Why was the Bible censored?

Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid a few common mistakes have crept into this post. Here's a couple of them.

Roger Pearse, do me a favor and correct all my statements. Your views are appreciated, because I do want my facts to be on the up and up. My main thing about biblical teachings today is that churches preach directly from Dante's Inferno instead of hebraic teachings on the subject of hell. Also the biblical inconsistency concerning Jesus fulfilling the earlier prophecies in regards to him fitting the criteria for being the messiah. And the point that if all prophecies lead up to Jesus and there shall be none after him then that would mean that prophecies made after his death were false; meaning that revelations is false. There's plenty more but that'll do for now.

Originally posted by banjo_guru

I'm sorry to tell you that this 'history' is completely untrue. The idea that the bible was edited, that books were removed, etc, is quite false.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the Bible was translated with an 'anti-semetic' flavor to in order to paint the Jews in a bad light.

Which translation, specifically, do you have in mind?

I had thought we were discussing the original language text, not any translations, modern or otherwise.

The 'Holy Roman' church under Constantine caused a lot of those.

I know of no reference in ancient literature to any translation activity by the church associated with Constantine. Tell me more.

So, Roger, in that sense, the Bible has been edited!

I hope you see that these are different things, true or otherwise?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by Nakash
Roger, a piece of advice given to me by another (Christian) member about other members on this board:

You can tell them, but you can't sell them.

No use debating people who think you are the "evil Christian out to get them". You can refute the nonsense ALL NIGHT but people will go on, and on, and on.....

Now for some advice from none other than Jesus Christ:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Matthew 7:6

I agree with you, and I hope I am always conscious of the danger of feeding the piggies with what is valuable to me but not to them.

But I have a different purpose in posting here. It is my impression, rightly or wrongly, that there are many people repeating statements about Christian origins which are nonsense. But quite often this is not done maliciously, but in pure innocence. (Sometimes it is done maliciously, but those people are a different matter). Often these people read something, suppose that the poster knew what he was talking about, and then repeat it.

I don't think, myself, that these legends benefit anyone. If I were an atheist, I would want to be sure my facts were correct; after all, it would discredit me if a trivial check revealed that I was talking bull. I have researched a number of these legends in the historical record, to find all the evidence about them, or the non-existence of any. When I post, I prefer to talk about these.

Of course if some unwise person sneers at me for believing ignorantly "out of faith", I chuckle, think of the vast array of data on which I base my statement, and gently enquire whether he can justify the way he lives his life rationally. All these people live by conformity to the temporary values of the society they live in, so none of them can; and none of them ever examine these. In a sense, I invite people to look at what it really means to live as most people live today.

But I'm more interested in the history.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by NEGROPOLIS

Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid a few common mistakes have crept into this post. Here's a couple of them.

Roger Pearse, do me a favor and correct all my statements. Your views are appreciated, because I do want my facts to be on the up and up.

The wish does you honour. I don't think I know of more on that post, but I will bear it in mind.

On Dante's "Inferno", were you aware that a Sci-Fi version exists by Niven and Pournelle, titled "Inferno"? It is very readable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ah Roger Pearse you never cease to amuse me with your almost robotic banter.

Do you know this by (ahem) divine revelation? If not, no doubt you can prove this? I am unclear how you would do this, since I doubt you can define 'inspiration' in any sense that makes sense, but of course you are welcome to try. I have no interest in this purely theological question myself.

A bit of common sense dear Roger:

A) The Bible was written or influenced by the hand of some almighty diety in the sky.

or

B) It was written by human beings.

Now if you were a betting man which way do you think the odds are stacked?

That's not to say God never wrote it, maybe it was written by Giant Lions from Sirius or the time travelling ghost of William Shakespeare but it seems more likely that it was written by humans especally when you consider the contradictions and historical inaccuracies contained within...

Of course if your saying that God is imperfect and sometimes is guilty of errors thats a conversation for another day.

You're so easily rattled and obviously rather arrogant Dear Roger and although some of my ideas maybe archaic and 18th century some ridiculous notions have been known to last 2000 years or more.

It seems to me you have a very slim grip on reality and choose to gloss over or ridicule anything that questions your version of the world.

This is your right of course and I applaud that but maybe once in awhile you should climb down from that high horse and mingle with the peasents a bit for I wager you could learn much from them if only you took the time to try.

Love and Kisses

St Jude




[edit on 24-1-2006 by StJude]

[edit on 24-1-2006 by StJude]

Originally posted by Nakash
No use debating people who think you are the "evil Christian out to get them". You can refute the nonsense ALL NIGHT but people will go on, and on, and on....

Well I for one appreciate Mr. Pearse's scholarly discussions and explanations of these things and hope that he continues to keep it up. Many a time I have seen someone state something here with great authority and others take it as gospel, so to speak, and than Mr. Pearse is able to actually demonstrate that its either not true at all or point out some excellent resources to look at the situation in more detail.

Originally posted by StJude
Ah Roger Pearse you never cease to amuse me with your almost robotic banter.

I am glad that you enjoy my posts, although I can't say I understand your comment.

Do you know this by (ahem) divine revelation? If not, no doubt you can prove this? I am unclear how you would do this, since I doubt you can define 'inspiration' in any sense that makes sense, but of course you are welcome to try. I have no interest in this purely theological question myself.

A bit of common sense ...Now if you were a betting man which way do you think the odds are stacked?

I'm afraid that your prejudices are not much use as a guide to the real world. Nor, indeed, are mine. What we need is evidence.

(abuse, troll snipped)

One reason why Christianity must be true is the sort of behaviour of those who oppose it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[edit on 24/1/2006 by roger_pearse]

Originally posted by roger_pearse

I know of no reference in ancient literature to any translation activity by the church associated with Constantine. Tell me more.

Roger Pearse

Ya know, you are right; that's what I get for trying to do two things at once .
Hope I didn't offend anyone.
Actually a lot of translation problems originated with King Jimmy and the boys because of the whole atmosphere of things at the time.
When Martin Luther broke from the Roman Church, he carried all that baggage with him, and it has been passed down to us.
Then of course we have the later translations which miss the mark as well; (if the flour is bad, the bread will be bad!).
(on a side note: someone else posted about 'casting pearls before swine', of what purpose then is apologetics)?

I'll leave you guys to your devices, my faith is strong enough to realize many things are 'not expedient' to discuss.
Banjo

Roger

One reason why Christianity must be true is the sort of behaviour of those who oppose it.

I've looked at that sentance from every possible angle ( even upside down) and it still puzzles me how a supposed educated man could write such a thing.

A true scholar and researcher would be able to cast his own prejudices aside and look at the evidence against his belief system with wide and fresh eyes.

This site is about debate and discussion not a place to preach your gospel and toss everyone elses ideas aside.

I could point you to any number of threads that you not contributed to because the arguments and evidence contained within them are hard for you to deny ( or at least consider) so maybe a new approach to all this is called for then maybe we can all stop going around in every decreasing circles.



[edit on 24-1-2006 by StJude]

Originally posted by StJude
Roger

One reason why Christianity must be true is the sort of behaviour of those who oppose it.

I've looked at that sentance from every possible angle ( even upside down) and it still puzzles me how a supposed educated man could write such a thing.
[edit on 24-1-2006 by StJude]

"I admire Christ, but not Christians." Gandhi
How does this person correlate to the behaviour comment?
"My religion is kindness." The Dalai Lama
And what about this fellow?
Isaac Asimov, atheist, was nice because he desired a society that was nice, and not in hopes of a post life reward. He seemed like a good guy.
"Do not do unto others that which you do not want done unto you."
Rabbi Hillel
And how does the Rabbi fit in with the group?

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.
Chief Seattle

Teach your children what we have taught our children,
that the Earth is our mother.
Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the sons of the Earth.
Chief Seattle


Him?

Originally posted by StJude
Roger

One reason why Christianity must be true is the sort of behaviour of those who oppose it.

I've looked at that sentance from every possible angle ( even upside down) and it still puzzles me how a supposed educated man could write such a thing.

A true scholar and researcher would be able to cast his own prejudices aside and look at the evidence against his belief system with wide and fresh eyes.

This site is about debate and discussion not a place to preach your gospel and toss everyone elses ideas aside.

I could point you to any number of threads that you not contributed to because the arguments and evidence contained within them are hard for you to deny ( or at least consider) so maybe a new approach to all this is called for then maybe we can all stop going around in every decreasing circles.



[edit on 24-1-2006 by StJude]

St. Jude, I'm with you in regards to your interaction with Mr. Pearse. Even though I am guilty of posting incorrect info that I had gotten from an incredible source. Pearse should check his own logic before pointing out the errors of others. Why would anyone put blind faith into something so unscientific unless they were trying to fit in with social norms and not be outcasted. And then he has the nerve to mention "pearls on swine" when he's clearly the one who denies reason and logical thinking. I'm still offering for Mr. Pearse to feel free to add his valued input to my posts and replies as a display of personal humility as opposed to taking part in arrogant antics.

quote: Originally posted by NEGROPOLIS

quote: Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid a few common mistakes have crept into this post. Here's a couple of them.


Roger Pearse, do me a favor and correct all my statements. Your views are appreciated, because I do want my facts to be on the up and up.



The wish does you honour. I don't think I know of more on that post, but I will bear it in mind.

On Dante's "Inferno", were you aware that a Sci-Fi version exists by Niven and Pournelle, titled "Inferno"? It is very readable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

When they edited the good book they decided to scare people into converting and obeying with talks of eternal damnation and this is contrary to the original biblical teaching of the body becoming worm-food in sheol and the soul being without conciousness and being no more. This is what I was referring to when I spoke of Dante's Inferno and it still relates to the topic of the catholic church editing the bible. Does anyone accept the fact that there actually is no hell and that this fact has been ousted by catholicism? Please respond, anyone.

I know of no reference in ancient literature to any translation activity by the church associated with Constantine. Tell me more
roger pearse
The council of Nicaea was one. He gathered over 200 bishops and they voted something like 217 to 2 to capitalize any personal pronouns that referred to Jesus, ie. he, him, his.
The vote decided that Jesus was divine.
This was something Constantine felt was also true of himself.
I think the move from the Sabbath, Saturday, the 7th day on my calendar, to Sunday, as the holy day was his idea too.

the change of sabbath happened after Constantine ordered all courts and state business to be closed/stopped "on the Venerable Day of the Sun". Thus
Sunday became the holy day

And it remains today Sun- day not Son- day.

I also find it interesting that almost without exception Xians end their prayers
by calling the name of the Egyptian Sun God.

AMEN or more properly Amun

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

I know of no reference in ancient literature to any translation activity by the church associated with Constantine. Tell me more

The council of Nicaea was one. He gathered over 200 bishops and they voted something like 217 to 2 to capitalize any personal pronouns that referred to Jesus, ie. he, him, his.
The vote decided that Jesus was divine.

No such event took place at the council of Nicaea -- sorry.

I think the move from the Sabbath, Saturday, the 7th day on my calendar, to Sunday, as the holy day was his idea too.

Not something I have ever looked up, but it sounds most unlikely.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
the change of sabbath happened after Constantine ordered all courts and state business to be closed/stopped "on the Venerable Day of the Sun". Thus
Sunday became the holy day

And it remains today Sun- day not Son- day.

It has more to do with the gospel & epistle texts than anything Egypt was doing at the time. The days of the week were named after Norse gods, were they not? I'd never heard of "Thor the Egyptian god".

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
I also find it interesting that almost without exception Xians end their prayers
by calling the name of the Egyptian Sun God.

AMEN or more properly Amun

Fun with homophones. I guess cheerleaders pray to Egyptian sun-god when they cheer, "Ra Ra Ra!" They say it three times, as if to say there's a connection with a holy trinity. What's that formation they do...the pyramid?! Hm, I smell....CONSPIRACY!


See, there's three of them! The magic number of the universe, and they're wearing gold! Certainly sun-god!


[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]

StJude, Negropolis, the topic of this thread is 'why was the bible censored' not 'is roger_pearse a good contributor to ATS (here's a hint, he is).

Please stay on topic.


[edit on 25-1-2006 by Nygdan]

I thought history was written by whoever's left, not who's right. And as far as I remember, a lot of early christians were fed to the lions and just plain killed in large numbers. I think it's possible some other kinds of guys worked their way up to the top after getting rid of the bulk of those who knew what the hell they were talking. And thus we have modern day christianity, the watered down not very believable version that doesn't have any real answers, just a bunch of stuff I could of came up with. "As a dog returns to his vomit, so shall a man return to the error of his ways." Thanks bro, wish I thought of it first. It sounds good, has a good message, but any of the answers to the real questions have been left out. It leaves so much room in it, any idiot out there can think they know more than you and say things like "Because you haven't found the light! God touched me, in that car wreck, and that's why I lived."

On the plus side, it does sound like a good prep to get every stupid human out there in check should anyone want to enslave humanity, whether they're a God or appear to be one. I think we need something like that to establish a little order, this experiment in freedom has really gotten out of hand. There's all sorts of idiots out there diminishing my health and well-being.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by bigpappadiaz]

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
I thought history was written by whoever's left, not who's right.

Catchy. You in advertising? Oh wait, that's not an original quote...and I believe it was "war" that determined who was left, but who's paying attention to the details?

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
And as far as I remember, a lot of early christians were fed to the lions and just plain killed in large numbers.

Ya, that's right.

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
I think it's possible some other kinds of guys worked their way up to the top after getting rid of the bulk of those who knew what the hell they were talking. And thus we have modern day christianity, the watered down not very believable version that doesn't have any real answers, just a bunch of stuff I could of came up with.

Then dude, what are you waiting for? Come up with some better material, instead of misquoted recycled things like your adapation of what history determines.

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
"As a dog returns to his vomit, so shall a man return to the error of his ways."

What does this passage mean? It's part of a chapter and you've left out the best parts. What does the chapter mean?

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
Thanks bro, wish I thought of it first.

Per above, why wait?

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
It sounds good, has a good message, but any of the answers to the real questions have been left out.

What would you like to know?

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
It leaves so much room in it, any idiot out there can think they know more than you and say things like "Because you haven't found the light! God touched me, in that car wreck, and that's why I lived."

I agree they could, the difference is between what they say compared to what really happened. By the way, I wasn't in a car wreck.

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
On the plus side, it does sound like a good prep to get every stupid human out there in check should anyone want to enslave humanity, whether they're a God or appear to be one. I think we need something like that to establish a little order, this experiment in freedom has really gotten out of hand. There's all sorts of idiots out there diminishing my health and well-being.

I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe instead of listening to idiots, you could go high above them and go to God directly.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]

And not all the days were Norse named, Saturn's day wasn't, but I believe Tew's day, Woden's Day, Thor's Day, and Freya's day were. But I am not positive of that.
Thanks, stalkingwolf for supporting my Saturday/Sunday point. As I remember it, Constantine was a sunworshipper, and that was his reason for the change. The Jews were not a part of the change and still rest on the Sabbath. And I know all the calendars I have seen clearly start with Sunday on the left, and end with Saturday on the right, which I see as meaning Saturday is the 7th day.... Does it really matter, though?
And Roger, could you post something in regards to the 325AD Council of Nicaea not being where Bishops voted on capitalizing personal pronouns referring to Jesus?
I have read that more than once. It was something I have not heard refuted till now.
I also read that Constantine implemented the Dec. 25th date for celebrating Jesus' birth, for the reason it was his own birthday. The Sol Natalis 'Birth of the Sun' had been around that day, to celebrate the days lengthening, which I see as a likely reason for making it the 'birth of the Son' day. I don't know if one is right, both are right, or neither.
And I don't know what happened at Nicaea, other than what I had posted, so if that is wrong, I don't know what happened.

My thoughts exactly, Blackguard XIII. To my knowledge x-mas was originally called the Saturnalia, the sabbath was on Saturday, and Saturday was named after the god Saturn which was the equivalent of the Egyptian god Set. The name Satan is supposedly derived from this same Egyptian name "Set". The days of the week were as you said with Monday being named after the moon.

And to the Saint4God:
You know just as well as I do that Egypt played a major role in shaping the culture of the early Hebrews. They lived in harmony with the Egyptians for many years before they were enslaved for 400 years. The catholics still hold to the fact that the Egyptian ankh, the crux ansata, is the first form of the cross. It's a symbol of life unlike the crucifix which is symbolic of an electric chair's version of death. Amen is the unseen god. Sounds similar to the fact that none shall see the most high and live. Another similarity is the story of Isis and Ra. She used the magic in his secret and true name to bring Osiris back from the dead. The tetragrammation of Yahweh only means that I am that I am, does it not. His true name is not known. I'm sure you don't wanna hear any of this but others will heed the word.
Hotep and Amen. (Wait... wasn't there a pharoah named Amenhotep? lol)

[edit on 25-1-2006 by NEGROPOLIS]