Destoyed bible passages?

The Christianity of today and the Catholic Church had it's roots when Emporor Constintine became Christian...and was now the Holy Roman Empire...btw something that has never really disappeared..because the Catholic Church runs the Roman Empire...but that's another story.

the books contained in the canon were chosen because of the time frame in which they were written...anything deemed by the Bishops of the newly created Catholic Church to be written either too late or too early by their guide lines was not acceptable to be placed in the canon.

Now we have all the Lost information coming to the surface...it was known of in ancient times, and now it is once again seeing the light....and it makes one wonder why or how such information can be considered unimportant.

there in lies the conspiracey of this particular subject...The Catholic church was in the business of control and what better way to control the population than to include only what THEY felt needed to be revealed...over time the idea would work on its self..and eventually the TRUE words of Christ and the TRUE meaning that he was teaching would be lost...over time history would rewrite it's self, and the control would be complete....

Humans are a strange breed...some are followers without question, would never think of asking why?..and others will fight hog, tooth, and nail, without care of what others think to get to the truth of what they know intuitively...they are the ones that ask why not, and then continue on.

another link you may find of interest:

www.thenazareneway.com...



~oracle

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by Oracle]

Originally posted by TheBandit795
What they're talking about at the end of that movie is the dead sea scrolls, which were found at Nag Hammadi. Which is very real.

They were found by the Dead Sea, but I wouldn't pay too much trust in such beasts waking up from their sleep in the Earth. Especially not when they divide the world into two with some cunning twist and has already set up a war between the "children of light and the children of darkness". I just don't buy it, but it may indeed be right. Therefore I await the day, after it has happened, before I study the texts and judge it.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by Hamilton]

The reason the Church doesn't include the Gospel of Thomas in the Bible is because it was it was written a bity too far past Christ being killed. It's been dated to around 100-150 AD, so it wasn't written firsthand. It's believed to have been written by a rather overzealous Christian who had good intentions of getting Christ's message out, and so attributed the sayings and such in the Gospel to him. The fact that it is more of a listing than a narrative (as much the rest of the NT is) helps support this idea.

Most of NT is written by people who never met Jesjuah. The names the church has attributed to the texts (Matteus, Markus, Lukas and Johannes) are merely much later names given to the texts in honor of these people. All, except perhaps for Luke, he seems like the real person behind Acts and the Gospel according to Luke. But Luke never saw Jesjuah, and there are great doubts he even met anyone who did. He is said to have met Saulus Paulus, but he never met Jesjuah either.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by Esoterica
The reason the Church doesn't include the Gospel of Thomas in the Bible is because it was it was written a bity too far past Christ being killed. It's been dated to around 100-150 AD, so it wasn't written firsthand.

None of the books in the New Testament were believed to have been written first hand. In fact John is believed to have been written as late as AD160.

The Gospel of Luke is generally believed to have been written in AD63 and The Book of Acts later still.
Paul, the founder of the Church as we know it, wasn't even converted to Christianity until AD37 so the Letters aren't that close to Christ's time either.

It is highly doubtful that the Gospel of Thomas was left out of the Bible because it is older than the other books. In fact it's actually hotly disputed when it was written. AD70 to AD150 is the time scale normally thrown about. Some scholars have even stated that they believe it was written before the other Gospels!!!
The simple fact is that the Gospel of Thomas didn't suit the church's idea of Christianity at that time, so it was disregarded.

So what I have read here actually supports some of my theories. When I was a kid I learned how to lie... really good, I might add. I had a stepmom who was what I consider evil, etc. Later I learned how bad lying really was, and not by some 'moral story'. Well, to deal with my stepmom without lying, I learned to tell the truth, but only parts of the truth that would twist it around to her liking. I would omit some parts, reiterate others, etc. so that in the case that I got cought, I could honestly say I wasn't lying.

Sounds to me that the catholic church, or the founders of christianity, did the same thing. Simply twist the truth to their liking. If anyone ever questions it, they can say, quite simply, that they felt that the information wasn't pertinent to the christian beliefs. In this way, they can only include what they feel necissary to hold control over a mass of people.

Control... this is a theory of mine about the christian nation. I formed this quite some time ago before I ever started delving into the internet. Once I did a bit of research on Freemasons that actually supported my theory: That to have control, a moral system should be established. What better way to establish and reinforce a global moral system without invading regional laws than to form a new religion and 'forcefully' (i.e. the crusades) make your followers by using the ignorant to convey the message? People have this fixed moral and avoid deviating from it under the fear that god will judge them to hell. Now that you have all these followers, people with all the same morals and beliefs, you have an army. Anything that the church feels threatened by will be dealt with by the christians who will feel that they need to 'do gods bidding' in order to ensure their place in heaven.

That is my theory of Evangelical Boot Camp.

Another thing I'd like to mention is that alot of gangs recruit people that have nothing else under the guise of 'we will provide for you as long as you are faithful and provide for us'. Christianity seems to use the same technique. A person may feel lost and missing something, and if approached at the right time, will easily submit to the christian beliefs. Once this one person is established, his/her following generations are guaranteed to be followers as well.

So, if you have this type of control in mind, and some rabbi who made a huge motion and following has died, why not act like you are 'picking up where he left off' and start twisting the truth around to accomodate your objective? Simply hide the stuff that may hinder the purpose and claim that it is irrelevant info?

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by Earthscum]

Originally posted by Leveller
Some scholars have even stated that they believe it was written before the other Gospels!!!
The simple fact is that the Gospel of Thomas didn't suit the church's idea of Christianity at that time, so it was disregarded.

Exactly. What we today know as the Gospel of Tomas may simply be snippets from what the scholars refer to as Gospel Q. Q is for Quelle, German for source. The source Matthew, Mark and Luke are somewhat mere shortened dramatised versions of. The fact that Jesjuah seemed to have forbidden any but James (or Jacob his brother) and his mysterious Beloved disciple whom I believe is Miriam of Bethany, his wife or still Earthbound queen if you like.At least that's what I have come to believe after studying the texts over and over again.

The Gospel of Tomas is very "woman friendly", contrary to Paul's teachings who was infact the only one among the people mentioned in the NT who wasn't married. It does not become clear through the text whether he was ever made apostle or if he simply assumed the title. The latter seems the most probable, but I don't know. I believe Saulus Paulus, the Roman Pharicee who suddenly turned into a lamb of God, was a spy, an undercover counter terrorist. Leaven.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Let's get this myth out of the way. Constantine and his bishops in his newly created Roman Church did not set out the Canon, they only crystalized it.

Lists of books considered canon by church leaders were circulating long before the RCC sat down to officially lay down the cannon. With only minor disagreements between them, there was general concensus on the cannon established by the Roman bishops in the early 3rd century. That's over 100 years before Constantine's people put their hands on it. Constantine and the RCC did not create the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas as it is called had already been rejected by most parts of the church.

As to the Apostle Paul, he wrote down in Corintheans a list of things that happened to Jesus, and he wrote down a list of witnesses. This around 20 years after it happend. If it didn't happen, don't list the witnesses...

Originally posted by Blacktron
Let's get this myth out of the way. Constantine and his bishops in his newly created Roman Church did not set out the Canon, they only crystalized it.

Remember that before Constantine made Catholicism state, sorry: imperial religion, the Roman Catholics were an insignifficant sect within Christianity. In general you can say that Catholicism is a pervestion of the reformed Judaism Jesjuah preached and layed down the foundation for. Roman Catholicism is nothing but Roman mythology dressed up in new cloathes. Like the Romans changed the names of the Greek gods and made them their own, the Catholics turned them into saints. It's exactly the same rites and festivals etc. only instead of saying Ba'al Sebul, Mithra or Sol Invictvs, they say Jesus. Roman Catholicism was the main tool of Constantine to solve the "Jewish problem". It is antisemittic in nature, it was created to be, and it has nothing to do with Jesjuah or Elohim YHWH. They observe none of his laws or commandments unless Zeus or Ba'al has ordered the same it seems.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

There are two types of Apocryphal books. The New Testament (or Christian) Apocrypha and then the Jewish Holy Scripture Apocrypha which is referred to as the Pseudepigrapha. Then there are extraneous "non-biblical" (and in some instances heretical to the teachings of the Bible) but yet spiritual books such as the Kabbalah, Gnostic Scriptures, and Dead Sea Scrolls.

The point in blathering all of this out is to point out that it is dangerous to take ALL non-biblical spiritual writings that are either Christian, Jewish or an off-shoot of some combination (and in some instances with a bit of Zoroastrianism mixed in) and lump them in to what is a well-defined classification of "non-canonical" or Apocryphal writings. You would be making a big mistake that could lead to much confusion.

Well spoken Valhall. LOL Finally it looks like we agree on something

Blessings,
Mikromarius

religions take only what is benifitial for the leaders which gives them the most might and control over as much people as possible. so if there is something they don't like they take it out of the original text for example the jehova's .

Well, first, let's see, the parts of the bible where hey, unlike what the church worte in, Mary Magedline was never a whore, but the leader of the 7 female disciples and the lover of jesus. Then the part where Judas didn't betray Jesus, but was sent to the Roman leader BY Jesus to go get the guards to come and take him.

Or what about the parts where hey, it turns out, James and John were his brothers, not just disciples. But the christians? The bible isn't edited, god wouldn't allow it. The real world. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly. There aren't many times you read a post here on ATS about the bible, when you think to yourself that Yes, this is the truth and I couldn't have said it better myself. This is deffinitively one of those. Applause!

Edit: There had to be something argh It is important to mention that there are several people called the same names, everyone seemed to be called the same things back then. When Jesjuah was placed before the crowd besides this dude called Barrabas, it must also be mentioned that his surname was timely enough also, Jesjuah. Jesjuah also had atleast two fathers called Joseph. The first one died not long after Jesjuah was born. Then there came a new Joseph into the picture. And it all looks very sad and unfortunate when you think it's the end and then the greatest of glories and finally fatherhood and majesty.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 16-2-2004 by Hamilton]

After doing a quick scan of this thread, I see no mention of the Nag Hammadi documents.

The myth goes something like this. Once upon a time (we are told) there was the Jesus Movement, which was mystical, radical, feminist, egalitarian, and subversive. As time went by, this movement was destroyed by the rising forces of the Christian church, patriarchal and repressive. The earliest followers of Jesus found their ideas dismissed as "heresy" while the power-maniacs of the Great Church grabbed for themselves the grandiose title of "orthodox." The new world of Churchianity successfully covered its tracks by rewriting most early Christian documents and destroying those that revealed its Orwellian dirty tricks. However, some authentic relics survived in the form of the hidden gospels, which were preserved in the deserts of Egypt. In the twentieth century, these texts re-emerged to astonish the waiting world: We recall the discovery of the collection of ancient documents found at Nag Hammadi in 1945

www.bibleinterp.com...

Yep, They found the "hidden Jesus". And he Taught 21ist Century ideals. (I have seen Jesus and he is "me." Is a old saying, Always being proved true.)

I was hoping to "find" new information here. But all I see is contemporary hear say. Without proof.

As A Neo Orthodox Christian. And a person who actually "reads" History. From the Past. Not the present. Respectfully, I think most of you are mistaken.

There was more then 1,001 Different religions in the Ancient World. All stating "We are the truth". And all having some type of "mysterious" initiation for the elite, And some time of punishment for the unbeliever's. (Note: As long as you gave Caesar his due. You pretty much could believe in anything. As long as it didn't threaten the Empire's stability.)

To state Catholism "killed" all forms of Christianity is pure nonsense. What about the Church's in India, Egypt, Ethiopia, Persia, etc? Do we presume that Catholism "ruled" the world? Such a Belief shows historical ignorance.

Until "Constantine" embraced Christianity. (Which I doubt he truly did?) There was No "official" church. After Constantine, Then Yes. The Book Burnings started. And your Conspiracies then Truly become embraced.

(And the Nag Hammadi is a by product of such a Book Burning experience. Hidden in a Desert, and then Refound. Only to take part in some Blood feud, Reburned, and a bunch of other Stories. Fit for a Conspiracy novel.)

Here's a "destroyed Bible Saying".

Gospel of Thomas. 1:114

Peter stated to them, "Let Mary leave us. For Woman are not worthy of life."

Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her. In order to make her Male. So that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every Female who will make herself Male. Will enter the kingdom".

Pagels failed to mention this verse.

Originally posted by msnevil


Here's a "destroyed Bible Saying".

Gospel of Thomas. 1:114

Peter stated to them, "Let Mary leave us. For Woman are not worthy of life."

Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her. In order to make her Male. So that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every Female who will make herself Male. Will enter the kingdom".

Very interesting statement because all spirits in the bible are refered to as males. Even in Genesis, where it says the 'sons of God' took notice of the daughters of men and produced the Nephilem, the mightly men of old (not the mighty women of old).
A spirit creature is always refered to in the male gender. But then again they can neither be male or female for they don't reproduce in spirit form, like we do in fleshly form.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by lostinspace]

There are many things in the New Testament that bear re-examination. First off while I know this site concerns itself with conspiracy theories and there's a lot said about the "control" aspect of religion, I think some should be taken with a grain of salt. One of the books of NT apocrypha is the Gospel of Peter, in it Jesus resurrects from the cave... as well as a 50 foot giant talking cross. I think the reason the Council of Nicea left that one out should be obvious.

Yet I do greatly suspect a conspiracy/secret regarding the early church. Someone mentioned the character of Jesus Barabbas, the Barabbas released instead of Jesus by Pilate, it's interesting to note that Bar-abbas, if taken literally, means "son of the father". Redundant or hinting at something weird going on?

The role of Paul in the early formation of the church is also terribly controversial and hints at lots of secrets and editing of history.

I'm a religious studies major in school, so all of this conversation is great!

TheDTs, you bring up an interesting part of Paul's ministry.
I'm reading the Bloodline of the hohly grail, which seems to be well researched.

Paul is mentioned as having an epiphany on the road to Damascus. He meets Jesus and changes his way of thinking.
And, becomes very energetic in spreading the word. The author goes on to say that because Paul preached to non-Hellenic Jewish people, he sometimes embellished his words to appeal to largely pagan audiences. And, some of what he preached became what Christianity believes today.

Also mentioned was that Peter and Paul had little of no use for women in the ministry, as is in evidence in some forms of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church.
This seems to contradict what Jesus taught, which was the equality of ALL. In fact, that equality part seems to have been one of the biggies to be hidden, lost or destroyed

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Paul is mentioned as having an epiphany on the road to Damascus. He meets Jesus and changes his way of thinking.
And, becomes very energetic in spreading the word. The author goes on to say that because Paul preached to non-Hellenic Jewish people, he sometimes embellished his words to appeal to largely pagan audiences.

Paul's conversion on the Damascus road is full of holes, Paul himself can't seem to remember who was with him and what exactly happened if you look at the two or three places in the Bible where it is recounted (I'll look them up if people want). It's interesting you bring up his preaching as well; Paul states explicitly, and modern Christianity sees Paul as someone who brings the Gentiles into Christianity. When you say "non-Hellenic Jewish people", that means the traditional Jews, people who would not accept Greek (Roman, Hellenic) culture and rule. Paul described Peter as the one who would go to the Jews, yet during his missionary trips described in Acts, he's always walking into the Temples, telling the Jews their own history, and the Jews always want to kill him for it.