...
there were 2 angels who disobeyed God in the heavens! :
- Thread starter BlackDiBiase
- Start date
BlackDiBiase
Superstar
its very important to know the King James Bible was translated by Bacon and a rumored Shakepeare but the deep fact is ...
i am sure he would have been aware of the Ethiopian faculty moving strongly with Christianity around these times, the Ethiopian churches remain the most holy.
i am sure he would have been aware of the Ethiopian faculty moving strongly with Christianity around these times, the Ethiopian churches remain the most holy.
Y'all really make it up as you go along huh
Breh, even outside of whether anyone chooses to follow Christianity or not, you just posted some wild misinformation that's historically wrong.
From the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas", a goofy-ass story that first appears 150 years after Jesus died, has a bunch of ridiculous stories in it, and was never taken seriously by any part of the church. The very first historical reference to it ever found (from A.D. 180) literally says that it's silly made-up fiction off the jump.
Believing that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a real story about Jesus is like believing that "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is an accurate Abe Lincoln bio.
They aren't "chapters of the Bible". You can't take just any random-ass story that non-Christians wrote 200-300 years after the fact and then claim it should be a chapter of the Bible just because it has Jesus's name in it.
None of the apocryphal gospels were ever considered to be part of Scripture by the Church. Not one. Not before the Council of Nicea, not after the Council of Nicea. The place of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as being the only gospels that were legitimately written by people who knew Jesus was well-known all the way back in the mid-100s. They have far far better historical support, they knew that then and we still know that now.
There WERE some disputed Biblical books that were discussed later on and which the Church actually debated whether to include in the Bible. But they weren't the random made-up stories about Jesus that weren't even written by Christians. They were letters and "wisdom texts" written by Christians, namely the Epistle of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Acts of Paul. THOSE were the only books the Church disputed, and they were basically disputed because it wasn't clear whether their authors were truly Apostles or knew the Apostles. You can still read any of them today and they're pretty normal and in line with Scripture, they're just not considered to be definitively inspired.
Council of Nicea had nothing to do with deciding which books were in the Bible. It was a discussion of completely unrelated theological issues, none of the contemporary writeups of the Council of Nicea even mention choosing books of the Bible as part of the agenda.
From the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas", a goofy-ass story that first appears 150 years after Jesus died, has a bunch of ridiculous stories in it, and was never taken seriously by any part of the church. The very first historical reference to it ever found (from A.D. 180) literally says that it's silly made-up fiction off the jump.
Believing that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a real story about Jesus is like believing that "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is an accurate Abe Lincoln bio.
They aren't "chapters of the Bible". You can't take just any random-ass story that non-Christians wrote 200-300 years after the fact and then claim it should be a chapter of the Bible just because it has Jesus's name in it.
None of the apocryphal gospels were ever considered to be part of Scripture by the Church. Not one. Not before the Council of Nicea, not after the Council of Nicea. The place of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as being the only gospels that were legitimately written by people who knew Jesus was well-known all the way back in the mid-100s. They have far far better historical support, they knew that then and we still know that now.
There WERE some disputed Biblical books that were discussed later on and which the Church actually debated whether to include in the Bible. But they weren't the random made-up stories about Jesus that weren't even written by Christians. They were letters and "wisdom texts" written by Christians, namely the Epistle of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Acts of Paul. THOSE were the only books the Church disputed, and they were basically disputed because it wasn't clear whether their authors were truly Apostles or knew the Apostles. You can still read any of them today and they're pretty normal and in line with Scripture, they're just not considered to be definitively inspired.
Council of Nicea had nothing to do with deciding which books were in the Bible. It was a discussion of completely unrelated theological issues, none of the contemporary writeups of the Council of Nicea even mention choosing books of the Bible as part of the agenda.
It didn't. I'm kinda confused why you wrote this cause you contradict it later.
True, so why you say that other thing?
There are literally zero stories anywhere, not even the made-up ones, that ever say Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
The Book of Maccabees is a Jewish historical story set 150 years before Jesus was born that has nothing to do with him at all.
The closest anything comes is the Gospel of Phillip, a dismissed Gnostic text written about 200 years after Jesus died, which calls Mary a "companion" of Jesus. The Gospel of Phillip is a far-out metaphorical gnostic book focused more on trying to explain abstract metaphysics than on anything historical, like most Gnostic texts. It does refer to Mary a sa "companion" of Jesus, but not as his "wife". The same coptic word used for "companion" in the Gospel of Phillip is used in Biblical books to describe business associates, people who preached together, special associates, or wives, there is nothing specific to necessitate that it refers to marriage. Elsewhere in the Gospel of Phillip marriage is talked about and the regular Coptic word for "wife" is used to describe other people, but it is never once used to refer to Mary Magdalene and Jesus.
What evidence do you have for that?
Treaty of Nicea? Nothing in Nicea refers to the books of the Bible at all.
Of course you have to leave out books. If I write a story about Jesus, should it automatically be put into the Bible just because I included Jesus's name in it? Jesus was a famous figure and as Christianity became more and more prominent, random people started writing stories which his name in them that had nothing to do with reality. Why should all of those stories be included in the Bible?
It's weird that you complain about "leaving out books" in the Bible, but accept the Quran and Torah both of which left out a ton of other stuff.
And I'm totally confused as to why Scripture shouldn't be translated. You think knowledge of Jesus should be left to those who read ancient Greek?
Which is the perfect example of us superimposing our own ideas on God.
One of the clearest truths about God, if you're going to believe in His/Her existence at all, is that God works through humans. The idea that God just downloads Scripture into the brains of robot-people who then reproduce it perfectly for eternity is silly and unnecessary - if God was going to do that, then why not just send the entire book himself, etched in stone? Why use a person to write it down at all and trust faulty scribes to have to make copy after copy, why not send a full printout to each home instead?
The idea of a robot-writer of Scripture was created by Mohammed, who wanted a way to claim that his writings were superior to the Holy Texts of Christianity and Judaism. But it's self-evidentially ridiculous, not only did he make basic errors due to his lack of knowledge of certain precepts (like not knowing who was in the Christian Trinity, or confusing Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary the sister of Aaron, or making basic errors of anatomy), but his followers also ended up with many different versions of his sayings, proving that they had not just copied down one perfect text.
Why would you trust either of those any differently than the Bible? Revisions in the Torah are far more clearly known than any revisions in the New Testament, it took literally hundreds of years to put together the final version which is pieced together from all sorts of different authors. And there are known revisions of the Koran that are older than the currently used version - even Muslims themselves know that in early Muslim history there were a bunch of different versions of Muhammad's sayings floating around, many of which disagreed, and they ended up working through them and picking one narrative then trying to burn all the ones that didn't agree, which is the EXACT process you reject when it comes to Christian texts.
Textual History of the Qur'an - WikiIslam
Composition of the Torah - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
BlackDiBiase
Superstar
i am not getting into all that i recognize your name from yesterday. you got schooled in the india/hindu thread and went running.
the hindu religion was given to indians as punishment for the africans who were there at the time, thats why its a caste system and there are untouchables.
bought you the lecture from an Indian Dr and you went running, i am too grown to play tag and stuff online.
i love to build so unless you are actually looking to gain insight or different viewpoints and knowledge or its just some weird coli ritual for daps. i dont know but i am not at loggerheads with anyone online thats a female trait.
so please dont quote me, you are so called pseudo intellectual. just surface and presentation for daps not much data or life application behind it.
here it is again so either be an intellectual and take time to assess new information or you can continue the coli ignorant thing and just yap in circles.
one of the most important lectures you will ever take in.
That's just completely nonsensical.
There are Africans in India but they're not "untouchables", untouchables have absolutely zero African genetics and many of them are whiter than the highest-caste Brahmins.
I didn't "go running" anywhere breh, I corrected you with direct citations and proof when you made shyt up.
Indian girl cries and begs for the white man
the hindu religion the white man is God, its a caste system. so this makes perfect sense smh lol.
www.thecoli.com
Indian girl cries and begs for the white man
the hindu religion the white man is God, its a caste system. so this makes perfect sense smh lol.
www.thecoli.com
Notice I directly disproved your claim and you weren't once able to come up with an actual citation for your claim that "in Hinduism the White man is god" or "Hinduism teaches that the closer you are to white the closer you are to god".
And your completely nonsensical story regarding the split of Pakistan and India was too weird to even address. Pakistan and India split during Partition in 1947, your description of how it happened didn't make any sense at all.
Did you also notice that the actual Indian on the board was dapping up all my corrections of your claims?
You posted a 70-minute video by a guy with literally zero credentials and it probably doesn't even say what you claimed it said. I'm not going to waste 70 minutes of my day watching random youtube videos by nobodies.
Show me anything, anywhere, that shows that that guy is an expert on anything or has any proof to back up his claims. Online the only shyt you can find about him at all are some self-published booklets hating on Gandhi. Who is he even? What's his job title?
so please dont quote me, you are so called pseudo intellectual. just surface and presentation for daps not much data or life application behind it.
I gave enormous background research on every topic you mentioned.
You presented a ton of "information" with basic factual errors, like claiming the Book of Maccabees discusses Jesus and Mary (it actually discusses Jewish wars and takes place 200 years before Jesus's death).
If you're not willing to cite any evidence for your claims, and not willing to have your basic errors corrected, why do you expect people to learn anything from you?