Profile
Search
Register
Log in
is anti-christian sentiment that bad
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

^^^word. The Nag Hammadi texts are the shit.
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 7:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
SneepSnopDotCom
COCKRING WRAITH


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 3087
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

Yeah now we are getting somewhere... I've read that same passage.... that's the exact passage I was thinking of when I was talking about Christ getting his groove on. I was reading Valis when I got into the old Nag.


The fact that these ideas about Christ arent even DISCUSSED unless you dig is retarded. I went to catholic school for 8 years and never once heard anything cool.... I didnt even know Christ had siblings until a couple of years ago.


There is definitely a Christ coverup going on with the Vatican. I dont care if you people think im paranoid and crazy or not.
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 8:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

did you go to a catholic school that didnt use the bible? i guess thats expected from catholics.

jesus' siblings are discussed in the bible.
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 8:23 pm
 
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

MC Pope John Paul II wrote:

This is from the Gospel of Philip:

'And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness." '

For information on this and other Nag Hammadi texts, consult www.gnosis.org. Truly, it is interesting shit ...


do those texts accuse him of having sex with her? or does it just say that he kissed her on the mouth? kissing does not impress me for several reasons.
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 8:26 pm
 
MC Pope



Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 2986
Location: Adelaide, Australia
 Reply with quote  

SneebDotCom wrote:
I was reading Valis when I got into the old Nag.



Damn. Same deal here. Holy fuck I love that book.
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 8:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

yeah the bible does make mention of some of jesus' siblings. But it's very underplayed for some reason.

Valis is great. The whole trilogy is pretty good, but the first part is the best.

and haha. "Do these texts accuse him of having sex with her?" nice word choice. Accuse. I think it's less important whether or not they had sex, and more important that it is implying that Jesus loved Mary in a way that he didn't love the apostles.

There's another text that's the gospel, or apocryphal of Mary, that basically calls the apostles out as sexist bitches, who let their views on gender get in the way of the things Jesus had told Mary.

Very interesting stuff.
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:22 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

i'm sure he did love her more.
(i'm paraphrasing now)
"the worst of society are those who most need to be shown love"

so just by that... i'm sure he did have affection for a whore. pfft.

also, his sibblings arent 'underplayed'. they are mentioned whenever its important... never. other than jesus' lineage... i dont see the need for mention. only jesus was 'gods son'. anyone else would have just been mary and joe's kid. haha
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:27 pm
 
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

underplayed in the sense, that if you mention it to the lay christian they look at you like you've just uttered blasphemy.

And by saying he loved her more, I mean in the birds and bees guys and gals sense.
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
ILL SEER



Joined: 03 Sep 2002
Posts: 117
 Reply with quote  

ok. on the gnostic tip. it is not correct to say that gnosticism was the dominant form of Christianity at one time. we have documents of the struggle between the later Gnostic form of Christianity and the original more Judaic form of Christianity. The New Testament writings seem to be from a time before the battle with Gnosticism began, especially since both sides later apeal to them. the "gospels" you quote are from a later date than the New Testament ones. now this will involve complicated arguments from both sides and i doubt that discussion is really going to change minds. to be honest i read up on it a while back but forget a lot of it. but Gnosticism is related to a more neo-Platonic Christianity than even Augustine would tolerate. these texts have been around forever, were rejected as scripture by the various groups of Christians who gathered to discuss these matters. no one is hiding them, but perhaps they haven't been emphasised for obvious reasons.

as far as the vatican is concerned. we need to realize that historically Gregory the Great became the first pope with such universal power. before the bishop of rome was regarded with some measure of authority becuz of his position as Peter's successor but when this former administrator (i.e. mayor) of Rome was called back by the emporer after his years of monastic solititude to help rebuild the crumbling city and the western empire, he served a very useful purpose for civil life at that time. i think the catholic church doesn't get enuff respect for the good it did for western society during this period ... i mean look what an amazing society has come from this seedbed.

i am not catholic. i see so much that went wrong with that much power focused in one spot. but i also see that today they seem to be the only major force fighting poverty in the third world, especially with their jubilee 2000 and debt erasure endeavours.

the manuscripts of the bible we have is really really old, and any tampering would have had to have been done within the first 200 years or so.

i have studied at the University of Cambridge where there was anything but some big conspiracy or hiding of facts going on. the modern university theology faculties are some of the greatest critics of the tradition. to the point where i think it can go too far. like i said, we can doubt any document, these texts are remarkably reliable in my humble opinion.

the funny part about the gnosticism trend these days is that they were the ones who had the greatest platonic dualism (more than plato i would argue) ... the great dreaded post-modern enemy of dualism ... you know the one that devalues nature ... yet a lot of conspiracy new-age type people are flocking to them.
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
underplayed in the sense, that if you mention it to the lay christian they look at you like you've just uttered blasphemy.

And by saying he loved her more, I mean in the birds and bees guys and gals sense.


really? everyone i've ever met has known about that. oh well. some people (on both sides) are retarded and not as they pretend to be.

2nd... nope. i cant believe that. it goes against EVERYTHING he said. and its straight up remor, no proof. its the "holy grail/smoking gun" of the atheist. only... its not real.
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:45 pm
 
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

ILL SEER wrote:
ok. on the gnostic tip. it is not correct to say that gnosticism was the dominant form of Christianity at one time. we have documents of the struggle between the later Gnostic form of Christianity and the original more Judaic form of Christianity. The New Testament writings seem to be from a time before the battle with Gnosticism began, especially since both sides later apeal to them. the "gospels" you quote are from a later date than the New Testament ones. now this will involve complicated arguments from both sides and i doubt that discussion is really going to change minds. to be honest i read up on it a while back but forget a lot of it. but Gnosticism is related to a more neo-Platonic Christianity than even Augustine would tolerate. these texts have been around forever, were rejected as scripture by the various groups of Christians who gathered to discuss these matters. no one is hiding them, but perhaps they haven't been emphasised for obvious reasons.




I don't have the exact texts in front of me at the moment, and it's been awhile since I've looked at them, but Mark, and I think Matthew share quotes with a gnostic text(possibly the gospel of thomas(which is just a text of sayings)) but Thomas has the quotes that both matthew and mark have, but more. So it's clear that all 3 of these early texts are probably referencing the same older source. The question I have then is, if Mark and Matthew cut out the other stuff and Thomas left it in, or did Thomas add or what?
Post Sat Sep 20, 2003 11:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
FoJaR's account is broken



Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 937
 Reply with quote  

at the marriage feast in cana, jesus turned water into wine. this was his first miracle. at that time, it was the groom's responsibility to provide wine for their wedding feasts.
Post Sun Sep 21, 2003 12:56 am
 View user's profile Send private message
ILL SEER



Joined: 03 Sep 2002
Posts: 117
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
I don't have the exact texts in front of me at the moment, and it's been awhile since I've looked at them, but Mark, and I think Matthew share quotes with a gnostic text(possibly the gospel of thomas(which is just a text of sayings)) but Thomas has the quotes that both matthew and mark have, but more. So it's clear that all 3 of these early texts are probably referencing the same older source. The question I have then is, if Mark and Matthew cut out the other stuff and Thomas left it in, or did Thomas add or what?


ok. this is some basic biblical textual criticism for you ... mathew, mark, and luke all have overlapping pericopes, some even seem to be direct quotes (ex. matt. 17:4, mark 9:5-6, luke 9:33) ... the are called the Synopitic Gospels becuz of the parallels. nowadays most scholars accept what we call Markan priority which means it seems to be the earliest for several reasons incluing it is shorter, its grammar, it's more primitive theology, etc. plus luke lacks correspondences to mathew besides those found in mark. anyways, scholars posit an earlier document called Q as the source for all these gospels. now you wish to say that Thomas has quotes from Q "but more." this seems obviously ridiculous, since Q is a hypothetical text posited on similarites between these 3 texts and we do not have a copy. how can we know if thomas has more quotes then them since anything which it does not share with the synoptic gospels could have come from anywhere. i mean it is possible, but anyone who told you it has more original quotes has an ulterior motive. and as i've said before, the majority of scholars, as i've come across, argue that Thomas is a later document, due to it's theological content and its inclusion of even more mythological stories concerning jesus as a youth, etc. i'm not sure but i also think that Thomas seems to have quoted directly from one of the later gospels (in the theoretical dating schema of the composition of the gospels) and thus would be placed later. this all gets pretty techinical but i think Thomas is pretty firmly outside the debate in terms of chronology.

so, everyone added to Q ... the question is when. i haven't researched this much furhter than this but do you have any reasons to beleive that Thomas is earlier, i could try n delve into it more but my plate is pretty full (i mean with all these e-debate dates n all:) ...
Post Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:55 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

Markan priority which means it seems to be the earliest for several reasons incluing it is shorter, its grammar, it's more primitive theology,


sorry to jump in here, and I hop ethis isn't too out of context...

but weren't you just arguing that the various gospels are evidence of jesus' existence.... but now you are claiming that Mark's gospel was written so far before the others that he has more primitve theology and grammar? I have a hard time believe their would be much difference between these thigns if they were written by a group of people who lived at the same time.
Post Sun Sep 21, 2003 2:16 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
duke_city



Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 3208
Location: San Diego,CA
 Reply with quote  

SneebDotCom wrote:
Hi. Did you fuckin idiot christians know that the bible has been revised by the church of england and other such albatrosses so many times that the amount of truth in the king james version is probably below 1%?



I'll provide this information with many sources and let you recant your words above on your own.

Every single date, name, and event has yet to be disproven by historians and archielogists and in fact nearly all have all been confirmed by multiple sources!

http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_christian/_articles/authenticity_of_the_bible.htm

Quote:


Anyone who denies that these books are factual and genuine, must therefore doubt all historical literature written in the last 3 millennia, because there is not a single historical document that has anywhere near the scientific credentials that the Bible has as being authentic



Oh snap! But wait with the Dead Sea Scrolls uncovered in Qumran in 1947 absolutely confirmed the accuracy of the current version of the non-apocryphal King James Bible!

http://www.ac848.dial.pipex.com/bb/impscr.htm

Quote:


The amazing discovery in 1947 of the Dead Sea Scrolls gives unshakable evidence of the integrity and accuracy of the scriptures we now hold in our hands. The scrolls included books and portions of books of the Old Testament scriptures written 2.000 years ago. Yet when translated and compared with our Bible, they correspond exactly. Through the long intervening centuries the Bible message has retained vital accuracy.



It should also be noted that Catholics use a completely different version of the Bible than I do. They have the Apocryphra included in with the New Testement which is a product of the early church NOT the prophets.

I've explained this before in other threads but it seems very few people on this board actually read to learn.

http://www.sagefrancis.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=118651&highlight=apocrypha#118651

Brian
Post Sun Sep 21, 2003 2:37 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Jul 25, 2014 7:56 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon