to the Israelites in the book : Twice Shall You Do Corruption In The Land

reply to post by nenothtu

Caliph Uthman picked one "official" version out of all the existing versions in his time, had it "published", and destroyed all competing versions he could find. The net result was that there was only one version tor refer to, and that version has been handed down to the present day. All the rest were destroyed, although there may be some fragments of them to be found here and there

Doesn't that seem a little shady to you? The Roman Catholics did the same thing to the bible, ommitted certain books that didn't line up with their paganizing christianity. They tried to force goddess worship on the true believers.

Only keeping one version of a book and destroying the others seems like someone was trying to cover up something they didn't want other people finding out. Reminds me of when Hitler burned all books he could find in Nazi Germany, specifically anything relating to religious texts like the bible so that he could create his angelic alien hybrid race the arryans (he was trying to make nephilim in my opinion).

Anytime someone goes destroying books it's because they want to withold knowledge of something from people so that they can more easily lie to them.

Who is the Father of Lies?

reply to post by nenothtu


real good explanation.....

thanx to you too.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Caliph Uthman picked one "official" version out of all the existing versions in his time, had it "published", and destroyed all competing versions he could find. The net result was that there was only one version tor refer to, and that version has been handed down to the present day. All the rest were destroyed, although there may be some fragments of them to be found here and there

Doesn't that seem a little shady to you?

It seems VERY shady to me. The whole story gets even murkier, since there was no one approved "official" version before that. All versions were considered equally valid, and a legend grew about "seven authorized variant readings". The variant readings were, however, creating friction in muslim armies gathered together from different centers, and one thing an army needs is cohesion. Each center was developing and adhering to it's own version "reading" or "recitation". Differences between them were creating control problems for the commanders, and Uthman put a stop to that. There was backlash against Uthman at the time. A sizable number of muslims accused him of "destroying the Kitaballah", the Book of Allah, after his burning of the variant copies.

Remember the big ruckus over the Florida preacher burning Qur'ans? Think of the systemic shock if that had happened internal to Islam, and you'll get an idea of the outrage presented at the time.

The Roman Catholics did the same thing to the bible, ommitted certain books that didn't line up with their paganizing christianity. They tried to force goddess worship on the true believers.

The Protestants did the same with the Catholic Bible. They separated out certain books that had already been approved by the Catholics. We now call those books "the Apocrypha" to distinguish them from the books you mention rejected by Catholics which we call "the Pseudepigrapha".

Only keeping one version of a book and destroying the others seems like someone was trying to cover up something they didn't want other people finding out. Reminds me of when Hitler burned all books he could find in Nazi Germany, specifically anything relating to religious texts like the bible so that he could create his angelic alien hybrid race the arryans (he was trying to make nephilim in my opinion).

Anytime someone goes destroying books it's because they want to withold knowledge of something from people so that they can more easily lie to them.

Who is the Father of Lies?

Destruction of knowledge is always about control. Most of the problems in the Qur'an debacle were variant readings or recitations of particular verses, which led to a "my verse is better than your verse" pissing contest. It would have been better to lock them away or otherwise restrict them than to destroy them, but muslims rarely ever do anything half-assed - it's all or none.

reply to post by nenothtu


Yeah thats just like the gnostic texts, some of them may actually be true books of the bible, like the book of Enoch or the book of Mary. It seemed pretty damned odd to me that Mary is explicitly mentioned in the new testament as being one of the 120 in the Upper room at Pentecost to recieve the Holy Spirit, which would make her an Apostle, but her book was ommitted from the bible. not just Mary's book either but Andrews, Bartholomew, Barnabas etc. You would think all of the apostles would have left some record of their trials and teachings from Jesus to their disciples and future generatons of christians.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
Is "Palestinian" mentioned in the Quaran? It seems Israel is. Chicken, egg? What came first?

And, about the Holocaust....regardless of what the beady eyed Hitler wannabe thinks, it did happen.

A simple Google image search will give you all the evidence you'll need (unless you're a complete moron).

crashcromwell.hubpages.com...

I don't deny the holocaust, but I do seek truth. Those images were at the end of the war when Germany's supply lines were cut off and no food could be brought to the camps cause even the soldiers were starving. This is common in any country that has P.O.W.s just look at POW's from Vietnam. Again the same thing happened, no food, and their enemies claimed they were torturing and starving prisoners on purpose.

History has 3 sides to the story, his side, their side and the truth. While what happened was a horrible thing and should never be repeated, let's not forget the lessons of previous wars on this earth and what the consequences are. Those pictures are some of the first media we see on this but not the first time it has happened and sadly not the last.

No one can say with certainty if the jews were part of a genocide or just being imprisoned as labour workers. Either way, they suffered great losses at the hands of the Nazi's, not sure if that entitled them to their own country, but thats all history now and today we are suffering the consequences of that action.

Our failure to see our mistakes will be our demise. Repeating half truths is only accomodating the demise we will face.

reply to post by EspyderMan

Oh my. You say you seek the truth ?
It seems searching for the truth of this matter is darn easy, yet you turn to a very typical Holocaust deniers tactics and arguments.

In a nutshell. BS !

The supply lines to the extermination camps was never cut. Not to Auschwitz-Birkenau, not to Majdanek, Treblinka, Chelmno etc'.

Further more, in 1944 , despite Germany was already losing the war, the Hungarian Jewish population was moved to Ghettos and later to Auschwitz. 450,000 Jews were transported within weeks, and by July, there were no more Jews remaining outside of Budapest. Long story short, over 550,000 Hungarian Jews were exterminated by the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators.

If the food supply was indeed in such a dire straits, the extermination of the Hungarian Jews at the end of the war doesn't seem logical, now does it ?

The hunger arguments doesn't coincide with the Einsatzgruppen does it? I do trust you know the meaning of the word, since you 'seek the truth'.

If you really are a seeker of truth, than by all means, read books, watch documentaries, read trials transcripts, read testimonies. Spend a few years to learn the subject, because that is the time it will take you to learn some of it.
Deny ignorance.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Doesn't that seem a little shady to you? The Roman Catholics did the same thing to the bible, ommitted certain books that didn't line up with their paganizing christianity. They tried to force goddess worship on the true believers.

That's not true, so far as books being omitted from the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church had no say in the canon of the New Testament. The early church over the course of time unified on 27 NT scriptures. If one looks into the history of it, there actually wasn't much of a fight about it. There were only about a handful of books that had doubts over them; and only a few didn't make the cut into the New Testament. All the other "gospels" and such came around long, long after the fact.

reply to post by nenothtu

The Protestants did the same with the Catholic Bible. They separated out certain books that had already been approved by the Catholics. We now call those books "the Apocrypha" to distinguish them from the books you mention rejected by Catholics which we call "the Pseudepigrapha".

The Apocrypha was given the same status by the Catholic church after the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic church did this because they derive some of their doctrine from these books and the Reformers called them out on it because the didn't have the same status as the OT and NT, and thus the RCC was essentially adding to the Scriptures. That put the RCC in a hard place, so the Pope just said that they have the same authority as the OT and NT and the problem was "solved".

The Protestants didn't "separate" the books out either. I can go to my local bookstore here and buy a copy of the Luther Bible and it has the Apocrypha right smack dab in between the OT and NT just like the Catholic Bible does. The only difference is that the Catholic Bible adds the extras parts to Daniel and Esther to the book while the Protestant Bibles don't.

The Reformers even encouraged people to read the Apocrypha, just to recognize that it didn't have one iota of the same authority that the OT and NT have. As stated before, the RCC believed the same too, until they elevated the status of the deuterocanonical books.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

It seemed pretty damned odd to me that Mary is explicitly mentioned in the new testament as being one of the 120 in the Upper room at Pentecost to recieve the Holy Spirit, which would make her an Apostle,

No, she wouldn't be an Apostle because of that. If that were the case, every Christian would be an Apostle because every Christian has the Holy Spirit. An Apostle is someone sent out by someone with a specific message, which Mary was no commissioned to do.

but her book was ommitted from the bible. not just Mary's book either but Andrews, Bartholomew, Barnabas etc. You would think all of the apostles would have left some record of their trials and teachings from Jesus to their disciples and future generatons of christians.

The books that you mention come from the second or third centuries and thus couldn't have met the criterion that the early church set forth in order for a book to be considered canonical.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

It seemed pretty damned odd to me that Mary is explicitly mentioned in the new testament as being one of the 120 in the Upper room at Pentecost to recieve the Holy Spirit, which would make her an Apostle,

No, she wouldn't be an Apostle because of that. If that were the case, every Christian would be an Apostle because every Christian has the Holy Spirit. An Apostle is someone sent out by someone with a specific message, which Mary was no commissioned to do.

but her book was ommitted from the bible. not just Mary's book either but Andrews, Bartholomew, Barnabas etc. You would think all of the apostles would have left some record of their trials and teachings from Jesus to their disciples and future generatons of christians.

The books that you mention come from the second or third centuries and thus couldn't have met the criterion that the early church set forth in order for a book to be considered canonical.

All christians are apostles, the specific message we have been commanded and mandated from Christ himself is to spread the good news. The Holy Spirit that flows from Christ into us is our guide and he gives us the power to go out and speak boldly to the people about Christ. Those books were left out because they wanted to turn christianity into a religion instead of a way of life and a personal relationship with Christ. "They" being the Roman Catholic Church who rather you go through a priest or Mary to speak to Christ instead of talking to him yourself as he and he alone is our eternal highpriest of the order of Melchizidek.