Jesus is NOT a copy from Pagan religions! Those are lies! Do research and do not believe!

reply to post by MistyStar1012


MistyStar..yeah about sin. I know the idea of sin is that its separation from God in the faiths that talk about it. But to me the very idea of classifying mistakes which we all make as sins ...well that itself is separation -- the idea of mistakes being sin. Mistakes are mistakes. Sometimes they are made in ignorance. To me, and not asking anyone else to believe the same, the Church with its sin doctrine has committed the biggest separation from God.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


LOL FugitiveSoul... we need that emoticon. You know I am not at all familar with Mithra...there are so many myths that I do not know but what you wrote about sin being mistakes is spot on.

I don't feel any of us is inherently evil. Or that we are prone towards evil. We're fallible yes but that is part of learning. They lose me with all this talk of sin.

reply to post by arpgme


Why are you so desperate to "prove" the origins of your religion. Religion, by definition is only man's attempt at understanding that which is beyond us (and failing miserably). Find your own path man.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

Christ was God?

Sooooo.... he was talking to himself during the crucifiction, asking why he had forsaken himself?
Well that's just silly.

Well, yes, they do seem a little confused here, don't they? I also remember some beings called "Us" who supposedly created humankind too, but even this was condensed down to one, or was it three, and weren't all three males?
The real strange thing is the obsession with demons and angels, and sex and death. Very cult like behaviour. They cannot prove the New Testament was actually written by the disciples, and they cannot prove that their Godman even existed in the first place. All will get a wakeup call one fine morning.

reply to post by LunaKat


You're right. I should have said inherently "animal."
Civilization has only made it this far by the guidance of our own morality.
Without it we'd still be wild creatures raping to procreate, killing for materialistic want, short-lived in our own ignorance, and murdering and dying of our own lust for control.


...Actually there's still a lot of that going on. Though most of it is in the name of [Abrahamic] religion(s).

I don't understand how people can say that "Only God can judge mankind", and then turn right around and proclaim that I'm going to "hell" if I don't believe it. I need to buy stock in Advil.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Oh no comparing us to the animals.. poor animals, they don't deserve that, hahaha. Yeah who knows what might have happened had we taken another route throughout time. We pretty much like things easy and so its even possible that we would learn naturally to just go with the flow rather than against it. There is an easy way and a hard way to do just about everything. Then again who knows, it could be a free for all. There had to be so many ways we could of gone but for some reason this is the way we went. What a trip!

Re: The Birth Of Christ

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Listen, Jesus birth was mired in controversy and overlaid by myth. That they couldn't find a place to give birth might be true and that Mary was found pregnant, that Joseph wan't the father, yet who did not divorce Mary as might be the custom, also true. What would this tell us...

And perhaps the story of the Three Wise Men from the Orient, who "saw his star" might contain imbedded within it, another truth when viewed as an allegory of the myth overlaying his birth.

I think, or stongly suspect, that Jesus left his native land as a boy, went to the far east, and then returned later as a near-30 year old man and re-entered Jewish society through the Essenian sect, and in fact was initiated into the Jewish mysteries via John the Baptist (Jesus' cousin and an Essene), but was already a fully self-realized Bodhisatva by that point.

Connect the dots..

But it doesn't matter who Jesus of Nazareth was or how he came about, what matters is the "birth of Christ" and just who and what he became..

Epiphany!

The bright morning star..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Think it through, and I don't want to demean Jesus' lineage here, because it's irrelevant to who he was and what he said and did, God bless him, and through him, us.

And Joseph might very well have been given his name in a dream from an angel, and the holy spirit might even have been present at his conception for all we know, as it may be in every case no matter what the circumstances. Just don't ask me to spell this out for you. You'd have to figure it out on your own.

For me this doesn't demean or detract from Jesus one iota, while perhaps creating even more sympathetic understanding, of the boy who went in search of his true fature, and FOUND HIM in God as the Absolute and who then made his return to a waiting John in the wilderness. It's very precious, the truth, better even by far than the myth.


Ok, here's a tip and a possible piece of the puzzle.

Re: the "Three Wise Men" or "Kings" from the Orient (far East)

The three living streams of Taoism/Buddhism are compliments of

Lao Tsu
Confucius
Buddha

time: approx 500 BC.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Epiphany!

The bright morning star..

Another clarification - by that I don't mean anything re: Lucifer.


Buddha, after 15 years or whatever, of meditating, at last "gave up" and then, with a feeling of impending enlightenment, he sat again, and was said to have seen the morning star, or venus, at the moment of his enlightenment.

As a motif or a symbol, it is the star of enlightenment, what I call the star of "isolate consciousness" (one with everything).

Take it as you will, but I've done my research from every angle and perspective, and this "groks" for me.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Dear NewAgeMan,

I have absolutely no idea what your point is. Lets make is easy, did Jesus exist as a real person? Let us at least start with some common ground.

Ok, Let me spell it out.

Mary was a virgin when Joseph married her, but became pregnant, not by him. The society was under Roman oppression. Mary was not convicted of adultery, and Joseph did not divorce her, but stayed with her. Jesus was given the name "God saves" even possibly by a dream Joseph had in which he was instructed also NOT to divorce Mary. When it came time for Jesus, the baby boy, to be born, they were shut out, and were forced to have the birth in a barn. There is but one anecdote about Jesus as a boy, and then nothing until he springs onto the scene later with John the Baptist, his cousin and an Essenian Rabbi with unique understanding and methods. Jesus is then baptised, led into the desert, and returning, having overcome the devil, begins his ministry until his cricifixion on the cross as an atonement for all sin and evil, athough completely innocent and perfect (without having sinned). Three wise men or kings from the Orient supposedly herald his star and offer precious gifts at his "birth", which could mean another birth altogether.

To this day, one of the 12 days of Christmas is in celebration of The Three Wise Men from the East. It is called "Epiphany Sunday".

Deny Ignorance.

Best Regards,

NAM

"Oh Nicodemus, what is born of the flesh is flesh, but what is born of the spirit IS spirit!"



"Behold - woman (mother Mary) I make all things new!" [while carrying the cross]



..man of sorrows...

"We know who OUR father is." (OUCH!)
~ Temple Priests

Then Jesus' mother and brothers came. They stood outside and sent a person in to tell Jesus to come out. Many people were sitting around Jesus. They said to him, "Your mother and brothers are waiting for you outside." Jesus asked, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" Then Jesus looked at those people sitting around him. He said, "These people are my mother and my brothers! My true brother and sister and mother are those people that do the things of God."
~ Mark 3:31-35

"The more that suffering has carved into our being, the more joy we can contain."
~ Kahlil Gibran

The initiator - John the Baptist

John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
~ Luke 3:16

"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"
~ John 1:29
en.wikipedia.org...

John the Baptist
by Leonardo Davinci
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/18741ca13533.jpg[/atsimg]

I am aware that this little thesis of mine does not cast the Roman Church in a very favorable light, from a whole host of angles and perspectives - from the time of Constantine to the present day, with Christ on the cross and his authority stolen, the womb of the mother of Jesus glorified in the deification of Mary, who's is demeaned in no way by what I've offered here, and who is blameless and therefore without shame, most certainly not in the son she bore and the prophecy he fulfilled quite literally to a t.

But in the fullness of time and history, there is nothing hidden which is not made known, and since the conversation about Jesus goes on, the triumph, his triumph remains with him, and through him with all who know him and who hear his voice (essential character), the Bridegroom's voice, who being the perfect gentlemen expresses only a non-coersive, unconditional love.

And so the love of Jesus, his true love, is made known throughout the nations, and who can stop love?

There is a woeful misunderstanding expressed here in this thread, about Jesus.

It is also very sad.

But when we are committed to denying ignorance, and are not unwilling to re-investigate free from any sort of contempt prior to investigation, sometimes we discover something that's all good on the other side of the duality of good and evil, something capable of moving us in favor of also having the courage to be true to our highest self who is reborn from above.

Thank you Jesus for your love and for your courage. You will not be forgotten, nor eliminated, nor excluded, hung on a cross while your authority from obediance to the all-good heavenly father of love, is stolen by wicked men and the whore of babyloon and used as a sword by which to slay the saints in the name of empire and a satanic system of might makes right, and of top down domination and submission - one which you stood against, and were crucified relative to.


The criticisms of the church are fair. The criticisms and denails of Jesus Christ, the reborn one, are not at all.

"And as my father first sent me, even so send I you."

Jesus is our brother people. He is simply the most courageous among us.

Read him again, now that some light has been shed on him as a real person, and look to the character there, reading between the lines and underneath the myth.

He deserves our love. He is worthy, trustworthy and true. Worthy is the lamb.

"I am the truth and the life."
~ Jesus (Yeshua)

"I have one commandment. Love one another as I have loved you."

Would not a rose of any other name smell as sweet?

Forget the cover and read the story.

The meaning is within, not without.

reply to post by arpgme


None of that even matters, OP.
What matters, and what the average comparative religiologist will never tell you because they don't think about it, is the essential difference, namely the uniqueness and revolutionary value (both historically and spiritually, if you will) of Christ's teachings, which are the backbone of the religion and the only thing that matters.

Read the Sermon on the Mount, or any of his scattered essential teachings - love others as you love yourself, forgive unconditionally, etc., - and find a precedent for those.

Good luck.

Originally posted by AdAstra
...namely the uniqueness and revolutionary value (both historically and spiritually, if you will) of Christ's teachings, which are the backbone of the religion and the only thing that matters.

Read the Sermon on the Mount, or any of his scattered essential teachings - love others as you love yourself, forgive unconditionally, etc., - and find a precedent for those.

Good luck.

Not “uniquely” Christ, but I see your point. The message is all that matters, not who said it, or when? So what if Christ (or more precisely, the people who wrote about Christ) borrowed it? The point is that it’s an awesome lesson to learn, and a perfect moral north to set your compass to.
Religion shouldn’t be about whose god is better or older. What matters is the message behind those “gods”. Whether that message is from 2,000 years ago or 25,000 years ago, it has no measure in the weight of the words "love thy neighbor" (or any of the thousands of versions thereof).

I'll give you a star because the message you presented is a good one, and one that anyone religious or not can/should get behind.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

So regarding the historical Jesus, the physical person of Jesus, not that it matters one iota to his spiritual identification, perhaps he did have dirty blonde hair and blue eyes in a sea of more dark-skinned and black haired people with brown eyes..

But denying the historical person of Jesus, and everything about him, most certainly isn't denying ignorance.

The only problem with Jesus, if there is one, is what he contends with, to the core, which is often offensive to the willful pride of man, and the will to power, which would go so far as to turn everything upside down just to stay on top for nothing but "convenience", how pathetic!

There's something here... something capable of relieving "the church" of their monopoly on Christ symbolized by a crucifix..


Anyway - Merry Christmas! (remember the story of the three wise men bringing their gifts to the birth of Christ)

Kind Regards,

NAM

reply to post by arpgme

Hey again Arpgme –

Looks like it's time for another large PIN to prick your deluded Fantasy Bubble Belief System about the 'accuracy' of the Greek canonical 'council approved' Gospel material, I guess....

Of course, first you will have to take 1st century Galilean Aramaic and a late-1st century Koine Greek class so you can actually READ these propaganda tracts in the 'original' language...then you can tell the world you believe them !

But not one minute before...it is strange how many persons who style themselves 'Christians' claim they 'believe' all the contents of texts they cannot even read !!

But let's get down to basics - sort of a Gospel Introduction 101 - if you like

Not only were the 'canonical' (4th century council approved) 'Greek gospels' actually overtly propaganda tracts which stole, or more politely, adapted - borrowed from earlier Greco-Roman pagan models in order to compete with the deluge of pagan Mystery Salvation Religions in the Roman Empire (often shamelessly using quite overt propaganda language !)

e.g. ‘these things were written SO THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE ‘Iesous’ is ’ho Christos [i.e. the Messiah].."

see the gospel according to ‘John’ whoever he was, chapter 20:31 etc.), but these propaganda tracts ALSO were trying to make Messianic Jewish converts by showing ‘fulfillment’ prophecies of the Messiah (‘this was done to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet so-and-so…’ in the 1st canonical Greek gospel, ‘according to Matthew’ whoever he was) but ALSO to show that the Christian Messianic saviour- god-man was GREATER than many of the ‘old testament’ miracle workers

e.g. Elisha in II Kings chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, & chapter 7– especially in the 4th canonical gospel (‘according to John’ whoever he was) where there are several ;miracles of the Messiah’ (called ‘signs’) which parallel the ‘signs’ [miracles] of the (likewise Galilean !!) prophet Elisha’q, i.e. the ‘spiritual successor to Elijah…’: e.g.

l. Whereas Elisha’q causes the borrowed axe-head to float (= II Kings 6: 1-6) , the Greek speaking Iesous of the gospels actually ‘walks on water…’

2. Whereas Elisha’q multiplies 20 loaves of Barley for 100 men (=II Kings 4: 42-43) , the Greek speaking ‘Iesous’ of the Greek Gospels ‘feeds 5,000 men as well as women and children’ ‘with a few loaves and a fish’… (also see the ‘fulfillment’ prophecy in the Aram. Targum of Proverbs 10:21 ‘the LIPS of the RIGHTEOUS ONE of Yisro’el shall FEED the Multitudes in that Day…’)

3. Whereas Elisha’q is able to raise up the Shunamite widow’s son (=II Kings 4: 8-36) by ‘laying upon his body, with his palms on his palms, his chest on his chest, and his lips on his lips…’, the Greek Speaking ‘Iesous’ of the ‘council approved’ Greek Gospels is able to raise Eleazar (Gr. ho Lazaros) by a spell / magic words e.g. ‘Lazaros come forth !’ or the daughter of Jairus (also with a spell: ‘Girlie, I command you to get yourself up !’ i.e. Aram. ‘Talitha Qoumi...’)

4. Whereas Elisha’q (=II Kings chapter 4: 1-7) multiplies full jars of oil for a poor widow, the Greek speaking Iesous of the canonical Greek gospels is able to magically change water into wine in their jars…

5. Wheras Elisha’q cures Naaman of his leprosy (=II Kings 5-1-26) by having him bathe in the ‘filthy Jordan’ River, the Iesous of the Gospels cures a Leper by a mere touch of his hand - see: the gospel of ‘Matthew’ ‘whoever he was) chapter 8:1-4, or ‘Mark’ 1:40-45 or ‘Luke’ 5:12-16, whoever they were.

So ANOTHER apparent aim of these overt propaganda ‘council-approved Messianic gospel’ tracts was to show Messianic Jews both in the Diaspora following the defeat of the Jews by the Romans in the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) that ‘Iesous’ was ‘greater than Elisha’q’ by performing greater deeds than he allegedly performed in 2 Kings – it was CERTAINLY not their aim to produce historical accuracy - & anyone who attempts to find ‘factual history’ in the Greek canonical ‘gospels’ will come a-cropper…

This is not to disparage the attempts of modern scholars who have unearthed hundreds of parallels from Pagan literature in the 'Healing Miracles' or 'Nature Miracles' of the canonical Gospels copying the Miraculous Healing Accounts of the Roman Emperors !

See e.g. Suetonius and his account of the 'divine' royal Roman Emperor Vespasian's use of spittle to heal a blind man at Alexandria parallels the Markan account of 'Iesous spitting into the eyes of a blind man at Beth Saida' in 'Mark' 8: 23-24 cf: Suetonius's Lives of the 12 Caesars, see: On Vespasianus, Chapter 7 - also recorded in Cassius Dio's History of Rome, chapter 65: 8-12 & Tacitus' Histories of the Roman Emperors chapter 4: 81-82

In other words, Iesous is JUST as DIVINE as the 'divine' Roman Emperors with whose pagan mystery cults they were competing for paying converts !!!!

reply to post by Sigismundus

Jesus and John the Baptist may have stylized themselves after Elisha and Elijah. In fact, some of the scripture suggests Jesus may have believed John to be the reincarcation of Elijah, and thus himself an Elisha type figure.

ELIJAH'S RETURN

Elijah the prophet is believed to have lived in the ninth century B.C.E. At the point of his death a fiery chariot with horses of fire took him in a whirlwind to heaven and he was seen no more (II Kings 2:11). Four hundred years later, Malachi closed the last lines of the Old Testament with a prophecy from God stating that God would send Elijah before the "great and terrible day of the Lord" comes (Malachi 4:5). The Jewish people were expecting Elijah to return as the necessary preface to signal the coming of the Messiah.

The disciples all felt that Jesus was the Messiah but they were puzzled. Where is Elijah? The disciples asked the Master about this and he told them that Elijah had already returned as John the Baptist. The first discussion of this is in Matthew, chapter 11.
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear. Matthew 11:11-15, NIV

The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?" Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. Matthew 17:10-13, NIV

When Elijah asked Elisha if there was anything he wanted, Elisha asked for a double dose of the spirit, but the promise wasn't fulfilled within their lifetime. This also took place at the Jordan River..

Mary visits Elizabeth

Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judah, and entered into the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. It happened, when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, that the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. She called out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! Why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came into my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy! Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of the things which have been spoken to her from the Lord!"
~Luke 1:39-45

But to suggest that the person of Jesus was, in its entirety, just made up out of whole cloth doesn`t pass muster. That he was layered over with myth there can be no doubt, but that that there was a real person there, and a character with complex motives, including an apparent collaboration with John the Baptist, both of whom knew in advance what his eventual fate would be, is quite apparent, for those without any axe to grind.

Reincarnation in the New Testament
www.reincarnation.ws...

P.S. I think that story about the pre-natal leaping of John the Baptist in his mother's womb at the sound of the pregnant Mary's voice, and the proclamation by Elizabeth about the blessed nature of the fruit of Mary's womb, may have been inserted to draw the connection between Jesus and John while propogating the myth of the immaculate conception.

Also, from a prophetic perspective, Isaiah also plays a significant role ie: the son of man by who's stripes our iniquities are healed, etc.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Hi New Age Man -

Of course, there is an evident 'typological parallels' between the picture of the Greek speaking iesous in the Gospels and 'old testament' heroes - e.g. the miraculous bith of Yitza'ak to Sarah parallels the 'virigin birth' in Matt and Luke;s Gospels (whoever they were) - and if ELIJAH was a typological model of Yohanon bar Zechariah (John the baptist) who baptised 'Iesous' in the Jordan river as his own disciple (along with 'Simon Peter' and his brother Andreas !) , then naturally ELISHA'Q being the disciple of ELIJAH would be the typological 'model' for Iesous - in both cases making John and Iesous 'greater than Elijah/Elisha'q' by peerforming greater deeds or having greater prophetic powers etc.

More tomorrow on this !!

reply to post by roadtoad


I have not read the Catholic version of kjv bible. niv, and kjv dont include the book of Enoch. I havent read it mostly because I don't have the book.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


I have heard that there are some 20,000 distinct Christian denominations, sects, and cults that all accept the
Holy Bible as absolute unchanging truth. If the Bible is so perfect and true…why then are there 20,000 different groups of Christians with each group interpreting the Bible differently? If 20,000 groups can’t agree ( and that’s billions of people ), then why must I just bow down and accept the nearest preacher’s version of the Bible? Why must I suppress the many “evil” desires God built into me just to please an indifferent and murderous God? What is so wrong with questioning such an inscrutable book that no one can agree on when that book is allegedly
the exclusive source of truth and that book is all I have to base my assumptions on? So I say, since God is a sadist he is not perfect. Since God demands I worship him without his first earning my adoration by protecting me from pain and death, again I say God is not perfect. Since the Bible claims God is perfect, the Bible is inaccurate. If any part of the Bible is false, it is not reliable. Accordingly, the Bible is false.

The Bible brings slavery. It enslaves man to guilt. It teaches man that the basic human nature is depraved, fallen, evil, and justly meriting eternal torment. The Bible deprives man of any innate dignity. It tells us it has a monopoly on truth but it tells us also that we have not truth in us. Accordingly, how can we be punished eternally with burning agonizing flames for a nature God created us to have? The Bible is responsible for much evil. Jesus himself told his disciples: “The poor you will always have with you.” Paul wrote that slaves should obey their masters. The Bible failed to condemn the practice of castrating men and if you think about it, the Bible
intellectually castrates us and emotionally stunts us. Religious people are intolerant bigots. They are absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong and going to hell if you don’t agree with them completely.

reply to post by Sigismundus

Of course Mary's lineage, as depicted in one of the gospels, her family tree, still does go back to King David, but of course it's not without it's oiwn intrigue and controversy, even every sin in the book. Nevertheless, the prophecy of Moses depicted in Genesis, about the "seed of the woman" crushing the head of the snake, still holds, which I find very intriguing, as if there is a type of prophetic framework holding the Bible together through the prophets of old, those rare individuals who come along every once in a while to set the record straight about matters of divine inspiration and truth. Promises made, and kept over generations with historical integrity, seems to be the central theme, along with a type of evolutionary process of differentiation and reintegration, to prevent some type of psycho-spiritual cataclysm leading to the separation of Man from God. In other words "our liberation is God's compulsion" (C.S. Lewis).

There's a tree, and a river running through it, which is unstoppable, even in the face of the worst evils and human atrocities imaginable including rape and murder.

However, the true spirit imparted, does not and cannot inspire hatred and intollerance, and therefore, once again, Jesus was right when he said "you will know them by their fruits".

The guy really knew what he was talking about. To say that the myth layered over him proves that he never existed at all, is utterly absurd. You can't just make up an unparalleled spiritual and psychological genius like Jesus. He is there, present, in any contextual criticism of the gospels.

Deny ignorance.

reply to post by lucifuge


That's a narrow viewpoint which makes a lot of assumptions. Like I said, the criticisms of the religious institution of the church are well founded and valid, but the Truth, at the very heart of it, from the perspective of the knowledge or "gnosis" gained remains, and is of incalculable value, once the treasure is unearthed, and the light of awareness released from the stained glass bottle of "Churchianity".

You're argument takes only one possible viewpoint into consideration, and it might very well throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Our heritage and inheritance in eternity, with self awareness and mutual understanding, may depend on how we set about deciphering and "grokking" what all the religious and spiritual traditions have to offer. Our very salvation may depend on our mutual undersanding of it, and it's integration into the future we are forever creating.

From a certain point of view, there may be vast sources of power, authentic power, available to us even as the lone individual journeyor by which to shape history as the active historical participants that we are by the neccessity and the power of choice.

As then, once we've re-appropriated the lost wisdom of the ages, let us perform the great work of the ages and turn the tables on those who guard the gate and neither enter in themselves nor allow anyone else to enter in and freely come and go.

An opening, and a return path, the gate, it's still there and for some reason I've been granted the power to open it, and invite you yourself to enter in, only to discover that the party being thrown is in your own honor! cool:

Cheers,


NAM

About Jesus... the Christ.... are they the same person....


search Nestorius.... this mans work was labeled 'heresy'...because He exposed the 'Truth'...


enjoy, thanks

Originally posted by TylerDurden2U
reply to post by roadtoad

 

I have not read the Catholic version of kjv bible. niv, and kjv dont include the book of Enoch. I havent read it mostly because I don't have the book.

Tyler,

The KJV is an absolute horrid translation of the Catholic Bible. King James, Mr. Gay, and his translators made 30,000 changes to the KJV. I wonder why, I guess his choice to go with his breaking with the Curch and starting his own sect.

God gave His authority to the leader of the Church, starting with Peter. Pope Damasus in 382 A.D. decided the Canon of Scripture and it has not been changed to this day. St. Jerome who translated the original writings, the Greek and the Hebrew. Jerome even doubted a couple of the choices of the Holy Father. But, in obedience, translated them. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved the
Holy Father correct, that God given authority again.

The Bible is inerrant, the writings left out are/were not divinely inspired. The first
Bible is the Latin Vulgate, the English translation of the Vulgate is the
Douay Rheims Bible. Check out the footnotes on difficult verses, a help to see why the Church teaches what she does.

There is not one verse in the Bible, Old and New Testament which conflicts
with another if you go by the RCC, her interpretation of Scripture.

God knows what He is doing.

www.drbo.org...