portrayed in the bible as a kind and helping man who would turn the other cheek.
-shortly before his arrest, the gospels have Jesus telling his apostles to sell their cloaks and buy swords(Luke 22:36) — and at least one sword turns up in the hands of Peter (named only in John) in the Garden of Gethsemane.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
StaceyMontgomery at 4:12AM, March 3, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
This sort of Biblical scholarship is lots of fun.

I've always been fond of the idea that Barrabas. was inserted into the story as a parable, the gist of which has been lost to us. Of course, the tale of Barrabas. has become a very important part of history - it was a primary source for the story that “the jews killed Christ” and helped “justify” untold suffering and a long list of crimes that stagger the imagination.

History might have been better off without the story of Barrabas.

Of course, History is puzzling that way - we can know a lot about what happened, but we can never know all the details of a given day, 2000 years ago.

It's not the sort of knowledge you want to bet your life on, really.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
dueeast at 5:16PM, March 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
Hey Sub,

No, I know that they were not the same.

Jesus was hardly a jewish militant/freedom fighter. He was radical in his time, to be sure, but it my personal belief that he is who he claimed to be.

Barrabas, on the other hand, was a convicted murderer who was released instead of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, at the request of the jewish leaders and the people.

Jesus was enraged at the temple because he considered it a desecration and the height of hypocrisy to sell goods for profit in the temple of God, whom he called Father. He saw it as them treating it like a common marketplace, instead of a place of worship. He took personal offense at it.

Also, Jesus spoke in parables, sometimes even to his disciples. It's possible he could have been speaking of the hard times to come following his impending death, resurrection and return to heaven. But that's a paraphrase guess on my part and you can take it as such.

It is an intriguing topic.


subcultured
ever wonder if jesus christ and jesus Barabbas was actually the same person?

clues:
-barabbas or “bar abba” translates to “son of the father”
-he was a jewish militant who was a freedom fighter against the empire of rome
-what are the odds of two men with the same name to be captured and sentence to be crucified at almost the same time.
-In the gospels, shortly after being hailed as a king by the Jews, Jesus caused a commotion in the Jewish temple by overturning tables and swinging a lash (mentioned only in John) at people. which is highly incconsistent with how jesus was being portrayed in the bible as a kind and helping man who would turn the other cheek.
-shortly before his arrest, the gospels have Jesus telling his apostles to sell their cloaks and buy swords(Luke 22:36) �¢ï¿½ï¿½ and at least one sword turns up in the hands of Peter (named only in John) in the Garden of Gethsemane.

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
DAJB at 2:58AM, March 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
Hey - maybe it was a secret identity! Mild-mannered Holy Man by day … militant fighter against oppression by night!

Now there's a retcon just waiting to happen!
:D
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
mapaghimagsik at 7:13AM, March 4, 2008
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Every notice how you never see Jesus Christ and Jesus Barrabas together?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
HalJones at 11:41AM, March 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 46
joined: 10-30-2007
Yeah, but there's only ONE of the two currently standing in the presence of the Living God preparing to return to earth. Guess which one?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:42PM
horseboy at 8:46PM, March 4, 2008
(offline)
posts: 139
joined: 8-27-2006
DAJB
Hey - maybe it was a secret identity! Mild-mannered Holy Man by day … militant fighter against oppression by night!

Now there's a retcon just waiting to happen!
:D
Lol, would Jesus wear hat and glasses or would Barabbas get a special cowl?
There is no such word as “alot”. “A lot” is two words.
Voltaire
Never seek for happiness, it will merely allude the seeker. Never strive for knowledge, it is beyond man's scope. Never think, for in though lies all the ills of mankind. The wise man, like the rat, the crocodile, the fly, merely fulfills his natural function.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
ShanLeeCook at 8:28AM, March 5, 2008
(offline)
posts: 9
joined: 2-19-2008
The thing that always confused me about the story of Jesus and Barabbas is why the Romans would let a Jewis Rebel/Freedom Fighter go free so that they could take Jesus instead.

If you look at it from Pilot's POV you'd see (1) This man that's called the “King of the Jews” (2) travelling around with 12 deciples (that they probably thought were generals/commanders because they were carrying swords) (3) drawing large crowds of followers who (and this is the best part) were (4) apparantly giving a lot of money to the “cause” because they had so much money that none of the deciples even noticed that Judas had been stealing from the treasury.

That seems more like Jesus was one of the Rebel Leaders to me

Be honest… imagine you're Judas and consider weather it would be easier to betray the Son of God, or just one Rebel leader.

I think it's fun to talk about that type of s***

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:21AM, March 5, 2008
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
HalJones
Yeah, but there's only ONE of the two currently standing in the presence of the Living God preparing to return to earth. Guess which one?

Oh oh I know I know!

Jesus Guevara!

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
bobhhh at 7:46AM, March 8, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Actually neither of them were named Jesus.

Barrabas was named Yahuwshuakh bar Gamaliel and Jesus was simply known as Yeshua.

The word Christ is not his last name, but is a shortening of the greek word “Christos” which means savior or messiah.

And the gospel of John was rewritten by the first Popes to make Christianity more palatable to the Romans. It was then that the Romans were absolved and the Jews were blamed for betraying Jesus . It was also then that gospels of Thomas and other gnostic texts were expunged from Christianity to favor a patriarchal approach favored by the Catholic church where you had to crawl to the church for salvation as opposed to The Thomas gospel which reads like Buddism, where finding Jesus from within is a personal journey without a organized patriarchy..
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
dueeast at 11:12AM, March 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
I'm sorry, but that is absolutely incorrect about popes writing the book of John.

I would love to see what passes for “proof” of that, because I could easily come up with proof to counter.

bobhhh
Actually neither of them were named Jesus.

Barrabas was named Yahuwshuakh bar Gamaliel and Jesus was simply known as Yeshua.

The word Christ is not his last name, but is a shortening of the greek word “Christos” which means savior or messiah.

And the gospel of John was rewritten by the first Popes to make Christianity more palatable to the Romans. It was then that the Romans were absolved and the Jews were blamed for betraying Jesus . It was also then that gospels of Thomas and other gnostic texts were expunged from Christianity to favor a patriarchal approach favored by the Catholic church where you had to crawl to the church for salvation as opposed to The Thomas gospel which reads like Buddism, where finding Jesus from within is a personal journey without a organized patriarchy..
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
StaceyMontgomery at 12:40PM, March 8, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
My Biblical scholarship is awfully rusty, but I'm pretty sure we have no good idea who wrote the Gospel of John, and arguments over who wrote get so complicated they can twist your head into knots. Whatever anyone tells you, treat it with caution! There's a reason they invented the term “synoptic gospels” to mean “the ones Other than John!”

The consensus does seem to be that it was written around the year 100 though, but beyond that, you're in hazy territory.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
bobhhh at 3:31PM, March 8, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
I said rewritten, as in editing some out and adding things that are more in line with church doctrine.

Yes that's my point, the synoptic gospels differ from John mostly in what they lack that John adds, like the raising of Lazarus from the dead. If you check, that's only in John, kind of an important detail for the other synoptic goespels to omit.

And then there is the Gnostic gospels like Thomas, which predates John, is merely a collection of quotes from Jesus or Philip which either disagreed with the church's vision or plans.

In both instances these were deemed antagonistic to the divine image of Jesus the church was supporting.

I don't mean to quibble with the existance and/or divinity of Jesus, but let's not forget the Christian church had a long and checkered past as a sometimes brutal politcal organization, why would you assume that the selection and editing of the gospels which inform their doctrine would be subject to any less calculation and subtextual purpose?

You see the early church sold itself as an agent of salvation, as important as the holy trinity to life everlasting. “You want heaven you got to come thru us.”

But the pure philosophical aspects of a gospel like Thomas serve to emphasize the internal spiritual journey to Christ. Unfortunately that would render the church meaningless as an agent to salvation, so Thomas, among others, had to go.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
bobhhh at 3:46PM, March 8, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
StaceyMontgomery
The consensus does seem to be that it was written around the year 100 though, but beyond that, you're in hazy territory.

Thats right John was originally written, probably not by John himself, around 100AD, to compare with Mark, Luke and Thomas all around 70AD, although many scholars argue Thomas could have written as late as 140AD. Matthew somewhere around 150AD, and Mark 160AD.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
dueeast at 4:24PM, March 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
The gospel of Thomas was definitely not canonical and from what I do understand and have read of it, was not considered credible or spiritually inspired.

The Catholic church and many other denominations have had recorded corruption over time, this is true. This is also one of the reasons I am a nondenominational Christian, as I encountered some of that myself from other denominations. In my opinion, the true Christian church should never consider itself as or more important as the holy trinity or such, only servants to Christ.

Then again, it's hypocritical and/or corrupt so-called Christians that give other Christians a bad name.

bobhhh
I don't mean to quibble with the existance and/or divinity of Jesus, but let's not forget the Christian church had a long and checkered past as a sometimes brutal politcal organization, why would you assume that the selection and editing of the gospels which inform their doctrine would be subject to any less calculation and subtextual purpose?

You see the early church sold itself as an agent of salvation, as important as the holy trinity to life everlasting. “You want heaven you got to come thru us.”

But the pure philosophical aspects of a gospel like Thomas serve to emphasize the internal spiritual journey to Christ. Unfortunately that would render the church meaningless as an agent to salvation, so Thomas, among others, had to go.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
bobhhh at 4:57PM, March 8, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
dueeast
The gospel of Thomas was definitely not canonical and from what I do understand and have read of it, was not considered credible or spiritually inspired.

The Catholic church and many other denominations have had recorded corruption over time, this is true. This is also one of the reasons I am a nondenominational Christian, as I encountered some of that myself from other denominations. In my opinion, the true Christian church should never consider itself as or more important as the holy trinity or such, only servants to Christ.

Then again, it's hypocritical and/or corrupt so-called Christians that give other Christians a bad name.

bobhhh
I don't mean to quibble with the existance and/or divinity of Jesus, but let's not forget the Christian church had a long and checkered past as a sometimes brutal politcal organization, why would you assume that the selection and editing of the gospels which inform their doctrine would be subject to any less calculation and subtextual purpose?

You see the early church sold itself as an agent of salvation, as important as the holy trinity to life everlasting. “You want heaven you got to come thru us.”

But the pure philosophical aspects of a gospel like Thomas serve to emphasize the internal spiritual journey to Christ. Unfortunately that would render the church meaningless as an agent to salvation, so Thomas, among others, had to go.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to isult you, because you sound put off.

For the record I am neither hypocritical, corrupt nor Christian.

I also don't mean to single out Christianity or even Catholicism as the only religion with a shady past.

And I don't claim that the gospels aren't divinely inspired, in fact that is inconsequntial to my argument. All I am stating is that there is ample reason to believe the early Catholics edited the original, divnley inspired if you wish, gospels to fit snugly into their doctrine. You're religious beliefs aside, that is not such a radical prroposal given the research and the history involved.

Also, for some one who takes issue with absolutes, your assertion that you find Thomas definitely not divinely inspired seems a little intolerant. The fact that it is not canonical simply means the church didn't like it.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
dueeast at 5:34PM, March 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
I'm not really insulted, so don't worry. Sorry if it came across that way. :)

Concerning the gospel of Thomas, let's just say that I had a difficult time with some of its assertions, too. My only absolute was that it was not canonical. My opinion is that it was “not considered credible or spiritually inspired,” but that is not an absolute.


last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
DAJB at 1:57AM, March 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
bobhhh
Actually neither of them were named Jesus.
Barrabas was named Yahuwshuakh bar Gamaliel
Can't blame him for wanting to shorten it, though, can you?
:D
bobhhh
and Jesus was simply known as Yeshua.
Or Brian?
;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
rofopolis at 3:16PM, March 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 10
joined: 9-2-2006
bobhhh
And I don't claim that the gospels aren't divinely inspired, in fact that is inconsequntial to my argument. All I am stating is that there is ample reason to believe the early Catholics edited the original, divnley inspired if you wish, gospels to fit snugly into their doctrine. You're religious beliefs aside, that is not such a radical prroposal given the research and the history involved.

Also, for some one who takes issue with absolutes, your assertion that you find Thomas definitely not divinely inspired seems a little intolerant. The fact that it is not canonical simply means the church didn't like it.

What research and parts of history suggest that the early Catholic/Christian church edited and altered the Gospels?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:09PM
subcultured at 5:48PM, March 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
each version has been edited i.e.
Someone
The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX
).

also the fact that the bible stories was passed down word by mouth for decades and later written down and filtered through3 languages until the version we have today makes the translation more organic than most literature
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
rofopolis at 8:05PM, March 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 10
joined: 9-2-2006
subcultured
each version has been edited i.e.
Someone
The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX
).

also the fact that the bible stories was passed down word by mouth for decades and later written down and filtered through3 languages until the version we have today makes the translation more organic than most literature

Sure. What I meant was what evidence is there that the early church altered the Gospels to fit some agenda? I should have made that more apparent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:09PM
subcultured at 8:48PM, March 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
Mary Magdalene

Someone
Mary Magdalene is often referred to as a prostitute, but she was never called one in the New Testament.

Jeffrey Kripal, a religion scholar, wrote, “Migdal was a fishing town known, or so the legend goes, for its perhaps punning connection to hairdressers (medgaddlela) and women of questionable reputation. This is as close as we get to any clear evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute”. According to Kripal, the identification of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute also goes back to the above mentioned sermon by Pope Gregory.

In this sermon, Gregory identified Mary as peccatrix, a sinful woman, using her as a model for the repentant sinner, but he did not call her meretrix, a prostitute.

However, he also identifies Mary with the adulteress brought before Jesus (as recounted in the Pericope Adulterae, John 8), supporting the view of 3rd and 4th century Church fathers that had already considered this sin as “being unchaste”.
“Kreuzigung” by Meister des Marienlebens.
“Kreuzigung” by Meister des Marienlebens.

Gregory's identification and the consideration of the woman's sin as sexual later gave rise to the image of Mary as a prostitute.

This viewpoint is also espoused by much Western medieval Christian art. In many medieval depictions, Mary Magdalene is shown as having long hair, which she wears down over her shoulders, while other women follow contemporary standards of propriety by hiding their hair beneath headdresses or kerchiefs. The Magdalene's hair may be rendered as red, while the other women of the New Testament in these same depictions ordinarily have dark hair beneath a scarf. This disparity between depictions of women can be seen in works such as the Crucifixion paintings by the Meister des Marienlebens.

This image of Mary as a prostitute was followed by many writers and artists until the 20th century. Even though it is less prevalent nowadays, the identification of Mary Magdalene with the adulteress is still accepted by some Christians. This is reflected in Martin Scorsese's film adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis's novel The Last Temptation of Christ, as well as in José Saramago's The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, Andrew Lloyd Webber's rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and Hal Hartley's The Book of Life.

One possible explanation for the labeling of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute is that there has been confusion between her and Mary of Egypt. Another possible explanation is that it has been deliberately used to camouflage the close relationship between Jesus and Mary.

Further attestation of Mary of Magdala and her role among some early Christians is provided by the gnostic, apocryphal Gospel of Mary Magdalene which survives in two 3rd century Greek fragments and a longer 5th century translation into Coptic. In the Gospel the testimony of a woman first needed to be defended. All of these manuscripts were first discovered and published between 1938 and 1983, but as early as the 3rd century there are Patristic references to the Gospel of Mary. These writings reveal the degree to which that gospel was despised and dismissed by the early Church fathers. In the fragmentary text, the disciples ask questions of the risen Savior (a designation that dates the original no earlier than the 2nd century) and are answered.



J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
rofopolis at 5:53AM, March 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 10
joined: 9-2-2006
Further attestation of Mary of Magdala and her role among some early Christians is provided by the gnostic, apocryphal Gospel of Mary Magdalene which survives in two 3rd century Greek fragments and a longer 5th century translation into Coptic. In the Gospel the testimony of a woman first needed to be defended. All of these manuscripts were first discovered and published between 1938 and 1983, but as early as the 3rd century there are Patristic references to the Gospel of Mary. These writings reveal the degree to which that gospel was despised and dismissed by the early Church fathers. In the fragmentary text, the disciples ask questions of the risen Savior (a designation that dates the original no earlier than the 2nd century) and are answered.

I am not entirely sure whether this blockquote about Mary Magdalene was directed to me, but if it was, I have the following response: I asked what evidence there was that the early Catholic church altered the Gospels to fit some agenda. And I asked this because someone claimed that the Bible was not reliable since the early church probably altered the text. This is not evidence that the early church altered the text because nowhere in the Gospel does it say Mary was a prostitute, which is what one would expect if the Church needed to undermine Mary's role, if she even had much of one to begin with.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:09PM
subcultured at 8:04AM, March 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
ummm…like anything that is hidden, it's not gonna be obvious.

certain things are written or translated in a slanted POV. IMO Mary Magdelene was the 13th apostle, but since she was a woman none of the apostles included her and decreased her role with jesus. Ever wonder why she was identified as an adultress because she hanged around jesus and the catholic church hates to talk about sex….so they nudge the text a certain way to make her look like a whore.

Also it might have been planned to not reveal her as the 13th apostle to escaped the wrath of persecution that had befallen on the apostles.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
rofopolis at 9:46AM, March 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 10
joined: 9-2-2006
subcultured
ummm…like anything that is hidden, it's not gonna be obvious.

certain things are written or translated in a slanted POV. IMO Mary Magdelene was the 13th apostle, but since she was a woman none of the apostles included her and decreased her role with jesus. Ever wonder why she was identified as an adultress because she hanged around jesus and the catholic church hates to talk about sex….so they nudge the text a certain way to make her look like a whore.

Also it might have been planned to not reveal her as the 13th apostle to escaped the wrath of persecution that had befallen on the apostles.

See, when everyone started saying that history and research suggests that the Catholic church altered the Gospel texts, I did not realize that the reason for saying so was based on loose circumstantial evidence and conspiracy theories, as well as a few assumptions mixed in to spice things up. Since I have been on these boards, people have complained continuously about how Creationists make poor conclusions about evolution based on loose inferences and misinformation, so I am surprised that people are not complaining just as much about the silliness that has been propagated about religion and history. By the way, we never landed on the moon, and the American government plotted 9/11.

You stated that the Catholic church hates to talk about sex, so they tried to make Magdalene look like a whore. You might as well say that John Grisham hates court stories, so he writes about them. And that Stephen King hates horror, so he decided to become a prolific writer of it. If the Church hated to talk about sex, why would it make one of Christ's groupies the type who would constantly be having it? Further, what evidence do you have that the early Church hated to talk about sex - are you assuming that the early Church shied away from it because the modern Church does?

More importantly, how does any of this prove or even suggest that Mary was akin to an apostle or disciple? You seem to be theorizing that because the Church allegedly slandered Mary Magdalene, Mary Magdalene must have been more beloved than the beloved disciple. I do not understand why slander necessitates this. I am slandered constantly, and no one ever seems to think this is because I am the friend of kings, or popes, or gods.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:09PM
subcultured at 2:19PM, March 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
oh? well, are you really living how the bible demands or how a certain organization wants you to be….

Catholicism decided to reserve the title of “priest” to worn by church leaders only. The average pew dwelling Catholic never refer to themselves as “priests”. In fact if a lay Catholic started calling himself a “priest”, he would be rebuked by “the parish Priest”!

yet the bible says:
you (all Christians) also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. “ 1 Peter 2:5

”But you (all Christians) are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; “ 1 Peter 2:9

”Jesus has made us (all Christians) to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.“ Revelation 1:6

”You have made them (all Christians) to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth." Revelation 5:10


In 1079 AD celibacy was first enforced for priests and bishops by Pope Gregory VII. Before this time, they were permitted to marry.

A bishop, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)" 1 Timothy 3:2-5


No one prior to 335 AD celebrated the birthday of Jesus. The word “Christmas” (Christ + Mass) was first used in 1038 AD. Before 335 AD, the pagan cult of Mithra, the Iranian “god of light”, had long celebrated December 25 as Mithra’s birthday. December 21, being the winter solace, marked the beginning of days with increasing amount of light, hence December 25 celebrated Mithra’s triumph over darkness. Because the pagan festival that celebrated Mithra’s birthday was so popular, the Roman Catholic church adopted the day, but changed the meaning from the birthday of Mithra, the “god of light”, to Christ’s birthday, God the son, “light of the world”. The old meaning of December 25 was connected with Mithra’s triumph over physical darkness. The new meaning celebrated Jesus triumph over spiritual darkness. Eventually Christmas became dominant, the Mithra cult went extinct and today this origin is not widely known among Roman Catholics. None of the apostles or the early church celebrated the birthday of Jesus.


Catholics regularly bow down to idols, icons and images of Jesus, Mary and the apostles, kissing the feet of the statues and praying to them. The Pope deleted the 2nd of the 10 commandments so they could use statues & images in worship. They split the 10th commandment on coveting into two commandments so they could still have 10 in number. Don’t believe this? Look at the list of 10 commandments published by the Roman Catholic church! The issue here is not how the Ten Commandments are numbered, rather the issue is that most published lists of the 10 commandments do not include the words, “you shall not for yourself an idol”. Open your Catholic Bible and look for yourself!

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them.” Exodus 20:4-5


Catholics say that infants inherit their parent's sin at conception and are therefore spiritually condemned and totally wicked.

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” Ezekiel 18:20

“And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, ”Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:2-3
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
bobhhh at 6:27PM, March 26, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
rofopolis
See, when everyone started saying that history and research suggests that the Catholic church altered the Gospel texts, I did not realize that the reason for saying so was based on loose circumstantial evidence and conspiracy theories, as well as a few assumptions mixed in to spice things up.

Aside from common sense about humans and history as a teacher to show you that powerful men like popes bend things to fit their agenda, you might try reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail for some basic background on the formation of the catholic church and the excising of non doctrinal gospels. While i don't have the source handy, in that book he cites letters from the early popes and first councils outlining what they want the new testament to say.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
rofopolis at 6:24PM, March 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 10
joined: 9-2-2006
subcultured
Catholicism decided to reserve the title of “priest” to worn by church leaders only. The average pew dwelling Catholic never refer to themselves as “priests”. In fact if a lay Catholic started calling himself a “priest”, he would be rebuked by “the parish Priest”!

yet the bible says:
you (all Christians) also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. “ 1 Peter 2:5

”But you (all Christians) are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God�s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; “ 1 Peter 2:9

”Jesus has made us (all Christians) to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father�to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.“ Revelation 1:6

”You have made them (all Christians) to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth." Revelation 5:10

I do not follow how any of this shows that the early Christians edited the New Testament texts. If anything, this shows that the Catholic church did not, in fact, edit the New Testament texts.


subcultured
In 1079 AD celibacy was first enforced for priests and bishops by Pope Gregory VII. Before this time, they were permitted to marry.

A bishop, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)" 1 Timothy 3:2-5

The Church enforcing more restrictions on bishops is of little consequence to me. I cannot take Catholic conspiracy theories about manuscript manipulation and alterations seriously, if you're arguming that the Church supplemented the Bible with more non-contradictory addendums regarding how to live. You might as well say that all early senators and representatives must have necessarily altered the Constitution since they were constantly making new supplementary laws as well.


subcultured
No one prior to 335 AD celebrated the birthday of Jesus. The word “Christmas” (Christ + Mass) was first used in 1038 AD. Before 335 AD, the pagan cult of Mithra, the Iranian “god of light”, had long celebrated December 25 as Mithra�s birthday. December 21, being the winter solace, marked the beginning of days with increasing amount of light, hence December 25 celebrated Mithra�s triumph over darkness. Because the pagan festival that celebrated Mithra�s birthday was so popular, the Roman Catholic church adopted the day, but changed the meaning from the birthday of Mithra, the “god of light”, to Christ�s birthday, God the son, “light of the world”. The old meaning of December 25 was connected with Mithra�s triumph over physical darkness. The new meaning celebrated Jesus triumph over spiritual darkness. Eventually Christmas became dominant, the Mithra cult went extinct and today this origin is not widely known among Roman Catholics. None of the apostles or the early church celebrated the birthday of Jesus.

Again, I fail to see how this proves that the early Church altered New Testament texts, unless the early Church interpolated “Christ was born on December 25th” in the nativity stories, and they clearly did not. It is of little interest to me that the Church chose to celebrate Christ's birthday on December 25th. This was never taught as Christ's actual birthday at any time ever. No Pope ever authenticated it. No apologist has defended it. And no creed or liturgical standard has ever maintained it.

subcultured

Catholics say that infants inherit their parent's sin at conception and are therefore spiritually condemned and totally wicked.

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father�s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son�s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” Ezekiel 18:20

“And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, ”Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:2-3

Catholics do not say an infant inherits a parent's sin. Your sources are wrong.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:09PM
rofopolis at 7:10PM, March 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 10
joined: 9-2-2006
bobhhh
Aside from common sense about humans and history as a teacher to show you that powerful men like popes bend things to fit their agenda. . .

I could just as well say that history and human nature have shown us that men in power are often times charitable and kind-hearted. I could cite countless kind kings and a plethora of pious popes. It is not evidence though, or at least good evidence, to me that some persons in power were self-serving and that that is why we should suspect the New Testament books are impure; anymore than it is good evidence to you that there were several saints in liturgical positions, and that that is why we can deem the Bible trustworthy. It is not convincing enough to appeal to “common sense” or say that people in power bend things to fit their agenda - because I can appeal to “common sense” as well, and herald many of the early Church leaders as selfless and honest.

bobhhh
, you might try reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail for some basic background on the formation of the catholic church and the excising of non doctrinal gospels. While i don't have the source handy, in that book he cites letters from the early popes and first councils outlining what they want the new testament to say.

I'll read Holy Blood, Holy Grail again when I'm done reading a million other pseudo-history books and conspiracy literature suggested by people who glossed over them but supposed they were scholarly because they were controversial. It is strange to me that people are annoyed by some Creationists and their anti-evolution tracts because they do not take the time to read something other than the Bible; yet, so many other people are ready to maintain that Jesus married Mary, or went to India to learn Buddhism, or was a homosexual, just because they read a book with weak inferences but bold claims! Also, the government did WTC, the Holocaust never happened, and we never landed on the moon (there are books that say so!).
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:09PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved