It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholic Hatred. (Impossible Thread, Episode #2)

page: 26
19
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
What I got out of the scrolls and what has been released of the translations is that it verifies what is proclaimed in the Olde Testament. The disobedience and rebellion of the Hebrews and particularly the Hebrew Leadership in going astray from the Law of Moses to the Traditions of Men. Just as we have it recorded in the Masoretic Hebrew leading to the AV 1611.

I suspect that it was held close to the vest because when it was discovered...there was hope of some new Biblical revelation but instead they only confirmed what many already knew. There was to much dirty laundry in them. Instead they only confirmed what was already known about the times and customs.

As to Richard Leigh and Michael Blaigent along with other writers with whom they have worked Henry Lincoln. I have read some of their books Holy Blood Holy Grail and others. Right there they lost credibility with me when they tried to tie together Jesus with the olde Tradition of Men and doctrine of him surviving the crucifixion and moving to southern France where he married and had children to be promoted by the Priory de Sion.
Ive even read some of the books on the Ark of the Covenant by Graham Hancock.

This work about Jesus is also taught by some others before them notably Robert Eisenman and Barbra Thiering. Robert Eisenman is also linked in studies and field trips with Michael Blaigent. Barbra Thiering also proposes that Jesus survived the Crucifixion etc etc etc. That somehow this is covered in the Dead Cea Scrolls. It all starts, to me, to go out in the either of Eastern Mystic religions...having origins In the East..or Occult. But it is standard tactic among many to show that Jesus was not what the Word declares Him to be. To cast doubt on the Bible and What God declared..both OLde and New Testament.

What appears to be happening out of what is being released from the Dead Sea Scrolls is confirmation of the Bible and what it declares...also the conditions of the times..how they lived..etc.

As a result you do not hear much about Barbra Thiering or Robert Eisenman anymore. This work seems to have been picked up and repackaged by Michael Blaigent and Richard Leigh and also at times Henry Lincoln.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


lol... so you have never read a book with a critical review? What... if a book has a critic you refuse to read it? wow...

It bothers me not that religious scholars want to criticize the work...

And really, if it bothers you so much, don't read it. It did agree with Arianism.... I am sure that is a serious problem for most people...

Not so much me...
edit on 4-1-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by adjensen
 

I think you are still missing that user's point
When Colbe says "The Bible is a Catholic book", the intended meaning is that "the Bible is a book created by and belonging to the community now commonly known as the Roman Catholic church, as against other Christian groups", and THAT is the claim which the user is contesting.


LOL LOL LOL..this makes me think of the number of Bibles I've opened and looking at the inside cover...they have a copyright symbol in them.

How do you copyright God's word and then try to declare ones self "Universal??"

It just seems to me that no one has a copyright on God's word. I discovered this when first I opened up a copy of an NIV Bible...a copyright symbol on the inside pages.

On the inside of a King James there is not a copyright symbol. I do not, however, know about the New King James having never read one on the inside cover. Perhaps some of you readers have one and can post if there is a copyright symbol on the inside cover. I would like to know.

I just cannot conceive of the Catholic Church having a monopoly on the Bible against all other users. This particularly once I understood how and why the King James Version came to be and that there were always non Catholic Bibles in existence...from the beginning.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


The book the dead sea scroll deception, from my reading of it, never proposed anything about Jesus surviving the crucifixion. It seemed to agree with Arianism... en.wikipedia.org...

They never said anything that did not agree with Arianism in that book... I do not know about any other books they wrote as I never read anything else they ever did, but that one I cannot recall any mention of such a thing as Jesus possibly surviving the crucifixion.
edit on 4-1-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 



LOL LOL LOL..this makes me think of the number of Bibles I've opened and looking at the inside cover...they have a copyright symbol in them.

How do you copyright God's word and then try to declare ones self "Universal??"

What is copyrighted is the translation, footnotes or other superfluous bits, not the text.

There is a time limit on copyrights, that's why older translations are in the public domain.

Here's the law, you might find it helpful to review: Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



lol... so you have never read a book with a critical review? What... if a book has a critic you refuse to read it? wow...

So, do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that the Vatican controlled access to the Dead Sea Scrolls for 40 years, apart from your crackpot book that is dismissed, even within the link you provided?

Again, the rest of the world seems to think that Jordan and Israel have possession of the scrolls, and pretty much no one thinks that the Vatican does. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that, you know.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

orangetom1999

DISRAELI
reply to post by adjensen
 

I think you are still missing that user's point
When Colbe says "The Bible is a Catholic book", the intended meaning is that "the Bible is a book created by and belonging to the community now commonly known as the Roman Catholic church, as against other Christian groups", and THAT is the claim which the user is contesting.


LOL LOL LOL..this makes me think of the number of Bibles I've opened and looking at the inside cover...they have a copyright symbol in them.

How do you copyright God's word and then try to declare ones self "Universal??"

It just seems to me that no one has a copyright on God's word. I discovered this when first I opened up a copy of an NIV Bible...a copyright symbol on the inside pages.

On the inside of a King James there is not a copyright symbol. I do not, however, know about the New King James having never read one on the inside cover. Perhaps some of you readers have one and can post if there is a copyright symbol on the inside cover. I would like to know.

I just cannot conceive of the Catholic Church having a monopoly on the Bible against all other users. This particularly once I understood how and why the King James Version came to be and that there were always non Catholic Bibles in existence...from the beginning.

Thanks,
Orangetom



Tom, a good reason to copyright a Bible version is that it protects the translation from being altered or distorted.


A Bible version, like the English Standard Version, ought to be copyrighted not because you're going to keep paying translators or a committee. That's not the point. The point is that unbelievable care, prayer, and energy goes into a translation's accuracy, and you don't want anybody taking it, saying it's the ESV, and then changing the words to wrong translations.


www.desiringgod.org...








edit on 1/4/2014 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   

sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by colbe
 


Thanks for the link to After the Warning. I have not read St. Faustina's Diary of Divine Mercy. I am bookmarking the website.




You are welcome. I wish everyone would check the prophecy links I shared. I have St. Faustina's Diary but haven't read it all sad_eyed_lady.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   

nenothtu

colbe

The Petros/Petra ~ masculine/feminine argument to try and disprove Jesus named Peter leader of His Church on earth falls flat. Our Lord spoke Aramaic to Peter. There is no feminine/masculine in Aramaic.



Incorrect. In ALL Semitic languages, including Aramaic, gender is very distinct. Aramaic has masculine gender, feminine gender, but no neuter gender.




Peter was the first Pope.



Incorrect. Peter was a Christian. The early Church had no "Pope", nor was one ever authorized. "Pope" (Latin: papa; from Greek: πάππας pappas, a child's word for father) is specifically prohibited as a title by the Bible, in Matthew 23:9 -




And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

- Douay-Rheims Version







This knowledge was passed down



Which is specifically why "tradition" over "scripture" is such a dangerous heresy.




God desires everyone to become Roman Catholic, I'll keep saying this until God reveals this for all the world in the Great Warning...the "awakening." That we all be one, Our Lord's desire.



It is written "I desire mercy and not sacrifice". That alone gives the lie to the notion that God wants everyone to become Roman Catholic.




blessings,



Thanks, but no thanks. Some of us have no need of your "blessings".




edit on 2014/1/3 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


neno, hi,

Do you see why it is going to take God Himself to show the entire world the faith? This protest of
the faith passed down has been going on by early heretics and awful lot since the revolt in 1517.

So, Catholics are lying about what has been passed down even though Protestantism didn't start until October 31, 1517?

How can one know, by whose authority do you speak? Think about authority.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

nenothtu

colbe

It is a fact, for fifteen years of following prophecy (private revelation), the Catholic, a few Orthodox and the Protestant messages from Heaven, Our Lord states in all three over and over the Remnant IS Roman Catholic. If prophecy said something different, I wouldn't be commenting in this thread. I would be going where God's prophets said to go...



Colbe -

This IS an interesting twist of events! Could you be so kind as to point me to these alleged "prophecies" where God delivered a message to protestants through a Protestant "prophet" that everyone needs to convert Roman Catholic?

It just doesn't work for me to have that message delivered to Protestants through a Catholic "prophet" - I'm sure you can see the conflict of interest and agenda that would be involved there.

Thanks.



neno,

I like that you are interested, God's grace is working on you. For a long, long time Our Lord has been
speaking pretty generally in the Protestant messages from Heaven, speaking "one" Church, of "unity" of
belief, of "new" revelation.

But lately, Jesus is speaking about His presence in the Eucharist to non-Catholic Christian prophets
Wow!!

Three Protestant messengers receiving messages about the Eucharist. There are more, time is short. Our Lord can't say the word "Eucharist" because of disbelief, He is getting you ready to accept His presence in the Eucharist. If you can come to believe in His SUPERNATURAL presence in the Eucharist, everything else you wonder about the faith will be answered, will make sense. This is God's plan, how humble.


GBY,

colbe

p.s. I typed the in-parenthesis in Yolanda Ballard's message.

_ _ _ _ _

message/vision to Amanda Leonard


(check her blog, she reposted a 12-4-11 message) Jesus states in a vision He gave her....

"Then He took me to a huge table and I sat beside of Him and ate. He said, “There will always be enough.” For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Anyone who eats
my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in Him.57 I live because of the living Father who
sent me; in the same way, anyone who FEEDS ON ME will live because of me.” John 6:55-57...

www.timeinhispresence.wordpress.com...

+ + +

Yolanda Ballard

November 8, 2013

...For surely this is the day of the great falling away. Do not allow those
things that satisfy your flesh entice you to lose all that I died for
you to have. For I died that you would have an abundant life with peace,
joy and My righteousness flowing freely. Yes, I died that you would
have health and prosperity as your soul prospers.

But what would you give in exchange for your soul? Would it be a piece of
bread (Protestant communion) or would you choose Me, the Bread of Life (Eucharist)?
The choice is yours to make and the time is running out for those to make preparation
for what is coming on the earth. Think wisely on these things for the cost could
cause you your life!...

www.roarnworship.com...

+ + +

message to Jeff Kingshott

October 7, 2013

...NOW FEED from My Tree ALL that it bears !
For this shall Sustain you and be your Wares ,
The BREAD of LIFE That shows ME , ( SHEW BREAD)
My Completeness not just a part of My TAPESTRY ,

I AM bearing My ALL open to VIEW !
Come EAT OF ME so that I might give to others to partake of Me to !
For MY FULLNESS FIRST MUST BE UNDERSTOOD
Or it will drift by as if it is deadwood ,
So do not separate
but Come unto Me ,
For I AM Painting in you My COMPLETE TAPESTRY !

www.openheaven.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   

adjensen
reply to post by DISRAELI
 



When Colbe says "The Bible is a Catholic book", the intended meaning is that "the Bible is a book created by and belonging to the community now commonly known as the Roman Catholic church, as against other Christian groups", and THAT is the claim which the user is contesting.

If she didn't say that, is it fair to infer it and then argue the thing to death, when "The Bible is a Catholic book" is a true statement? For a thousand years, the Catholic Church WAS the catholic church, and that is the organization that selected Biblical canon, so to say that the Bible is not a Catholic book is not valid. It is also a Christian book, as well as a catholic book, but if the Catholic Church did not exist, had died out in 70AD, there would be no Bible.


The reason Roman Catholicism selected the Biblical Canon, because she is the faith. The faith Christ established, the one and only.

adjensen, you and others here are going to help DISRAELI find the faith more than I, thank you. I love
him.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
The discussion here in this thread is wonderful and not because of me. I would like to share an excerpt from a non-Catholic Christian message from Heaven (private revelation) I saw yesterday.

In prayer, you do not always feel God's presence, read on, this is consoling from Our Lord. The poster
did not share who the message was given to so I can't post it.


1/4/2013


My dearest one, why do you labor trying to please Me?

To truly please Me you must spend time with Me.

You must believe that I Am.

Do not busy yourself with the things of this world any longer. Come to Me and wait before Me. Let Me be the one to fill your cup daily.

So many times you have sought the world and what it has to offer. No longer My child. The time has come to rely on Me daily to fill you with My purpose and vision.

Try waiting on Me. No agenda, no time limits, really waiting on Me. Serving Me with your thoughts. Loving Me with your whole being.

Do not become disappointed if you don’t experience My presence. Know that each time you wait upon Me you will receive a part of Me that your senses cannot pickup on just yet.

Learn to wait upon Me knowing you will receive from Me. Diligently seek Me and you will find Me.

Connecting with Me should be the most important part of your day. ...




Matthew 22:37-40
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

the-christians-forum.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   
oops, a new year, the message should be dated 1/4/2014.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Matthew 6:14-15 (NKJV)
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
Luke 6:27-28 (NKJV)
"But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you."
John 13:34-35 (NKJV)...



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   

adjensen
That is what I'm arguing, not what you infer about that statement, because that's between you and her.

Yes, but when we are trying to argue out the point between ourselves and her, you then butt in with a deflecting argument using a different meaning of the word "Catholic" from the one that is being diiscussed. This is not the first time you have done that.

The argument goes;
Colbe; You as a Protestant should not be quoting that, because it is a [Roman] Catholic book.
Protestant; It is not a [Roman] Catholic book.
Adjensen; Ah, but it is a Catholic book in the sense of belonging to the universal church. [which is quite irrelevant, because the Protestant is not denying that point]

All this confusion of language is possible because the Roman catholic community has been trying to monopolise the word "catholic" and gloss over the existence of multiple meanings, but it does not help if you fail to recognise which meaning is being used in a particular discussion.

As for whether Colbe did mean "You Protestants have no right to quote the Bible", I think the point is adequately proved by the fact that she has posted since we had that discussion and has conspicuously failed to deny intending that meaning.
Sooner or later, you may have to steel yourself to positively disavow the more nonsensical claims of the bullying obscurantists in your community, instead of just deflecting the discussion from them.







edit on 5-1-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
adjensen


What is copyrighted is the translation, footnotes or other superfluous bits, not the text.


Understand adjensen. Which is why I dont care for Bibles with footnotes. I would rather read it in the text...rather than in the footnotes.

As I recall and to my astonishment..I discovered this when reading an NIV about verse John 5:4...about the water at a well or basin being disturbed by an angel.

This passage was missing. I found it in the KJV. In an NIV it is found commented on in the footnotes. If you were reading the text and missed it...you would not read the footnote down at the bottom of the page. I just never cared for this technique..or translation technique.

It was only years later when doing some reading that I found out about Brook Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort and their translation which became the basis of the NIV and other texts.

And over time this lead me to New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger where one can see the various versions verse by verse charted side by side by the verses where one can see how the verses were changed over the years. A very interesting revelation.

Well ..nonetheless. I am not into footnote versions. I'd rather read it in the text.

By the way..before I forget...someone posted about reading the King James Version in the original English of that period. It is a labor to so do as the construction and spelling are different. As I recall..the letter F looks like an S the way it is scrolled out. Some of the other letters and word usage are different from what we know today. Takes some getting accustomed and or oriented in following it but it can be done, yes.

But I do like the King James for the way it ebbs and flows. I do not find this in the NIV or any of the other more "Modern" translations.

And I reckon I am going to open a can of worms here with this but I must needs comment here.

Colbe,


The reason Roman Catholicism selected the Biblical Canon, because she is the faith. The faith Christ established, the one and only.


What the elders taught me ..is that He is the Faith. One of this names is Faith..among many of His names.

What it states in Galatians chapter 2 or 3..is the Faith "of" Christ.

Here the word "of" ...preposition denoting posession.

Now in the new bibles..like the NIV...it says..the faith "in" Christ. This meaning our faith..not Faith as in His Faith.

Between these two..is a different bible and a different gospel.
A different faith.

One word..of or in..different result.

Thanks,
Orangetom
edit on 5-1-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


I do respect your posts orangetom1999. Your pretty cool. Just wanted to say that..



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

adjensen

I don't understand how you make that leap. The church is contiguous, from Peter to today, in four denominations, as well as in the general catholic community of believers. While the church itself did not write any of it, I think it quite the stretch to say that those who did were not members of that contiguous church, and the Catholic Church itself did determine what was canonical and what was not, so it is a "Catholic book" -- if you used Marcion's canon, you would have a "Marcionic book", regardless of the authorship of the texts.



You don't understand it because of what you write here. It seems a willful misunderstanding, but I'm prepared to entertain the notion that it isn't willful. The difference is in the approach - you seem to be approaching it from the perspective of your belief in "Apostolic Succession", and are unable to admit any other sorts of Christians into the club on account of that belief, while I am approaching it from a rejection of the notion of "Apostolic Succession", which I believe to have been utterly broken (or perhaps simply passed to others) during the merger of Church and Empire under Constantine - which is also the time frame of the emergence of the Trinitarian Doctrine, as well as the "Damasus Canon". I believe they were all connected.

Nevertheless, I am done arguing this point. There is no traction to be gained against a "mine mine mine" sort of jealousy. To you be your religion, and to me be mine, and peace to the both of us. Mama says share, but you don't have to if you don't want. I'm still going to read "your" book, and take from it what is there, rather than what The Empire want me to think is there.



That was the cited reason for ultimately rejecting Apocalypse of Peter, which was in and out of canon for quite a while -- the church believed that Peter wrote it, it was a popular book, but there were bits in it that seemed to imply that Jesus taught a form of Universal Salvation, which was contrary to the rest of scripture.


I read from part of it, and agree that it has no place in any christian canon, and not just because of the universal salvation bit at the end of it. My wife says there are Islamic concepts present, as she was listening as I read.




edit on 2014/1/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


but there were bits in it that seemed to imply that Jesus taught a form of Universal Salvation, which was contrary to the rest of scripture.

What, in your opinion, adj, is wrong with "Universal Salvation"? So it was eventually 'rejected' - but...why???

I happen to like it; you already know that.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

orangetom1999

I never could get into the Apocrypha. It just does not ebb and flow like the rest of the Bible..both Olde and New Testaments. (KJV)

It is the same to me when I try to read certain Occult or Eastern Religious works. I cannot read them for long because something very different flows and ebbs in them. Something disturbing to my soul. Such is the same with the Apocrypha.
Curious if you have ever noted this with certain works??



Yes. Not with all of the Apocrypha, but with some of it, and more so with some Eastern works and philosophies. I guess if I had to describe it, it would best be described as "an affront to the spirit".






As to history..yes..I agree. Alot of history in this nation took place right here...in this very area.



When I lived there, I could feel the history. It was palpable.




Yes...great that you know about St Lukes Church. I go past it often when visiting friends in Surry or closer in Smithfield, Virginia.



I've been in St. Luke's Church, and walked the churchyard there. Lot of Masons buried there. There is an old legend that some ancient Mason manuscript is buried somewhere in that churchyard, in one of the graves with one of the Masons, buried in the 1600's. That is the oldest church in America that is still in use.



About that antiquarian book store...is it this one??


www.rarebookman.com...


Yes! That is EXACTLY the one. His dad was also named "Jack", and was a friend of mine. They also had an antiquarian bookshop on Warwick in Newport News, but sold it several years ago. Old Jack was a strong Calvinist - all five points, no compromise - and used to preach a sermon on the Reformation one Sunday out of every October (which he called "Reformation Sunday"), to commemorate the "95 Theses" of Luther.



While I am somewhat versed in Catholic and Protestant Dogma..I have been spending my time of late looking into areas of the "Whatever " category. I am thinking that this one has been working privily on the other two for awhile now...and accelerating.



That may have something to do with Colbe's announced "Awakening", and if so, it may not be precisely what Colbe thinks it will be. That is not a new concept - in the days of Jesus, most Jews were expecting something entirely different than what they got - they expected a political Messiah, a militant leader, but got what they got, and missed it entirely because it was not what they were expecting.

I guess a thousand years from now, the tale will be told in retrospect, with the clarity delivered by hindsight.




top topics



 
19
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join